mr. who?
Apr 13, 07:46 AM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
Hoping we see some sort of massive overhaul of Logic soon. Would be awesome.
Hoping we see some sort of massive overhaul of Logic soon. Would be awesome.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 01:24 PM
I consider myself a tree hugger, but this is rediculous. Greenpeace will only make the enviromentally concerned people look like idiots if they begin to rate every single industry. They should concentrate on the big issues instead of coming down on computer manufacturers. CFC is one thing, but this???
theelysium
May 16, 05:52 PM
I have a huge drop call and coverage issue at my new home in Rancho Cordova, CA. I live by Jackson HWY (16). I have been excessive with my reports through my AT&T iPhone app "Mark The Spot". After 6 months of reports for only about 10% of the issues (I have so many issue here 10% was a lot :eek: of reporting!) I've experience they sent me a message letting me know that my reports helped pinpoint a tower issues and it will be replaced in a few weeks!
I know AT&T has issues, but I'd like to see if Verizon would actually do something like this! I am not happy with the network experience I've had here, but I am really happy to see that my voice was heard from a large company using innovative tools created by them on my iPhone.
I can tell that the tower is currently being worked on, because my service is getting worse. It won't be long now that I'll finally be able to a constant signal and hopefully no more dropped calls.
Before I received the message that they would replace the tower I ordered an AT&T micro cell. I think I'll install it anyway just to see how it will improve my coverage. This also brings up another point that they are giving us the ability to fix coverage issues with the Micro Cell they are offering. I know it's $150 (expensive), but at least they are offering an alternative for you.
One thing I've noticed as a customer is any aspect of the New AT&T that was legacy Cingular seems in the most part to be fine. It's all the junk they merged in from the legacy AT&T Wireless. This goes for call centers, towers, policies, etc. If I call customer service and have an excellent experience I'll ask the rep, "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" Every time they say Cingular. Of course if I have the opposite and ask "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" They either don't know what the word legacy means (which I then have to explain) or they say of course AT&T! I wish Cingular stayed Cingular and let AT&T die off! Legacy AT&T is the cancer in the New AT&T which is just Cingular with AT&T's name.
It's silly to think that the AT&T name is so valuable that they'd buy the crappy company just to use their stupid :eek: name. Who cares if AT&T is as recognizable as Coca Cola overseas?! Why not be so great at what you do that your name (Cingular), becomes as recognizable as Coca Cola! Cingular shouldn't have bought recognition... they should have tried to earn it! If they had tried to earn their recognition we wouldn't have Legacy AT&T's cancer in our cell phone company!:(
I know AT&T has issues, but I'd like to see if Verizon would actually do something like this! I am not happy with the network experience I've had here, but I am really happy to see that my voice was heard from a large company using innovative tools created by them on my iPhone.
I can tell that the tower is currently being worked on, because my service is getting worse. It won't be long now that I'll finally be able to a constant signal and hopefully no more dropped calls.
Before I received the message that they would replace the tower I ordered an AT&T micro cell. I think I'll install it anyway just to see how it will improve my coverage. This also brings up another point that they are giving us the ability to fix coverage issues with the Micro Cell they are offering. I know it's $150 (expensive), but at least they are offering an alternative for you.
One thing I've noticed as a customer is any aspect of the New AT&T that was legacy Cingular seems in the most part to be fine. It's all the junk they merged in from the legacy AT&T Wireless. This goes for call centers, towers, policies, etc. If I call customer service and have an excellent experience I'll ask the rep, "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" Every time they say Cingular. Of course if I have the opposite and ask "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" They either don't know what the word legacy means (which I then have to explain) or they say of course AT&T! I wish Cingular stayed Cingular and let AT&T die off! Legacy AT&T is the cancer in the New AT&T which is just Cingular with AT&T's name.
It's silly to think that the AT&T name is so valuable that they'd buy the crappy company just to use their stupid :eek: name. Who cares if AT&T is as recognizable as Coca Cola overseas?! Why not be so great at what you do that your name (Cingular), becomes as recognizable as Coca Cola! Cingular shouldn't have bought recognition... they should have tried to earn it! If they had tried to earn their recognition we wouldn't have Legacy AT&T's cancer in our cell phone company!:(
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
steadysignal
Apr 28, 10:33 AM
However the iPad is not a pc, so this report is a bit on the Apple side here.
agreed. take the ipad out and the numbers look more in line. and thats ok.
agreed. take the ipad out and the numbers look more in line. and thats ok.
skunk
Apr 24, 10:50 AM
I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.What do you mean by "allowed for"? Do you mean that they could have slaughtered more people in the wars of religion? As for Islam, we probably would not have had a Renaissance without Islam.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic WorldWe would all be speaking German I expect.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic WorldWe would all be speaking German I expect.
totoum
Apr 13, 11:58 AM
Folks who are criticizing people who are expressing their concern about the new version, please read this post.
I thought it was mentioned that all keyboard shortcuts were still there so I don't get what the concern in that post is about
I thought it was mentioned that all keyboard shortcuts were still there so I don't get what the concern in that post is about
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
But how do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
OllyW
Apr 28, 07:50 AM
And growth is bad?
I don't understand what you are getting at?
The figure from the year before was for Macs only. The iPad has sold very well so pushes Apple's share up when they are included but it isn't a Mac.
Mac sales were at record levels last year but if they had increased their market share by 188% then I would be more than impressed. ;)
I don't understand what you are getting at?
The figure from the year before was for Macs only. The iPad has sold very well so pushes Apple's share up when they are included but it isn't a Mac.
Mac sales were at record levels last year but if they had increased their market share by 188% then I would be more than impressed. ;)
rahrens
Sep 21, 08:33 AM
the iTV doesn't do HD either. Quoting Bob iger, Disney CEO:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
Actually, Steve noted that the iTV WILL do HD. It does have an HDMI port out, doesn't it? The issue now is that the ITS doesn't have that content yet. But if YOU have something you've managed to record on your Mac or PC that IS HD, then, by all means, buy the iTV (or whatever they'll call it) and watch your stuff...
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
Actually, Steve noted that the iTV WILL do HD. It does have an HDMI port out, doesn't it? The issue now is that the ITS doesn't have that content yet. But if YOU have something you've managed to record on your Mac or PC that IS HD, then, by all means, buy the iTV (or whatever they'll call it) and watch your stuff...
citizenzen
Apr 23, 10:45 PM
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
In another forum that I left recently (because of the poor quality of discussion) someone used this same type of argument to "prove" the existence of aliens visiting the Earth.
Of course it is a logical fallacy, this is why there is an element of faith required to fully claim an atheistic belief.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
I should mention this is not necessarily totally different than a Biblical definition of faith ...
I prefer dictionaries for my definitions.
In another forum that I left recently (because of the poor quality of discussion) someone used this same type of argument to "prove" the existence of aliens visiting the Earth.
Of course it is a logical fallacy, this is why there is an element of faith required to fully claim an atheistic belief.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
I should mention this is not necessarily totally different than a Biblical definition of faith ...
I prefer dictionaries for my definitions.
liavman
Apr 15, 10:02 AM
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.
Not the kind of bullying that leads to suicide.
Not the kind of bullying that leads to suicide.
OllyW
Mar 12, 04:27 AM
Nuclear experts are speculating that the explosion was caused by hydrogen gas released from water that's come into contact with the overheating fuel rods.
"If nuclear fuel rods overheat and then come into contact with water, this produces a large amount of highly-flammable hydrogen gas which can then ignite,"
BBC live update (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
"If nuclear fuel rods overheat and then come into contact with water, this produces a large amount of highly-flammable hydrogen gas which can then ignite,"
BBC live update (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 02:31 PM
You can give a god any attributes you want.
lol...
Look, in philosophy (and by proxy theology) there is used in debate and arguments definite descriptions. Definite descriptions are used as shorthand to refer to complex ideas so that we do not need to descend into meta-linguistics and logical symbolism which is quite arcane.
Now with regards to the ontological argument for the existence of God, and the "Problem of Evil" and any other argument propounded by a Christian theologian trying to prove God's existence using reason, the definite description "God" is used as shorthand for:
There is an entity such that this entity possesses certain attributes which are defined in certain religious texts called the Bible.
The fact that the Judaeo-Christian God is really the chief of the Ugaritic pantheon doesn't matter because the Ugaritic god doesn't have his attributes listed in the Bible, unlike the Judaeo-Christian god.
You can't give the Judaeo-Christian god any attributes you want, otherwise we would have solved the problem of evil long ago. You can in your imagination give any being any attributes you want but its definite description will include "there is a fictional being such that..." etc.
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...
lol...
Look, in philosophy (and by proxy theology) there is used in debate and arguments definite descriptions. Definite descriptions are used as shorthand to refer to complex ideas so that we do not need to descend into meta-linguistics and logical symbolism which is quite arcane.
Now with regards to the ontological argument for the existence of God, and the "Problem of Evil" and any other argument propounded by a Christian theologian trying to prove God's existence using reason, the definite description "God" is used as shorthand for:
There is an entity such that this entity possesses certain attributes which are defined in certain religious texts called the Bible.
The fact that the Judaeo-Christian God is really the chief of the Ugaritic pantheon doesn't matter because the Ugaritic god doesn't have his attributes listed in the Bible, unlike the Judaeo-Christian god.
You can't give the Judaeo-Christian god any attributes you want, otherwise we would have solved the problem of evil long ago. You can in your imagination give any being any attributes you want but its definite description will include "there is a fictional being such that..." etc.
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...
djgamble
Oct 7, 09:52 PM
Good luck to them then...
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
Kingsly
Sep 20, 01:13 AM
I didn't notice any TV inputs on the prototype, so unless Apple changes the design significantly and adds major features not discussed at the event, DVR is not a possibility (as far as this device is concerned).
