Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
EricNau
Mar 14, 11:50 PM
Another helpful article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42075628) (MSNBC):
Amid dire reports of melting fuel rods and sickened workers at Japan�s beleaguered Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor, the public health risk from radiation exposure remains very low in that country � or abroad, experts say.
�In general, right now, the citizens of Japan have far more other things to worry about than nuclear power,� said Richard L. Morin, a professor of radiologic physics at the Mayo Clinic and chair of the safety committee of the American College of Radiology.
�There�s not a significant risk to anybody in the United States, including Hawaii,� he added.
Though talk of a nuclear �meltdown� raises specters of acute radiation sickness and long-term cancers, such as those seen after the 1986 Chernobyl accident in which the reactor blew up, the radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits, Japanese officials told reporters.
American experts monitoring the situation agreed, saying that reported radiation exposure remains far lower than normal exposure from background radiation in the environment, from medical procedures such as CT scans, or even from transatlantic air flights.
�I haven�t seen anything so far that seems to indicate that people are being exposed to levels of radiation that are acutely dangerous,� said G. Donald Frey, a professor of radiology at the Medical University of South Carolina.
[. . .] A one-time CT scan can expose a person to between 5 and 10 millisieverts. An X-ray of the spine might expose a patient to an estimated 1.5 millisieverts. A long, cross-country air flight might expose someone to about .03 millisieverts. A person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day is exposed to 53 millisieverts each year, according to the National Institutes of Health.
So far, Japanese officials have reported possible top exposures at the plant of .5 millisieverts per hour, a level that has dropped to perhaps .04 millisieverts per hour, Frey said. While that level is concerning to plant workers, residents who heeded a 12-mile evacuation zone would not be affected, said Dr. James H. Thrall, chief radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
�That would only expose nuclear plant workers,� he said. �If you�re even 100 feet away, or 1,000 feet away, the exposure drops dramatically.�
Even if the workers at the nuclear plant in Japan were exposed continuously to .5 millisieverts per hour, it would take about 40 hours before them to reach the yearly limit for exposure. Now that the level has fallen, so has the risk, Thrall said. [. . .]
In the meantime, the U.S. experts cautioned observers, especially those in the U.S., to keep the situation in perspective.
�There�s very little likelihood of any concern,� said Thrall. �Instead, I would advise people to look both ways before crossing the street.�
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event. The release of dangerous levels of radiation is extremely improbable, even given a situation significantly worse than that currently faced by Japan. Link (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6268351-clearing-up-nuclear-questions)
Amid dire reports of melting fuel rods and sickened workers at Japan�s beleaguered Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor, the public health risk from radiation exposure remains very low in that country � or abroad, experts say.
�In general, right now, the citizens of Japan have far more other things to worry about than nuclear power,� said Richard L. Morin, a professor of radiologic physics at the Mayo Clinic and chair of the safety committee of the American College of Radiology.
�There�s not a significant risk to anybody in the United States, including Hawaii,� he added.
Though talk of a nuclear �meltdown� raises specters of acute radiation sickness and long-term cancers, such as those seen after the 1986 Chernobyl accident in which the reactor blew up, the radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits, Japanese officials told reporters.
American experts monitoring the situation agreed, saying that reported radiation exposure remains far lower than normal exposure from background radiation in the environment, from medical procedures such as CT scans, or even from transatlantic air flights.
�I haven�t seen anything so far that seems to indicate that people are being exposed to levels of radiation that are acutely dangerous,� said G. Donald Frey, a professor of radiology at the Medical University of South Carolina.
[. . .] A one-time CT scan can expose a person to between 5 and 10 millisieverts. An X-ray of the spine might expose a patient to an estimated 1.5 millisieverts. A long, cross-country air flight might expose someone to about .03 millisieverts. A person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day is exposed to 53 millisieverts each year, according to the National Institutes of Health.
