milo
Sep 12, 05:19 PM
Plus I'm going to have to wait 2+ hours for it to download, plus nothing extra.
You don't have to wait, if you have a fast connection you can watch while it's downloading.
So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Who says it will only do DVD quality? It has HD outputs, and some of the reports said he called up the incredibles (was it the movie or the trailer?) in HD.
Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
Which is exactly what I want. If you want TV tuner, just buy one, they're already available. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple ends up buying Elgato. If Apple announced a TV tuner, wouldn't people be complaining that it would put poor Elgato out of business?
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
So was your laptop free...or did you find one for under five bucks?
I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.
As above...didn't you have to buy your computer? And isn't it a pain to have to have your computer sitting next to the TV while you're watching (all the time if it's not a laptop, drag it in if it is)? I did that for a while with my mini and got tired of it.
no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
Did they say that the iTV only did 640x480, or is that just something you assumed?
wireless is useless for watching movies. I use my mac now to get videos from NAS servers and wireless doesn't cut it. I need to be going 100 or else it gets choppy. Unless they release a new wireless access point.
You mean CURRENT wireless isn't fast enough. There's a new, faster standard on the way, which is probably part of the reason this isn't shipping yet.
You don't have to wait, if you have a fast connection you can watch while it's downloading.
So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Who says it will only do DVD quality? It has HD outputs, and some of the reports said he called up the incredibles (was it the movie or the trailer?) in HD.
Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
Which is exactly what I want. If you want TV tuner, just buy one, they're already available. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple ends up buying Elgato. If Apple announced a TV tuner, wouldn't people be complaining that it would put poor Elgato out of business?
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
So was your laptop free...or did you find one for under five bucks?
I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.
As above...didn't you have to buy your computer? And isn't it a pain to have to have your computer sitting next to the TV while you're watching (all the time if it's not a laptop, drag it in if it is)? I did that for a while with my mini and got tired of it.
no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
Did they say that the iTV only did 640x480, or is that just something you assumed?
wireless is useless for watching movies. I use my mac now to get videos from NAS servers and wireless doesn't cut it. I need to be going 100 or else it gets choppy. Unless they release a new wireless access point.
You mean CURRENT wireless isn't fast enough. There's a new, faster standard on the way, which is probably part of the reason this isn't shipping yet.
Tailpike1153
May 5, 12:07 PM
Two weeks ago my service was flaking out. Couldn't make calls or get to 3G all day. Wasn't too happy. Wentthe AT&T store to go vent and the hottest clerk, I have ever seen, was working. She was so hot, she should have been over at VS in VS modellling something for me. wink, wink. nudge, nudge. ;) She said they were working on a go-live of 12 new towers. The engineers had screwed up the configs. So the new towers and some of the old towers weren't playing nice with network. I live in mostly Verizon country. AT&T has been making improvements out the whaz. They finalized the deal for Centennial Wireless. Alot of those towers flipped to ATT recently. So for me, my piece of the network got bigger & better. Now mind you this girl was so good looking she could have told me to set my iPhone on fire and I would have given it serious consideration. It seems like AT&T is trying to act like it cares. So back to mis hottie. I asked for her phone number. ANd she told me, 1-800-331-0500. I think she likes me.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:42 PM
On a sidenote, don't get me wrong, I can barely stand watching SD channels on TV these days... You get used to HD really quick... But I don't think the download/streaming market is "right" for HD content...
I happen to agree with you and that's why I think that Apple is going to steal any thunder from HD DVRs anytime soon. It will be a few years before we are downloading HD content, bandwith has to catch up a bit.
I happen to agree with you and that's why I think that Apple is going to steal any thunder from HD DVRs anytime soon. It will be a few years before we are downloading HD content, bandwith has to catch up a bit.
citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:07 PM
... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
Considering that the conditions at the facility appear to be deteriorating, you might need to rethink what you mean by "contained".
Considering that the conditions at the facility appear to be deteriorating, you might need to rethink what you mean by "contained".
MacsAttack
Sep 29, 05:15 AM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:32 AM
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
Or that millions don't play WOW.
Or that millions don't play WOW.
Backtothemac
Oct 9, 02:50 PM
Dude, I am a microsoft certified professional and spend all day dealing with PC problems. I have worked on the slowest ones and the fastest ones. The dual power macs fly! On top of that they do not run winblows. PC's suck because of the OS period. My mind will never be changed on that because I have almost 2 decades of dealing with Microsoft's crap!
