Not these lights - if the camera is powered up, so is the light. Only way to stop that is to modify it physically. You can't turn it off with software.
The LED is hardwired - if the power to the camera is on, so is the LED. The only way to prevent this is to physically modify the laptop, which is not outside the realms of possibility, but it *cannot* be disabled in software.
No, indeed, and the 50 mile exclusion around Fukushima is a little bit of an overconservative caution - the radiation levels within it are no worse than background. Sure, you need some exclusion around it, like any plant.
The Union Carbide plant is still sitting there to this day, with open pools of mercury on the ground, and contaminated soil, and long term toxicity effects. The groundwater contamination from the site is also pretty nasty - something that also needs to be considered. But like I said, because it's not the "scary radiation" no one seems to care.
The soil contamination around the Russian heavy metal mines and refineries is off the scale horrific, but again - not radiation, so "just fine".
I'm not saying nuclear energy is immune to issues, or that accidents are not serious. Just that the hysteria that surrounds them is far out of proportion to the reaction to much worse pollution events and disasters involving other industries.
Right, and even if it's tens of thousands (a little doubtful, but we'll run with it) it's *still* hundreds of thousands less than coal mining related deaths, not even including health issues as a result of air pollution which we'll ignore.
And from Germany eh? So totally non-biased on nuclear, given what it just voted to do recently. Crazy in my opinion, but I guess with its strong economic position it can afford to buy in French nuclear power when it inevitably has problems meeting its base load, so it can say "ha! we have no nuclear and lots of renewable!" - very easy to do when your neighbour has a high base load.
The future of power really needs to be nuclear + renewable combined. The short term "but nuclear is cheaper than coal" (no surprise) is not a long term solution to the issue.
Did I say that there were none? Of course there were deaths, quite a few, and Ukraine was badly affected. However, when you take the industry as a whole, and compare it to say, the coal industry... Well, then the deaths due to nuclear power are very small.
I'm not diminishing individual suffering and death here, merely looking at statistics.
Little known? You mean "most well known thing ever", right?
It's been known since day one that the sarcophagus was designed to be a temporary structure - one of the corners is using the damaged reactor building as a load bearing structure, for example. And it was never designed to be hermetically sealed.
The subsequent talk about raising money for a permanent solution has been going on since the late 80s.
Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder.
The number of deaths related to nuclear power *pales* in comparison with the number of deaths from coal fired power every year, and is is nothing on the number of deaths from car accidents, yet no one bats an eyelid at those.
Is nuclear power safe? Yes. Is it immune to accidents? No. Are those accidents potentially dangerous? Yes. Are the public at large at risk from a 40 year old plant that faced a natural disaster far above the design specs, despite some human cock ups (like lack of generator back up due to incorrect connectors etc)? No.
The "completely unsolved" long term waste problem is "solved", but it's politically inconvenient since it requires the use of breeder reactors, which can also be used to make weapons grade material in large quantities, unlike the type currently used to commercial generation. They produce much less waste than coal fired plants (and don;t pump a lot of it into the atmosphere), and with the right mix of reactors you can reduce the quantity enormously, since the waste from one reactor becomes the fuel for another and you end up removing the highly activated nuclei and are left with a small amount of not highly active waste. The reason that current waste stockpiles outside US nuclear plants is because the US doesn't reprocess any waste any more, and won't export it to countries that do. Political reasons. Right there is another reason the costs are high - you want that highly active waste! It has useful material in that you can reprocess into new fuel.
The cost factor is largely down to red tape, economies of scale, and other hobbling that has so far made it very expensive to design, obtain permission for, and build a plant.
It's certainly not all rainbows and butterflies - a nuclear plant is a big, industrial, potentially dangerous thing, but that's no different to any other large scale industrial plant. Where's all the boogyman anti-chemical plant propaganda because oil refineries and other facilities are built within range of urban areas?
Nuclear power plants could have been our future, but they go so twisted up with politics, mismanagement and NIMBYs who don;t understand the issues that they were doomed from the start.
The "observed accident rate" is remarkably good for a large industrial system - certainly *way* better than coal or oil, and way better than most chemical plants. It's not zero, but for some reason nuclear is treated as a special case. Where was the outrage when Union Carbide killed 3000 people due to a methyl isocyanate escape (due to seriously shitty procedures and a cavalier attitude)? Where is the outrage that the Bhopal plant now stands idle with open pools of mercury on the ground, and the soil contaminated to extreme levels, despite it being in the middle of an urban area? Oh, but it's ok - it's not an amount of radiation equivalent to a cross country flight, so no need to get all sensationalist.
It's just the reverse of the enormously slanted "Apple is definitely phasing out OS X and locking it down and will force people to only buy from the App Store" article earlier, just with the "anti-Apple" bias changed to "pro-Apple".