So far, Japanese officials have reported possible top exposures at the plant of .5 millisieverts per hour, a level that has dropped to perhaps .04 millisieverts per hour, Frey said. While that level is concerning to plant workers, residents who heeded a 12-mile evacuation zone would not be affected, said Dr. James H. Thrall, chief radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
�That would only expose nuclear plant workers,� he said. �If you�re even 100 feet away, or 1,000 feet away, the exposure drops dramatically.�
Even if the workers at the nuclear plant in Japan were exposed continuously to .5 millisieverts per hour, it would take about 40 hours before them to reach the yearly limit for exposure. Now that the level has fallen, so has the risk, Thrall said. [. . .]
In the meantime, the U.S. experts cautioned observers, especially those in the U.S., to keep the situation in perspective.
�There�s very little likelihood of any concern,� said Thrall. �Instead, I would advise people to look both ways before crossing the street.�
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event. The release of dangerous levels of radiation is extremely improbable, even given a situation significantly worse than that currently faced by Japan. Link (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6268351-clearing-up-nuclear-questions)
inkswamp
Oct 26, 03:49 AM
If history serves as a template for the future
Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.
Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.
nixd2001
Oct 9, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Pants
what when the altivec unit gets starved of data?
Im talking from a 'doing' point of view - when a machine i have spent 2.5k wont allow me to use its best feature (with gcc) then i feel cheated.
Is this that you think GCC can never invoke Altivec or that it doesn't know how to optimise from arbitrary code to Altivec?
what when the altivec unit gets starved of data?
Im talking from a 'doing' point of view - when a machine i have spent 2.5k wont allow me to use its best feature (with gcc) then i feel cheated.
Is this that you think GCC can never invoke Altivec or that it doesn't know how to optimise from arbitrary code to Altivec?
bluap84
Mar 11, 02:20 AM
i woke up to this...its shocking isnt it. That water is just ripping past anything it likes and leaving it destoryed. The tsunami looks like its going to be massive, and cause trouble for neigbouring countries / cities.
this is from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"The Pacific tsunami warning centre in Hawaii said a tsunami warning was in effect for Japan, Russia, Marcus Island and the Northern Marianas. A tsunami watch has been issued for Guam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Hawaii."
as for the earthquake being 8.9 it really shows how big that really is! Another fact from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"In 1933, a magnitude 8.1 quake in the area killed more than 3,000 people."
this is from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"The Pacific tsunami warning centre in Hawaii said a tsunami warning was in effect for Japan, Russia, Marcus Island and the Northern Marianas. A tsunami watch has been issued for Guam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Hawaii."
as for the earthquake being 8.9 it really shows how big that really is! Another fact from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"In 1933, a magnitude 8.1 quake in the area killed more than 3,000 people."
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 11:27 AM
And the Catholic church had Galileo jailed for his work on heliocentrism (just one of a countless litany of anti-scientific acts).
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
As I also said elsewhere this is why there can never be an Islamic enlightenment or reformation. All inventions attributed to Islam predate Islam or were appropriated by Islam from conquered civilisations.
The West was able to have a reformation because what the clergy demanded was not, strictly speaking, in the Bible.
Among other theoriess:
What part of
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin... used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
did you not compute?
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
As I also said elsewhere this is why there can never be an Islamic enlightenment or reformation. All inventions attributed to Islam predate Islam or were appropriated by Islam from conquered civilisations.
The West was able to have a reformation because what the clergy demanded was not, strictly speaking, in the Bible.
Among other theoriess:
What part of
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin... used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
did you not compute?
zgh1999
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Get with the program here.
Everyone should buy an iPad 2, in both black and white.
And everyone should also buy an iPhone 4, just in black.
Didn't you get the memo?
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Get with the program here.
Everyone should buy an iPad 2, in both black and white.
And everyone should also buy an iPhone 4, just in black.
Didn't you get the memo?
Multimedia
Jul 12, 04:24 PM
man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.
All the details have been spoon fed to us for months by generous meembers here. I see no excuse for not know the differences by now and why what belongs where.
Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.
All the details have been spoon fed to us for months by generous meembers here. I see no excuse for not know the differences by now and why what belongs where.
AppleDroid
Apr 13, 01:09 PM
As a new After Effects user this is good news! I prefer Final Cut to Premiere but I never liked Motion so to be able to get it for cheap (as a stand alone) would be a wonderful option.
Number 41
Apr 15, 09:45 AM
no matter how you feel, people shouldn't be bullied.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
As a society, we're becoming obsessed with raising kids to never experience negativity in their lives -- from these aggressive "anti-bullying" campaigns to school programs designed to make sure kids never fail a class to sports leagues that give everyone a trophies even if they came in last palce. Youth is supposed to teach you the skills to deal with failure; learning to pick yourself up and move on after a bad game or how to make yourself feel better when people make fun of you. It also gives lessons on "fitting in" -- and contrary to popualr belief, "fitting in" is a pretty important skill if you want to survive. There's nothing wrong with loving who you are, but it's naive to expect everyone else will -- if you're fat, you have to accept that people are going to make fun of you and learn to deal with it (because no amount of PSAs will ever stop everyone for making judgments about fat people), if you're a nerd you just have to own it and move on (or, like most people, bring it up in appropriate social situations and keep it on the back burner other times). Those are skills that kids need to learn if they're going to be happy beyond the walled sanctuary of parents and school.
We can try to shield kids from these things, but all we'll succeed in doing is raising a generation of people who don't understand how to deal with adversity and who go running to their parents or a shrink because someone made fun of their shirt at work or because they don't understand why everyone doesn't accept them for being addicted to japanese cartoon girls.
/rant
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
As a society, we're becoming obsessed with raising kids to never experience negativity in their lives -- from these aggressive "anti-bullying" campaigns to school programs designed to make sure kids never fail a class to sports leagues that give everyone a trophies even if they came in last palce. Youth is supposed to teach you the skills to deal with failure; learning to pick yourself up and move on after a bad game or how to make yourself feel better when people make fun of you. It also gives lessons on "fitting in" -- and contrary to popualr belief, "fitting in" is a pretty important skill if you want to survive. There's nothing wrong with loving who you are, but it's naive to expect everyone else will -- if you're fat, you have to accept that people are going to make fun of you and learn to deal with it (because no amount of PSAs will ever stop everyone for making judgments about fat people), if you're a nerd you just have to own it and move on (or, like most people, bring it up in appropriate social situations and keep it on the back burner other times). Those are skills that kids need to learn if they're going to be happy beyond the walled sanctuary of parents and school.
We can try to shield kids from these things, but all we'll succeed in doing is raising a generation of people who don't understand how to deal with adversity and who go running to their parents or a shrink because someone made fun of their shirt at work or because they don't understand why everyone doesn't accept them for being addicted to japanese cartoon girls.
/rant
Gelfin
Mar 27, 09:23 AM
If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
truz
Jul 7, 06:14 PM
And I will never set foot in an Apple store again. They are the definition of needless, bulls**t arrogance. If my Macbook Pro, either Macbook, iMac, iPad or any of the 5 iPhones I own ever need serviced, I'll call and ask them to send a box rather than deal with that mall trash again.
I agree. I rather have a box sent out then step into a store. I'm 45 minutes away from an Apple Store and a boat load of traffic in the Orlando area.
I agree. I rather have a box sent out then step into a store. I'm 45 minutes away from an Apple Store and a boat load of traffic in the Orlando area.
Phil A.
Aug 29, 03:13 PM
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
mkaake
Mar 18, 09:59 AM
holy crap.
that's no good. no good at all.
i'm wondering how long before apple finds a way to shut this down - both with legal action, and changing the way that their servers serve up the files...
that's no good. no good at all.
i'm wondering how long before apple finds a way to shut this down - both with legal action, and changing the way that their servers serve up the files...
lipinski77
Sep 20, 01:36 PM
The iTV makes the elgato eyetv hybrid even more appealing. :)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
Draythor
Apr 13, 03:14 PM
I'm sure this has been mentioned.
Connecting other hard drives. I'm only able to read from most (windows) drives.
Connecting other hard drives. I'm only able to read from most (windows) drives.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:58 PM
Why do you think the concept of the afterlife began? Because of fear of death.
I do not believe it is the fear of death ... I have never met a religious person that spoke of the fear of death ... it is the afterlife that gets them all giddy.
I do not believe it is the fear of death ... I have never met a religious person that spoke of the fear of death ... it is the afterlife that gets them all giddy.
hanpa
Oct 8, 11:03 AM
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
Right. And 640K ought to be enough for anybody...
Right. And 640K ought to be enough for anybody...
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
dudemac
Mar 18, 03:35 PM
Does anyone know how to use the app? The readme file is empty :confused:
to use make sure you have installed the GTK 2.3 from the site that you got the program.
Restart windows... :) I love that part :)
Open the program under the accounts window select login
put your login and password from itms wait until the status bar at the bottom says balance -0. Then just type the artist song etc intot he search
Select the song. to preview it select preview under the song menu or to purchase select purchase under the same menu. Once you select purchase you will get a confirmation window that has a cancel and purchase button once you click the purchase button it will down load to a folder located in C:/Documents and Settings/User/Music this can be changed in the preferences located in the edit menu.
Once downloaded just add the song to you itunes music library and away you go.
enjoy
to use make sure you have installed the GTK 2.3 from the site that you got the program.
Restart windows... :) I love that part :)
Open the program under the accounts window select login
put your login and password from itms wait until the status bar at the bottom says balance -0. Then just type the artist song etc intot he search
Select the song. to preview it select preview under the song menu or to purchase select purchase under the same menu. Once you select purchase you will get a confirmation window that has a cancel and purchase button once you click the purchase button it will down load to a folder located in C:/Documents and Settings/User/Music this can be changed in the preferences located in the edit menu.
Once downloaded just add the song to you itunes music library and away you go.
enjoy
fpnc
Mar 20, 09:05 PM
I do not want to enter the "debate" about whether or not DRM and copyright laws are "good" or "bad." But for everyone who believes that the creation of this software was a good thing I would like to suggest that you put your efforts into more productive things, like starting a legal defense fund for that poor individual(s) who helped create the PyMusique software.
I'd just about be willing to bet that federal law enforcement agents will be knocking on his/her door within the next few weeks. No doubt, if Apple wants to press this issue those individuals could be charged with some violation of the DMCA or laws covering internet commerce . I suppose that they could even be charged in a civil suit for violation of the iTunes Terms Of Service agreement.
Seriously, if it is true that some of these people live in the U.S. and they've used their true identities then they could be headed for real trouble. Get their legal team ready (and, of course, I know you'll all be contributing money for their defense). :)
I'd just about be willing to bet that federal law enforcement agents will be knocking on his/her door within the next few weeks. No doubt, if Apple wants to press this issue those individuals could be charged with some violation of the DMCA or laws covering internet commerce . I suppose that they could even be charged in a civil suit for violation of the iTunes Terms Of Service agreement.
Seriously, if it is true that some of these people live in the U.S. and they've used their true identities then they could be headed for real trouble. Get their legal team ready (and, of course, I know you'll all be contributing money for their defense). :)
CalBoy
Apr 22, 11:17 PM
Listen Bill Nye, I wasn't making a conclusive observation on the history of the earth, universe, or life forms. I was posing a question that most people (for the sake of simplicity, not illiteracy) relate to with a single word, "bang." If I need an expert opinion for my next astronomy class, I'll give you ring.
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
�algiris
May 2, 08:52 AM
"Huge" threat.
crees!
Aug 29, 11:46 AM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה