Eidorian
Sep 26, 12:26 AM
Where's the eight-core Memromn?Not happening.
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
sjo
Aug 29, 01:22 PM
Have you read what you just wrote? Who said anything about hunting whales? Eating whale meat? Or being poor?
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.
drapacioli
Sep 2, 10:45 AM
Is it just certain phones that get dropped calls? I have AT&T and when I demoed the iPhone in store the only phone call I tried to make with it was a dropped call. But my current phone, the Samsung Captivate, I have never even had a low signal, let alone a dropped call.
Azadre
Apr 20, 08:07 PM
Windows is the castle for Microsoft. Office and everything else for the most part was the moat.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
Hikkadwa
Apr 13, 02:24 AM
Based on the screenshots -This looks like its another car crash bit of software. I bet the guy who destroyed iMovie 06 has something to do with this. Lets just hope I'm wrong.
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
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:16 AM
Enjoy Greedy corporate thieves who break the law because they're big enough to do so, emptying your wallet.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
They didn't invent a new category. It's been there - and has always been in the TOS you signed. See the real problem (aside from your 5 year old tantrum) is that most people don't read the TOS before they sign.
The TOS are long, would take a long time to read and process. But consumers are too quick to just want the shiny new toy in their hands and sign away not realizing what they're signing.
But at the end of the day - that's not the company's fault. They are LEGALLY required to provide these documents so that a consumer CAN make decisions based on the terms.
Just like Apple MUST restate their TOS when they change/update iTunes with new features, etc.
But most people just click through and only "cry" post-facto when they get caught in something they feel is "unfair"
As a whole, most of the general public has been trained to be lazy - and that's why lawyers make a mint with frivolous lawsuits - regardless of merit or whether or not whatever side wins.
So back to your point - you signed a contract which outlined SPECIFIC usage for your unlimited data. ATT is now enforcing those policies. The fact that they waited or didn't enforce them previously is irrelevant.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
They didn't invent a new category. It's been there - and has always been in the TOS you signed. See the real problem (aside from your 5 year old tantrum) is that most people don't read the TOS before they sign.
The TOS are long, would take a long time to read and process. But consumers are too quick to just want the shiny new toy in their hands and sign away not realizing what they're signing.
But at the end of the day - that's not the company's fault. They are LEGALLY required to provide these documents so that a consumer CAN make decisions based on the terms.
Just like Apple MUST restate their TOS when they change/update iTunes with new features, etc.
But most people just click through and only "cry" post-facto when they get caught in something they feel is "unfair"
As a whole, most of the general public has been trained to be lazy - and that's why lawyers make a mint with frivolous lawsuits - regardless of merit or whether or not whatever side wins.
So back to your point - you signed a contract which outlined SPECIFIC usage for your unlimited data. ATT is now enforcing those policies. The fact that they waited or didn't enforce them previously is irrelevant.
javajedi
Oct 9, 09:34 PM
Alex, thank you for setting the record straight. I am so sick and tired of hearing the over and over highly fallacious arguments. In many ways these ppl are worse than Windows bigots. They *think* they are educated but aren't; at least Windows bigots don't pretend.
I can personally vouch for the miserable performance on double-precision floating point: The Java test I made is a simple timing comparison of a double-loop of 200,000,000 type double fp ops (multiply,square root, and addition).
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
*VIA C3 Ezra: 103043
Incidentally I ran the test on my linux "cube" box. Actually more of a rectangle- but hey? :) Looks like this http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/shuttle-sv24/index.x?pg=1
Anyways, I put in a VIA C3 processor. 800 mhz, runs very cool, no fan required. The chip is extremely reasonable.. I paid $29 for it 3 months ago. In my benchmark this low end, elcheapo $29 chip outperformed/equaled my $3500 PowerBook.
Jesus Jumping Christ ppl.. wake up and listen to what alex is saying; he is *NOT* arbitrarily pulling this out of his ass.
You may hear a bunch of flames from others, but not me. I for one (and many others on this board) thank you for taking the time. Regardless though, no matter what, there will always be those individuals that will not listen to logic and reason. Instead they will dismiss the truth along with anyone and everything as being �PC biased�. People need to stop treating this like religion and start being real.
I can personally vouch for the miserable performance on double-precision floating point: The Java test I made is a simple timing comparison of a double-loop of 200,000,000 type double fp ops (multiply,square root, and addition).
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
*VIA C3 Ezra: 103043
Incidentally I ran the test on my linux "cube" box. Actually more of a rectangle- but hey? :) Looks like this http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/shuttle-sv24/index.x?pg=1
Anyways, I put in a VIA C3 processor. 800 mhz, runs very cool, no fan required. The chip is extremely reasonable.. I paid $29 for it 3 months ago. In my benchmark this low end, elcheapo $29 chip outperformed/equaled my $3500 PowerBook.
Jesus Jumping Christ ppl.. wake up and listen to what alex is saying; he is *NOT* arbitrarily pulling this out of his ass.
You may hear a bunch of flames from others, but not me. I for one (and many others on this board) thank you for taking the time. Regardless though, no matter what, there will always be those individuals that will not listen to logic and reason. Instead they will dismiss the truth along with anyone and everything as being �PC biased�. People need to stop treating this like religion and start being real.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 11:02 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'd be curious if any Christians here are open to considering other God(s) or a different type of creator than Jesus. Especially the ones who challenge atheists to be open to the possibility of God.
I'd be curious if any Christians here are open to considering other God(s) or a different type of creator than Jesus. Especially the ones who challenge atheists to be open to the possibility of God.
dubbz
Mar 18, 05:07 PM
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
Theft? That's really stretching it! If it allowed you to download music without paying, then I'd agree, but it doesn't.
Also, It might be illegal, but I certainly don't agree that it's unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
Theft? That's really stretching it! If it allowed you to download music without paying, then I'd agree, but it doesn't.
Also, It might be illegal, but I certainly don't agree that it's unethical.
teasphere
Apr 13, 09:22 AM
The product looks good for what it is, and I read most of the comments here... while I'm not a video guy I am an artist and IT professional and I do have to agree that Apple is strangely moving away from the core pro market that was very loyal. I have seen more and more artists move back to PCs lately and even though I have been moving the other direction, I can't fully blame them.
I know Apple has a plan and they stick to their guns, but I just think they may be shooting themselves in the foot by going so fully consumer market. Avid has a lot more as far as hardcore features and scalability. Apple has basically dropped their server line and they are on a path of dumbing down many apps to fit a more iPad/App market. They are still powerful and "pro" apps but much of the scalability and truly "pro" features seem to be dwindling day by day. That's my concern.
I know Apple has a plan and they stick to their guns, but I just think they may be shooting themselves in the foot by going so fully consumer market. Avid has a lot more as far as hardcore features and scalability. Apple has basically dropped their server line and they are on a path of dumbing down many apps to fit a more iPad/App market. They are still powerful and "pro" apps but much of the scalability and truly "pro" features seem to be dwindling day by day. That's my concern.
WalkingDED
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
I actually paid for MyWi and I only use it to tether my iPad. I use it instead of (not in addition to) my iPhone and only when wifi is not available.
Peterkro
Mar 14, 02:51 PM
something i noticed from the diagrams of the reactor layout: the water basin where the spent fuel rods are temporarily stored is actualy outside of the steel+concrete containment: so that might explain why some reactor only isotopes were detected
i just hope none of those depelted fuel rods where scattered around from the top superstructre explosion
There is some damage to the storage pools housing the spent fuel rods and they are a source of concern,an explosion caused by lack of water cover is a possibility.
i just hope none of those depelted fuel rods where scattered around from the top superstructre explosion
There is some damage to the storage pools housing the spent fuel rods and they are a source of concern,an explosion caused by lack of water cover is a possibility.
AppliedVisual
Nov 1, 06:35 PM
Well then color me crazy and put me back on the bus! I'm all about the top speed 2.66GHz model and nothing else. :p
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
AppliedVisual
Oct 12, 03:43 PM
Wow I didn't even know such an accessory existed:
Gefen 4x1 DVI DL Switcher (Parallel Control) $899 (http://www.gefen.com/kvm/product.jsp?prod_id=3499)
But the price is almost that of another screen! Holy Moly. You have a better place to buy it for less with link please?
Unfortunately, I don't. :( You should try www.copperbox.com or www.ramelectronics.net - they may be able to quote you a better price, but I don't know how much better.
So you gonna go with the ATI Dual Dual Link DVI Card on your Mac Pro? What card do you have in your Quad. I bought mine refurb and Apple doesn't sell a Dual Dual Link video card for it for post-purchase upgrade that I know of. Do you? Could just buy another cheap NVIDEA GeForce 6600 card that is missing the noisy fan. Don't do 3-D or games.
I have the nVidia 7800GT card in both my G5 quads. It and the Quadro FX4000 were Apple's first offerings with 2xdual-link ports that I'm aware of. They went to the ATI X1900XT with the Mac Pro and replaced the the FX4000 with the FX4500 sometime last spring. Anyway, I think all the G5 quads are PCI-E x16 capable so you should be able to drop in any Mac EFI compliant PCI-E video card that has the dual-link connectors, but I'm not positive on this. The x1900xt sops up an adjacent card slot, which isn't an issue on the Mac Pro, but could cause problems on a G5 depending on what you may have installed. But I'm willing to bet that the current 7300GT card for $149 (1x dual-link, 1x single-link) will work just fine. I'm sure someone knows for sure.
And yeah, I will buy the Mac pro with the x1900xt unless something better comes along before I click the buy button.
Gefen 4x1 DVI DL Switcher (Parallel Control) $899 (http://www.gefen.com/kvm/product.jsp?prod_id=3499)
But the price is almost that of another screen! Holy Moly. You have a better place to buy it for less with link please?
Unfortunately, I don't. :( You should try www.copperbox.com or www.ramelectronics.net - they may be able to quote you a better price, but I don't know how much better.
So you gonna go with the ATI Dual Dual Link DVI Card on your Mac Pro? What card do you have in your Quad. I bought mine refurb and Apple doesn't sell a Dual Dual Link video card for it for post-purchase upgrade that I know of. Do you? Could just buy another cheap NVIDEA GeForce 6600 card that is missing the noisy fan. Don't do 3-D or games.
I have the nVidia 7800GT card in both my G5 quads. It and the Quadro FX4000 were Apple's first offerings with 2xdual-link ports that I'm aware of. They went to the ATI X1900XT with the Mac Pro and replaced the the FX4000 with the FX4500 sometime last spring. Anyway, I think all the G5 quads are PCI-E x16 capable so you should be able to drop in any Mac EFI compliant PCI-E video card that has the dual-link connectors, but I'm not positive on this. The x1900xt sops up an adjacent card slot, which isn't an issue on the Mac Pro, but could cause problems on a G5 depending on what you may have installed. But I'm willing to bet that the current 7300GT card for $149 (1x dual-link, 1x single-link) will work just fine. I'm sure someone knows for sure.
And yeah, I will buy the Mac pro with the x1900xt unless something better comes along before I click the buy button.
jchung
Mar 18, 11:22 AM
I can't blame AT&T one bit for trying to protect their network. And as some have already said, those who are trying to game the system are hurting those of us who are being honest by bloating the network unnecessarily.
I can blame AT&T for this because they don't account for data usage properly.
See this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
If AT&T could account for data usage properly and show their customers what was using the data, then I would say ALMOST say its ok for AT&T to do this (other than the fact they just automatically sign you up instead of having you opt in).
I can blame AT&T for this because they don't account for data usage properly.
See this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
If AT&T could account for data usage properly and show their customers what was using the data, then I would say ALMOST say its ok for AT&T to do this (other than the fact they just automatically sign you up instead of having you opt in).
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.
techwarrior
Nov 12, 12:14 PM
Add me to the happy list. I have had all iPhones since 3G, and rarely lose a call, one or two places I typically go have poor service so I let others know I will call back if I drop in these spots. MCell has done wonders for the poor service at my home.
ATT is the only service I can get at work. Due to my office being an R&D facility for a company that makes phone systems they block all external wireless signals and then put ATT repeaters in the building.
So, for me, it would take a lot to push me over the edge to move to another provider. I do like how others are pushing ATT to adopt with more competitive plan options and think competition from TMo, Sprint/Nextel and Vz can only be good for those of us who can stay with ATT.
ATT is the only service I can get at work. Due to my office being an R&D facility for a company that makes phone systems they block all external wireless signals and then put ATT repeaters in the building.
So, for me, it would take a lot to push me over the edge to move to another provider. I do like how others are pushing ATT to adopt with more competitive plan options and think competition from TMo, Sprint/Nextel and Vz can only be good for those of us who can stay with ATT.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 03:01 PM
Don't get me wrong, it's good that companies are giving time scales, but they don't really mean jack until they're implemented (the UK committed to the Kyoto protocol and will miss it's commitments by miles)
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
twoodcc
Sep 26, 01:36 PM
well i might be getting a mac pro soon (not sure yet)
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?
Watabou
May 2, 10:58 AM
That's why I use Firefox with NoScript installed. :)
firestarter
Mar 15, 07:13 AM
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Can I answer (raises hand!)?
Given that Germany probably isn't going to magic 7 renewable power stations out of thin air overnight, they'll be stepping up the burning of hydrocarbons.
So the German people will probably be paying more for electricity at a time when oil prices are at a high. It'll poison the environment more, and take Germany further away from realising their Kyoto agreement pledges. And it will probably increase the amount of radioactive material released into the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements), if some of that capacity is switched to coal.
So, a stupid and self serving action by German politicians.
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Can I answer (raises hand!)?
Given that Germany probably isn't going to magic 7 renewable power stations out of thin air overnight, they'll be stepping up the burning of hydrocarbons.
So the German people will probably be paying more for electricity at a time when oil prices are at a high. It'll poison the environment more, and take Germany further away from realising their Kyoto agreement pledges. And it will probably increase the amount of radioactive material released into the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements), if some of that capacity is switched to coal.
So, a stupid and self serving action by German politicians.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:46 PM
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:24 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
No comments:
Post a Comment