It takes a lot of arrogance from Apple to think they can upend a widespread and ubiquitous standard that has withstood the test of time, and force every single audio equipment to use a connector to connect with an iphone.
It would probably be easier to use a hammer with the iphone. Just place the iphone on a hard surface and smash it really hard with the hammer, thus smashing the iphone and the surface at the same time.
Can/. please link to the draft of the Bill so we can examine it in these stories.
Like Burr-Feinstein on Encryption this appears to be another 'look at the silly monkey' ploy. This time using the 'They're gonna take our guns' theme - while they make an attempt on your right to free association.
This is the game to be wary of that the mone^h^h^h^hcongresscritters are playing with people.
1. Propose a new bill with something controversial in it to address something (in this case Orlando shooting)
2. Get people furious about something that is irrelevant or you have no intention passing into law
4. Profit (extra campaign payments) and tell the people this is a step forward for freedom and democracy, that you are all safer
It's not even political anymore it's an all out assault on peoples rights via a shell game. Please next time this is submitted can we have the draft of the Bill to see if the definitions are similar. I would have looked for the draft myself however I am pressed for time.
The poor, hungry artists and students are usually hot and, well turn a trick for a rich person and there is an income. That's our equitable society in action.
This National Geographic article may also be interesting. It calculates that a train full of the waste materials would fill a train that would go around the entire equator, and then some. It's a great read if you are interested as even if it is shut down tommorrow our generation is still left with this stuff that was created before many of us were even born.
You're not arguing with me, you are arguing with the facts.
The lawsuits regularly filed by Greenpeace have become a significant part of the cost that must be considered in building a new nuclear plant
No they are not. All delays to nuclear projects receive government compensation, no matter how they occur. It is ludicrous to even suggest that greenpeace has the billions of dollars of resources the government has to overcome the funding set out in the act.
This has had a significant impact, along with the many followers of Greenpeace who are coached in the most fundamental misunderstandings of nuclear power by the organization
That has very little to do with the way the 2005 Energy act is laid out. What you are saying is that greenpeace has somehow lobbied congress in the drafting of the act to favour oil and coal interests. If you look at the facts what you are saying doesn't even make sense. I implore you to download and examine the 2005 Energy Act and you will be able to verify what I have said is true.
Widespread ignorance spread by Greenpeace has done more to cause global warming than any other single influence in America today
As I have said, that dogma is the common myth. The mining and use of oil and coal reserves and their continued use has done more to cause global warming than any other single influenceanywhere.
The main issue with IFR was the cost. The technology isn't cost competitive with other forms of nuclear power, let alone other clean forms of energy.
That's why I said (despite the lack of material technologies required) that make the reactor only viable for 60 years at most. I am not saying it is commercially feasible, just that it exist(ed) because we always hear these "if only" questions.
Financial debt can be written off, but energetic debt cannot and that is the main reason IFR is not feasible with existing materials technology.
It's just very hard to justify the investment at a time when most developed countries are trying to transition away from nuclear.
Indeed. My point is that people blame greenpeace and NIMBYs for the lack of technological development in Nuclear power when it is ample. They blame them for the lack of funding when if you look in the act it is right there, it just hasn't been utilized. They blame them for all sorts of things however if they took some time to examine the funding and regulatory mechanisms of nuclear power they would find that these issues lay at the root of the laws that govern the funding of nuclear power.
The nuclear industry has become a boondoggle for the oil and coal industry to raid US taxpayers billions of dollars via the deregulation of utilities and one has to look no further than the 2005 energy act to see that, the evidence is all there. If you are interested check it out, and look at the repeal of the PUCHA at the end which is a core 'new deal' act put in place after the US depression. That is what the nuclear industry refers to as 'deregulation' and oil and coal refer to as 'opportunity'.
What's sad is the fans have passion and tell better stories and understand the source material better that the studio's hired hacks. Look what a farce the rebooted Star Trek has become. Every reboot really.
Funny story: Once a puritan attorney-general decided to shut down the porno movie industry by prosecuting the actresses for prostitution and financers as pimps. He took a test case to court, but the judiciary bukakked all over his face with a finding that made clear the porno movie industry was legal.
Maybe we need a porno parody version of Star Trek with good stories and awesome porn, wouldn't that be every nerds wet wet wet dream? I mean porn has a problem with good stories and sci fi has a problem with good porn so, rule 34.
