Al Coholic
Apr 28, 11:59 AM
And on the topic of laughing at OS X market share, keep on laughing. Apple is the most profitable computer company on the planet. Dell and Microsoft wish they had Apple's problems.
Wow. A bit shortsighted aren't we? (And the Apple pom-pom squad is out in force today).
Don't you see that all the iOS success does is point out to the Board that OSX isn't where it's at and more resources will keep going to iPads and iPhones?
If you're a mac user is this really what you want?
They didn't delete the word "computer" from the Apple name for nothing.
Wow. A bit shortsighted aren't we? (And the Apple pom-pom squad is out in force today).
Don't you see that all the iOS success does is point out to the Board that OSX isn't where it's at and more resources will keep going to iPads and iPhones?
If you're a mac user is this really what you want?
They didn't delete the word "computer" from the Apple name for nothing.
Sydde
Mar 14, 08:39 PM
As for the divine wind bit...
It was a historical allusion.
It was a historical allusion.
jav6454
Mar 18, 01:39 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:53 AM
You had said "it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded" and mac jones seemed concerned that the whole reactor had blown up. I was just adding some updates to the thread which seemed to make more sense of the situation based on the limited information available.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
How do you know what is was?. I don't have a clue. If you really know post it. I'd LOVE to get this sorted out as i'm a bit worried now.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
How do you know what is was?. I don't have a clue. If you really know post it. I'd LOVE to get this sorted out as i'm a bit worried now.
skunk
Mar 27, 08:51 AM
That's obviously ad hominem.Sometimes it's the homo that's the problem.
Stella
Aug 29, 01:29 PM
There seems to be plenty of people who appear not to care about the environment, which is an extremely sad point of view.
In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".
Get a ****ing life.
If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.
I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".
Get a ****ing life.
If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.
I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:56 PM
nixd2001:
The flags don't do anything to my x86 results either. This loop is just hard to optimize. I did manual unrolling, replaced mults with adds (which we can actually do safely since the float values in the loop controlls are not factions), and even replaced one of the loop counters with an int in conjuntion with the other two above (in such a way that I needed no typecaseing)... and the resukts inproved maybe 5% on the Mac and none on the PC.
The flags don't do anything to my x86 results either. This loop is just hard to optimize. I did manual unrolling, replaced mults with adds (which we can actually do safely since the float values in the loop controlls are not factions), and even replaced one of the loop counters with an int in conjuntion with the other two above (in such a way that I needed no typecaseing)... and the resukts inproved maybe 5% on the Mac and none on the PC.
OllyW
Apr 28, 07:32 AM
188% growth... that's impressive.
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 10:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I cannot wait. I've been waiting for this, for years.
I cannot wait. I've been waiting for this, for years.
kurtsayin
Aug 30, 10:40 AM
Who cares what greenpeace says about anything anyways?! They are a bunch of whack jobs who have been caught numerous times for fraud and are CONSTANTLY under investigation for fraud. This means they have a very specific agenda: Not to make the world greener when they find a problem, but to make problems in order to feel effective - even when it is entirely unnecessary.
Besides, if Apple were to somehow change their operating procedures in order to comply with the "green" standards, they will do nothing but lose money through another transition period which will slow their growth, lessen their capital resources, and make for slower product upgrades and releases - which will hurt the company detrimentally!
Besides, what does PVC really do anyways? It is a water-resistent, non-corrosive, plastic compound. It isn't toxic- per-say. It is only toxic when burned, and only to people in direct contact with the fumes - which is basically nobody. The real reason green peace wants to push this issue right now is because they think they are part of some eco-revolution that will bring down all corporations and make it so we all live happily in tee-pees without our manufactured products. Frankly, I am happy with my ibook and my motorola phone, and buick lesabre, and my flat screen tv, and I think everyone else is too, so tell green peace to just mind their own business and go live out in one of our MILLION ACRE FORESTS if they don't like progress and technology!
Besides, if Apple were to somehow change their operating procedures in order to comply with the "green" standards, they will do nothing but lose money through another transition period which will slow their growth, lessen their capital resources, and make for slower product upgrades and releases - which will hurt the company detrimentally!
Besides, what does PVC really do anyways? It is a water-resistent, non-corrosive, plastic compound. It isn't toxic- per-say. It is only toxic when burned, and only to people in direct contact with the fumes - which is basically nobody. The real reason green peace wants to push this issue right now is because they think they are part of some eco-revolution that will bring down all corporations and make it so we all live happily in tee-pees without our manufactured products. Frankly, I am happy with my ibook and my motorola phone, and buick lesabre, and my flat screen tv, and I think everyone else is too, so tell green peace to just mind their own business and go live out in one of our MILLION ACRE FORESTS if they don't like progress and technology!
BoyBach
Aug 29, 03:23 PM
Why are so many of these posts so vehemently anti-Greenpeace? What have they done, or alleged to have done, that I've missed?
myamid
Sep 12, 07:09 PM
You are way off on serveral of your points -- iTV is widescreen to HD Complient Devices.
An enthusiast does not want to store DVD's -- they want drive based solutions with drive based backup. This is how all high end stuff is done. I work with a client that supports this kind of setup.
http://www.axonix.com/
I think you are misguided on this point.
No, actually the guy had a very good point...
a) you're making assumptions on the iTV's capabilities which may not be true
b) iTunes content (music or movies) is of fair, but not great quality - no "Enthusiast" would want it (tech fans aside that is...)
c) Enthusiasts WILL buy HD DVDs / BluRay
d) Enthusiasts will want to OWN the media...
e) Enthusiasts most likely won't touch this with a stick...