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
DrGruv1
Oct 26, 08:49 AM
but it's still great to see :)
should be fun to process on this octomac - very fun to see 8 proc. in logic :)
should be fun to process on this octomac - very fun to see 8 proc. in logic :)
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 11:30 PM
Well, only if you insist that yours is the ONLY What about the denominations that say "Here's what WE believe, but if someone believes something else, that's fine?"
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
mpstrex
Aug 30, 11:36 AM
And don't forget, Groovey, that only a small percentage of Americans are considered more of the hard-line political peeps.
emotion
Sep 21, 11:25 AM
The Quadro in the WMCE really puts up a superb 1080p picture - not sure that I'd want to compress the signal and send it over wireless...
Technically you're not compressing the signal. Just the file (which will be cached if the network can't cope). The signal is produced locally.
Technically you're not compressing the signal. Just the file (which will be cached if the network can't cope). The signal is produced locally.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:31 AM
The modern view of homosexual sex in all the orthodox Christian religions is so tame and simple it's almost boring. It's just premarital sex, which is considered sinful. It's not morally worse than heterosexual premarital sex. And yes, marriage is considered to be between a man and a woman in these religions, so yes, that does really suck for the orthodox gay Christian.
Even if this were true (and it's demonstrably not true), the whole thing is based on the completely erroneous idea that morality should be dictated by any of our holy books. We do a disservice to humanity by allowing ourselves to remain captive to these bronze age ideals of what is right and wrong.
Even if this were true (and it's demonstrably not true), the whole thing is based on the completely erroneous idea that morality should be dictated by any of our holy books. We do a disservice to humanity by allowing ourselves to remain captive to these bronze age ideals of what is right and wrong.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 04:29 PM
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender. Dealing with the energy crisis must be accomplished by attaking the problem from both ends - renewable sources at one end and lower per capita energy consumption at the other.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
The current situation certainly exposes flaws in the design of the Japanese nuclear plants. To be fair, the severy of the disaster was extreme, but this is precisely the kind of worst-case scenario designers should have envisioned when they designed the plant. Even now we might see a partial meltdown in the Fukushima plant, though it appears that they've partially restored function to the cooling system. We should all be thankful that this didn't happen in a place where one of those Soviet RBMK reactors is still in operation - that would almost certainly have resulted in a full meltdown.
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
Solar panels are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source), and that is always going to cause a lot of resistance. For a homeowner, it's often a break-even proposition if conditions are favorable (but not necessarily ideal), and if the installation is thought out carefully. Wind power is considerably cheaper than solar and functions in places with little sunlight, so it is an important option to consider. In fact, wind power can be even cheaper than "clean coal" plants.
Still, as you say, different solutions work in different places. Reducing our dependance on non-renewable energy sources must involve every means at our disposal, and they must be implemented to maximum effect wherever the conditions are favorable. Solar enregy is insufficient on its own, as are all the other renewable sources of energy. Only a combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other sources can begin to generate enough energy to replace non-renewable sources.
And as skunk mentioned above, we need to find ways to reduce consumption on top of all that.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender. Dealing with the energy crisis must be accomplished by attaking the problem from both ends - renewable sources at one end and lower per capita energy consumption at the other.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
The current situation certainly exposes flaws in the design of the Japanese nuclear plants. To be fair, the severy of the disaster was extreme, but this is precisely the kind of worst-case scenario designers should have envisioned when they designed the plant. Even now we might see a partial meltdown in the Fukushima plant, though it appears that they've partially restored function to the cooling system. We should all be thankful that this didn't happen in a place where one of those Soviet RBMK reactors is still in operation - that would almost certainly have resulted in a full meltdown.
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
Solar panels are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source), and that is always going to cause a lot of resistance. For a homeowner, it's often a break-even proposition if conditions are favorable (but not necessarily ideal), and if the installation is thought out carefully. Wind power is considerably cheaper than solar and functions in places with little sunlight, so it is an important option to consider. In fact, wind power can be even cheaper than "clean coal" plants.
Still, as you say, different solutions work in different places. Reducing our dependance on non-renewable energy sources must involve every means at our disposal, and they must be implemented to maximum effect wherever the conditions are favorable. Solar enregy is insufficient on its own, as are all the other renewable sources of energy. Only a combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other sources can begin to generate enough energy to replace non-renewable sources.
And as skunk mentioned above, we need to find ways to reduce consumption on top of all that.
likemyorbs
Mar 25, 11:11 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
Is voting also a privilege? Marriage is most definitely a right. Hence the reason why the supreme court will soon find it unconstitutional to deny is to same sex couples, just as they did in 1967 with interracial marriage. Loving v. Virgina, white man wanted to marry a black woman, didn't work out well for him at first because of the "racial integrity act" of 1924. The RIA of 1924= Defense of marriage act today. It will be struck down as a violation of civil RIGHTS.
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
When someone's opinion is a direct attack on your civil rights, then they should be attacked.
Is voting also a privilege? Marriage is most definitely a right. Hence the reason why the supreme court will soon find it unconstitutional to deny is to same sex couples, just as they did in 1967 with interracial marriage. Loving v. Virgina, white man wanted to marry a black woman, didn't work out well for him at first because of the "racial integrity act" of 1924. The RIA of 1924= Defense of marriage act today. It will be struck down as a violation of civil RIGHTS.
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
When someone's opinion is a direct attack on your civil rights, then they should be attacked.
alhedges
Mar 18, 02:55 PM
If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
There's a binding arbitration clause in the TOS.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
There's a binding arbitration clause in the TOS.
Blipp
Apr 13, 12:59 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
RIP FCP
Born 2000 died 2011If a 16 year old kid getting their hands on your editing software is enough to put you out of business then you're probably already in trouble with or without this release. Also they clearly are still calling it Final Cut Pro, so nice try with that half-assed snub.
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
RIP FCP
Born 2000 died 2011If a 16 year old kid getting their hands on your editing software is enough to put you out of business then you're probably already in trouble with or without this release. Also they clearly are still calling it Final Cut Pro, so nice try with that half-assed snub.
Eidorian
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
That's a pricey chip. You're not going to see killer single thread performance but multitasking would be insane.
LethalWolfe
Apr 13, 12:59 AM
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture.
From what I've read tonight was just for FCP X and info on the other apps will be released down the road. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to say that people who use Color on a daily basis won't miss it when no one has actually used FCP X yet? Maybe it will, maybe it won't be can we at least let the app get out the door before we put a crown on it's head?
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
Are you really suggesting that a dSLR and a product that we've only seen a brief preview of can replace everything else out there?
Lethal
From what I've read tonight was just for FCP X and info on the other apps will be released down the road. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to say that people who use Color on a daily basis won't miss it when no one has actually used FCP X yet? Maybe it will, maybe it won't be can we at least let the app get out the door before we put a crown on it's head?
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
Are you really suggesting that a dSLR and a product that we've only seen a brief preview of can replace everything else out there?
Lethal
wtfk
Aug 29, 02:32 PM
Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 12:05 PM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
And Fear.
And Fear.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 02:04 PM
Why do you say that it has to be the Judaeo-Christian God? If there is a god or creator-being, the chances of this god being the Judaeo-Christian God is infinitesimal.
lol, in all of the classical arguments for the existence of God, God was defined as being in the possession of the same attributes as he is in the Bible. If you could define God in any way you wished then I'm sure it'd be a lot easier to prove his existence.
The Bible, as you may or may not know, is the basis for Christianity, and the Old Testament is the basis for Judaism.
Hindu theologians take a different approach to these ontological problems.
lol, in all of the classical arguments for the existence of God, God was defined as being in the possession of the same attributes as he is in the Bible. If you could define God in any way you wished then I'm sure it'd be a lot easier to prove his existence.
The Bible, as you may or may not know, is the basis for Christianity, and the Old Testament is the basis for Judaism.
Hindu theologians take a different approach to these ontological problems.
hvfsl
Apr 13, 12:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Well I love the new final cut, much better than I expected. I especially like how it sorts out the colour and audio when you import.
But then I am more of a hobbest, I might do the odd wedding or school play which I get paid for, but I generally use it on my holiday videos.
Well I love the new final cut, much better than I expected. I especially like how it sorts out the colour and audio when you import.
But then I am more of a hobbest, I might do the odd wedding or school play which I get paid for, but I generally use it on my holiday videos.
Huntn
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png