but everyone forgets how much more powerful they are today than they were in 1957
Actually, they're not more powerful. In 1957 they were all about the big massive multi-megaton bombs because they hadn't thought about the inverse-cube law of expanding spheres, or the idea of MIRVs. The old massive 10Mt Castle-Bravo type weapons would vaporize the entire city and half the countryside around it, but is so freakin big you can't get it onto anything smaller than an old Titan-II; and require massive amounts of maintenance just to keep in active service.
Now we use more sophisticated, smaller weapons which can "dial-a-yield" from a Hiroshima-sized 20Kt explosion, to a 475Kt weapon which would take out a good chunk of a city. Oh, and we can put multiple on a single booster, just to make sure we can deliver more destruction than a multi-megaton weapon could (again, inverse-cube law), with less cost and less waste of nuclear material in the form of fallout from unreacted tamper. They also require much less maintenance - no messy cryogenics or dewar flasks to deal with.
Accuracy matters too. The missile crews at Vandenberg AFB practice hitting 55-gallon drum sized targets at atolls in the south Pacific from just north of Los Angeles. Not only do we want to be able to flatten a chunk of a city with a push of a button and the turning of a couple keys, we want to be able to put that device through your bedroom window before it goes off.
You realize that DU is an alpha emitter, right? The radiation it gives of only penetrates a few inches of air before it loses it's energy. A sheet of paper will stop the radiation from depleted Uranium.
The only radiological concerns from DU are if you ingest it somehow - breathe it in, eat it, inject it, etc.; and even then the heavy metal toxicity is likely to kill you before any radiological damage would. The World Health Organization says that an equal mass of DU would emit 60% less radiation than a lump of natural Uranium, which already doesn't emit enough to cause undue harm.
No, Fukushima was not. First criticality at Fukushima was in the 1970s, meaning that construction started in the late 60s, meaning that they place was designed in the late 50's.
I don't think we can call anything that is 60 years old in design "advanced." Please stop distorting facts with your bias.
Have you been in an Apple Store lately? There's no less than 30 employees in there doing nothing but answering questions at any time. Every hour of every day looks like a convention booth in those places.
If current employees are unhappy with their situation, they always have the choice of doing something to improve their situation. Hell, Apple will even foot some of the bill if that something involves higher education. I wish my job did that.
Yeah, we get it. You hated Apple before it was cool to hate Apple. How original and prophetic of you.
You realize that Apple actually *did* to the due diligence here and paid $4.5M for the trademark from the actual owner, right? The plaintiff here doesn't even own the iCloud mark, never did, and let someone else trademark it, and let them keep that trademark without a peep for over two years.
Only now that one of the most profitable companies in existence is involved, do they speak up. What a coincidence.
I'm pretty sure he's not trying to force them to carry certain types of apps. He's wondering why some blowhard senators can pressure Apple into restricting freedom of speech, which is exactly what the First Amendment is about - Congress limiting speech. They're just doing it by proxy via threats of congressional investigation and all the expense that comes with it; rather than introducing legislation that they know will go exactly nowhere, specifically because of the First Amendment.
The great American cities we have today would have never been built if there was this much fear of the remote possibility of injury or death. Under today's mindset, you would have never had people walking the beams in Manhattan in order to build all that, as quickly and cheaply as they did.
People are dying TODAY from coal and oil. Thousands of them per year. Can we please build something that only has a chance of killing people, rather than assuring people die?
He's actually always done this. When Apple has business with the City of Cupertino, he's the one that shows up to talk to the city council, not some PR flack or a lawyer.
So you don't think there might be a correlation between extending the life of stuff that's currently built, and the political inability to build newer stuff to replace it?
It's an app that you get from the app store. You copy/Applications/Install Mac OS X.app to your media of choice. This is how it has worked since the first developer preview like 5 months ago.
I'm pretty sure that destruction of property and life to further your ideological or political beliefs is exactly what terrorism is. Please explain the difference between you blowing up an Apple Store because you don't like what they do, versus an eco-terrorist blowing up a Hummer dealership because they don't like what they do.
Or, a Hamas terrorist blowing up a pizza parlor in Tel Aviv because they don't like Israel.
So instead of allowing the courts to give Apple the legal punch in the chin they need on this, you'd rather destroy property and potentially murder people?
And people on Slashdot call the Apple fans the zealot cultists. How about instead of threatening violence and terrorism (not "they hate our freedom" terrorism, but honest-to-goodness blowing up things and people you don't like due to some off-your-axle fanatic view terrorism), you donate to someone like the EFF who will support the legal defense of the Right of First Sale, and your home-town savings bank?
No, instead the coal plant is just spewing toxins, carcinogens, and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by the gigaton in the normal course of operation; raising asthma and lung cancer rates of everyone downwind by significant quantities.
Also, you might try to make the point that the single coal-burning generation station is in Boardman, OR; which is ~100 miles from Prineville. However, you'll see from this map that Prineville is right next to a natural gas hub, and two hydro generating stations on the Deschutes River.
So, please cite where your 60% figure comes from? Thanks.
Oh, you mean those guys that have been either kicked out of office by way of the ballot box, or had the pleasure of dealing with primary challengers attacking them from the right?
Yeah, there's a reason those Tea Party guys have gotten so much attention recently, and it's not just because of the ease of making junior-high level jokes about the name.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and the war in Korea didn't end long ago - technically we're still at war with them, with an armistice in place. There hasn't ever been a peace treaty. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Armistice_.28July_1953_.E2.80.93_November_1954.29
but everyone forgets how much more powerful they are today than they were in 1957
Actually, they're not more powerful. In 1957 they were all about the big massive multi-megaton bombs because they hadn't thought about the inverse-cube law of expanding spheres, or the idea of MIRVs. The old massive 10Mt Castle-Bravo type weapons would vaporize the entire city and half the countryside around it, but is so freakin big you can't get it onto anything smaller than an old Titan-II; and require massive amounts of maintenance just to keep in active service.
Now we use more sophisticated, smaller weapons which can "dial-a-yield" from a Hiroshima-sized 20Kt explosion, to a 475Kt weapon which would take out a good chunk of a city. Oh, and we can put multiple on a single booster, just to make sure we can deliver more destruction than a multi-megaton weapon could (again, inverse-cube law), with less cost and less waste of nuclear material in the form of fallout from unreacted tamper. They also require much less maintenance - no messy cryogenics or dewar flasks to deal with.
Accuracy matters too. The missile crews at Vandenberg AFB practice hitting 55-gallon drum sized targets at atolls in the south Pacific from just north of Los Angeles. Not only do we want to be able to flatten a chunk of a city with a push of a button and the turning of a couple keys, we want to be able to put that device through your bedroom window before it goes off.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_36_nuclear_bomb (1950s era bomb, 10Mt yield)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W87 (warhead designed for Peacekeeper/MX designed in the 80s, retrofitted to the Minuteman-III; 450Kt yield estimated)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88 (current Trident-II warhead designed in the 70s; miniaturized for SLBMs. 475Kt yield estimated)
You realize that DU is an alpha emitter, right? The radiation it gives of only penetrates a few inches of air before it loses it's energy. A sheet of paper will stop the radiation from depleted Uranium.
The only radiological concerns from DU are if you ingest it somehow - breathe it in, eat it, inject it, etc.; and even then the heavy metal toxicity is likely to kill you before any radiological damage would. The World Health Organization says that an equal mass of DU would emit 60% less radiation than a lump of natural Uranium, which already doesn't emit enough to cause undue harm.
The response to that solution will tell you who is racist.
Because clearly the only possible opposite viewpoint is racism. I'm glad you're here to tell us these things.
Thanks for giving us the 2011 version of "You're either with us, or with the terrorists."
Yes, Japan is advanced.
No, Fukushima was not. First criticality at Fukushima was in the 1970s, meaning that construction started in the late 60s, meaning that they place was designed in the late 50's.
I don't think we can call anything that is 60 years old in design "advanced." Please stop distorting facts with your bias.
Have you been in an Apple Store lately? There's no less than 30 employees in there doing nothing but answering questions at any time. Every hour of every day looks like a convention booth in those places.
If current employees are unhappy with their situation, they always have the choice of doing something to improve their situation. Hell, Apple will even foot some of the bill if that something involves higher education. I wish my job did that.
No, but buying the registered trademark from the person who registered it, does. Hint: that trademark was not registered by iCloud Communications.
Yeah, we get it. You hated Apple before it was cool to hate Apple. How original and prophetic of you.
You realize that Apple actually *did* to the due diligence here and paid $4.5M for the trademark from the actual owner, right? The plaintiff here doesn't even own the iCloud mark, never did, and let someone else trademark it, and let them keep that trademark without a peep for over two years.
Only now that one of the most profitable companies in existence is involved, do they speak up. What a coincidence.
I'm pretty sure he's not trying to force them to carry certain types of apps. He's wondering why some blowhard senators can pressure Apple into restricting freedom of speech, which is exactly what the First Amendment is about - Congress limiting speech. They're just doing it by proxy via threats of congressional investigation and all the expense that comes with it; rather than introducing legislation that they know will go exactly nowhere, specifically because of the First Amendment.
A very rational and well thought out counter-argument. Well done.
The great American cities we have today would have never been built if there was this much fear of the remote possibility of injury or death. Under today's mindset, you would have never had people walking the beams in Manhattan in order to build all that, as quickly and cheaply as they did.
People are dying TODAY from coal and oil. Thousands of them per year. Can we please build something that only has a chance of killing people, rather than assuring people die?
He's actually always done this. When Apple has business with the City of Cupertino, he's the one that shows up to talk to the city council, not some PR flack or a lawyer.
So you don't think there might be a correlation between extending the life of stuff that's currently built, and the political inability to build newer stuff to replace it?
Permanently homeless? So there's some law or physical force preventing them from ever having a home again?
I don't think you're saying what you meant to say.
Usually I'm all for a fight between bad guys and other bad guys, but in this particular case the collateral damage is rather high.
It's like bad guys vs. bad guys, where the weaponry involved are 400kt nukes.
It's an app that you get from the app store. You copy /Applications/Install Mac OS X.app to your media of choice. This is how it has worked since the first developer preview like 5 months ago.
The developer preview is a self-contained installer app. You copy that to a USB drive / DVD-ROM.
Hard stuff.
I'm pretty sure that destruction of property and life to further your ideological or political beliefs is exactly what terrorism is. Please explain the difference between you blowing up an Apple Store because you don't like what they do, versus an eco-terrorist blowing up a Hummer dealership because they don't like what they do.
Or, a Hamas terrorist blowing up a pizza parlor in Tel Aviv because they don't like Israel.
Damn, no place to store the waste? Sounds like a really good reason to work on perfecting reprocessing.
That particular issue can be solved in more than one way, and the other way is better.
This seems like a good reason to fill the USB ports of every system on the secure operations network with epoxy.
So instead of allowing the courts to give Apple the legal punch in the chin they need on this, you'd rather destroy property and potentially murder people?
And people on Slashdot call the Apple fans the zealot cultists. How about instead of threatening violence and terrorism (not "they hate our freedom" terrorism, but honest-to-goodness blowing up things and people you don't like due to some off-your-axle fanatic view terrorism), you donate to someone like the EFF who will support the legal defense of the Right of First Sale, and your home-town savings bank?
Don't forget, Microsoft has a nice disclaimer that they ship with Windows regarding using it in conjunction with nuclear facilities:
http://www.theserverside.com/blogs/thread.tss?thread_id=38213
Yes, they wrote it specifically about Java, but it's still there.
No, instead the coal plant is just spewing toxins, carcinogens, and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by the gigaton in the normal course of operation; raising asthma and lung cancer rates of everyone downwind by significant quantities.
Making up stats is fun, I guess, but Oregon has it's energy production made up in the following manner:
Coal: 39%
Hydro: 38%
Natural Gas: 15%
Biomass: 3%
Wind and Geo: 1%
(source: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/docs/EnergyUseOR.pdf )
Also, you might try to make the point that the single coal-burning generation station is in Boardman, OR; which is ~100 miles from Prineville. However, you'll see from this map that Prineville is right next to a natural gas hub, and two hydro generating stations on the Deschutes River.
So, please cite where your 60% figure comes from? Thanks.
Oh, you mean those guys that have been either kicked out of office by way of the ballot box, or had the pleasure of dealing with primary challengers attacking them from the right?
Yeah, there's a reason those Tea Party guys have gotten so much attention recently, and it's not just because of the ease of making junior-high level jokes about the name.