KnightWRX
May 2, 04:11 PM
No one is pointing fingers or bickering. I'm responding to your question. The only technical requirement that was satisfied is that the user had "Open "safe" files after downloading" selected. An app installer is not unsafe. Whether the app to be installed is safe or not is another matter, but the installer cannot harm your system or your user files, simply by launching. If you don't want apps... installers or otherwise... to launch after downloading, simply deselect that box.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
balamw
Sep 21, 02:53 PM
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
We're expecting a bunch of new stuff from Apple in early 07, any of which could be critical for iTV's success. The most obvious of these is QT8, we already know it will support H.264 captions, but what else will it do? Leopard will bring Front Row to all Macs and iLife 07 will be expected around the same time. However the fact that iTV has been announced as supporting both Mac and PC makes me assume that either it will not depend on features in Leopard, or iTunes on Windows will gain some functionality to support sharing of photos.
All sounds very intriguing.
B
We're expecting a bunch of new stuff from Apple in early 07, any of which could be critical for iTV's success. The most obvious of these is QT8, we already know it will support H.264 captions, but what else will it do? Leopard will bring Front Row to all Macs and iLife 07 will be expected around the same time. However the fact that iTV has been announced as supporting both Mac and PC makes me assume that either it will not depend on features in Leopard, or iTunes on Windows will gain some functionality to support sharing of photos.
All sounds very intriguing.
B
SirOmega
Sep 26, 12:49 AM
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
Huntn
Mar 15, 07:27 PM
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 07:54 AM
The iPad is a companion device and not a true PC.
It will be. This is just barely scratching the surface.
It will be. This is just barely scratching the surface.
robbyx
Feb 28, 01:02 AM
Erm.. you're being closed minded.
grant hill fila shoes. as shoe
grant hill fila shoes.
The Grant Hill#39;s were released; grant hill fila shoes. Fila Grant Hill III 1996-1997; Fila Grant Hill III 1996-1997
archipellago
May 2, 05:12 PM
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:32 AM
Nah. All those games you mentioned would be part of a pack of 25 on Nintendo for 19.99 like Namco museum.
Or would be part of a larger game as sub-games. Nintendo do understand this kind of gaming but package it differently. I am not at all convinced that that packaging & pricing strategy would not work on iOS.
Or would be part of a larger game as sub-games. Nintendo do understand this kind of gaming but package it differently. I am not at all convinced that that packaging & pricing strategy would not work on iOS.
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:19 AM
2. Many programs want you to manage files from within programs. Itunes does not want you organizing music folders. It wants you to organize in itunes. iphoto is the same. You just have to let go of folder management...except for documents. Its a hard habit to break. Let the programs do the organization.
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
first Fila Grant Hill shoe
FILA Grant Hill 2的侧面成一种
grant hill fila shoes.
grant hill fila 95.
Grant Hill Retro Fila; grant hill fila shoes. with Fila, Grant Hill was; with Fila, Grant Hill was
grant hill fila shoes. grant
grant hill fila 95.
grant hill fila 1995. grant
2pac was wearing the Grant
fila 96 grant hill 2 x reed space 5. fila 96 grant hill 2 x reed space 5 middot; Original Page | Image Link
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 09:21 AM
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
What the heck are you talking about??? :confused:
What the heck are you talking about??? :confused:
emotion
Sep 20, 09:47 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 01:42 PM
umm, everything? Did you read the bit I quoted from you?
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
torbjoern
Apr 23, 01:43 AM
It's easier to admit being an atheist on the Internet than in the real world, as even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists. Although only a fool would say in his heart "there is no god", it should be legitimate to say "I want to see proof before I believe".
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
Longey Nowze
May 5, 08:25 PM
I don't think it's an iPhone problem, I live outside the US and I have never had a dropped call. I have also used the iPhone in various countries including the US in Boston to be exact and I experienced no problems.
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not). We often get disconnected 2-4 times per hour as we talk during our commutes home. We have different shifts, but take the same routes home and we get dropped no matter whether I'm stationary and he's moving, vice versa, or if we're both moving. This also happens when we're on business trips - both stationary - him at home, me in a hotel - and we will get disconnected. The recurring motif has been the iPhone. When I talk with others who have AT&T but no iPhone, they only get disconnected when they are talking w/ someone who has an iPhone. The worst issue is when I am communicating w/ someone iPhone to iPhone.
IF this wasn't the iPhone and otherwise so awesome, I would have switched a long time ago... and frankly, I'm still contemplating going to another phone when my contract is up - because the dropped calls are so aggravating.
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
My "assumption" is that the iPhone software is making some errant call to the tower intermittently (whether too high/low power request or other issue) at which point, the tower drops the call.
While my experience with disconnects are sometimes random, there are some places that either I or my husband will be travelling by, when we will experience a disconnect - a place where he never gets disconnected while speaking to others w/o iPhones... places I never got disconnected before having an iPhone, either.
This may not be just an AT&T issue. It could be when you are a certain distance from a tower (lower power or significantly higher power?) and/or the phone is experiencing a push of data, that the interrupt happens.
