JesterJJZ
Apr 12, 10:16 PM
Might be great down the road, but something tells me my FCP7 will be plenty useful for at least the next couple years.
KindredMAC
Jul 11, 11:37 PM
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine and will be REALLY fine until CS 3 is released next spring/summer. Until then, I wouldn't be able to fully utilize the new Mac Pro. I installed my CS 2 on my MacBook and what a dog compared to my G5 at home and my G5 at work. Granted my buddy who is stuck on a 867 QuickSilver at work says that it runs about the same, but that doesn't cut it when I've been using a G5 for 2 years at work and 6 months at home.
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 09:36 AM
AT&T already gets $50 I'll be damned if I pay anymore for the 1 time a month I actuly need to pull up a full web page due to flash. Yes they get $50 for data, $30 for my unlimited plan (I use ~1gb) and $20 for unlimited texts which is simply insanely small amounts of data.
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt. All you idiots need to read up about Ma Bell and the **** they tried pulling years ago. It's headed back in that direction now.
To all the morons who say if you don't like it don't get it. Your right the carriers should rule over ours lives. We should simply not have phones if we don't want to grab our ankles and like it, every time the phone companies come up with a new way to stick it to us.
Weak minds will continue to be brainwashed by larger corporations site any TOS you want. Your the same people that argued about how AT&T needed 2 years to get MMS to work, and they were right. Probably the same lot that gladly ponied up extra cash to unclock Bluetooth and ringtones on your celluar one / vzn phones.
Well no not quite. Over in the UK I laughed at AT&Ts inability to get the ball rolling on MMS. But if you sign a contract you stick to it. It couldn't be any simpler.
O2 charge extra for tethering, guess what? I voted with my wallet and didn't pay it.
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt. All you idiots need to read up about Ma Bell and the **** they tried pulling years ago. It's headed back in that direction now.
To all the morons who say if you don't like it don't get it. Your right the carriers should rule over ours lives. We should simply not have phones if we don't want to grab our ankles and like it, every time the phone companies come up with a new way to stick it to us.
Weak minds will continue to be brainwashed by larger corporations site any TOS you want. Your the same people that argued about how AT&T needed 2 years to get MMS to work, and they were right. Probably the same lot that gladly ponied up extra cash to unclock Bluetooth and ringtones on your celluar one / vzn phones.
Well no not quite. Over in the UK I laughed at AT&Ts inability to get the ball rolling on MMS. But if you sign a contract you stick to it. It couldn't be any simpler.
O2 charge extra for tethering, guess what? I voted with my wallet and didn't pay it.
.jpg "great wall papers about love")
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:05 AM
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
No viruses on the Mac. There's been malware for OS X for quite a while now.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
No viruses on the Mac. There's been malware for OS X for quite a while now.
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:26 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
supmango
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
PracticalMac
Mar 11, 08:56 AM
Dam... I hope that damage isn't that bad, but it being 8.9 I won't hold my breathe.
Its bad, really bad.
Have relatives there, in Tokyo.
Its bad, really bad.
Have relatives there, in Tokyo.
samdweck
Oct 7, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by arn
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
okay fine, i was wrong... sorry to whomever i offended!
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
okay fine, i was wrong... sorry to whomever i offended!
milo
Sep 20, 08:16 AM
For some reason I convinved myself that Apple would only permit videos tagged as originating from their store.
No way. That would mean that users couldn't even watch their own home movies. Apple would NEVER do that, it would be a huge conflict with their other selling points.
I hope it will work with all Front Row files, not just iTunes content.
What would they leave out? Didn't they already say it does photo slideshows?
What most bothers me about the iTV is that it is a workaround to a PVR instead of embrassing it.
I'm looking for an integtated system for music, movies and TV, not just downloading a show as needed, but with the inclusion of a full blown PVR.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
Problem is, doing a PVR would be extremely expensive. Other than things like Tivo that have monthly fees, PVR's haven't really caught on, and the price is the biggest reason.
I really hope that someone from Apple reads these forums, I am sure it gets back to Apple, anyway I hope they do it right. Or there will be alot of disappointed people and money lost.
That would be the worst idea ever. People on these forums are ALWAYS disappointed, even with products that turn out to be huge sellers for apple. People whine and whine...and then they buy the product anyway.
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
IT IS NOT THE FINAL NAME. It's only a codename, it will ship with a different name.
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 already have a DVD player. Why the hell would I want to see the price go up even more just to give me redundant technology? Do you complain that your printer doesn't scan documents?