There must be balance in the ad-impression linkbait, lest the universe implode.
The "meteoric rise" in Android might also have something to do with the legion of really cheap Android phones - people are wanting to get in on this whole "smartphone" thing, but don't want to pay a great deal.
Unfortunately, this is a double edged sword for Android - the cheap handsets help marketshare growth in an area that Apple is simply not competing in, but it can leave a negative impression of the platform as a whole.
I've used some beautiful Android phones, and I have used some really, really poor ones that do a disservice to the brand. The really nice ones are similar in cost to the iPhone, which is no real surprise. There are clearly pros and cons to each business model, but it pains me to see people using substandard stuff because they were taken in by the lure of a lower price.
I don't usually like to be the huge cynic, seeing conspiracy and evil everywhere, but my experience with editing wikipedia has been universally bad. All of my edits have been reverted, so in the end I just stopped trying. It wasn't even controversial topics - generally just spelling or grammar corrections and supplemental information on science and engineering topics (including cites).
Given that my spelling corrections were being quickly reverted when they were obvious to anyone who could read English, I can only assume that either the edits were being done out of malice (hard to believe since I hadn't done anything even remotely controversial), or simply being reverted without even being looked at, presumably because I'd been identified as one of the boogeyman "sock puppet" accounts of wikipedia's "hated enemies, who are everywhere!" like some for of McCarthy-esque demons hiding in your neighbour's house.
I don't let it get in the way of using wiki - I still look things up on there as a first point of suggestion on a topic I'm unfamiliar with, but I have long since stopped trying to contribute - there's only so many times you can offer your help, only to have it made abundantly clear that they don't want it. This also affected my decision not to donate any money during the big fundraising drive, and I have given money to open projects that I have found useful - wiki would be the natural choice, but sorry Jimmy! No dinero. Perhaps you can just have a whip round among the overly-cliquey mods.
It doesn't - you can open and run an iTunes account without ever using a credit card, only topping it up with iTunes gift cards. No CC ever needs to go near the account.
That's great, but how does that stop someone else with your credentials logging in from a different computer and buying something?
I'm going to assume you don;t have a CC on file with Apple (if your iTunes paranoia is anything to go by) but your setup would not help anyone who does.
My suspicions are that this is due to usernames and passwords being the same across multiple services, so one big compromise (Sony), has led to ID theft on other services, like the iTunes store.
No, but I was quoting Bender; I meant to add a thing about Hermes and the bureaucracy department and wikipedia etc, but I got called away and posted what I had:D
Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder!
The layman can't edit wikipedia any more without their changes being immediately reverted as "vandalism" or some other spurious reason by the wiki mods.
Yes, and for that 30% we host your app, handle all the payment systems, billing etc, and cover all the bandwidth costs relating to initial download and any future updates. Because all that stuff is totally free in terms of financial cost, labour costs, time and hassle if you do it yourself, right?
In the meantime developers have collectively made over 2.5 billion dollars on the App Store. You make it sound like Apple are being hostile.
There's no prize for biology either, much to the annoyance of chemists who find that often the chemistry prize is given to then instead. So much so that the most recent award for Palladium catalysed coupling reactions raised eyebrows because it was actually *chemistry* being awarded the chemistry prize!
Of course, it all stems from the historically limited subject categories.
Who's running hackintoshes in a business environment? If you need OS X for something specific then you're going to just buy Apple hardware. If your goal is to keep costs down then you won't be running hackintoshes, you'd just go with some flavour of Linux on those boxes, or an OEM copy of Windows.
As an identified "fanboi" (I have occasionally passed a pro-Apple, or Apple-neutral comment, so that seems to qualify), I don't see this as "creepy" or "war" at all. It certainly has an air of 'aha, I see what you did there! It's funny because that's the Windows logo on an Apple store, and they're like, totally rivals!' way, but I thin I (and about a million other people) beat them to it - my Dell printer has an Apple sticker on it, as does my Sony MiniDisc deck.
Fun that they did it in public, but getting the logo wrong was a bit of a gaffe, surely!
And you think it's slavery when people choose to use a consumer product and/or service? This doesn't just apply to Apple - it applies to any consumer or user choice. I'm not sure you fully understand much beyond some distorted ideology where you're seeing tyrants and evil everywhere.
Sure, take the OS X install DVD, which has no serial numbers, no online activation, no DRM, and no other protection, and make a disk image from it. Remove a text file with the name "please don't copy OS X.txt" (or something like that), and then burn the image to a disk.
Slashdot Mirror
Not these lights - if the camera is powered up, so is the light. Only way to stop that is to modify it physically. You can't turn it off with software.
It is. All iSight cameras on Mac laptops have hardwired LEDs. You can't disable the light in software.
The LED is hardwired - if the power to the camera is on, so is the LED. The only way to prevent this is to physically modify the laptop, which is not outside the realms of possibility, but it *cannot* be disabled in software.