This has largely been the elephant in the living room that AT&T and Apple has been ignoring. I have not only not seen an improvement, I've seen the situation get worse over time - whether this has to do w/ an increase of iPhone use faster than the towers can keep up, OR problems w/ iPhone OS updates or a combination of both - who knows. They need to fix this already.
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not). We often get disconnected 2-4 times per hour as we talk during our commutes home. We have different shifts, but take the same routes home and we get dropped no matter whether I'm stationary and he's moving, vice versa, or if we're both moving. This also happens when we're on business trips - both stationary - him at home, me in a hotel - and we will get disconnected. The recurring motif has been the iPhone. When I talk with others who have AT&T but no iPhone, they only get disconnected when they are talking w/ someone who has an iPhone. The worst issue is when I am communicating w/ someone iPhone to iPhone.
IF this wasn't the iPhone and otherwise so awesome, I would have switched a long time ago... and frankly, I'm still contemplating going to another phone when my contract is up - because the dropped calls are so aggravating.
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
My "assumption" is that the iPhone software is making some errant call to the tower intermittently (whether too high/low power request or other issue) at which point, the tower drops the call.
While my experience with disconnects are sometimes random, there are some places that either I or my husband will be travelling by, when we will experience a disconnect - a place where he never gets disconnected while speaking to others w/o iPhones... places I never got disconnected before having an iPhone, either.
This may not be just an AT&T issue. It could be when you are a certain distance from a tower (lower power or significantly higher power?) and/or the phone is experiencing a push of data, that the interrupt happens.
This has largely been the elephant in the living room that AT&T and Apple has been ignoring. I have not only not seen an improvement, I've seen the situation get worse over time - whether this has to do w/ an increase of iPhone use faster than the towers can keep up, OR problems w/ iPhone OS updates or a combination of both - who knows. They need to fix this already.
P-Worm
Sep 20, 07:13 AM
Is it possible that the cable ports on the back can be used for both input AND output? I don't see why not.
P-Worm
P-Worm
skunk
Apr 26, 05:20 PM
Have we just passed through the looking glass? :confused:
Benjy91
Mar 25, 11:08 AM
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
neiltc13
Apr 9, 06:00 PM
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
Povilas
Oct 7, 12:03 PM
Android is a mobile OS. iPhone is a device. Android is and will be used in many devices by many manufacturers. iPhone is only one device, but if you add iPod Touch which runs the same OS I don't think Android can surpass it by 2012.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 27, 06:18 PM
According to the APA there is no sound science behind conversion therapy.
Some quotes from Nicolosi:
�If the father drops the kid and the kid gets brain damage, at least he�ll be straight. Small price to pay.�
�When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.�
�I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.�
Some quotes from Nicolosi:
�If the father drops the kid and the kid gets brain damage, at least he�ll be straight. Small price to pay.�
�When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.�
�I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.�
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:01 PM
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare.
I wouldn't call Giffords's recovery miraculous.
I wouldn't call Giffords's recovery miraculous.
slate1
Sep 20, 01:13 PM
My thoughts on the hard-drive are very similar to "adamflip's" and "chromos's" in that it's simply a way to get around the video streaming limitations of the 802.11g protocol.
If you've got a movie sitting on your iMac in one room and it can simply transfer the iTunes video file to the iTV in the living room then the iTV could begin playback in a fairly short period of time while it caches the remainder of the movie to the iTV HD during playback. Voila - streaming problem solved.
I'm presuming that all the functionality to stream music (i.e. - airport express like...) will be incorportaed into the device and that no data other than that which is cached to it will be stored on the hard-drive. In other words, you won't store movies, music, etc. on the iTV - you'd continue to do that via your desktop Mac and manage them in iTunes.
I, personally, could care less about any DVR functionality as my HD cable-box already provides me with this functionality.
What I would love to see is DVD playback so that this box could essentially replace my existing DVD player in my home theater system.
If you've got a movie sitting on your iMac in one room and it can simply transfer the iTunes video file to the iTV in the living room then the iTV could begin playback in a fairly short period of time while it caches the remainder of the movie to the iTV HD during playback. Voila - streaming problem solved.
I'm presuming that all the functionality to stream music (i.e. - airport express like...) will be incorportaed into the device and that no data other than that which is cached to it will be stored on the hard-drive. In other words, you won't store movies, music, etc. on the iTV - you'd continue to do that via your desktop Mac and manage them in iTunes.
I, personally, could care less about any DVR functionality as my HD cable-box already provides me with this functionality.
What I would love to see is DVD playback so that this box could essentially replace my existing DVD player in my home theater system.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 09:59 AM
Piggie, I think Apple is satisfied with their Mac market trend (climbing) and is viewing phones and tablets as the future (and it's where they make the vast majority of their corporate profits now). And when a family in the UK walks into a store and sees the tablet displays, they will find that the best tablet (iPad) is also the tablet that costs no more than the rivals.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:34 PM
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
No comments:
Post a Comment