It's a huge commitment to write a native client though, and the number of Mac and Linux subscribers may not provide enough justification.
It has got *a lot* better lately (I run EvE on a Mac with the Cider wrapper) compared to the Empyrean Age patch, so perhaps the Linux client, while not native, is a little better too.
If their installed non-windows base grows enough, then a native client may be on the cards, but right now they are just testing the waters to see who is out there willing to try EvE without using Windows.
CCP's efforts were a very shaky start for Mac (but then, given that they have a small user base by MMO standards in the first place, especially compared to Blizzard), it's understandable.
The recent QR patch, after tweaking, and with some updates to Cider, has made a world of difference to Mac performance in EVE. It still has problems - after running the game for any length of time, you need to log out and log back in again to fix graphical glitches in the rest of OS X (inability to scroll in Safari, totally white windows appearing with no content etc) that must be due to the Cider engine mucking something up with the window server, but it's much better than it was.
It's no native client like the WoW Mac client, but it has allowed me to try out the game.
Just to latch onto this with someone who's had more experience with it, I just recently installed Ubuntu 8.10 onto my 15" Powerbook to give it a go (1.5Ghz, ATI 64Mb graphics), and it runs much hotter than OS X.
I was expecting something like this, since obviously all the OS X software is tuned up to work with the Powerbook, and that Ubuntu is doing its best but can never be as good [at using the sensors and fans] as OS X without extra help from Apple.
I installed the sensor applet and am getting consistent 50C and 54-55C temps on the cpu and gpu, and the fan seems to have "on" and "off" modes - I am assuming then, that this is down to Ubuntu's less than perfect ability to monitor and control the fans, and also the graphics driver for the ATI chipset not being as optimised as the one provided for OS X.
I am a little lost beyond this, although I guess that's what this experiment is all about, since my previous Linux experience is nil (other than the little bit of Terminal stuff I have been doing in OS X).
Can they write me a cheque and have a billion left over. It'll certainly ensure that I buy a new Cinema Display this Christmas, or that new MacBook Pro I've been eyeing up.
I just gave my old G4 powerbook a new lease of life with Ubuntu, but 23 million dollars will keep me on the upgrade cycle a little longer:)
I spotted this years ago when I sat my A levels and GCSEs (back before you need UCAS points and actually needed "this number of As, this number of Bs etc).
I have a GCSE textbook from back when GCSEs were new - some of the questions in it relate to maths that is now not taught until A level. I have an O-level maths textbook too - it could substitute quite easily for a current A level textbook in some areas.
There's no doubt that the exams are getting easier, and perhaps calculus has no need to be on the GCSE maths exam (if the aim of the maths GCSE is to give every 16 year old basic understanding of maths to help them in the real world), and belongs in the A level syllabus instead, where it becomes more relevant to someone who may need to use it in a future field (like an engineering degree).
The trouble is, I think it's just slipping further and further down. I remember on my chemistry GCSE paper there was a photo of a car (an Austin Meastro!) that covered half of the page, with a question underneath that said "suggest a material that the windscreen could be made of (2)"
A silly enough question as it is, but 2 marks? Geez. A mark for laminated, a mark for glass perhaps? I have no idea.
Well, it depends if you believe Apple's environmental statements (which go into some depth) on their website - they state that they were well ahead of several others in the industry, and ahead of the EU regulations for things like Lead. All of their products (according to Apple's site) complied with the new EU laws 2 years before the law came into effect.
As for BFS, yes that was a typo, I meant to type BFRs - Apple also has a statement that they are eliminating all BFRs and PVC (and in fact as much bromine and chlorine in general) from their products.
I'm just going by statements made by Apple themselves, on their own website - not a third party article or "bromide science forum" special interest. They have stated publicly that they will remove all bromine from their products in fact - so much for cozying up to ulterior motives.
Greenpeace moaned that Apple "weren't doing anything" (when in fact they were, and have been for some time) yet on the other hand praised HP for "promising to make a plan about how to deal with, for example BFRs, in the future". This has nothing to do with their attempts to work out what Apple's hardware contains and everything to do with expecting Apple to get a bloody nose and then backpedalling and changing their intent because Apple punched back - Greenpeace were not expecting Apple to have done anything, and the sudden release of exactly what they have been doing (industry leading in fact, assuming you believe Apple's own website), so now Greenpeace are repositioning it as a "well, we're scrabbling around for something else to make them look bad since our initial PR assault backfired".