No, indeed, and the 50 mile exclusion around Fukushima is a little bit of an overconservative caution - the radiation levels within it are no worse than background. Sure, you need some exclusion around it, like any plant.
The Union Carbide plant is still sitting there to this day, with open pools of mercury on the ground, and contaminated soil, and long term toxicity effects. The groundwater contamination from the site is also pretty nasty - something that also needs to be considered. But like I said, because it's not the "scary radiation" no one seems to care.
The soil contamination around the Russian heavy metal mines and refineries is off the scale horrific, but again - not radiation, so "just fine".
I'm not saying nuclear energy is immune to issues, or that accidents are not serious. Just that the hysteria that surrounds them is far out of proportion to the reaction to much worse pollution events and disasters involving other industries.
Right, and even if it's tens of thousands (a little doubtful, but we'll run with it) it's *still* hundreds of thousands less than coal mining related deaths, not even including health issues as a result of air pollution which we'll ignore.
Some "news" for you - I don't live in the US.
I'm also a chemist, and an engineer.
And from Germany eh? So totally non-biased on nuclear, given what it just voted to do recently. Crazy in my opinion, but I guess with its strong economic position it can afford to buy in French nuclear power when it inevitably has problems meeting its base load, so it can say "ha! we have no nuclear and lots of renewable!" - very easy to do when your neighbour has a high base load.
The future of power really needs to be nuclear + renewable combined. The short term "but nuclear is cheaper than coal" (no surprise) is not a long term solution to the issue.
Did I say that there were none? Of course there were deaths, quite a few, and Ukraine was badly affected. However, when you take the industry as a whole, and compare it to say, the coal industry... Well, then the deaths due to nuclear power are very small.
I'm not diminishing individual suffering and death here, merely looking at statistics.
Little known? You mean "most well known thing ever", right?
It's been known since day one that the sarcophagus was designed to be a temporary structure - one of the corners is using the damaged reactor building as a load bearing structure, for example. And it was never designed to be hermetically sealed.
The subsequent talk about raising money for a permanent solution has been going on since the late 80s.
"A lot of deaths" hahahahaha!
Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder.
The number of deaths related to nuclear power *pales* in comparison with the number of deaths from coal fired power every year, and is is nothing on the number of deaths from car accidents, yet no one bats an eyelid at those.
Is nuclear power safe? Yes. Is it immune to accidents? No. Are those accidents potentially dangerous? Yes. Are the public at large at risk from a 40 year old plant that faced a natural disaster far above the design specs, despite some human cock ups (like lack of generator back up due to incorrect connectors etc)? No.
The "completely unsolved" long term waste problem is "solved", but it's politically inconvenient since it requires the use of breeder reactors, which can also be used to make weapons grade material in large quantities, unlike the type currently used to commercial generation. They produce much less waste than coal fired plants (and don;t pump a lot of it into the atmosphere), and with the right mix of reactors you can reduce the quantity enormously, since the waste from one reactor becomes the fuel for another and you end up removing the highly activated nuclei and are left with a small amount of not highly active waste. The reason that current waste stockpiles outside US nuclear plants is because the US doesn't reprocess any waste any more, and won't export it to countries that do. Political reasons. Right there is another reason the costs are high - you want that highly active waste! It has useful material in that you can reprocess into new fuel.
The cost factor is largely down to red tape, economies of scale, and other hobbling that has so far made it very expensive to design, obtain permission for, and build a plant.
It's certainly not all rainbows and butterflies - a nuclear plant is a big, industrial, potentially dangerous thing, but that's no different to any other large scale industrial plant. Where's all the boogyman anti-chemical plant propaganda because oil refineries and other facilities are built within range of urban areas?
Nuclear power plants could have been our future, but they go so twisted up with politics, mismanagement and NIMBYs who don;t understand the issues that they were doomed from the start.
The "observed accident rate" is remarkably good for a large industrial system - certainly *way* better than coal or oil, and way better than most chemical plants. It's not zero, but for some reason nuclear is treated as a special case. Where was the outrage when Union Carbide killed 3000 people due to a methyl isocyanate escape (due to seriously shitty procedures and a cavalier attitude)? Where is the outrage that the Bhopal plant now stands idle with open pools of mercury on the ground, and the soil contaminated to extreme levels, despite it being in the middle of an urban area? Oh, but it's ok - it's not an amount of radiation equivalent to a cross country flight, so no need to get all sensationalist.
Cool, can we mod the "Apple is definitely phasing out OS X" stories too?
It's just the reverse of the enormously slanted "Apple is definitely phasing out OS X and locking it down and will force people to only buy from the App Store" article earlier, just with the "anti-Apple" bias changed to "pro-Apple".
There must be balance in the ad-impression linkbait, lest the universe implode.
The "meteoric rise" in Android might also have something to do with the legion of really cheap Android phones - people are wanting to get in on this whole "smartphone" thing, but don't want to pay a great deal.
Unfortunately, this is a double edged sword for Android - the cheap handsets help marketshare growth in an area that Apple is simply not competing in, but it can leave a negative impression of the platform as a whole.
I've used some beautiful Android phones, and I have used some really, really poor ones that do a disservice to the brand. The really nice ones are similar in cost to the iPhone, which is no real surprise. There are clearly pros and cons to each business model, but it pains me to see people using substandard stuff because they were taken in by the lure of a lower price.
I don't usually like to be the huge cynic, seeing conspiracy and evil everywhere, but my experience with editing wikipedia has been universally bad. All of my edits have been reverted, so in the end I just stopped trying. It wasn't even controversial topics - generally just spelling or grammar corrections and supplemental information on science and engineering topics (including cites).
Given that my spelling corrections were being quickly reverted when they were obvious to anyone who could read English, I can only assume that either the edits were being done out of malice (hard to believe since I hadn't done anything even remotely controversial), or simply being reverted without even being looked at, presumably because I'd been identified as one of the boogeyman "sock puppet" accounts of wikipedia's "hated enemies, who are everywhere!" like some for of McCarthy-esque demons hiding in your neighbour's house.
I don't let it get in the way of using wiki - I still look things up on there as a first point of suggestion on a topic I'm unfamiliar with, but I have long since stopped trying to contribute - there's only so many times you can offer your help, only to have it made abundantly clear that they don't want it. This also affected my decision not to donate any money during the big fundraising drive, and I have given money to open projects that I have found useful - wiki would be the natural choice, but sorry Jimmy! No dinero. Perhaps you can just have a whip round among the overly-cliquey mods.
It doesn't - you can open and run an iTunes account without ever using a credit card, only topping it up with iTunes gift cards. No CC ever needs to go near the account.
That's great, but how does that stop someone else with your credentials logging in from a different computer and buying something?
I'm going to assume you don;t have a CC on file with Apple (if your iTunes paranoia is anything to go by) but your setup would not help anyone who does.
My suspicions are that this is due to usernames and passwords being the same across multiple services, so one big compromise (Sony), has led to ID theft on other services, like the iTunes store.
No, but I was quoting Bender; I meant to add a thing about Hermes and the bureaucracy department and wikipedia etc, but I got called away and posted what I had :D
hahahahahaha.
Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder!
The layman can't edit wikipedia any more without their changes being immediately reverted as "vandalism" or some other spurious reason by the wiki mods.
"Get to claim 30% of your revenue"
Yes, and for that 30% we host your app, handle all the payment systems, billing etc, and cover all the bandwidth costs relating to initial download and any future updates. Because all that stuff is totally free in terms of financial cost, labour costs, time and hassle if you do it yourself, right?
In the meantime developers have collectively made over 2.5 billion dollars on the App Store. You make it sound like Apple are being hostile.
Of course, just like I consider chemical engineering to cross both of those disciplines.
But if you look back over the history of the prize, it has been given for things that really don't cross into chemistry *at all*.
There's no prize for biology either, much to the annoyance of chemists who find that often the chemistry prize is given to then instead. So much so that the most recent award for Palladium catalysed coupling reactions raised eyebrows because it was actually *chemistry* being awarded the chemistry prize!
Of course, it all stems from the historically limited subject categories.
Who's running hackintoshes in a business environment? If you need OS X for something specific then you're going to just buy Apple hardware. If your goal is to keep costs down then you won't be running hackintoshes, you'd just go with some flavour of Linux on those boxes, or an OEM copy of Windows.
As an identified "fanboi" (I have occasionally passed a pro-Apple, or Apple-neutral comment, so that seems to qualify), I don't see this as "creepy" or "war" at all. It certainly has an air of 'aha, I see what you did there! It's funny because that's the Windows logo on an Apple store, and they're like, totally rivals!' way, but I thin I (and about a million other people) beat them to it - my Dell printer has an Apple sticker on it, as does my Sony MiniDisc deck.
Fun that they did it in public, but getting the logo wrong was a bit of a gaffe, surely!
And you think it's slavery when people choose to use a consumer product and/or service? This doesn't just apply to Apple - it applies to any consumer or user choice. I'm not sure you fully understand much beyond some distorted ideology where you're seeing tyrants and evil everywhere.
Run along now, the adults are talking.
Sure, take the OS X install DVD, which has no serial numbers, no online activation, no DRM, and no other protection, and make a disk image from it. Remove a text file with the name "please don't copy OS X.txt" (or something like that), and then burn the image to a disk.
Boot your Hackintosh and install.
Yes, so many "cracks and patches".
So like any normal car then.