No way. That would mean that users couldn't even watch their own home movies. Apple would NEVER do that, it would be a huge conflict with their other selling points.
I hope it will work with all Front Row files, not just iTunes content.
What would they leave out? Didn't they already say it does photo slideshows?
What most bothers me about the iTV is that it is a workaround to a PVR instead of embrassing it.
I'm looking for an integtated system for music, movies and TV, not just downloading a show as needed, but with the inclusion of a full blown PVR.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
Problem is, doing a PVR would be extremely expensive. Other than things like Tivo that have monthly fees, PVR's haven't really caught on, and the price is the biggest reason.
I really hope that someone from Apple reads these forums, I am sure it gets back to Apple, anyway I hope they do it right. Or there will be alot of disappointed people and money lost.
That would be the worst idea ever. People on these forums are ALWAYS disappointed, even with products that turn out to be huge sellers for apple. People whine and whine...and then they buy the product anyway.
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
IT IS NOT THE FINAL NAME. It's only a codename, it will ship with a different name.
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 already have a DVD player. Why the hell would I want to see the price go up even more just to give me redundant technology? Do you complain that your printer doesn't scan documents?
THX1139
Oct 12, 07:23 PM
You think Dell will sell them for even less on Black Friday? - November 24 for you unfamiliar with the term.
...
So I'm going to wind up with:
24" + 20" on both the 2GHz Dual Core (got at Fry's for $864.26 in August) and Quad G5s
24" + 30" on the 8-Core Mac Pro.
I like the idea of having a 24" on everything because it is capable of displaying HD in its native resolution - not bigger not smaller.
But if Dell starts selling the 30" for $999 then all bets are off. :D
Having never spent any length of time with a 30", it is probably too soon to tell how much I will want two. My hunch is: a lot. :p
All that and just to jack videos off the cable TV. I would think a combination tivo and digital DVD recorder would be the cheaper solution. ... Whew! Still not sure how you can financially justify all that hardware without some kind of return. Must be an expensive hobby?? :rolleyes:
...
So I'm going to wind up with:
24" + 20" on both the 2GHz Dual Core (got at Fry's for $864.26 in August) and Quad G5s
24" + 30" on the 8-Core Mac Pro.
I like the idea of having a 24" on everything because it is capable of displaying HD in its native resolution - not bigger not smaller.
But if Dell starts selling the 30" for $999 then all bets are off. :D
Having never spent any length of time with a 30", it is probably too soon to tell how much I will want two. My hunch is: a lot. :p
All that and just to jack videos off the cable TV. I would think a combination tivo and digital DVD recorder would be the cheaper solution. ... Whew! Still not sure how you can financially justify all that hardware without some kind of return. Must be an expensive hobby?? :rolleyes:
milo
Apr 13, 11:30 AM
Folks who are criticizing people who are expressing their concern about the new version, please read this post.
People who are expressing "concern" that is completely based on wild assumptions with no basis in fact deserve the criticism.
Really, I can't imagine anything more ridiculous than assuming that every feature that wasn't shown in this (fairly short) demo has been removed from the app.
I haven't seen a single specific on what's a step down from the previous version other than the price tag and the look.
I'm not too familiar with the FC app, but I'm wondering if this FCSX is the newer version of the previous $999 application... Why'd they drop the price by ~$700?
Part of it may be that they're switching from a bundle of multiple apps to selling them separately (or not, we don't know yet). Or maybe they just want to sell more copies and get more of the market share.
People who are expressing "concern" that is completely based on wild assumptions with no basis in fact deserve the criticism.
Really, I can't imagine anything more ridiculous than assuming that every feature that wasn't shown in this (fairly short) demo has been removed from the app.
I haven't seen a single specific on what's a step down from the previous version other than the price tag and the look.
I'm not too familiar with the FC app, but I'm wondering if this FCSX is the newer version of the previous $999 application... Why'd they drop the price by ~$700?
Part of it may be that they're switching from a bundle of multiple apps to selling them separately (or not, we don't know yet). Or maybe they just want to sell more copies and get more of the market share.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 09:52 AM
I have been blessed with an athletic and healthy body.
Unfortunately, your avatar shows your butter face and not your hot bod....
Unfortunately, your avatar shows your butter face and not your hot bod....
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:42 PM
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
One word.
Night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night).
One word.
Night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night).
balamw
Apr 9, 01:36 PM
They just need to adjust their thinking.
They're holding it wrong? :p
I agree with the overall sentiment, but it may still be something a "switcher" may not like. They may like the relative lack of noise that comes with most Macs.
B
They're holding it wrong? :p
I agree with the overall sentiment, but it may still be something a "switcher" may not like. They may like the relative lack of noise that comes with most Macs.
B
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:27 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Absolutely. People act as if this world is expendable. As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Absolutely. People act as if this world is expendable. As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 10:16 AM
I don't know, I don't have any answers. It's easier to destroy than create.
A few European posters have backed up my assessments tho, about Europeans being less likely to be challenged on their beliefs. In fact, you're more likely to be viewed as odd if you profess a strong Christian belief.
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and 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.
Don't forget, many of the batshit crazy rules that a lot of Christians are meant to follow are actually interpretations of the clergy, rather than being derived from the Bible. This was (along with papal bulls, simony, etc) what helped spur the creation of protestantism which did away with a lot of the incomprehensible dross inherent in Catholicism and tried instead to get back to the most fundamental message in the Bible.
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 World
A few European posters have backed up my assessments tho, about Europeans being less likely to be challenged on their beliefs. In fact, you're more likely to be viewed as odd if you profess a strong Christian belief.
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and 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.
Don't forget, many of the batshit crazy rules that a lot of Christians are meant to follow are actually interpretations of the clergy, rather than being derived from the Bible. This was (along with papal bulls, simony, etc) what helped spur the creation of protestantism which did away with a lot of the incomprehensible dross inherent in Catholicism and tried instead to get back to the most fundamental message in the Bible.
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 World
Gamoe
Apr 9, 05:12 AM
I think iOS games have great potential, but I still feel that there is a gap between okay and great that is differentiated by physical controls. All we need are a few buttons and a joystick and/or d-pad. But Apple's design-style doesn't seem to allow that, and I for one think that's a shame.
bnerd
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
Hopefully this will lighten the strain on the network.
munkery
May 2, 01:02 PM
As with all malware that doesn't achieve privilege escalation via exploitation, this will not be very widespread or successful.
BTW, Windows already has far more privilege escalation vulnerabilities this year alone as Mac OS X over it's lifespan.
This type of malware will no longer work in Safari once Webkit2 is released given the scripting engine will run as a seperate process that is sandboxed (similar to Chrome). The scripting engine does not run as a separate process in IE.
Also, check out the links in my sig for more security tips. Then, PM me your credit card number (obviously, this is a joke).
BTW, Windows already has far more privilege escalation vulnerabilities this year alone as Mac OS X over it's lifespan.
This type of malware will no longer work in Safari once Webkit2 is released given the scripting engine will run as a seperate process that is sandboxed (similar to Chrome). The scripting engine does not run as a separate process in IE.
Also, check out the links in my sig for more security tips. Then, PM me your credit card number (obviously, this is a joke).
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:24 PM
There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
bradl
Mar 18, 02:01 AM
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
No. it wasn't.
I rarely use it, and when I do, it is work related. I went the MyWi route after the BenM hole was patched up in iOS > 3.1.
BL.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
No. it wasn't.
I rarely use it, and when I do, it is work related. I went the MyWi route after the BenM hole was patched up in iOS > 3.1.
BL.
zarusoba
Aug 30, 08:48 AM
The fact is that there is no industry or organisation that does not depend on healthy ecosystems for its survival and growth. Therefore, even those who lack any moral imperative to protect the environment must surely choose to do so out of sheer logic.
Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.
The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.
"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)
Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.
The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.
"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 05:46 PM
Terminology is different migrating from Windows to Mac. They pretty much have the same features, but they are worded differently. So, there is a learning curve, but it is not troublesome. I am still learning OS X and so far it has been a breeze. I think your attitude while making the switch is important. Be openminded and remember why you chose to buy a Mac: you want to learn a new operating system. Among other reasons. :)
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
If I think of more discrepancies, I will follow up with another post. Switchers Rule! :D
Also, iWork and Office are two different animals, but they do the same thing: create documents and slide shows etc.. I have and use both, but honestly, I prefer Office, as it has extra features when writing research papers. One of my current tasks at hand. Remember, I am still new and I plan to use one-to-one in order to learn all of the features of iWork.
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
If I think of more discrepancies, I will follow up with another post. Switchers Rule! :D
Also, iWork and Office are two different animals, but they do the same thing: create documents and slide shows etc.. I have and use both, but honestly, I prefer Office, as it has extra features when writing research papers. One of my current tasks at hand. Remember, I am still new and I plan to use one-to-one in order to learn all of the features of iWork.
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.