Not that I think Apple is a perfect company by any means, or that they haven't done some crappy things in the past, but it's strongly evident that they have been at the forefront of recycling, energy management, environmental issues and environmental impact in the industry, long before it became good PR, or before Greenpeace got on their back to "go green".
Yeah, the advocate a huge offshore wind farm development (which is perfectly sound) but neglect to tell anyone that a 50km offshore farm has severe logistical problems - cabling that much power back to land has resistance losses, huge economic cost, large infrastructure cost. I'm not saying that large scale solar thermal or wind farms are a bad idea, but Greenpeace has a "it must only be wind/tidal/solar/CHP or nothing else! wah wah!" and will shoot down any attempt you have to try and widen the debate.
They have dismissed fusion as a "dangerous toy" while we're still working on it. They are only informed on the issues they want to be informed on - anything they dismiss (like nuclear fusion, nuclear fission) they simply wave the propaganda wand over.
Consider this - in their new DVD, Greenpeace states that new nuclear reactors will do nothing (or almost nothing) to help CO2 emission reductions, saying that nuclear can only generate electricity and that 86% of transport and heating is done via oil.
Ok, great - looks bad for nuclear power. But wait! They want to replace all those nuclear stations with wind and tidal generators! So, tell me again how those wind and tidal generators heat your house or move your car (remember, if nuclear can only generate electricity, and it's being discounted because of that, then you have to also exclude the fact that wind and tidal can only generate electricity.....)
Solar thermal can help heat your house (and solar thermal with flat panels is an excellent way to provide domestic hot water), but there's no reason why you can't have solar thermal and nuclear.
You can't have it both ways.
Of course I want renewable energy - the cleaner and cheaper the better. However, dismissing fusion research and fission power (which is reliable, safe, clean and high density) is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
We'd be doing just fine without Greenpeace. Al Gore was trumpeting climate change and actually trying to do something about it since the 70s (as just one high profile example), and there are several other "green" interest groups that don't resort to the sort of thing Greenpeace goes after.
Their latest film promoting renewables over nuclear no longer mentions the "no more chernobyls" line, at least, the new one on the UK greenpeace site is well made ad refrains from sensationalism more than usual, but they are very quick to dismiss nuclear and promote their agenda without telling you about the costs of it.
A comment on the greenpeace site sums up my feelings pretty succinctly. I don;t want to just cut and paste it in, but it is worth a read as to why nuclear is still a necessary part of the energy generating system of the future, along with other renewable sources too.
Total reliance on the methods they propose in the video is not the solution - they infer that using CHP, tidal and wind all together will neatly wrap up the whole of the UK's electricity generating needs when it just isn't that simple.
Nuclear may be expensive, but it is a proven technology moving into the fourth generation of its life cycle that can produce large amounts of power in small amounts of space with almost no CO2 emission after construction. It is reliable, scalable, high-density, and small footprint - a single power plant can provide 1500MW, equivalent to (being generous) 1000 wind turbines, which is a logistical nightmare - if you site them offshore you need to move the power to land, if you build them on land you need space.
The comment I think sums it up nicely is by a guy near the bottom of this page called dcoughlan.
I'm not trying to replace renewable energy with nuclear power, but at the present time, while we work towards green solutions, nuclear is one of the cleanest, most reliable, high-density sources of power we have.
But that was the point. Apple wasn't doing anything wrong.
Greenpeace slammed Apple for (for example) not saying anything about the use of certain nasty chemicals and so on in their products, and heaping praise (relatively) on companies like HP for saying "we'll make a plan on how to stop using these chemicals next year".
As it turned out, Apple had stopped using most of the chemicals many years before, and those that were still in use were being phased out (eg mercury, lead, other nasties), so were way ahead of companies like HP and Dell.
So, Greenpeace was calling Apple out for not doing things it had already done years ago and giving them shit for it.
It did succeed in waking the dragon, so to speak, but anyone with a brain who was reading Apple's statement understands what a huge backfire it turned out to be for Greenpeace, so they quickly repositioned their attacks as "oh, well we just wanted them to tell us what they were doing so the consumer would be better informed". Bullshit. They are back tracking spectacularly because they didn't expect Apple to say "oh yeah, BFS - haven't used them for 12 years. Lead? Used to use 1kg per machine, now down to 2 grams, Mercury? Yeah, we know it;s bad and are already phasing in mercury free backlights on all LCD computers. Polystyrene packaging? Yeah, we cut usage of that by $large_percentage many years ago...."
If I accuse you of something, hoping to get you negative publicity, and it turns out that I'm lying out of my ass, the shit will hit the fan, as it did here.
But Greenpeace goes about the message of environmentalism (which I agree with) in the same way the tobacco industry went about trying to show that cigarettes were healthy.
They use no science, they arbitrarily dismiss technologies because they don;t understand them (or wilfully misunderstand or misrepresent them), like nuclear power, fusion research, Apple's *actual* policy and track history on green issues and so on.
Ask a member of Greenpeace whether a coal or a nuclear power station releases more radiation into the environment and he'll say "duh, the nuclear one, obviously!". When you correct him and tell him it's the coal plant, he'll then go on about "well, if it blows up it will be like Chernobyl!!!!". When you point out that arguing modern reactors would blow up like chernobyl's reactor 4 is like trying to argue against air travel by claiming we can't afford any more Hindenburg disasters so we should stop flying now, then he'll talk about long term storage of nuclear waste.
Now that you've finally come round to one of the genuine problems with fission power, he'll wail on about pollution, and 10,000 year garbage dumps etc. I even argued with a member of Greenpeace who didn;t understand half life properly and argued *in my favour*, and even when I pointed out that the waste with a half life of 100 years wouldn't be gone in 100 years (like he said) but more like 200+ years (ie, worse than he said) just yelled at me that he knew what half life meant and that I didn;t understand it!
Yes, clearly these are the people you want driving environmental issues and public opinion on future and current technology. They can't even get simple concepts right about the stuff they are so against, even when it's pointed out to them *in their favour*.
For the record, I am both pro-nuclear and pro-environmental - the two are not mutually exclusive as Greenpeace would have you believe. The more you see of them though, the more you realise they they just want us all to live caves and eat fruit.
If Greenpeace had been around when man first discovered fire, they would have told him it was dangerous and that we shouldn't use it to cook food because it destroys the environment and look at all that black stuff left behind! All that nutrient-rich, fertilising, plant-growth-promoting black stuff! It's all black and sooty and doesn't look like green fields and trees - it must be bad!
Ok, hyperbole, but you see my point. It's just hyperbole in the opposite direction of Greenpeace mixed with parody and satire.
Indeed, but it does contain quotes from Greenpeace, which I assume are accurate. Whether they are or not is a case for verification - you can ask the people involved (who are named in the article) if they said what was attributed to them.
And it's exactly this kind of thing that gets me about Greenpeace - Patrick Moore said it exactly: "By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism," Now, while I don;t believe the entire environmental movement has gone this way, Greenpeace certainly has.
They have taken this anti-technology stand on practically everything they don't understand - fusion power being one of them.
Fusion power could be the answer to long term, large scale, clean electricity, and end forever the need to burn coal, oil, LNG or whatever else was once alive millions of years ago and is now flammable to make energy, but they want to stop it because they don't understand it.
Except it just further drives rational people who share their ideals away from them and makes them look like desperate losers.
I am an environmentalist, green, pro-recycling, green energy, save the planet, save the animals guy, but I want *nothing* to do with Greenpeace whatsoever.
They go about their agenda in totally the wrong way. Not just this targeting of Apple (and their prior attack on Apple for being "less green" than competitors when in reality, Apple had "gone green" with the suggestions Greenpeace made many years before that but just didn't tell anyone, but their assault on nuclear power with totally fictitious "tug at the heart strings" videos about how nuclear power can only ever result in Chernobyl-level accidents.
Ugh. Greenpeace, just go away already. You're scaring away people from being green.
But Securom doesn't just have the install limitation problem. It mandates what hardware and software you are "allowed" to run on your own system if you want to play the game.
If you have a second CD drive, the game won;t run. If you run certain alternative task managers (like process explorer), the game won't run. If you have certain iso-making software, the game won't run.
Not to mention, if you uninstall the game, you're still fucked, since you can't uninstall the malware.
I'm not going to install a game that won;t run unless I *physically disconnect my second CD drive* from my system because "if you have 2 CD drives, you must want to copy the game".
That's the problem though. You would have to prove that she wanted to kill Megan, and created the fake myspace page in order to do that.
Negligent homicide perhaps, but again, would you then have to start the bullying with the knowledge that you *might* kill her, but did it anyway...
Murder would be giving her a gift of a new belt, then phoning her up when you knew she was alone and pretending to be Josh and bullying her into killing herself with that belt.
I'm not sure that Lori Drew has the mental capacity to understand that her bullying of a mentally unstable, depressed 13 year old girl, and spreading the bullying into her school by sharing all the details she had gained would cause her to kill herself.
She said so much later, that "she didn't feel as guilty" because "Megan had tried to kill herself before". This gives you an indication of the mental capacity of this piece of human skin and organs, masquerading as a human. If you're reading Lori, that means "imitating". Sorry is that still too difficult? How about "pretending to be something else". Yeah, that will do.
Indeed, there's going to be a lot of outrage that she wasn't convicted of more serious offences, but there's a limited scope to what can be done to her.
If you make it too severe, then in similar cases where the defendant is totally innocent, you're going to have problems.
This is much like the attempt to reclassify downloading music and movies as a felony. Is it against the law? Yes. Is it a crime equal to grand theft auto or murder? No.
What this woman did was cowardly, stupid, abhorrent and vindictive, and almost certainly led the young girl to kill herself due to being bullied and psychologically manipulated by a grown (physically) but immature (mentally) woman who should really know better.
There is possibly a case for manslaughter, but in that case, you'd likely have to prove that the nasty cunt set out to kill Megan, instead of just set out to bully her, and you run the risk of her being acquitted.
Perhaps one day she'll feel guilty for killing a child, but the law and justice system just isn't set up to put her away for that, at least not without endangering the system itself.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a huge commitment to write a native client though, and the number of Mac and Linux subscribers may not provide enough justification.
It has got *a lot* better lately (I run EvE on a Mac with the Cider wrapper) compared to the Empyrean Age patch, so perhaps the Linux client, while not native, is a little better too.
If their installed non-windows base grows enough, then a native client may be on the cards, but right now they are just testing the waters to see who is out there willing to try EvE without using Windows.
CCP's efforts were a very shaky start for Mac (but then, given that they have a small user base by MMO standards in the first place, especially compared to Blizzard), it's understandable.
The recent QR patch, after tweaking, and with some updates to Cider, has made a world of difference to Mac performance in EVE. It still has problems - after running the game for any length of time, you need to log out and log back in again to fix graphical glitches in the rest of OS X (inability to scroll in Safari, totally white windows appearing with no content etc) that must be due to the Cider engine mucking something up with the window server, but it's much better than it was.
It's no native client like the WoW Mac client, but it has allowed me to try out the game.
Proving a negative eh? Start with an easy one at least.
Coast guard?
Just to latch onto this with someone who's had more experience with it, I just recently installed Ubuntu 8.10 onto my 15" Powerbook to give it a go (1.5Ghz, ATI 64Mb graphics), and it runs much hotter than OS X.
I was expecting something like this, since obviously all the OS X software is tuned up to work with the Powerbook, and that Ubuntu is doing its best but can never be as good [at using the sensors and fans] as OS X without extra help from Apple.
I installed the sensor applet and am getting consistent 50C and 54-55C temps on the cpu and gpu, and the fan seems to have "on" and "off" modes - I am assuming then, that this is down to Ubuntu's less than perfect ability to monitor and control the fans, and also the graphics driver for the ATI chipset not being as optimised as the one provided for OS X.
I am a little lost beyond this, although I guess that's what this experiment is all about, since my previous Linux experience is nil (other than the little bit of Terminal stuff I have been doing in OS X).
Trust me, I wish I had the points to mod it down into oblivion. The AC post isn't really the advocate you want for the Mac platform.
Last time I touched a woman's kernel I panicked.
Can they write me a cheque and have a billion left over. It'll certainly ensure that I buy a new Cinema Display this Christmas, or that new MacBook Pro I've been eyeing up.
I just gave my old G4 powerbook a new lease of life with Ubuntu, but 23 million dollars will keep me on the upgrade cycle a little longer :)
His left hand uses vi, his right hand uses emacs.
And no, I have no idea how he handles meta keys. Nose probably.
About that part 3, about iPod being "compatible" with Windows Media files. Where does Joe read this? On Apple's site with all the details on the iPod?
Audio formats supported: AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3, and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF, and WAV
Those specs are the same for the iPod "classic" the iPod touch, the iPod nano and the iPod shuffle.
Did Joe read that the iPod was compatible on some other website? Or did the guy in the shop tell him (assuming he didn't buy it from an Apple store).
The iPod has never played WMA files, DRM-encumbered or not.
I spotted this years ago when I sat my A levels and GCSEs (back before you need UCAS points and actually needed "this number of As, this number of Bs etc).
I have a GCSE textbook from back when GCSEs were new - some of the questions in it relate to maths that is now not taught until A level. I have an O-level maths textbook too - it could substitute quite easily for a current A level textbook in some areas.
There's no doubt that the exams are getting easier, and perhaps calculus has no need to be on the GCSE maths exam (if the aim of the maths GCSE is to give every 16 year old basic understanding of maths to help them in the real world), and belongs in the A level syllabus instead, where it becomes more relevant to someone who may need to use it in a future field (like an engineering degree).
The trouble is, I think it's just slipping further and further down. I remember on my chemistry GCSE paper there was a photo of a car (an Austin Meastro!) that covered half of the page, with a question underneath that said "suggest a material that the windscreen could be made of (2)"
A silly enough question as it is, but 2 marks? Geez. A mark for laminated, a mark for glass perhaps? I have no idea.
Well, it depends if you believe Apple's environmental statements (which go into some depth) on their website - they state that they were well ahead of several others in the industry, and ahead of the EU regulations for things like Lead. All of their products (according to Apple's site) complied with the new EU laws 2 years before the law came into effect.
As for BFS, yes that was a typo, I meant to type BFRs - Apple also has a statement that they are eliminating all BFRs and PVC (and in fact as much bromine and chlorine in general) from their products.
I'm just going by statements made by Apple themselves, on their own website - not a third party article or "bromide science forum" special interest. They have stated publicly that they will remove all bromine from their products in fact - so much for cozying up to ulterior motives.
Greenpeace moaned that Apple "weren't doing anything" (when in fact they were, and have been for some time) yet on the other hand praised HP for "promising to make a plan about how to deal with, for example BFRs, in the future". This has nothing to do with their attempts to work out what Apple's hardware contains and everything to do with expecting Apple to get a bloody nose and then backpedalling and changing their intent because Apple punched back - Greenpeace were not expecting Apple to have done anything, and the sudden release of exactly what they have been doing (industry leading in fact, assuming you believe Apple's own website), so now Greenpeace are repositioning it as a "well, we're scrabbling around for something else to make them look bad since our initial PR assault backfired".
Not that I think Apple is a perfect company by any means, or that they haven't done some crappy things in the past, but it's strongly evident that they have been at the forefront of recycling, energy management, environmental issues and environmental impact in the industry, long before it became good PR, or before Greenpeace got on their back to "go green".
Yeah, the advocate a huge offshore wind farm development (which is perfectly sound) but neglect to tell anyone that a 50km offshore farm has severe logistical problems - cabling that much power back to land has resistance losses, huge economic cost, large infrastructure cost. I'm not saying that large scale solar thermal or wind farms are a bad idea, but Greenpeace has a "it must only be wind/tidal/solar/CHP or nothing else! wah wah!" and will shoot down any attempt you have to try and widen the debate.
They have dismissed fusion as a "dangerous toy" while we're still working on it. They are only informed on the issues they want to be informed on - anything they dismiss (like nuclear fusion, nuclear fission) they simply wave the propaganda wand over.
Consider this - in their new DVD, Greenpeace states that new nuclear reactors will do nothing (or almost nothing) to help CO2 emission reductions, saying that nuclear can only generate electricity and that 86% of transport and heating is done via oil.
Ok, great - looks bad for nuclear power. But wait! They want to replace all those nuclear stations with wind and tidal generators! So, tell me again how those wind and tidal generators heat your house or move your car (remember, if nuclear can only generate electricity, and it's being discounted because of that, then you have to also exclude the fact that wind and tidal can only generate electricity.....)
Solar thermal can help heat your house (and solar thermal with flat panels is an excellent way to provide domestic hot water), but there's no reason why you can't have solar thermal and nuclear.
You can't have it both ways.
Of course I want renewable energy - the cleaner and cheaper the better. However, dismissing fusion research and fission power (which is reliable, safe, clean and high density) is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
We'd be doing just fine without Greenpeace. Al Gore was trumpeting climate change and actually trying to do something about it since the 70s (as just one high profile example), and there are several other "green" interest groups that don't resort to the sort of thing Greenpeace goes after.
Their latest film promoting renewables over nuclear no longer mentions the "no more chernobyls" line, at least, the new one on the UK greenpeace site is well made ad refrains from sensationalism more than usual, but they are very quick to dismiss nuclear and promote their agenda without telling you about the costs of it.
A comment on the greenpeace site sums up my feelings pretty succinctly. I don;t want to just cut and paste it in, but it is worth a read as to why nuclear is still a necessary part of the energy generating system of the future, along with other renewable sources too.
Total reliance on the methods they propose in the video is not the solution - they infer that using CHP, tidal and wind all together will neatly wrap up the whole of the UK's electricity generating needs when it just isn't that simple.
Nuclear may be expensive, but it is a proven technology moving into the fourth generation of its life cycle that can produce large amounts of power in small amounts of space with almost no CO2 emission after construction. It is reliable, scalable, high-density, and small footprint - a single power plant can provide 1500MW, equivalent to (being generous) 1000 wind turbines, which is a logistical nightmare - if you site them offshore you need to move the power to land, if you build them on land you need space.
The comment I think sums it up nicely is by a guy near the bottom of this page called dcoughlan.
I'm not trying to replace renewable energy with nuclear power, but at the present time, while we work towards green solutions, nuclear is one of the cleanest, most reliable, high-density sources of power we have.
Damn you!
I want a steak now!
Maybe I should join People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.
But that was the point. Apple wasn't doing anything wrong.
Greenpeace slammed Apple for (for example) not saying anything about the use of certain nasty chemicals and so on in their products, and heaping praise (relatively) on companies like HP for saying "we'll make a plan on how to stop using these chemicals next year".
As it turned out, Apple had stopped using most of the chemicals many years before, and those that were still in use were being phased out (eg mercury, lead, other nasties), so were way ahead of companies like HP and Dell.
So, Greenpeace was calling Apple out for not doing things it had already done years ago and giving them shit for it.
It did succeed in waking the dragon, so to speak, but anyone with a brain who was reading Apple's statement understands what a huge backfire it turned out to be for Greenpeace, so they quickly repositioned their attacks as "oh, well we just wanted them to tell us what they were doing so the consumer would be better informed". Bullshit. They are back tracking spectacularly because they didn't expect Apple to say "oh yeah, BFS - haven't used them for 12 years. Lead? Used to use 1kg per machine, now down to 2 grams, Mercury? Yeah, we know it;s bad and are already phasing in mercury free backlights on all LCD computers. Polystyrene packaging? Yeah, we cut usage of that by $large_percentage many years ago...."
If I accuse you of something, hoping to get you negative publicity, and it turns out that I'm lying out of my ass, the shit will hit the fan, as it did here.
But Greenpeace goes about the message of environmentalism (which I agree with) in the same way the tobacco industry went about trying to show that cigarettes were healthy.
They use no science, they arbitrarily dismiss technologies because they don;t understand them (or wilfully misunderstand or misrepresent them), like nuclear power, fusion research, Apple's *actual* policy and track history on green issues and so on.
Ask a member of Greenpeace whether a coal or a nuclear power station releases more radiation into the environment and he'll say "duh, the nuclear one, obviously!". When you correct him and tell him it's the coal plant, he'll then go on about "well, if it blows up it will be like Chernobyl!!!!". When you point out that arguing modern reactors would blow up like chernobyl's reactor 4 is like trying to argue against air travel by claiming we can't afford any more Hindenburg disasters so we should stop flying now, then he'll talk about long term storage of nuclear waste.
Now that you've finally come round to one of the genuine problems with fission power, he'll wail on about pollution, and 10,000 year garbage dumps etc. I even argued with a member of Greenpeace who didn;t understand half life properly and argued *in my favour*, and even when I pointed out that the waste with a half life of 100 years wouldn't be gone in 100 years (like he said) but more like 200+ years (ie, worse than he said) just yelled at me that he knew what half life meant and that I didn;t understand it!
Yes, clearly these are the people you want driving environmental issues and public opinion on future and current technology. They can't even get simple concepts right about the stuff they are so against, even when it's pointed out to them *in their favour*.
For the record, I am both pro-nuclear and pro-environmental - the two are not mutually exclusive as Greenpeace would have you believe. The more you see of them though, the more you realise they they just want us all to live caves and eat fruit.
If Greenpeace had been around when man first discovered fire, they would have told him it was dangerous and that we shouldn't use it to cook food because it destroys the environment and look at all that black stuff left behind! All that nutrient-rich, fertilising, plant-growth-promoting black stuff! It's all black and sooty and doesn't look like green fields and trees - it must be bad!
Ok, hyperbole, but you see my point. It's just hyperbole in the opposite direction of Greenpeace mixed with parody and satire.
Indeed, but it does contain quotes from Greenpeace, which I assume are accurate. Whether they are or not is a case for verification - you can ask the people involved (who are named in the article) if they said what was attributed to them.
And it's exactly this kind of thing that gets me about Greenpeace - Patrick Moore said it exactly: "By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism," Now, while I don;t believe the entire environmental movement has gone this way, Greenpeace certainly has.
They have taken this anti-technology stand on practically everything they don't understand - fusion power being one of them.
Fusion power could be the answer to long term, large scale, clean electricity, and end forever the need to burn coal, oil, LNG or whatever else was once alive millions of years ago and is now flammable to make energy, but they want to stop it because they don't understand it.
Except it just further drives rational people who share their ideals away from them and makes them look like desperate losers.
I am an environmentalist, green, pro-recycling, green energy, save the planet, save the animals guy, but I want *nothing* to do with Greenpeace whatsoever.
They go about their agenda in totally the wrong way. Not just this targeting of Apple (and their prior attack on Apple for being "less green" than competitors when in reality, Apple had "gone green" with the suggestions Greenpeace made many years before that but just didn't tell anyone, but their assault on nuclear power with totally fictitious "tug at the heart strings" videos about how nuclear power can only ever result in Chernobyl-level accidents.
Ugh. Greenpeace, just go away already. You're scaring away people from being green.
But Securom doesn't just have the install limitation problem. It mandates what hardware and software you are "allowed" to run on your own system if you want to play the game.
If you have a second CD drive, the game won;t run.
If you run certain alternative task managers (like process explorer), the game won't run.
If you have certain iso-making software, the game won't run.
Not to mention, if you uninstall the game, you're still fucked, since you can't uninstall the malware.
I'm not going to install a game that won;t run unless I *physically disconnect my second CD drive* from my system because "if you have 2 CD drives, you must want to copy the game".
You'd have to ask the DA. My only suggestion is that they didn't have anything that would stick.
That's the problem though. You would have to prove that she wanted to kill Megan, and created the fake myspace page in order to do that.
Negligent homicide perhaps, but again, would you then have to start the bullying with the knowledge that you *might* kill her, but did it anyway...
Murder would be giving her a gift of a new belt, then phoning her up when you knew she was alone and pretending to be Josh and bullying her into killing herself with that belt.
I'm not sure that Lori Drew has the mental capacity to understand that her bullying of a mentally unstable, depressed 13 year old girl, and spreading the bullying into her school by sharing all the details she had gained would cause her to kill herself.
She said so much later, that "she didn't feel as guilty" because "Megan had tried to kill herself before". This gives you an indication of the mental capacity of this piece of human skin and organs, masquerading as a human. If you're reading Lori, that means "imitating". Sorry is that still too difficult? How about "pretending to be something else". Yeah, that will do.
Nah, I'll just take you back to earth and have a junior officer throw you out of an airlock in hyperspace.
Indeed, there's going to be a lot of outrage that she wasn't convicted of more serious offences, but there's a limited scope to what can be done to her.
If you make it too severe, then in similar cases where the defendant is totally innocent, you're going to have problems.
This is much like the attempt to reclassify downloading music and movies as a felony. Is it against the law? Yes. Is it a crime equal to grand theft auto or murder? No.
What this woman did was cowardly, stupid, abhorrent and vindictive, and almost certainly led the young girl to kill herself due to being bullied and psychologically manipulated by a grown (physically) but immature (mentally) woman who should really know better.
There is possibly a case for manslaughter, but in that case, you'd likely have to prove that the nasty cunt set out to kill Megan, instead of just set out to bully her, and you run the risk of her being acquitted.
Perhaps one day she'll feel guilty for killing a child, but the law and justice system just isn't set up to put her away for that, at least not without endangering the system itself.