As I alluded to earlier though, tech enthusiasts are another story, but these people (like me) are ofter turned on at the idea of doing something new, even if in the end the quality is just so-so
An enthusiast does not want to store DVD's -- they want drive based solutions with drive based backup. This is how all high end stuff is done. I work with a client that supports this kind of setup.
http://www.axonix.com/
I think you are misguided on this point.
No, actually the guy had a very good point...
a) you're making assumptions on the iTV's capabilities which may not be true
b) iTunes content (music or movies) is of fair, but not great quality - no "Enthusiast" would want it (tech fans aside that is...)
c) Enthusiasts WILL buy HD DVDs / BluRay
d) Enthusiasts will want to OWN the media...
e) Enthusiasts most likely won't touch this with a stick...
As I alluded to earlier though, tech enthusiasts are another story, but these people (like me) are ofter turned on at the idea of doing something new, even if in the end the quality is just so-so
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:44 PM
You and I have a terribly different definition of ruins I suppose. I consider a place ruins when its not even inhabitable.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
Most Islamic countries are not inhabitable by homosexuals or religious minorities, your mileage may vary.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
Most Islamic countries are not inhabitable by homosexuals or religious minorities, your mileage may vary.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
OllyW
Apr 28, 07:42 AM
Am I missing something with the title of this article? I don't see that Apple has 'slipped' to 4th place but instead that they have strengthened their 4th place standing overall due to iPad sales.
But they weren't in 4th place last year before the iPad went on sale.
Take away the iPad sales and I doubt if they would even make the top 5. They haven't managed to get that high in Gartner's standings which doesn't include the iPad.
But they weren't in 4th place last year before the iPad went on sale.
Take away the iPad sales and I doubt if they would even make the top 5. They haven't managed to get that high in Gartner's standings which doesn't include the iPad.
matticus008
Mar 19, 04:59 PM
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
Mitthrawnuruodo
Mar 18, 06:04 PM
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works), that's right...
~Shard~
Oct 26, 11:20 PM
It honestly depends on if those processors are going to fully saturate the FSB. If the FSB has a high enough data transfer rate then it shouldn't matter much that the cross talk between processors is over the FSB and not onboard via shard cache.
Thanks Eldorian, I appreciate the insight. :cool: Oh, and I think you meant "shared cache", although I honestly don't mind having cache named after me... ;) :D
Thanks Eldorian, I appreciate the insight. :cool: Oh, and I think you meant "shared cache", although I honestly don't mind having cache named after me... ;) :D
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 11:50 AM
"China syndrome", not "Japan" syndrome.
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 03:28 AM
You only NEED a computer one time for an iPad. After that you can never hook it up to another machine again. So if you don't have a computer at home, have Apple set up your new iPad at the Apple store and you have a true post-PC device.
OK, that's an extreme example since we all do have computers at home already, and it is nice to back up your iPad at least some time. But with cloud computing coming very quickly in the Apple world, soon you won't even need to plug in that iPad even once. It will be done over the air, and then all the naysayers will understand what we are talking about when we say we are living in the post-PC world.
Not everyone has a PC at home, or at least not one capable of running iTunes. Most famous iPad 1 user in .nl, at 86 years of age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IdXcD4X7bQ
(also see his iPad 2 review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6yB8IYl3UE )
OK, that's an extreme example since we all do have computers at home already, and it is nice to back up your iPad at least some time. But with cloud computing coming very quickly in the Apple world, soon you won't even need to plug in that iPad even once. It will be done over the air, and then all the naysayers will understand what we are talking about when we say we are living in the post-PC world.
Not everyone has a PC at home, or at least not one capable of running iTunes. Most famous iPad 1 user in .nl, at 86 years of age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IdXcD4X7bQ
(also see his iPad 2 review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6yB8IYl3UE )
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
alust2013
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
You may not like the lack of start menu at first, however, it does end up working with a better flow overall. It's just different at first, and after using windows for many years (little bit of 3.1, a lot of 95 and 98, then ME, XP and 7), it took a little bit to get used to, but honestly not that long. You get the basic idea of where stuff is pretty quick, and it's certainly not difficult, especially if you are reasonably proficient in computers.
appleguy123
Apr 23, 12:49 AM
The ad at the top is calling us out.
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
AP_piano295
Apr 23, 12:43 AM
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
It certainly seems that you are questioning the point.
You raised the point that it is/was illogical for me to believe that the life and the universe appeared in a sudden "bang". And you claimed that such a belief could not be possibly based in logic :rolleyes:.
Of course I never purported to believe any such thing, rather you simply implied that this is what I believe.
In my original post I never claimed to understand or remotely fathom how the universe and life came to exist. But the fact that I do not know how our universe came to be has very little baring on this conversation.
I have very little understanding of how the computer I am currently using ACTUALLY works. Yet work it does, it does not work through the grace of god but rather through marvels of modern engineering and achievements in scientific understanding.
Your god of the gaps is simply a dark room waiting for someone to turn on the light.
It certainly seems that you are questioning the point.
You raised the point that it is/was illogical for me to believe that the life and the universe appeared in a sudden "bang". And you claimed that such a belief could not be possibly based in logic :rolleyes:.
Of course I never purported to believe any such thing, rather you simply implied that this is what I believe.
In my original post I never claimed to understand or remotely fathom how the universe and life came to exist. But the fact that I do not know how our universe came to be has very little baring on this conversation.
I have very little understanding of how the computer I am currently using ACTUALLY works. Yet work it does, it does not work through the grace of god but rather through marvels of modern engineering and achievements in scientific understanding.
Your god of the gaps is simply a dark room waiting for someone to turn on the light.
rovex
Mar 12, 07:58 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment