Keep in mind that this event's worst case result from this would have been: "If a criticality accident had occurred in the filter glovebox or the elevator pit, it is likely that at least one worker would have received an exposure high enough to cause acute health effects or death." Keep in mind that the result of the second worst event for nuclear facilities for the year. Compare that with the coal industry or oil industry where there are multiple deaths annually.
The information is available to congress is not notified everytime an incident occurs. Unless the accident could cause things to happen off site the public isn't notified until the annual list of inccidents, primarily because it would just create unneeded hystaria as seen by this FUD while the engineers review the facts and figure out REALLY happened. As far as the company trying to hide it. If it is not reported to the NRC within 24 hours of the event they would likely lose their license.
According sourcewatch ExxonMobil donated $252,000 in 2005. That comes out to 0.66% of the income for AEI in 2005. That doesn't sound like a good justification to even mention that they are funding AEI. It might be more useful to actually mention AEI instead of trying to mislead us readers.
The problem is that when people go and lose their life's savings/house due to an addiction we have a choice of either letting them die in gutter in a puddle of their own urin or supporting them by some means whether it be private or state funded either way it hurts society. In our free nation we allow most obnoxious and destructive behavior until it begins to cost society instead of just the stupid individual. ie you can buy a large chunck of land build a bridge and jump off it but you can't go to a public on and jump off. Or if you would rather jump off somebody else's bridge they are held liable for your injuries.
Capture One has been around for a while but it is terrible at culling and Photoshop's RAW conversion has caught up with Capture One's quality. Hopefully this new program will exceed the quality of Photoshop's RAW converter. I personally look forward to replacing Pixort with a more integrated converter that allows for a good workflow. Too bad it is Mac based only.
I was taught multple unsubstantiated hypotheses in school, we then disproved them through science I learned more from that then gutting a frog. I'm not saying to lie to kids so that they will believe the Bible or anything. Put intelligent design to the scrutiny as evolution show both of their lackings show where they seem like they could be true. It will be a great learning experience for the kids on how to properly work through the scientific process.
So did you learn everything there was to learn in high school math, history, english, chemistry? Or did you learn the basics? Yes there will be 43 different ideas running around out there but it would be stupid to consider the obscure ones. Currently intelligent design is common belief, when it stops being a common belief don't teach it.
True people have been killing each other for milleniums but the first time world population reached 1 billion was in 1802 and in 1420 its estimated at 375 million people (source wikipedia). Also keep in mind that most "religious conquests" are under the guise of religion with no real religious support just political support such as Hitler.
And I did not deny that it has hit one billion but he didn't say that he said "a few billion" which implys much more.
What is a hypothosis? It is a belief. Should we not teach those?
Why don't you explain both sides warts and all and make it a learning experience. Or you could have them tear open another frog to fling at the girl across the room. Personally the classes where there was interested and passionate pupils are the classes where the most was learned. Instead of fearing Inteligent design take advantage of the opportunity for kids to take interest in the science.
Remember Science is not numbers, chemicals or cells but reason give the kids a chance to reason.
Also BTW your few billion number is a bit exagerated unless you consider political ambition a religion. You obviously have a lot of un biased scientific background.
Normally I would ignore a troll but some moron scored you Insightful.
"Under God" according to http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/ "In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America.""
Not what I would consider "recent" since the majority of the people on this forum weren't even alive then.
We need to go back to the past when America seperated religion from government like in the 1800's when they put "In God we trust" on money or like in the 1900's when we put "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. The beauty of America unlike socialized nations is that the government doesn't need to be sculpting everthing for it to work. Involving politics into science is as good of a thing as involving politics into religion. You end up with a bunch of blow hards from Washington telling you what to believe.
To summerize the sky is not falling and good science will march on as usual.
If we give a customer.jpg's of the images they may do what they want with them. That is giving them the rights, full rights if though they try to take a print and scan it then is usually when clerks will stop people. If you have the digital neg (the file) or the film neg then you can do what you like. And if you scan it at home and print at the store, the clerk should not do anything to stop you from printing.
Seems like an interesting way to price their product. The faster your CPU the more you should spend on the OS. Similiar to taxes in most places the more you make the more you should be able to give in taxes hence the higher your tax rate. Hopefully it will be available stateside also. It would be nice to set up cheap computers, running windows, around my house that could control my home automation. Be simplier then the terminal based version that I have been looking at. http://www.zanware.com/
I agree that his statement is a false arrogant thing to say. But it is still different then the other things people are saying. If you are going to mock somebody at least don't make yourself look stupid in the process.
Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Why would Kerry need to win to take legal action? The reason he said that is because the FCC could screw with Sinclair if they felt like it and if Kerry got elected you bet they would feel like it.
There has been no policy offered, only the denial of four people from a meeting. But for that matter then who would be the Wonk to decide who gets to go? Would you send out a team of 10 individuals to vet each potential member of the meeting or would you tell Nokia to send 2 people? The point is that nobody political is being sent to this meeting.
Wow do you really believe this crap that you are shoveling? There are *NO* "hacks" going on this trip they are reps from companies not politicians. The only people that were barred were politically active people, so then they would fall closer to your hack idea. nice attempt to try to cram everyone in the world into two categories. It may be an interesting paper for a poli-sci paper but last I remember black/white generalizations are frowned upon here.
Actually Living in Washington state, people from Oregon come to our town and purchase things without having to pay Washington State sales tax. All they have to do is show their Oregon Drivers license. But that is the exception for states with no sales tax, we have never had people show Idaho drivers license and demands Idaho's lower sales tax.
I agree that cable TV has no place in there. Remember I don't agree with the guy, I just think that it is an interesting topic that is glossed over by most. We all expect people to act approprietly in public, so where is the line of public?
So then you say the requirement to avoid censorship would be that the provider has to put up a minimal barrier to the average person? Such as a window shade or encrypted signal? I could follow that.
I think a simplier fix would be to allow the customer to pick their level of censorship, we can already encode into the signals the the objectional quality of every second and let the people pick the level they are happy with, which will allow them to skip things they are not comfortable with. Artists are more scared of this then full on censorship since it would distort their art. But do the purchasers of the art have the right to distort it to their fancy?
People forget that we are restricted all over the place. Most places you can't run around naked or have sex on the side of the street or even play fight club with willing participants. These things are regulated to be done only on private property out of sight of neighbors. So where does your private property end and your next door neighbor begin? Currently it only considers airwaves but XM, Sat tv all go over airwaves also. The main difference is the expectation that the viewers are "participants" by their willingness to pay for the service instead of being "innocent bystanders". Don't get me wrong I think his idea at face value is stupid and moves us down a slippery slope, but it does raise a good question (more likely his true intent). What is the purpose of decency censorship and where should it be used? And before you say that it has no use and should never be used how many times have you meta-moderated goatse.cx? I would be on the phone if that image ever came on my TV.
So where should the line be drawn and who is exempt from the restrictions?
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that this event's worst case result from this would have been:
e gs/staff/sr0090/v29/sr0090v29.pdf
"If a criticality accident had occurred in the filter glovebox or the elevator pit, it is
likely that at least one worker would have received an exposure high enough to cause acute
health effects or death." Keep in mind that the result of the second worst event for nuclear facilities for the year. Compare that with the coal industry or oil industry where there are multiple deaths annually.
Also this is fairly old news since it was in the NRC's "Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences - Fiscal Year 2006 (NUREG-0090, Vol. 29)". Which has a release date of April 2007. Take a look for yourself its on page 14
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nur
The information is available to congress is not notified everytime an incident occurs. Unless the accident could cause things to happen off site the public isn't notified until the annual list of inccidents, primarily because it would just create unneeded hystaria as seen by this FUD while the engineers review the facts and figure out REALLY happened. As far as the company trying to hide it. If it is not reported to the NRC within 24 hours of the event they would likely lose their license.
The problem is that when people go and lose their life's savings/house due to an addiction we have a choice of either letting them die in gutter in a puddle of their own urin or supporting them by some means whether it be private or state funded either way it hurts society. In our free nation we allow most obnoxious and destructive behavior until it begins to cost society instead of just the stupid individual. ie you can buy a large chunck of land build a bridge and jump off it but you can't go to a public on and jump off. Or if you would rather jump off somebody else's bridge they are held liable for your injuries.
Is that a pig with wings? Oh nevermind its just another report saying that Dell sill start using AMD "soon".
Capture One has been around for a while but it is terrible at culling and Photoshop's RAW conversion has caught up with Capture One's quality. Hopefully this new program will exceed the quality of Photoshop's RAW converter. I personally look forward to replacing Pixort with a more integrated converter that allows for a good workflow. Too bad it is Mac based only.
Did you stop at that line?
I was taught multple unsubstantiated hypotheses in school, we then disproved them through science I learned more from that then gutting a frog. I'm not saying to lie to kids so that they will believe the Bible or anything. Put intelligent design to the scrutiny as evolution show both of their lackings show where they seem like they could be true. It will be a great learning experience for the kids on how to properly work through the scientific process.
So did you learn everything there was to learn in high school math, history, english, chemistry? Or did you learn the basics? Yes there will be 43 different ideas running around out there but it would be stupid to consider the obscure ones. Currently intelligent design is common belief, when it stops being a common belief don't teach it.
True people have been killing each other for milleniums but the first time world population reached 1 billion was in 1802 and in 1420 its estimated at 375 million people (source wikipedia). Also keep in mind that most "religious conquests" are under the guise of religion with no real religious support just political support such as Hitler.
And I did not deny that it has hit one billion but he didn't say that he said "a few billion" which implys much more.
What is a hypothosis? It is a belief. Should we not teach those?
Why don't you explain both sides warts and all and make it a learning experience. Or you could have them tear open another frog to fling at the girl across the room. Personally the classes where there was interested and passionate pupils are the classes where the most was learned. Instead of fearing Inteligent design take advantage of the opportunity for kids to take interest in the science.
Remember Science is not numbers, chemicals or cells but reason give the kids a chance to reason.
Who was he beaten or killed again?
I must have miss read the article.
Also BTW your few billion number is a bit exagerated unless you consider political ambition a religion. You obviously have a lot of un biased scientific background.
Normally I would ignore a troll but some moron scored you Insightful.
"In God we Trust" according to http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currenc y/in-god-we-trust.shtml
"The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864"
"Under God" according to
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/
"In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America.""
Not what I would consider "recent" since the majority of the people on this forum weren't even alive then.
We need to go back to the past when America seperated religion from government like in the 1800's when they put "In God we trust" on money or like in the 1900's when we put "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. The beauty of America unlike socialized nations is that the government doesn't need to be sculpting everthing for it to work. Involving politics into science is as good of a thing as involving politics into religion. You end up with a bunch of blow hards from Washington telling you what to believe.
To summerize the sky is not falling and good science will march on as usual.
If we give a customer .jpg's of the images they may do what they want with them. That is giving them the rights, full rights if though they try to take a print and scan it then is usually when clerks will stop people. If you have the digital neg (the file) or the film neg then you can do what you like. And if you scan it at home and print at the store, the clerk should not do anything to stop you from printing.
Hey thats the game of life http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.htm l. I remember programming that one for multiple school classes. One of my friends even made it his screen saver.
Hehe, no I just know more about computers then I do about home automation systems (AMX, Creston and the like) and don't trust x-10.
Seems like an interesting way to price their product. The faster your CPU the more you should spend on the OS. Similiar to taxes in most places the more you make the more you should be able to give in taxes hence the higher your tax rate. Hopefully it will be available stateside also. It would be nice to set up cheap computers, running windows, around my house that could control my home automation. Be simplier then the terminal based version that I have been looking at. http://www.zanware.com/
Now once SCO loses the lawsuit IBM can force SCO to pay for they 4700 hours of work. Too bad SCO won't be able to afford it.
I agree that his statement is a false arrogant thing to say. But it is still different then the other things people are saying. If you are going to mock somebody at least don't make yourself look stupid in the process.
Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Why would Kerry need to win to take legal action? The reason he said that is because the FCC could screw with Sinclair if they felt like it and if Kerry got elected you bet they would feel like it.
There has been no policy offered, only the denial of four people from a meeting. But for that matter then who would be the Wonk to decide who gets to go? Would you send out a team of 10 individuals to vet each potential member of the meeting or would you tell Nokia to send 2 people? The point is that nobody political is being sent to this meeting.
Wow do you really believe this crap that you are shoveling? There are *NO* "hacks" going on this trip they are reps from companies not politicians. The only people that were barred were politically active people, so then they would fall closer to your hack idea. nice attempt to try to cram everyone in the world into two categories. It may be an interesting paper for a poli-sci paper but last I remember black/white generalizations are frowned upon here.
(uh I backed up Bush, there goes my Karma)
Actually Living in Washington state, people from Oregon come to our town and purchase things without having to pay Washington State sales tax. All they have to do is show their Oregon Drivers license. But that is the exception for states with no sales tax, we have never had people show Idaho drivers license and demands Idaho's lower sales tax.
I agree that cable TV has no place in there. Remember I don't agree with the guy, I just think that it is an interesting topic that is glossed over by most. We all expect people to act approprietly in public, so where is the line of public?
So then you say the requirement to avoid censorship would be that the provider has to put up a minimal barrier to the average person? Such as a window shade or encrypted signal? I could follow that.
I think a simplier fix would be to allow the customer to pick their level of censorship, we can already encode into the signals the the objectional quality of every second and let the people pick the level they are happy with, which will allow them to skip things they are not comfortable with. Artists are more scared of this then full on censorship since it would distort their art. But do the purchasers of the art have the right to distort it to their fancy?
People forget that we are restricted all over the place. Most places you can't run around naked or have sex on the side of the street or even play fight club with willing participants. These things are regulated to be done only on private property out of sight of neighbors. So where does your private property end and your next door neighbor begin? Currently it only considers airwaves but XM, Sat tv all go over airwaves also. The main difference is the expectation that the viewers are "participants" by their willingness to pay for the service instead of being "innocent bystanders". Don't get me wrong I think his idea at face value is stupid and moves us down a slippery slope, but it does raise a good question (more likely his true intent). What is the purpose of decency censorship and where should it be used? And before you say that it has no use and should never be used how many times have you meta-moderated goatse.cx? I would be on the phone if that image ever came on my TV.
So where should the line be drawn and who is exempt from the restrictions?