It would be funny if Paramount tried to fuck this fan over in court and ended up legitimizing fan films.
Fans are the cow that can be eternally milked for cash. A porno version of the prime directive would be the ultimate way to tell paramount to get fucked. Get para mounted.
So are we just ignoring the fact that Greenpeace has been consistently blocking nuclear plants for decades?
No, I don't think you are ignoring it, just not paying attention to what is relevant. It takes a few hours of research and checking the governing laws to see that this greenpeace/NIMBY argument is bogus and the vitrol attached to it is noise that deflects from blaming the real culprits impeding nuclear progress, the oil and coal industry.
We're just going to ignore this inconvenient truth?
Well that dogma is the common myth. I think you will find that the oil and coal lobby have far more influence over US energy policy than greenpeace ever will. As I pointed out in this post the oil and coal industry shape energy policy to suit themselves. Greenpeace certainly has had no influence over the 15 GenIII reactors proposed for the US and the link to their placement is in that post. Go see for yourself, I've also provided the sections in the Energy policy act that you should examine.
I think that truth is probably more inconvenient than many.
It's ridiculous to think greenpeace, hippys in combi vans, NIMBYS or any one else for that matter has any influence at all as all of their concerns are addressed in Section C.9. The process and economics involved in proposing and building a Nuclear Reactor is complex.
Especially when you consider there has been a bunch of GenIII reactors proposed. Only approved reactor types can be sited and the companies who propose them can apply for compensation for construction delays(2005 US Energy Act, SEC 600 onward). It's an excellent way for oil and coal utilities to legally defraud ratepayers as the original act that prevented that behaviour, a part of the new deal called PUCHA, was repealed there in the end of the 2005 Act. Under the Act, IIUC, each operator can claim up to $500,000,000 per site in construction delays.
The NIMBY accusations are a complete ad hom argument when they are made.
There's a valid and useful solution to the problem you state: you burn your waste actinides in a fast breeder. It generates power, vastly depletes the amount of waste you need to dispose of, and the remaining waste is far less hazardous.
That's not actually true. A Fast Breeder 'breeds' plutonium by transmuting other element. It was designed that way to service a plutonium economy until everyone realized there was nowhere to put the stuff.
Too bad then-President Carter killed all research into the technology back in the 1970's, not because it didn't work but because he feared nuclear proliferation.
First, whats wrong with that? Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, that's why the NNPT exists. I think the thing you are reffering to were ammendments for reprocessing, which were repealed by President Reagun.
The ironic thing is, this radioactive "waste" clearly still has lots of potential energy in it, or else it wouldn't be dangerous in the first place.
IMO, what's needed is a process to use this stuff after it's no longer suitable for use in the original reactor.
There was. A burner reactor called IFR. Research on the *operational* prototype was killed by Clinton and it's demolition was funded in the 2005 Energy Act signed into law by W.Bush. From everything I read about it (despite the lack of material technologies required) it was a remarkable success able to consume weapons grade material and DU. My main interest in it was from the perspective of nuclear disarmament and a way to make those materials useful in another way.
I'm pretty sure there are other reactor designs that would allow building smaller scale power generators that run on this waste material
Well in IFR's case it was an Integrated facility that would reprocess, store and burn wastes. The 2005 Energy act also funds research into some of the things IFR could do like produce electriciy and hydrogen for vehicle fuel (which would mean the current fleet of vehicles would still function) but where would that leave the oil and coal industry? You really only have to look to their lobbying efforts of both sides of politics to under why such a technology will never come to market even if it is proven technology.
Oil and Coal interests would prefer any advancement in Nuclear technology remain unavailable and that all the blame be attributable to greenpeace and NIMBYs.
There are. Vogtle 3 & 4 are going to use the AP1000 design from Westinghouse which is a Generation III reactor. It stores emergency coolant water in a tank over the reactor so you do not need to use pumps to cool the reactor in an emergency.
This is a new feature which has only been assesed in simulations for core damage frequency. Additionally the containment dome of an Advanced Passive (AP) has a lower thermal containment ratio (because there is less concrete in the dome) for containing the thermal energy of the reactor than a GenII. The dome in this design also has a new feature where it doubles as a heat exchanger in the event of an emergency.
The measurement for the maturity of these systems is the amount of reactor experience and IIUC much of that is coming from the AP600. The two features under discussion here have not been physically tested in the same way the GenII reactor was by the American Society for Mechanical Engineers. The way they did those tests was to physically pressurize an actual (unfuelled) reactor with compressed air. In those tests they uncovered the Basis Design Issues (BDI) that led to the Fukushima disaster decades later when TEPCO ignored the operational concerns required to mitigate those risks.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just pointing out that it is untested in anything other than simulations and that doing physical tests of the reactor installation leads to valuable operational experience to derive reactor experience. If it works, it will be tested in an emergency situation where you have to consider real risk *and* real impact as opposed to simulations.
The risk is exposing a BDI of the plant that was undiscovered and what is the impact of that issue. We know this happens because even on mature reactor systems BDIs are found and operational proceedures have to be adapted to cope with that. In AP's case you can't design those processes if you haven't done the physical testing.
Lets hope this new reactor has a trouble free and reliable service life.
The thing I find astounding about the GP's post is that it takes him 18 minutes to drink a cup of tea.
So did I!
I too drink about 5 or 6 cups a day,
It is probably a gross underestimate of my actual consumption. I frequently have one or two 1.5 litre *pots* in the afternoon.
Obviously the addition of cold milk goes a long way towards lowering the initial temperature but... I'll have to dig out a thermometer for an objective comparison with the GP.
I think the cold milk does make a difference - I splash some cold water in the cup when I want to drink it fast. Generally I just like to drink it and enjoy it. I would be interested in how the milk changes it if you end up measuring that.
Interesting. I would suggest that if you are just taking a sip when the tea is above 63C, then it would have lost several degrees by the time it hits your throat.
You're probably right, I simply had no idea what the temperature was and never thought to have a need to measure it until I read the article and since the laser thermometer was right there...
I wouldn't know, I don't eat their food as I don't find it appealing. Sure Mr AC was being a bit of a douche, but the facts were right - what did you want me to do, edit the post so it was more palatable?
Never been modded down for suggesting someone be modded up though, so people are probably a little sen-si-tive about the issue of criticizing McDonalds.
My concern was the lady who got hurt was being derided because people think she was being litigious, when in reality she suffered burns due to a company who didn't care enough about their customers to not have malfunctioning cup lids on super hot coffee served by industrial grade machines. What's the problem with turning them down a bit and why did it take a court case to do so?
They were told people were getting hurt, they did nothing, then the person who had the courage to face a multi-billion dollar company and all it's resources so others wouldn't get hurt gets ridiculed by people who haven't bothered to check the facts. Why should this poor woman suffer humiliation on top of injury when company X has millions of dollars of advertising money the news agencies want access to and can shape opinion.
There is a reason you aren't supposed to advertise to kids, so parents don't get nagged. They do and they all seem like a good reason for some vitrol and hatred to me.
So I don't really understand why you are shilling in marketing speak about 'healthy options', it sounds to me a lot like 'lite cigarettes'. Just don't try to allude that they care about anything else than another dollar.
I drink hot tea, no milk, no sugar - lashings of the stuff. I happen to have a laser thermometer here so I decided I would find out the comfortable temperature that I start drinking and the time it takes to get there for a 250ml ceramic cup - the kettle is boiling now.
Temperature of ceiling 19C, walls 20C. Windows open, no breeze heater or AC on in my office. 8 seconds from boil to pour.
Time start, 0 sec - 77C inside the cup, 48C outside cup
1:30 72C i, 64C o
Now I really like a tea, and I'm usually wanting to drink some as soon as possible, my control is waning and I'm having a sip at:
3:30 67C i, 65C o
second sip
6:10 63C i, 60C o
third sip - getting perfect now
7:10 62C i, 60C o
First gulp - still a bit burny
8:20 59 i, 59 o
Perfect!
9:26 57i, 54 o
Joy
10:20 54, 50
two gulps - nice and nice 2/3s done
11:50 54, 50
nom, nom
14:40 49, 49
ok getting close to slurp phase, I moved the cup around
16:22 50, 45
sluuurrppp - ahhhhhhhhhhh!
17:28 49, 33
last gulp - that was nice
18:40 48, 29
I really like a cup of tea and I'll have at least 6 per day, so perhaps that first sip is the one I have to resist or have some cold water. That said, if I'm desperate then my lips or top of my mouth will get burned first - probably different if you have milk and sugar. Now I know.
Slashdot Mirror
It takes a lot of arrogance from Apple to think they can upend a widespread and ubiquitous standard that has withstood the test of time, and force every single audio equipment to use a connector to connect with an iphone.
It would probably be easier to use a hammer with the iphone. Just place the iphone on a hard surface and smash it really hard with the hammer, thus smashing the iphone and the surface at the same time.
repeat until satisfied
Can /. please link to the draft of the Bill so we can examine it in these stories.
Like Burr-Feinstein on Encryption this appears to be another 'look at the silly monkey' ploy. This time using the 'They're gonna take our guns' theme - while they make an attempt on your right to free association.
This is the game to be wary of that the mone^h^h^h^hcongresscritters are playing with people.
It's not even political anymore it's an all out assault on peoples rights via a shell game. Please next time this is submitted can we have the draft of the Bill to see if the definitions are similar. I would have looked for the draft myself however I am pressed for time.
In other words, it's a psychopath.
You cannot serve.
The poor, hungry artists and students are usually hot and, well turn a trick for a rich person and there is an income. That's our equitable society in action.
Look at least he is not trying to give them Windows 10, that would really be insulting.
I think this is The Hanford website I think you are refering to.
This National Geographic article may also be interesting. It calculates that a train full of the waste materials would fill a train that would go around the entire equator, and then some. It's a great read if you are interested as even if it is shut down tommorrow our generation is still left with this stuff that was created before many of us were even born.
You can still buy a toilet with a tank over it too.
Don't forget steam ovens. I think that the subtleties of your comment is lost on many.
I cannot agree with you
You're not arguing with me, you are arguing with the facts.
The lawsuits regularly filed by Greenpeace have become a significant part of the cost that must be considered in building a new nuclear plant
No they are not. All delays to nuclear projects receive government compensation, no matter how they occur. It is ludicrous to even suggest that greenpeace has the billions of dollars of resources the government has to overcome the funding set out in the act.
This has had a significant impact, along with the many followers of Greenpeace who are coached in the most fundamental misunderstandings of nuclear power by the organization
That has very little to do with the way the 2005 Energy act is laid out. What you are saying is that greenpeace has somehow lobbied congress in the drafting of the act to favour oil and coal interests. If you look at the facts what you are saying doesn't even make sense. I implore you to download and examine the 2005 Energy Act and you will be able to verify what I have said is true.
Widespread ignorance spread by Greenpeace has done more to cause global warming than any other single influence in America today
As I have said, that dogma is the common myth. The mining and use of oil and coal reserves and their continued use has done more to cause global warming than any other single influence anywhere.
The main issue with IFR was the cost. The technology isn't cost competitive with other forms of nuclear power, let alone other clean forms of energy.
That's why I said (despite the lack of material technologies required) that make the reactor only viable for 60 years at most. I am not saying it is commercially feasible, just that it exist(ed) because we always hear these "if only" questions.
Financial debt can be written off, but energetic debt cannot and that is the main reason IFR is not feasible with existing materials technology.
It's just very hard to justify the investment at a time when most developed countries are trying to transition away from nuclear.
Indeed. My point is that people blame greenpeace and NIMBYs for the lack of technological development in Nuclear power when it is ample. They blame them for the lack of funding when if you look in the act it is right there, it just hasn't been utilized. They blame them for all sorts of things however if they took some time to examine the funding and regulatory mechanisms of nuclear power they would find that these issues lay at the root of the laws that govern the funding of nuclear power.
The nuclear industry has become a boondoggle for the oil and coal industry to raid US taxpayers billions of dollars via the deregulation of utilities and one has to look no further than the 2005 energy act to see that, the evidence is all there. If you are interested check it out, and look at the repeal of the PUCHA at the end which is a core 'new deal' act put in place after the US depression. That is what the nuclear industry refers to as 'deregulation' and oil and coal refer to as 'opportunity'.
What's sad is the fans have passion and tell better stories and understand the source material better that the studio's hired hacks. Look what a farce the rebooted Star Trek has become. Every reboot really. Funny story: Once a puritan attorney-general decided to shut down the porno movie industry by prosecuting the actresses for prostitution and financers as pimps. He took a test case to court, but the judiciary bukakked all over his face with a finding that made clear the porno movie industry was legal.