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 10:08 AM
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
egsaxy
Sep 12, 08:41 PM
so a month ago, apple won't show us Tiger because they don't want anyone to copy what they're doing. Today they show us this set top box, that (atleast from the engaget comments) people think is pure rubbish, far behind everyone else's current products. Without reading the full 10 pages of commentary and not knowing if this has been brought up yet or not, but what if the prototype box, isn't anything like what they will give us in three months time? What if as someone mentioned on page one of these comments that its to pressure a studio into a contract? What if the living room box, ends up being far superior to what they showed us? what if it ends up having a dvd drive, and the tv tuner, and all of that other stuff that we want, and to be a truely amazing product we deserve. What if this box does look anything like the actual product? What if this box has totally different specs? What if we were shown this, and something else was going to be released? Apple is far too protective of its vision, strategy, and products that showing us this box doesn't add up. There will be an event about this box when its finally ready. The best place to hide is in the open. Not because you can't be seen, but because you can and its unexpected. Apple is doing a little magic trick for all of us, flashing this prototype iTv infront of us, and will deliever something far better when the time comes.
Multimedia
Oct 23, 09:54 PM
And now for the update... Dell re-shipped via UPS next-day. Still took until yesterday apparently to actually ship from Dell. But it's here. I just plugged it in and everything looks just fine. No dead/stuck pixels I can see. But then again, that's the way my first one was I bought nearly a year ago. After about 3 months, *POP!* one blue stuck pixel. Hehe, these two screens look maaaavolous together. :D Would it be gloating too much if I posted a pic? Heheheh... Maybe I'll bust out the camera after I clean off my desk. ;)Holy Molly now 30" Dells are only $1279.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs). They just lowered the list to $1599.
Any chance we can get a price adjustment?
We paid $1349 last week. That's another $75.60 less including tax. Man I could of had an iPod Shuffle for that. :(
10.24.06 - New C2D MacBookPro's announced.
AV-I phoned Dell this morning and got a $70 credit toward my 30". Wouldn't give me the $5.60 sales tax but got $70 instead of the usual $50 they said. Me so happy. That means I got the Dell 30" including sales tax for $1398.32. :D :p :)
Any chance we can get a price adjustment?
We paid $1349 last week. That's another $75.60 less including tax. Man I could of had an iPod Shuffle for that. :(
10.24.06 - New C2D MacBookPro's announced.
AV-I phoned Dell this morning and got a $70 credit toward my 30". Wouldn't give me the $5.60 sales tax but got $70 instead of the usual $50 they said. Me so happy. That means I got the Dell 30" including sales tax for $1398.32. :D :p :)
gugy
Sep 12, 04:05 PM
I have to disagree with many of the comments on this thread. I think this is an ideal device. I don't want a computer connected to my TV I want to gain access to the content on my computer on my TV. It is two different ways of looking at these products.
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
Ditto.
I think the idea is brilliant if it work flawlessly. If the wireless transmission is great then this will be a killer product.
Why not buy Elgato, They make good stuff and Apple do not have to worry about networks being mad at them for making a dvr.
Guys this is the future.
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
Ditto.
I think the idea is brilliant if it work flawlessly. If the wireless transmission is great then this will be a killer product.
Why not buy Elgato, They make good stuff and Apple do not have to worry about networks being mad at them for making a dvr.
Guys this is the future.
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
Rodimus Prime
Mar 13, 11:50 PM
Why can't people get away from the concept of a centralized power source, like a coal or nuclear plant or even a wind farm to generate their national needs? I even see arguments that 'we don't have the space' for alternative power. Look at an aerial photo of any city and all you see is miles and miles of dead empty blank rooves. Solar panels or even small wind turbines on every single roof in every city will have people either reducing their reliance on a central power source or even contributing their own electricity to the grid to the point you may not even need a central power source, or maybe just one - which could be a wind farm or a nice clean geothermal plant.
I sure as hell would not want wind turbines on the roof of houses. The noise from them would drive me insane.
I am a fan of putting solar cells on the roof of houses and then the excess power is sold back to the grid. That helps reduce it by a fair amount. Not that it would work in a large part of the country due to not being cost effective. You need to be farther south for it to really be worth it and have fair amount of sun shine.
biggest thing is we need more efficiency out of what we have. HVAC is some of the biggest power draining system and improve those and it greatly improves the over all system.
I sure as hell would not want wind turbines on the roof of houses. The noise from them would drive me insane.
I am a fan of putting solar cells on the roof of houses and then the excess power is sold back to the grid. That helps reduce it by a fair amount. Not that it would work in a large part of the country due to not being cost effective. You need to be farther south for it to really be worth it and have fair amount of sun shine.
biggest thing is we need more efficiency out of what we have. HVAC is some of the biggest power draining system and improve those and it greatly improves the over all system.
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:49 PM
NO nuclear.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.
- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.
- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
motulist
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?
Photics
Apr 9, 11:39 AM
Heh, we were having a great discussion, but it seems that the thread exploded. :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar