The running joke I heard was that the best place to eat in Paris is at the top of the Eiffel tower as it was the one spot in the city where you couldn't see the damn thing.
Your problem is that you have to convince people that nuclear accidents won't happen again. This is a tough argument to make because nobody is going to believe what a govt or a corporation says especially when it is phrased as "trust us, this time we got it right".
EVERY accident has been traced to some moron screwing with the safetys, or doing something they shouldn't. Let the computers do their job and there wont be any accidents.
Coal power plants are cheaper and faster to build. They pollute more but nobody cares about that because polluting doesn't cost money to the company selling the power.
A single 20 kg fuel bundle, half a meter long, can supply 100 homes with electricity for a year. The same electricity from a fossil station would require 400 tonnes (400,000 kg) of coal, or 270,000 liters (almost 60,000 gallons) of oil, or 300 million liters (10 million cubic feet) of natural gas. That 400 tonnes of coal would go on to produce about 100 tonnes of ash, 1000 tonnes of CO2 gas, and 5 tonnes of acid gas.
Pollution from coal skills between 4000 and 16000 people per year. Are you saying these people don't care?
Nuclear power plants can not be built on geologically unstable areas.
Gee, cause thats real difficult to find.
You have to shove the waste down somebodies throat. Nobody wants it in their back yard so you have to force people to live near radioactive waste.
Here in Ontario where 50% of the power needs come from nuclear, all waste is stored on-site at the nuclear plant. Not a lot of fuel is used so there really isn't a lot of waste.
It also pisses off environmentalists but in a republican controlled white house, congress and supreme court that's not such a big deal.
I'd argue nuclear is probably the most environmentally friendly large scale option we have. It's a zero emission power source. Fossil feels are obviously terrible. Hydroelectric means damming rivers, flooding vast areas and interrupting fish breeding and animal migrations - an ecological disaster. If you cover the earth's land mass with wind turbines you meet 30% of the worlds power needs. That's real friendly to the environment, isn't it? Solar is even more inefficient than wind. Now which is more environmentally friendly?
Where do you get this cost analysis from? Nuclear power costs an awful lot - the plant costs phenomenal amounts of money to set up, then there's the cost of mining and shipping the uranium. Plus storage of the nuclear waste.
From actual cost analysis reports produced by our provincial energy producer. Taking EVERYTHING into account, average energy costs are $0.05/kWh for nuclear, $0.07/kWh for fossil, about $0.12/kWh for wind and $0.20/kWh for solar.
The simple reason is that nuclear benefits from sheer volume of production. A $7 billion dollar nuclear reactor serves 2 million homes. A $1.5 million dollar wind turbine serves 250 homes. Now take into account that a nuclear reactor has a uptime of 90-95% while a wind turbine is only producing power for 20-40% of the time. Over the lifetime of both, nuclear is much cheaper.
With wind, there is a relatively small set-up cost and then maybe a marginal maintenance cost, compared to nuclear which has a very large set-up cost AND a substantial maintenance cost.
See above. If you work out the maintenance cost per house powered, nuclear is a lot less.
Generates nuclear waste that must be stored securely and guarded indefinitely, requires mining and transport of radioactive materials which also must be guarded carefully
Here in Ontario nuclear makes up about 50% of our power needs. Waste is stored securely onsite - no need to transport at all. A nuclear reactor providing power for about two million people makes enough waste to fill a two car garage. Theres very little waste from nuclear compared to other technologies.
Also if countries would get off their collective asses and finish the fusion project, fusion reactors can take the current nuclear waste as fuel.
I agree with what you said, but you missed my point. The Saturn could go a lot faster but was limited to about 4-5 Gs. To go any faster would have probably killed the astronauts.
And high speed and high acceleration aren't necessarily related. With a gentle enough acceleration, people could survive moving up to near lightspeed just fine
Sure but we were taking about getting to the moon in 9 hours. To do that, with the two burns the Atlas was doing would mean exceeding 17 6's during launch. Definitely fatal.
I'm still not sure that science and God are mutually exclusive. Being a scientist does not mean that one cannot be religious. Being religious does not mean that one cannot be a scientist. Holes in scientific knowledge do not prove science wrong. Holes in religious knowledge do not prove religion wrong. Sometimes science and religion agree, sometimes they contradict one another.
I don't know of a single instance where science and religion disagree (although certain interpretations of religion disagree with science).
The official position of the Catholic church (representing the vast majority of Christians) is that science is correct, and the official interpretation of the bible does not contradict scientific understanding.
It isn't the 192kHz, it is the increased bit depth that makes the difference.
It's both. 24 bit but at 10KHz I guarantee you will sound like crap.
Drivel. The frame rate is 29.97 whether interlaced or progressive.
No, DVDs are made interlaced. A progressive player grabs two fames-odd then even and puts out a full frame. The next frame output has only the odd lines replaced from the source, and the whole frame is again output. Next frame same thing again but replacing the even lines.
The result is that only half the image gets updated every output frame. Therefore you get a full new image at half the framerate. That's why I said 'effectively'.
DVDs should have been made with progressive 24fps video, leaving the frame rate conversion and video format to the player.
So you think they would have encoded progressive on the DVD and then have the majority of players throw out half the information? Come on. And the frame rate is encoded to the TV frame rate, not the cinema framerate. This conversion is done during the encoding process, not in the DVD player.
I've no doubt that HD, like the new audio formats, is going to appeal to the purist fringe, but will it appeal to the general viewer who has only quite recently given up VHS?
Just recently ? I didn't even bother to set the clock on my VCR when I moved 5 years ago. I can't even remember if I turned it on or not since then. The last VHS tape I bought has to be at least 10 years ago. Most major rental places don't even carry the VHS anymore. Just little corner mom and pop places is the only place I've seen them.
Note that I mentioned a DVD player with a good upconverter. There are plenty that'll give you a digital 480p signal, so you can get a widescreen picture with 480 lines of resolution. Mine also does 720p and 1080i.
Sure it can up convert, but you are not getting anymore resolution. Its just scaling the pixels to cover more than one line. The source material is still only 480 lines (and actually the spec lets it go down to only 250 lines, depending on the recording mode and compression used)
DVD won't die and be replaced by HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.
Well I'd have to disagree with you there. A lot of my friends, and myself included, are no longer buying DVDs since they are only the old NTSC format. It doesn't make sense with HDTV here (or around the corner depending on your perspective).
Even though my DVD player supports DVD-Audio, I don't have a single DVD-Audio disc. I don't even have the player hooked up to support it. Why not? Because the DRM is so cripplingly inconvenient, it's not worth it.
Got a DVD audio disk by accident once. It was a hybrid disc - one side was encoded CD, the other side DVD Audio. It is amazing how much clearer the 192kHz recorded stuff is , especially with decent equipment. And I don't understand your difficulty with DRM. I just put the DVD in like any other and it played.
Similarly, DVD is good enough for the vast majority of people. I actually have an HDTV, and with a well-encoded DVD and a player with a good upconverter, the limiting factor on the image quality is either the source material or my eyesight.
DVD at its highest is only displaying 480 vertical lines and that is only by mixing together the odd and even lines (progressive DVD) which also effectively halves the framerate. You also get even less vertical resolution if you go for widescreen.
High definition (1080p) gives me 1080 lines vertical, over twice the NTSC resolution. There just is no comparison. Would you settle for 640x480 on your computer?
I was anticipating things that were more destructive. For example, "infecting the human race with a series of 'greedy genes'
When they said "dangerous", I didn't instinctively think "socially dangerous". I thought "wiping out large numbers of species, potentially including humans"-dangerous.
You should seriously consider getting some meds to control those genocidal tendancies of yours:-)
I don't know why everyone has such a problem with multiple meanings of the word 'free', yet they don't confuse the ten! different meanings of the word 'shit'
Well just look at the size of the rabbits in Australia - except they call them Kangaroos.
Seriously though, I remember one travel ad for Australia that went something like' don't worry about the snakes in the outback-none of them are bigger than our earthworms (but the earthworms are 6 feet long)'.
Could be a difference between U.S. and Canadian laws. Microsoft seems do be depending on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which is not applicable in Canada.
Besides, you are NOT legally allowed to build a copy of your car, that's a violation of at least the copyright on the car design, if not countless patents (which you'd get past if you bought those parts from the manufacturer but we're talking about building it yourself).
No, that's not it at all. I live in a city about 5 times larger than Detroit - I know how to drive on a freeway.
People put out of work in Detroit are understandably pissed off and are simply venting their frustration in the wrong direction. Maybe you should consider that explanation before insulting someone simply because you are an asshole.
Well the original poster was trying to say that Microsoft no longer licenses the games on XBox (like every other piece of software) but actually sells if to you so you 'own' it. I was pointing out by analogy that this world be highly unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
The running joke I heard was that the best place to eat in Paris is at the top of the Eiffel tower as it was the one spot in the city where you couldn't see the damn thing.
A single 20 kg fuel bundle, half a meter long, can supply 100 homes with electricity for a year. The same electricity from a fossil station would require 400 tonnes (400,000 kg) of coal, or 270,000 liters (almost 60,000 gallons) of oil, or 300 million liters (10 million cubic feet) of natural gas. That 400 tonnes of coal would go on to produce about 100 tonnes of ash, 1000 tonnes of CO2 gas, and 5 tonnes of acid gas.
Pollution from coal skills between 4000 and 16000 people per year. Are you saying these people don't care?
Gee, cause thats real difficult to find. Here in Ontario where 50% of the power needs come from nuclear, all waste is stored on-site at the nuclear plant. Not a lot of fuel is used so there really isn't a lot of waste. I'd argue nuclear is probably the most environmentally friendly large scale option we have. It's a zero emission power source. Fossil feels are obviously terrible. Hydroelectric means damming rivers, flooding vast areas and interrupting fish breeding and animal migrations - an ecological disaster. If you cover the earth's land mass with wind turbines you meet 30% of the worlds power needs. That's real friendly to the environment, isn't it? Solar is even more inefficient than wind. Now which is more environmentally friendly?From actual cost analysis reports produced by our provincial energy producer. Taking EVERYTHING into account, average energy costs are $0.05/kWh for nuclear, $0.07/kWh for fossil, about $0.12/kWh for wind and $0.20/kWh for solar.
The simple reason is that nuclear benefits from sheer volume of production. A $7 billion dollar nuclear reactor serves 2 million homes. A $1.5 million dollar wind turbine serves 250 homes. Now take into account that a nuclear reactor has a uptime of 90-95% while a wind turbine is only producing power for 20-40% of the time. Over the lifetime of both, nuclear is much cheaper.
See above. If you work out the maintenance cost per house powered, nuclear is a lot less.Also if countries would get off their collective asses and finish the fusion project, fusion reactors can take the current nuclear waste as fuel.
Why not nuclear? Half the cost per megawatt than wind, doesn't kill any birds, and doesn't pollute like coal and natural gas.
I agree with what you said, but you missed my point. The Saturn could go a lot faster but was limited to about 4-5 Gs. To go any faster would have probably killed the astronauts.
Sure but we were taking about getting to the moon in 9 hours. To do that, with the two burns the Atlas was doing would mean exceeding 17 6's during launch. Definitely fatal.
It's not just the time to restore the account. They had to search the system to find out how it happened and who did it. That can take a lot of time.
The simple answer is that the Saturn V was manned and there is only so fast you can accelerate before killing everyone onboard.
I don't know of a single instance where science and religion disagree (although certain interpretations of religion disagree with science).
The official position of the Catholic church (representing the vast majority of Christians) is that science is correct, and the official interpretation of the bible does not contradict scientific understanding.
Well if you sit for enough away and have a small enough screen, any signal will look sharp,
The result is that only half the image gets updated every output frame. Therefore you get a full new image at half the framerate. That's why I said 'effectively'.
So you think they would have encoded progressive on the DVD and then have the majority of players throw out half the information? Come on. And the frame rate is encoded to the TV frame rate, not the cinema framerate. This conversion is done during the encoding process, not in the DVD player.
Just recently ? I didn't even bother to set the clock on my VCR when I moved 5 years ago. I can't even remember if I turned it on or not since then. The last VHS tape I bought has to be at least 10 years ago. Most major rental places don't even carry the VHS anymore. Just little corner mom and pop places is the only place I've seen them.Nope, 1080p is the highest resolution spec for High Def. Until recently though hardware couldn't support it.
DVD at its highest is only displaying 480 vertical lines and that is only by mixing together the odd and even lines (progressive DVD) which also effectively halves the framerate. You also get even less vertical resolution if you go for widescreen.
High definition (1080p) gives me 1080 lines vertical, over twice the NTSC resolution. There just is no comparison. Would you settle for 640x480 on your computer?
Freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose'
I don't know why everyone has such a problem with multiple meanings of the word 'free', yet they don't confuse the ten! different meanings of the word 'shit'
Well just look at the size of the rabbits in Australia - except they call them Kangaroos.
Seriously though, I remember one travel ad for Australia that went something like' don't worry about the snakes in the outback-none of them are bigger than our earthworms (but the earthworms are 6 feet long)'.
Well it seems that the XBox does not ship with a EULA, but Microsoft is acting like it does: http://xbox-linux.sourceforge.net/docs/remotedelet e.html
Could be a difference between U.S. and Canadian laws. Microsoft seems do be depending on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which is not applicable in Canada.
So you're saying that all of the kit car resources such as this one http://www.kitcarsales.co.uk/ are illegal?No, that's not it at all. I live in a city about 5 times larger than Detroit - I know how to drive on a freeway.
People put out of work in Detroit are understandably pissed off and are simply venting their frustration in the wrong direction. Maybe you should consider that explanation before insulting someone simply because you are an asshole.
Well the original poster was trying to say that Microsoft no longer licenses the games on XBox (like every other piece of software) but actually sells if to you so you 'own' it. I was pointing out by analogy that this world be highly unlikely.
You're treating the product as just the physical media which it obviously isn't.
Probably, I don't remember them very well. Which version had the giant snake?