Chernobyl can't happen at a US plant. Being worried about Chernobyl style disaster at a US plant is as logical as not flying on a 747 because of the Hindenburg or not going on a cruise ship because of the Titanic. Also the waste isn't a big problem with fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors.
And how much control do you have over the telcoms? At my office we our phones went out for four hours. A construction crew cut a phone cable. Two days latter the same crew did it again!
I would never use skype as the only method of telcom but it could be handy if we could intergrate it into our phone system so customers could call us on Skype and have it go right into our phone system.
You disagree but yet you must admit that he did it because he honestly thought that it was the best for the country. Think how rarely we can say that about our elected officials today.
You left out that even when dealing with attack and fighters having a CAT means more fuel and weapons which is real handy sometimes. Nothing ruins a fighter jocks day more then being low of fuel and weapons with bad guys around.
They use them for one reason. VSTOL. They can take off and land from LHDs. The Harrier has a shorter range and smaller load than the F-18 and much lower performance. It also had higher loss rate than any other aircraft during the Persian Gulf wars. The reason they did so well in the Falklands was because the Mirages were at the limit of their range so couldn't use their afterburners much in combat and the US sold the UK the AIM-9L while the Argentines used old AIM-9s. The Lima could lock on from the front while the older Sidewinders where only tail chase. The Harrier was not and is not a bad plane. It is the best plane you can have if you do have a real runway or a real carrier. Which is real handy. But why do you think that the Brits are building a real carrier.
Yes because cats are a better solution. You can launch heavier aircraft with a cat than with a ski jump. The Russians and UK can not operate aircraft like the E-2. Also the UK is going to put cats on their latest carrier because the F-35b may fail. Also a Ski jump can not launch while the carrier as at a stop which can be useful.
So yes the sky jump has one benefit but a lot of drawbacks. The Russians used them because it was a low risk for their first real carrier. The brits used them because they only had the Harrier. It did work very well for the Harrier but the Harrier was not as good of a fighter as the F-14 or F-18. It also was not as good of an attack aircraft as the F-18, A-6, or A-7. But it was better than nothing.
Carter was never a sub captan. He served on a submarine but was not a commander. Actually the shouldn't have named the sub after Jimmy Carter or the Carrier after Bush. It is tradition that no Navy ship is named after a living person. It was broken by the Burke class. It was unintentional because it takes so long to design a new ship that the Navy was sure that Burke would have passed on by the time the Burke was launched. He lived to a very ripe old age and mess up tradition. There is no reason to not name a ship after a President of the US and what most people don't know is that Gerald R. Ford was actually a very good president under considering what he had to work with. He as also a very good and honorable man as politicians go. I don't think you can find a single blemish on his record and historians today say his pardon of Nixon was the right thing to do.
Yes they do have that right. They use encryption on there system and they can pick and choose who they give keys too. If you do not like it then do not get a console and stick to the PC.
It is both. A bad technical excuse to justify a political statement.
What it isn't is a good technical reason. What clearly happened is Mozilla decided to not support h.264 because it was not open and then came up with a list of excuses not to. As I showed if we had a system for graphics like we do for video things would have been better not worse. You wouldn't be stuck with some browsers with png support, some without png support, and some with partial png support. Just as now we are going to be stuck with some browsers having h.264 support, some with WebM support, and some with Theora support. If all the browsers went to OS/Codec support then Theora and WebM would have a much better chance of catching on and replacing h.264 and Flash than the system that is now in place.
"You didn't actually read their reasons if that's what you come up with on that point. There are plenty of websites out there that urge you to install their own codec to view their video content. They're actually malware." Really? I have never seen one. But let me ask you this... If there are already plenty of sites that urge you to install their own codecs that are actually malware.... How will this change anything? When you go to that same same site will it not still ask you to install that codec?
Bad technical excuses for what is nothing but a political statement.
And you are right about graphics... Which is a shame. Imagine if they there had been a graphics lib standard in Windows, Linux, and OS/X! And imagine if Microsoft and Mozilla had both used it. We would not have had to wait for Microsoft to put in png support and then we wouldn't have had to wait for Microsoft to then fix the png support in IE. We could have moved the internet much more quickly to png and away form GIF.... Yea kind of makes my point why browsers should use OS level codec support all in a nutshell.
Not really VLC is a single program and they made the choice to provide their own codecs. Fine it is a program that made a choice. It isn't a web browser that does more than just play media and because VLC does it doesn't mean it is the correct choice or the only correct choice. Plus VLC H.264!
Mozilla has decided to not provide the functionality at all. That is the big difference. They could have but didn't and they do not have a single good technical reason to not supply that functionality. The reason is all political and not technical. The technical reasons they give are just excuses.
Bull. Harley Davidsons are cruiser style bikes. Just as with many products the look is important. They are now very reliable and user electronic fuel injection and the new Twin Cam 88s are very modern engines. I love how you say they are air cooled for goodness sakes... Yea that is one of their features. They are very low bother bikes with belt drive, hydraulic lifters, and air cooling. BTW over head cam water cooled engines are actually 1920s tech 1930s max. You can get parts for just about any Harley ever made. Try and get parts for a 67 Honda sometime. Just like BMW boxer owners and Ducati Demo owners they love the good things about the bikes and ignore the bad all in the name of character. Don't even start talking about Old Norton, Triumph, and BSA owners! I could go on and on on motorcycles like how the Supersports are now at the level of insane and usless. Drop the hate dude. Someone buying a nice Harley Road King that has lots of 3rd party support and good resale isn't any more stupid than someone buying a ZX-10r that they can never ride at even 50% of it's ability on the road without being dead or in jail! Not to mention that in two years it will be yesterdays news and a new faster one will be out and the ZX-10 will have lost well over %50 of it's value. They are both choices and honestly ones that have everything to do with emotions and very little with practicality. BTW the bikes I like are. Harley Davidson XR1200. Honda CBR250 and CB1000. Kawasaki Ninja 650, 250, 1000, Z1000 KLR650 and Versys. Suzuki VStrom 650 and 1000 Yamaha Super Tenere, Ducati Multistrada and Monsters. Triumph Tiger 1050, SprintGT, and all of their classic line. BMW FS800ST. The new Royal Enfield Bullet. I have never road a Guzi so I have no opinion on them. As you can see I like a lot of different bikes and the only reason I do not like the super sports is because I like long rides and I am too old to have my knees and elbows touch for any length of time. But most of you complaints about Harley are old, outdated, and frankly just show a lack of understanding.
But it becomes a race to the bottom. Think about it. You go to a nice store that spent money on nice displays, They pay their staff well enough that they educate themselves on the product. Those costs must be added into the price. So you shop there and take up the sales person time and then thank them. You pull out your barcode reading smart phone and find you can get the same TV for $100 less at the warehouse store 20 miles away. So you pull in grab the cardboard box and put it on your cart and go home. Soon there is only the warehouse store.
Actually that is called "the slippery slope argument" and is a logical fallacy. Once you do X then Y must surely follow. For example "once you outlaw the private ownership of nuclear weapons the next thing they will outlaw is butter knives."
Once they tax alcohol they will have tax sex and we will have government meters on all our underwear.
For example outlawing child porn has not lead to the the outlawing of books with the word crap in them. One must not always lead to the to the other.
The real problem is that governments are trying to deal with the problem that the internet crosses boarders. For instance it the legal age in some places in Europe is less than 18. So a site in Europe is illegal in the US. In some places in Europe they have strict "hate speech" laws that are flat out unconstitutional in the US. That makes some political speech sites that are totally legal in the US illegal in the EU. In many cases governments are not trying to gain new powers but to actually enforce powers they have had all along that the Internet has taken from them. Which is worse? censoring pics of naked 17 year olds or limiting the free speech of neo-nazis? The US offers more protection to ideas than sexually explicit images. In the EU it is the other way around. Frankly blocking nude pics of 17 year old people and neo-nazis has no real effect on me since I don't want to see any of them. Any issues I have are more philosophical than practical. I do agree that political speech should have more protection than commercial speech and images but then I don't think a picture of a naked 17 year old is all that more offensive or immoral than an 18 year old. However if the UN gets it way odds are that they will ban both everywhere.
Well the problem is basically a new tyranny of numbers problem. As systems get more and more complex the harder they are to deal with. In this case to secure. At one time you had a lot of physical security and frankly at best dial up speed or frame relay connections to deal with. Now so many systems are interconnected that security is a completely different game.
It hilarious because for the most part western nations are trying to restrict things that most people agree should be restricted. They sometimes go to far but for the most part they get ruled in by their own laws. In other words every once and a while they try and go too far. China and NK both have succeeded in their repression.
VLC is a good program but it really is just a media player and a good one but has nothing to do with this issue. There is going to be H.264 media on the web. That is a given since we already have it. IE can play it. Chrome can play it. Opera can play it. Safari can play it. Firefox can not unless you add the new microsoft plug in.
No they don't. The designer of Gmail who is now a former Google employee said that. And that is his opinion and one that I share. But it isn't Google that said that and it is still just an opinion.
It really is hysterical that you lump them all together. US wants to crack down on piracy, child porn, and gambling. Australia wants to crack down on piracy and child porn. Britain wants to crack down on child porn and the an embarrassing leak now and then. France wants to crack down on people selling Nazi stuff and selling fake designer handbags. And notice how they all want to or try to do this but often they can not because of their own laws. Notice that Wiki-leaks isn't blocked in the US.
China throws people in jail for pro-democracy blogs. North Korea doesn't have the internet at all.
The crabbing in the west is a good thing because it means that people care and the fact that it is public means that we do have freedom of speech. In China and North Korea just try and publish a document critical of their policy. And in North Korea just try and even talk to anyone about the policy in public actually don't I don't want any deaths based on one of my posts.
Truth is that most of the world still doesn't have any where near the freedom of speech that is common in US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, and a few other nations. It would be wise to realize that we are not the entire world and the UN is.
Because it never was a free market to start with and we can not turn back the clock.
Telcom started out as a monopoly and local ones are still granted exclusive "franchises" and have had over a century of government protected profits to build out their infrastructure not to mention actual tax money. The same true for the cable companies. They have a big head start. Now we need to fix it and level the playing field. The shared fiber is a good idea but how do keep Verizon or AT&T offering super cheap plans if you get your CellPhone from them also? Or just super cheap plans to run the other ISPs out of business and then jacking up the price when they are gone??? Ahh yes regulation......
Slashdot Mirror
or just produce an unlocked GSM phone that works on TMobile and AT@T
Chernobyl can't happen at a US plant. Being worried about Chernobyl style disaster at a US plant is as logical as not flying on a 747 because of the Hindenburg or not going on a cruise ship because of the Titanic.
Also the waste isn't a big problem with fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors.
And how much control do you have over the telcoms?
At my office we our phones went out for four hours. A construction crew cut a phone cable. Two days latter the same crew did it again!
I would never use skype as the only method of telcom but it could be handy if we could intergrate it into our phone system so customers could call us on Skype and have it go right into our phone system.
You disagree but yet you must admit that he did it because he honestly thought that it was the best for the country. Think how rarely we can say that about our elected officials today.
You left out that even when dealing with attack and fighters having a CAT means more fuel and weapons which is real handy sometimes. Nothing ruins a fighter jocks day more then being low of fuel and weapons with bad guys around.
They use them for one reason. VSTOL. They can take off and land from LHDs. The Harrier has a shorter range and smaller load than the F-18 and much lower performance.
It also had higher loss rate than any other aircraft during the Persian Gulf wars.
The reason they did so well in the Falklands was because the Mirages were at the limit of their range so couldn't use their afterburners much in combat and the US sold the UK the AIM-9L while the Argentines used old AIM-9s. The Lima could lock on from the front while the older Sidewinders where only tail chase.
The Harrier was not and is not a bad plane. It is the best plane you can have if you do have a real runway or a real carrier. Which is real handy. But why do you think that the Brits are building a real carrier.
Yes because cats are a better solution.
You can launch heavier aircraft with a cat than with a ski jump. The Russians and UK can not operate aircraft like the E-2. Also the UK is going to put cats on their latest carrier because the F-35b may fail.
Also a Ski jump can not launch while the carrier as at a stop which can be useful.
So yes the sky jump has one benefit but a lot of drawbacks. The Russians used them because it was a low risk for their first real carrier. The brits used them because they only had the Harrier. It did work very well for the Harrier but the Harrier was not as good of a fighter as the F-14 or F-18. It also was not as good of an attack aircraft as the F-18, A-6, or A-7. But it was better than nothing.
Carter was never a sub captan. He served on a submarine but was not a commander.
Actually the shouldn't have named the sub after Jimmy Carter or the Carrier after Bush. It is tradition that no Navy ship is named after a living person. It was broken by the Burke class. It was unintentional because it takes so long to design a new ship that the Navy was sure that Burke would have passed on by the time the Burke was launched. He lived to a very ripe old age and mess up tradition.
There is no reason to not name a ship after a President of the US and what most people don't know is that Gerald R. Ford was actually a very good president under considering what he had to work with. He as also a very good and honorable man as politicians go. I don't think you can find a single blemish on his record and historians today say his pardon of Nixon was the right thing to do.
Yes they do have that right. They use encryption on there system and they can pick and choose who they give keys too. If you do not like it then do not get a console and stick to the PC.
Really? I suggest you use that defense in a court of law sometime. I think you would find that your view of the universe isn't the same as the courts.
Yes because a judge will so go for that. The data on the drive is also the property of the B of A.
I wouldn't worry too much however if Assange does have a B of A harddrive means he is in position of stolen goods which is a crime.
It is both.
A bad technical excuse to justify a political statement.
What it isn't is a good technical reason. What clearly happened is Mozilla decided to not support h.264 because it was not open and then came up with a list of excuses not to.
As I showed if we had a system for graphics like we do for video things would have been better not worse. You wouldn't be stuck with some browsers with png support, some without png support, and some with partial png support.
Just as now we are going to be stuck with some browsers having h.264 support, some with WebM support, and some with Theora support.
If all the browsers went to OS/Codec support then Theora and WebM would have a much better chance of catching on and replacing h.264 and Flash than the system that is now in place.
"You didn't actually read their reasons if that's what you come up with on that point. There are plenty of websites out there that urge you to install their own codec to view their video content. They're actually malware."
Really? I have never seen one. But let me ask you this... If there are already plenty of sites that urge you to install their own codecs that are actually malware.... How will this change anything?
When you go to that same same site will it not still ask you to install that codec?
Bad technical excuses for what is nothing but a political statement.
And you are right about graphics... Which is a shame.
Imagine if they there had been a graphics lib standard in Windows, Linux, and OS/X! And imagine if Microsoft and Mozilla had both used it. We would not have had to wait for Microsoft to put in png support and then we wouldn't have had to wait for Microsoft to then fix the png support in IE.
We could have moved the internet much more quickly to png and away form GIF....
Yea kind of makes my point why browsers should use OS level codec support all in a nutshell.
Not really VLC is a single program and they made the choice to provide their own codecs. Fine it is a program that made a choice. It isn't a web browser that does more than just play media and because VLC does it doesn't mean it is the correct choice or the only correct choice.
Plus VLC H.264!
Mozilla has decided to not provide the functionality at all. That is the big difference. They could have but didn't and they do not have a single good technical reason to not supply that functionality. The reason is all political and not technical.
The technical reasons they give are just excuses.
Bull.
Harley Davidsons are cruiser style bikes. Just as with many products the look is important. They are now very reliable and user electronic fuel injection and the new Twin Cam 88s are very modern engines.
I love how you say they are air cooled for goodness sakes... Yea that is one of their features.
They are very low bother bikes with belt drive, hydraulic lifters, and air cooling. BTW over head cam water cooled engines are actually 1920s tech 1930s max.
You can get parts for just about any Harley ever made. Try and get parts for a 67 Honda sometime.
Just like BMW boxer owners and Ducati Demo owners they love the good things about the bikes and ignore the bad all in the name of character.
Don't even start talking about Old Norton, Triumph, and BSA owners!
I could go on and on on motorcycles like how the Supersports are now at the level of insane and usless.
Drop the hate dude. Someone buying a nice Harley Road King that has lots of 3rd party support and good resale isn't any more stupid than someone buying a ZX-10r that they can never ride at even 50% of it's ability on the road without being dead or in jail! Not to mention that in two years it will be yesterdays news and a new faster one will be out and the ZX-10 will have lost well over %50 of it's value.
They are both choices and honestly ones that have everything to do with emotions and very little with practicality.
BTW the bikes I like are.
Harley Davidson XR1200.
Honda CBR250 and CB1000.
Kawasaki Ninja 650, 250, 1000, Z1000 KLR650 and Versys.
Suzuki VStrom 650 and 1000
Yamaha Super Tenere,
Ducati Multistrada and Monsters.
Triumph Tiger 1050, SprintGT, and all of their classic line.
BMW FS800ST.
The new Royal Enfield Bullet.
I have never road a Guzi so I have no opinion on them.
As you can see I like a lot of different bikes and the only reason I do not like the super sports is because I like long rides and I am too old to have my knees and elbows touch for any length of time.
But most of you complaints about Harley are old, outdated, and frankly just show a lack of understanding.
But it becomes a race to the bottom.
Think about it. You go to a nice store that spent money on nice displays, They pay their staff well enough that they educate themselves on the product. Those costs must be added into the price. So you shop there and take up the sales person time and then thank them. You pull out your barcode reading smart phone and find you can get the same TV for $100 less at the warehouse store 20 miles away. So you pull in grab the cardboard box and put it on your cart and go home.
Soon there is only the warehouse store.
Actually that is called "the slippery slope argument" and is a logical fallacy. Once you do X then Y must surely follow.
For example "once you outlaw the private ownership of nuclear weapons the next thing they will outlaw is butter knives."
Once they tax alcohol they will have tax sex and we will have government meters on all our underwear.
For example outlawing child porn has not lead to the the outlawing of books with the word crap in them.
One must not always lead to the to the other.
The real problem is that governments are trying to deal with the problem that the internet crosses boarders.
For instance it the legal age in some places in Europe is less than 18. So a site in Europe is illegal in the US. In some places in Europe they have strict "hate speech" laws that are flat out unconstitutional in the US. That makes some political speech sites that are totally legal in the US illegal in the EU.
In many cases governments are not trying to gain new powers but to actually enforce powers they have had all along that the Internet has taken from them.
Which is worse? censoring pics of naked 17 year olds or limiting the free speech of neo-nazis?
The US offers more protection to ideas than sexually explicit images. In the EU it is the other way around.
Frankly blocking nude pics of 17 year old people and neo-nazis has no real effect on me since I don't want to see any of them. Any issues I have are more philosophical than practical. I do agree that political speech should have more protection than commercial speech and images but then I don't think a picture of a naked 17 year old is all that more offensive or immoral than an 18 year old.
However if the UN gets it way odds are that they will ban both everywhere.
Gambling isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a taxation issue. One doesn't express ones self in online poker.
Well the problem is basically a new tyranny of numbers problem.
As systems get more and more complex the harder they are to deal with. In this case to secure.
At one time you had a lot of physical security and frankly at best dial up speed or frame relay connections to deal with.
Now so many systems are interconnected that security is a completely different game.
It hilarious because for the most part western nations are trying to restrict things that most people agree should be restricted. They sometimes go to far but for the most part they get ruled in by their own laws. In other words every once and a while they try and go too far.
China and NK both have succeeded in their repression.
VLC is a good program but it really is just a media player and a good one but has nothing to do with this issue.
There is going to be H.264 media on the web. That is a given since we already have it.
IE can play it.
Chrome can play it.
Opera can play it.
Safari can play it.
Firefox can not unless you add the new microsoft plug in.
No they don't. The designer of Gmail who is now a former Google employee said that. And that is his opinion and one that I share. But it isn't Google that said that and it is still just an opinion.
It really is hysterical that you lump them all together.
US wants to crack down on piracy, child porn, and gambling.
Australia wants to crack down on piracy and child porn.
Britain wants to crack down on child porn and the an embarrassing leak now and then.
France wants to crack down on people selling Nazi stuff and selling fake designer handbags.
And notice how they all want to or try to do this but often they can not because of their own laws. Notice that Wiki-leaks isn't blocked in the US.
China throws people in jail for pro-democracy blogs. North Korea doesn't have the internet at all.
The crabbing in the west is a good thing because it means that people care and the fact that it is public means that we do have freedom of speech.
In China and North Korea just try and publish a document critical of their policy.
And in North Korea just try and even talk to anyone about the policy in public actually don't I don't want any deaths based on one of my posts.
Truth is that most of the world still doesn't have any where near the freedom of speech that is common in US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, and a few other nations. It would be wise to realize that we are not the entire world and the UN is.
Because it never was a free market to start with and we can not turn back the clock.
Telcom started out as a monopoly and local ones are still granted exclusive "franchises" and have had over a century of government protected profits to build out their infrastructure not to mention actual tax money.
The same true for the cable companies.
They have a big head start. Now we need to fix it and level the playing field.
The shared fiber is a good idea but how do keep Verizon or AT&T offering super cheap plans if you get your CellPhone from them also? Or just super cheap plans to run the other ISPs out of business and then jacking up the price when they are gone???
Ahh yes regulation......