Except that you brought it up. You're trying to persuade people that nuclear engineering is different, because the worst case boom is bigger than that of two cars colliding. I don't think that's a very thorough analysis.
I can't force you to discuss the subject like an adult, but shouting "stupid stupid stupid" isn't a very effective debate technique.
cars kill more people than terrorism. cars kill more people than cancer. cars kill more people than pedophiles...
True, true, and true--but offtopic. Cars vs. nuclear? You brought that up, and unless I misunderstood, you were trying to claim that cars were safer. Sure, a car accident might kill 2 or 3 people, but you forgot to mention that, on average, it happens EVERY HOUR in the US alone.
C'mon, you don't have to be rude. You made dramatic statements about the gravity of nuclear engineering and how it's "so different". I'm just saying that here in the real world, what makes it so different is that it's safer (by orders of magnitude) than the things to which you're comparing it.
right, and if there was a problem, someone got killed. or maybe 2 or 3 people. you cleaned up the wreckage, you buried the bodies, you moved on
I know this will be an affront to your gut sense of proportion, but cars kill more people than nuclear power plants ever will. We could have a Chernobyl-scale catastrophe once a year and cars would still handily claim more casualties.
It will not cause cancer in the surrounding cities (including tokyo) just because wind blew wrong.
You do know that coal plants emit more radioactive material into the air than nuclear plants ever will, right? They do this 24x7x365. Please don't fall prey to the monsters under the bed--nuclear is astoundingly safe by almost any rational measure.
This doesn't even come close to a worst-case scenario for for solar (broken PV panels?, leaked salt?), or even a coal plant.
The worst case for a coal plant is pretty much the same as the average case: They spew radioactive material (and mercury, and of course CO2) into the air 24x7x365.
And of course you know this, but solar is not presently anywhere near a viable replacement for base load generation, so the comparison isn't a useful one.
Well, actually I'd put any death's caused by lack of power related to the plants being down as deaths "caused" by the reactor. Solar installs on roof tops wouldn't have this issue, most likely.
Please don't misread me--I'm a big fan of rooftop solar--but it would most definitely shut down, just as designed, when the grid goes down. Distributed rooftop solar is great for the grid, but it's not backup power.
Let's just turn that around. You're the boss and your employee writes that code. I'd think it would be a bug now...
I'm neither the boss nor the employee, and it would require bizarrely infantile logic to use your cited "bug" as justification for not buying the software.
If it wasn't for the mindless bug in the trial period timer. On the 60 day trial version, you could set the date on your machine to current+10 years, install it, run it once, set the date back to current and have a trial period of 10years+60 days.
It's pretty lame to call that a "bug". Unless you expect anyone to believe you did that unintentionally, I'd use the word "exploit" and assign it to you instead of the Winsock guy.
Sony, I already decided not to buy your stuff years ago. I can see you're genuinely applying yourself, here, but really, I'm already convinced. No need to expend any additional efforts.
You may be young and not be aware that are other things besides http.
Oh, I'm plenty aware of that, but in the late 90s when this was going on, none of the above mattered. The announcers read the URLs out with painful completeness because they themselves did not even understand what they were reading--people actually using the web understood perfectly well how to use their browsers.
The worst was the first few awkward years where everyone on TV or radio pronounced the "http://" as "h-t-t-p colon slash slash" every time they read a URL out loud. I do not miss those days.
It is unconscionable to construct a summary specifically about power consumption without actually stating what the effing power consumption is. We have units for these things, people. Why always use the relative ones?
Majed didn't go to jail for jailbreaking his iPhone, or even a handful of them for friends. The jailbreaking exemption (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/) states that the exemption exists for the owner of the device in order for the owner to use an alternate cellular network.
Well, did he or did he not own them at the time. If not, who did?
The specific changes to the algorithm are of course a guarded secret. So [...] how do we know how the algorithm determines a bad review from a good one
I think you pretty much answered that one yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
because the point you bring up is stupid
Except that you brought it up. You're trying to persuade people that nuclear engineering is different, because the worst case boom is bigger than that of two cars colliding. I don't think that's a very thorough analysis.
I can't force you to discuss the subject like an adult, but shouting "stupid stupid stupid" isn't a very effective debate technique.
cars kill more people than terrorism. cars kill more people than cancer. cars kill more people than pedophiles...
True, true, and true--but offtopic. Cars vs. nuclear? You brought that up, and unless I misunderstood, you were trying to claim that cars were safer. Sure, a car accident might kill 2 or 3 people, but you forgot to mention that, on average, it happens EVERY HOUR in the US alone.
C'mon, you don't have to be rude. You made dramatic statements about the gravity of nuclear engineering and how it's "so different". I'm just saying that here in the real world, what makes it so different is that it's safer (by orders of magnitude) than the things to which you're comparing it.
I just don't understand why non-americans don't understand the sheer size of my country and the infrastructure limitations that can impose.
Sweden: 450000 square km 9.8 million people
United States: 9830000 square km 308 million people
Sweden: 21.8 people / km^2
USA: 31.3 people / km^2
What were you trying to prove, again?
right, and if there was a problem, someone got killed. or maybe 2 or 3 people. you cleaned up the wreckage, you buried the bodies, you moved on
I know this will be an affront to your gut sense of proportion, but cars kill more people than nuclear power plants ever will. We could have a Chernobyl-scale catastrophe once a year and cars would still handily claim more casualties.
It will not cause cancer in the surrounding cities (including tokyo) just because wind blew wrong.
You do know that coal plants emit more radioactive material into the air than nuclear plants ever will, right? They do this 24x7x365. Please don't fall prey to the monsters under the bed--nuclear is astoundingly safe by almost any rational measure.
So far these plants have endured an earthquake 10 times what they were designed for (8.9 Richter earthquake. Design was for 7.9.
The Richter scale is pretty much obsolete, and you have the base wrong; a 1.0 difference in magnitude is more like a ~32x difference in energy.
This doesn't even come close to a worst-case scenario for for solar (broken PV panels?, leaked salt?), or even a coal plant.
The worst case for a coal plant is pretty much the same as the average case: They spew radioactive material (and mercury, and of course CO2) into the air 24x7x365.
And of course you know this, but solar is not presently anywhere near a viable replacement for base load generation, so the comparison isn't a useful one.
Well, actually I'd put any death's caused by lack of power related to the plants being down as deaths "caused" by the reactor. Solar installs on roof tops wouldn't have this issue, most likely.
Please don't misread me--I'm a big fan of rooftop solar--but it would most definitely shut down, just as designed, when the grid goes down. Distributed rooftop solar is great for the grid, but it's not backup power.
Let's just turn that around. You're the boss and your employee writes that code. I'd think it would be a bug now...
I'm neither the boss nor the employee, and it would require bizarrely infantile logic to use your cited "bug" as justification for not buying the software.
If it wasn't for the mindless bug in the trial period timer. On the 60 day trial version, you could set the date on your machine to current+10 years, install it, run it once, set the date back to current and have a trial period of 10years+60 days.
It's pretty lame to call that a "bug". Unless you expect anyone to believe you did that unintentionally, I'd use the word "exploit" and assign it to you instead of the Winsock guy.
It's not tumbling; it's flying past, while the camera tracks it.
And here I thought you were going to bore holes in the SSDs. Boring holes in the interns is just cruel.
Sony, I already decided not to buy your stuff years ago. I can see you're genuinely applying yourself, here, but really, I'm already convinced. No need to expend any additional efforts.
Electricity is a red herring. So little oil is used for electricity production that you can round it down to the nearest zero.
I mean, other than just omitting it, but then good luck when you have to read out an rtsp:// or ftp:// url.
Yeah, good point, because they sure were reading out FTP URLs all the time back in the 90s.
You may be young and not be aware that are other things besides http.
Oh, I'm plenty aware of that, but in the late 90s when this was going on, none of the above mattered. The announcers read the URLs out with painful completeness because they themselves did not even understand what they were reading--people actually using the web understood perfectly well how to use their browsers.
The worst was the first few awkward years where everyone on TV or radio pronounced the "http://" as "h-t-t-p colon slash slash" every time they read a URL out loud. I do not miss those days.
HP Labs managed to recover the instruction manual that was written on the side of the machine
I didn't see a translation anywhere, but I'm pretty sure it says "replace toner cartridge now".
It is unconscionable to construct a summary specifically about power consumption without actually stating what the effing power consumption is. We have units for these things, people. Why always use the relative ones?
In my day, ARPA*NET was clean and free of spam.
To be fair, it was mostly free of users, too, relative to today, where the number is on the order of a billion.
So you might be able to scan a developed Kodachrome negative on a good film scanner[...]
That would be a good trick, since there is no such thing as a Kodachrome negative. It's a positive film.
Majed didn't go to jail for jailbreaking his iPhone, or even a handful of them for friends. The jailbreaking exemption (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/) states that the exemption exists for the owner of the device in order for the owner to use an alternate cellular network.
Well, did he or did he not own them at the time. If not, who did?
Because you bought it below cost and the company that was selling it will go out of business if you are allowed to do so.
It's not my job to make sure your business of selling things (at below market cost) remains solvent.
The specific changes to the algorithm are of course a guarded secret. So [...] how do we know how the algorithm determines a bad review from a good one
I think you pretty much answered that one yourself.
But nothing turns fans off more than finding out the shows sold out and having to buy tickets off thugs outside the venue.
Since the only other option is buying them from the venue-approved thugs (ticketmaster or livenation), I'm not very sympathetic to your point.