Maybe we need a porno parody version of Star Trek with good stories and awesome porn, wouldn't that be every nerds wet wet wet dream? I mean porn has a problem with good stories and sci fi has a problem with good porn so, rule 34.
It would be funny if Paramount tried to fuck this fan over in court and ended up legitimizing fan films.
Fans are the cow that can be eternally milked for cash. A porno version of the prime directive would be the ultimate way to tell paramount to get fucked. Get para mounted.
So are we just ignoring the fact that Greenpeace has been consistently blocking nuclear plants for decades?
No, I don't think you are ignoring it, just not paying attention to what is relevant. It takes a few hours of research and checking the governing laws to see that this greenpeace/NIMBY argument is bogus and the vitrol attached to it is noise that deflects from blaming the real culprits impeding nuclear progress, the oil and coal industry.
We're just going to ignore this inconvenient truth?
Well that dogma is the common myth. I think you will find that the oil and coal lobby have far more influence over US energy policy than greenpeace ever will. As I pointed out in this post the oil and coal industry shape energy policy to suit themselves. Greenpeace certainly has had no influence over the 15 GenIII reactors proposed for the US and the link to their placement is in that post. Go see for yourself, I've also provided the sections in the Energy policy act that you should examine.
I think that truth is probably more inconvenient than many.
The placement of Nuclear facilities is governed by a Suitability Criteria that is an act of law.
It's ridiculous to think greenpeace, hippys in combi vans, NIMBYS or any one else for that matter has any influence at all as all of their concerns are addressed in Section C.9. The process and economics involved in proposing and building a Nuclear Reactor is complex.
Especially when you consider there has been a bunch of GenIII reactors proposed. Only approved reactor types can be sited and the companies who propose them can apply for compensation for construction delays(2005 US Energy Act, SEC 600 onward). It's an excellent way for oil and coal utilities to legally defraud ratepayers as the original act that prevented that behaviour, a part of the new deal called PUCHA, was repealed there in the end of the 2005 Act. Under the Act, IIUC, each operator can claim up to $500,000,000 per site in construction delays.
The NIMBY accusations are a complete ad hom argument when they are made.
Now that it's past 1999, though, it's safe to bury it on the moon.
nice sci fi joke.
There's a valid and useful solution to the problem you state: you burn your waste actinides in a fast breeder. It generates power, vastly depletes the amount of waste you need to dispose of, and the remaining waste is far less hazardous.
That's not actually true. A Fast Breeder 'breeds' plutonium by transmuting other element. It was designed that way to service a plutonium economy until everyone realized there was nowhere to put the stuff.
Too bad then-President Carter killed all research into the technology back in the 1970's, not because it didn't work but because he feared nuclear proliferation.
First, whats wrong with that? Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, that's why the NNPT exists. I think the thing you are reffering to were ammendments for reprocessing, which were repealed by President Reagun.
The ironic thing is, this radioactive "waste" clearly still has lots of potential energy in it, or else it wouldn't be dangerous in the first place. IMO, what's needed is a process to use this stuff after it's no longer suitable for use in the original reactor.
There was. A burner reactor called IFR. Research on the *operational* prototype was killed by Clinton and it's demolition was funded in the 2005 Energy Act signed into law by W.Bush. From everything I read about it (despite the lack of material technologies required) it was a remarkable success able to consume weapons grade material and DU. My main interest in it was from the perspective of nuclear disarmament and a way to make those materials useful in another way.
I'm pretty sure there are other reactor designs that would allow building smaller scale power generators that run on this waste material
Well in IFR's case it was an Integrated facility that would reprocess, store and burn wastes. The 2005 Energy act also funds research into some of the things IFR could do like produce electriciy and hydrogen for vehicle fuel (which would mean the current fleet of vehicles would still function) but where would that leave the oil and coal industry? You really only have to look to their lobbying efforts of both sides of politics to under why such a technology will never come to market even if it is proven technology.
Oil and Coal interests would prefer any advancement in Nuclear technology remain unavailable and that all the blame be attributable to greenpeace and NIMBYs.
There are. Vogtle 3 & 4 are going to use the AP1000 design from Westinghouse which is a Generation III reactor. It stores emergency coolant water in a tank over the reactor so you do not need to use pumps to cool the reactor in an emergency.
This is a new feature which has only been assesed in simulations for core damage frequency. Additionally the containment dome of an Advanced Passive (AP) has a lower thermal containment ratio (because there is less concrete in the dome) for containing the thermal energy of the reactor than a GenII. The dome in this design also has a new feature where it doubles as a heat exchanger in the event of an emergency.
The measurement for the maturity of these systems is the amount of reactor experience and IIUC much of that is coming from the AP600. The two features under discussion here have not been physically tested in the same way the GenII reactor was by the American Society for Mechanical Engineers. The way they did those tests was to physically pressurize an actual (unfuelled) reactor with compressed air. In those tests they uncovered the Basis Design Issues (BDI) that led to the Fukushima disaster decades later when TEPCO ignored the operational concerns required to mitigate those risks.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just pointing out that it is untested in anything other than simulations and that doing physical tests of the reactor installation leads to valuable operational experience to derive reactor experience. If it works, it will be tested in an emergency situation where you have to consider real risk *and* real impact as opposed to simulations.
The risk is exposing a BDI of the plant that was undiscovered and what is the impact of that issue. We know this happens because even on mature reactor systems BDIs are found and operational proceedures have to be adapted to cope with that. In AP's case you can't design those processes if you haven't done the physical testing.
Lets hope this new reactor has a trouble free and reliable service life.
You are right, my C is a bit rusty. They would probably strip the binary as well find a way to fail compiles if it wasn't in there.
FUCKYOU
The thing I find astounding about the GP's post is that it takes him 18 minutes to drink a cup of tea.
So did I!
I too drink about 5 or 6 cups a day,
It is probably a gross underestimate of my actual consumption. I frequently have one or two 1.5 litre *pots* in the afternoon.
Obviously the addition of cold milk goes a long way towards lowering the initial temperature but ... I'll have to dig out a thermometer for an objective comparison with the GP.
I think the cold milk does make a difference - I splash some cold water in the cup when I want to drink it fast. Generally I just like to drink it and enjoy it. I would be interested in how the milk changes it if you end up measuring that.
Interesting. I would suggest that if you are just taking a sip when the tea is above 63C, then it would have lost several degrees by the time it hits your throat.
You're probably right, I simply had no idea what the temperature was and never thought to have a need to measure it until I read the article and since the laser thermometer was right there...
I wouldn't know, I don't eat their food as I don't find it appealing. Sure Mr AC was being a bit of a douche, but the facts were right - what did you want me to do, edit the post so it was more palatable?
Never been modded down for suggesting someone be modded up though, so people are probably a little sen-si-tive about the issue of criticizing McDonalds.
My concern was the lady who got hurt was being derided because people think she was being litigious, when in reality she suffered burns due to a company who didn't care enough about their customers to not have malfunctioning cup lids on super hot coffee served by industrial grade machines. What's the problem with turning them down a bit and why did it take a court case to do so?
They were told people were getting hurt, they did nothing, then the person who had the courage to face a multi-billion dollar company and all it's resources so others wouldn't get hurt gets ridiculed by people who haven't bothered to check the facts. Why should this poor woman suffer humiliation on top of injury when company X has millions of dollars of advertising money the news agencies want access to and can shape opinion.
There is a reason you aren't supposed to advertise to kids, so parents don't get nagged. They do and they all seem like a good reason for some vitrol and hatred to me.
So I don't really understand why you are shilling in marketing speak about 'healthy options', it sounds to me a lot like 'lite cigarettes'. Just don't try to allude that they care about anything else than another dollar.
I drink hot tea, no milk, no sugar - lashings of the stuff. I happen to have a laser thermometer here so I decided I would find out the comfortable temperature that I start drinking and the time it takes to get there for a 250ml ceramic cup - the kettle is boiling now.
Temperature of ceiling 19C, walls 20C. Windows open, no breeze heater or AC on in my office. 8 seconds from boil to pour.
Now I really like a tea, and I'm usually wanting to drink some as soon as possible, my control is waning and I'm having a sip at:
second sip
third sip - getting perfect now
First gulp - still a bit burny
Perfect!
Joy
two gulps - nice and nice 2/3s done
nom, nom
ok getting close to slurp phase, I moved the cup around
sluuurrppp - ahhhhhhhhhhh!
last gulp - that was nice
I really like a cup of tea and I'll have at least 6 per day, so perhaps that first sip is the one I have to resist or have some cold water. That said, if I'm desperate then my lips or top of my mouth will get burned first - probably different if you have milk and sugar. Now I know.