ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:01 PM
yes, I did explain what sharia law is. you're either blind, have a poor grasp of english, or are being willfully stupid.
(Examples = teaching)!= saying
The latter is specific to the situation.
Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:
Quran- 4:15 �If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.�
This quote is sectioned to the event of homosexuality being concerned. However, you have to prove that woman is being obscene, which is almost impossible if you've got to find 1 doctor, 4 witnesses to event, and two family members to testify the same thing.
Quran-24:2 �The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication�flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.�
100 striped != death.
Adultery or fornication is VERY contentious in Islam. It is a big sin, and often breaks contracts, of nature of marriage. No death here.
Quran-17:32 � Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
...
Quran-33:33 �stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.�
If you're going to quote something, please be sure to complete the damn sentence... and not end it prematurely:
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
In other words, be modest.
Now some sahih hadiths:
Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
as above, adultery is a greater sin. This, though, does not demonstrate honour killing. An honour killing is killing made by family or community that the victim has brought dishonour against the family or community.
In this case, is it not dishonour, is it considered to be criminal.
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: �A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah�s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah�s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.�
As above.
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
�A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God�s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.�
justin bieber never say never
VIDEO - Justin Bieber#39;s #39;Never
Justin Bieber#39;s #39;Never Say
a€œNever Say Never.a€ It
justin bieber never say never
justin bieber never say never
justin bieber never say never.
So what does Justin Bieber
justn Never,justin bieber
justin bieber never say never
justin bieber never say never
justin bieber never say never
justin bieber never say never
Justin Bieber! The movie
Say Never movie.! Justin
justin bieber never say never
Justin Bieber Never Say Never
Justin Bieber Egged By Angry
(Examples = teaching)!= saying
The latter is specific to the situation.
Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:
Quran- 4:15 �If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.�
This quote is sectioned to the event of homosexuality being concerned. However, you have to prove that woman is being obscene, which is almost impossible if you've got to find 1 doctor, 4 witnesses to event, and two family members to testify the same thing.
Quran-24:2 �The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication�flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.�
100 striped != death.
Adultery or fornication is VERY contentious in Islam. It is a big sin, and often breaks contracts, of nature of marriage. No death here.
Quran-17:32 � Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
...
Quran-33:33 �stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.�
If you're going to quote something, please be sure to complete the damn sentence... and not end it prematurely:
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
In other words, be modest.
Now some sahih hadiths:
Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
as above, adultery is a greater sin. This, though, does not demonstrate honour killing. An honour killing is killing made by family or community that the victim has brought dishonour against the family or community.
In this case, is it not dishonour, is it considered to be criminal.
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: �A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah�s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah�s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.�
As above.
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
�A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God�s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.�
chirpie
Apr 13, 11:01 AM
I don't get the "imovie pro" comments. From the announcement, does it look like functionality is removed? What specifically would make this new version less pro than the previous.
And why are you assuming that FC doesn't include all that functionality, or that Color is no longer included? They didn't talk about the rest of the suite, but for a software package two months from release, it seems just as likely that the rest of the suite is still there but they just didn't want to talk about them yet. Or did they actually say that it's just one app now instead of a suite?
As a Logic user, I'm very interested to see if Soundtrack Pro is updated. It has a ton of potential but it has always been in horrible shape. Apple could kill it (and just beef up the audio in FC, but that seems like a bad strategy) or they could finally give it the attention it needs and finally make it an audio post app that can compete with Pro Tools. Hopefully Apple will have more info soon, will STP get an update, and if so will that update be available to Logic users (or will we have to wait until Logic X ships)?
In Cory's defense, he's presenting this as large concern that hasn't been addressed yet, not that he's ready to jump ship on the idea of FCP X.
And I share the concern. There's a LOT of unanswered questions around the suite. If Apple said "we're killing the rest of the suite" then I'd be p*ssed, but that doesn't sound likely at all.
So now we're left to wait and see what other details emerge.
A recap of a few things that made me happy... (from Larry's blog)
---------
* Rendering is now in the background and much faster because it harnesses the power of the GPU.
* The 4 GB memory limit is gone – FCP will use as much RAM as you have installed on your system.
* FCP X now uses all the processors on your system, not just one and a half.
In addition, a flock of new features were added:
* It supports editing video image sizes from standard definition up to 4K.
* It uses fewer tools from the Tool palette (which is no longer there, by the way) by making the cursor smarter. WHERE you click something determines WHAT you can do with it.
* A lot of existing features are jazzed up (linking and grouping are replaced by the much more elegant Clip Connection and Compound Clips)
* While new features like the magnetic timeline, permanent audio sync and auto-metadata generation are flat-out stunning.
-------------
And I for one LIKE the new UI. I was doing a favor for an aunt and was editing her son's graduation video and elected to do it in iMovie even though I have FCS3 and obviously while I didn't have all the functionality I was used too, I had plenty of moments where I was thinking "This part would have taken forever in FCP" or "I wish FCP was this slick looking."
This PREVIEW is a large step in the right direction. Let's see where things go from here.
And why are you assuming that FC doesn't include all that functionality, or that Color is no longer included? They didn't talk about the rest of the suite, but for a software package two months from release, it seems just as likely that the rest of the suite is still there but they just didn't want to talk about them yet. Or did they actually say that it's just one app now instead of a suite?
As a Logic user, I'm very interested to see if Soundtrack Pro is updated. It has a ton of potential but it has always been in horrible shape. Apple could kill it (and just beef up the audio in FC, but that seems like a bad strategy) or they could finally give it the attention it needs and finally make it an audio post app that can compete with Pro Tools. Hopefully Apple will have more info soon, will STP get an update, and if so will that update be available to Logic users (or will we have to wait until Logic X ships)?
In Cory's defense, he's presenting this as large concern that hasn't been addressed yet, not that he's ready to jump ship on the idea of FCP X.
And I share the concern. There's a LOT of unanswered questions around the suite. If Apple said "we're killing the rest of the suite" then I'd be p*ssed, but that doesn't sound likely at all.
So now we're left to wait and see what other details emerge.
A recap of a few things that made me happy... (from Larry's blog)
---------
* Rendering is now in the background and much faster because it harnesses the power of the GPU.
* The 4 GB memory limit is gone – FCP will use as much RAM as you have installed on your system.
* FCP X now uses all the processors on your system, not just one and a half.
In addition, a flock of new features were added:
* It supports editing video image sizes from standard definition up to 4K.
* It uses fewer tools from the Tool palette (which is no longer there, by the way) by making the cursor smarter. WHERE you click something determines WHAT you can do with it.
* A lot of existing features are jazzed up (linking and grouping are replaced by the much more elegant Clip Connection and Compound Clips)
* While new features like the magnetic timeline, permanent audio sync and auto-metadata generation are flat-out stunning.
-------------
And I for one LIKE the new UI. I was doing a favor for an aunt and was editing her son's graduation video and elected to do it in iMovie even though I have FCS3 and obviously while I didn't have all the functionality I was used too, I had plenty of moments where I was thinking "This part would have taken forever in FCP" or "I wish FCP was this slick looking."
This PREVIEW is a large step in the right direction. Let's see where things go from here.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:38 AM
Putting homosexuality down to the choice of a "hip counterculture" is hateful, because it completely trivializes the issue.
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
handsome pete
Apr 12, 11:15 PM
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
Of course you never used that particular phrase. You did claim that you couldn't take an Adobe "pro" seriously. What particular industry do you work in where that's the case?
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
Of course you never used that particular phrase. You did claim that you couldn't take an Adobe "pro" seriously. What particular industry do you work in where that's the case?
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
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 05:08 PM
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes. When I had my Mac Mini wireless and I tried using Front Row to watch movies from other computers (similar to what iTV is supposed to do) it had a real spotty connection sometimes. The consistency and reliability of a wired connection is yet to be paralleled with anything else.
I agree 100%. Wireless loses to wired everytime. In addition before too long there are going to be so many 80211 type devices, and phones that soon the bandwidth will get crowded and error prone.
I agree 100%. Wireless loses to wired everytime. In addition before too long there are going to be so many 80211 type devices, and phones that soon the bandwidth will get crowded and error prone.
Gelfin
Mar 26, 07:30 PM
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
takao
Mar 15, 11:25 AM
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
on the television i'm afraid:
they showed archive footage of the same place before the tsunami and then typical amateur footage of it getting hit
the construction looked like a 3-4 meter high reenforced-concrete wall on top of a usual levy
perhaps it's purpose was only protection against smaller tsunamies or to 'buy' more valuable seconds for evacuation or to get people into safer locations
i have heard of such constructions in Japan before so i didn't listen that closely ... hopefully it worked and saved a few hundred lives by delaying it a little bit, i don't know
regarding fuel rods being layered away:
*those in the actual reactor: yes
*but i somehow question (IMHO) the design decisions to store the spent fuel rods directly in the same building but outside of the containment:
according to the cut away charts the only thing between the fuel rods and the atmosphere is the superstructure above the containment and the direct cover of the basin
on reactors 1+3 the superstructure blew away because of a hydrogen explosion leaving one barrier directly over the basin behind and teared holes into the structure of reactor 4 having the same effect
what i have asking myself something regarding the cooling layout in regards to the spent fuel basins: the media/translation isn't clear if or how the cooling on those are potentially connected to the reactor cooling system and it's back up systems
in the shut down reactors 5+6 the temperature of the basin water has raised up to 84� from the usual 30-40 because of a cooling problem
do have any information in regards to how those cooling systems are connected to reactor cooling ? because it seems confusing that those basins are now causing so much problems now
(i suspect that the spent fuel storage thing is handled differently on newer reactor designs)
on the television i'm afraid:
they showed archive footage of the same place before the tsunami and then typical amateur footage of it getting hit
the construction looked like a 3-4 meter high reenforced-concrete wall on top of a usual levy
perhaps it's purpose was only protection against smaller tsunamies or to 'buy' more valuable seconds for evacuation or to get people into safer locations
i have heard of such constructions in Japan before so i didn't listen that closely ... hopefully it worked and saved a few hundred lives by delaying it a little bit, i don't know
regarding fuel rods being layered away:
*those in the actual reactor: yes
*but i somehow question (IMHO) the design decisions to store the spent fuel rods directly in the same building but outside of the containment:
according to the cut away charts the only thing between the fuel rods and the atmosphere is the superstructure above the containment and the direct cover of the basin
on reactors 1+3 the superstructure blew away because of a hydrogen explosion leaving one barrier directly over the basin behind and teared holes into the structure of reactor 4 having the same effect
what i have asking myself something regarding the cooling layout in regards to the spent fuel basins: the media/translation isn't clear if or how the cooling on those are potentially connected to the reactor cooling system and it's back up systems
in the shut down reactors 5+6 the temperature of the basin water has raised up to 84� from the usual 30-40 because of a cooling problem
do have any information in regards to how those cooling systems are connected to reactor cooling ? because it seems confusing that those basins are now causing so much problems now
(i suspect that the spent fuel storage thing is handled differently on newer reactor designs)
emil.lofman
Aug 29, 12:53 PM
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
I think you've missed something here. Greenpeace did not, infact, state that Apple is solely responsible for killing the environment.
When China and India begins polluting as much as most western countries do per capita, that's when we're in trouble.
I would guess the industries in India and China are exporting quite a lot of goods to the western world, which makes us morally responsible. To make a real bad analogy, a prostitute with no customers is not a prositute.
Greenpeace probably doesn't have much of a chance to raise awareness on environmental issues in either China, a country were there is no freedom of speech, or India, were a large part of the population is preoccupied with being really, really poor and therefore has no time to spare for macrumors.
You seem really intelligent by the way - you'll probably do great in high school.
I think you've missed something here. Greenpeace did not, infact, state that Apple is solely responsible for killing the environment.
When China and India begins polluting as much as most western countries do per capita, that's when we're in trouble.
I would guess the industries in India and China are exporting quite a lot of goods to the western world, which makes us morally responsible. To make a real bad analogy, a prostitute with no customers is not a prositute.
Greenpeace probably doesn't have much of a chance to raise awareness on environmental issues in either China, a country were there is no freedom of speech, or India, were a large part of the population is preoccupied with being really, really poor and therefore has no time to spare for macrumors.
You seem really intelligent by the way - you'll probably do great in high school.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:15 PM
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
takao
Mar 16, 06:08 AM
And now France are making $3bn EUR a year from exporting electricity - also probably laughing heartily when they see at the price of oil.
good for them that means finally the EDF can pay back those dozens of billions euro they are in debt
;)
for comparison:
EdF: 150.000 employees: 65 billion revenue, 1 billion profit in 2010
the 2 big german energy companies
RWE: 70.000 employees: 50 billion of revenue, 3 billion of profit
E.ON: 85.000 employees: 92 billion revenue, 5 billion of profit
looking at the competition which focus less on nuclear power plants they are doing actually rather bad
good for them that means finally the EDF can pay back those dozens of billions euro they are in debt
;)
for comparison:
EdF: 150.000 employees: 65 billion revenue, 1 billion profit in 2010
the 2 big german energy companies
RWE: 70.000 employees: 50 billion of revenue, 3 billion of profit
E.ON: 85.000 employees: 92 billion revenue, 5 billion of profit
looking at the competition which focus less on nuclear power plants they are doing actually rather bad
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 01:44 PM
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
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
CQd44
May 2, 09:16 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
If this is safari specific, it shouldn't be that big. How many people *really* use it?
If this is safari specific, it shouldn't be that big. How many people *really* use it?
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:41 AM
I agree but they will never match real desktops. Technology advances. Something you can do today let's say in 2 hours you will do in 1 next year on new equipement. Thing is that next year you will ramp up the quality of the final product still getting same 2 hour work period. It's like that for ages and will never stop :)
Exactly! Desktop shipments still outpace laptop shipments. Desktops and Laptops will continue to hold top market share, while inevitably tablets will cut into that margin and find a nice place and sit. Desktops have been around since the beginning.. and every challenger to it has never surpassed the market share. Laptops, Netbooks, Tablets, smartphones... whatever.. people still need desktops and laptops for prolonged productivity.
Exactly! Desktop shipments still outpace laptop shipments. Desktops and Laptops will continue to hold top market share, while inevitably tablets will cut into that margin and find a nice place and sit. Desktops have been around since the beginning.. and every challenger to it has never surpassed the market share. Laptops, Netbooks, Tablets, smartphones... whatever.. people still need desktops and laptops for prolonged productivity.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 09:38 AM
1. Android phones beat the iPhone to the punch. FACT.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
superleccy
Sep 20, 05:55 AM
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.
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
madoka
Mar 18, 06:07 PM
Obviously, Apple will freak (what else is new...), but all this does is provide a shortcut around the burn-to-CD-and-rerip shortcut that's built into iTunes.
Wouldn't this shortcut result in a loss in sound quality?
Wouldn't this shortcut result in a loss in sound quality?
notabadname
Apr 20, 05:40 PM
Largest App store . . .
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:50 AM
So have you seen what verizon charges for tethering? This forum is extremely slighted towards AT&T. Yet Verizon charges more for tethering and they seem to get a free pass.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
I was going to get an iPhone when another carrier picked it up. I hoped it would be Sprint, since that is where I am right now. But since it was Verizon, I did not get it. Yes Verizon sucks, but AT&T sucks... differently.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
I was going to get an iPhone when another carrier picked it up. I hoped it would be Sprint, since that is where I am right now. But since it was Verizon, I did not get it. Yes Verizon sucks, but AT&T sucks... differently.
maccompaq
Nov 10, 02:51 PM
I have the iphone 3gs, and at&t has never been able to get their act together with the iPhone but with the os upgrades service seems to keep getting worse.
Do you think problems will be resolved when / if verizon has access to the iphone (effectively lowering the burden on at&t, even thought they probably still wont be able to keep up)
It is the fault of AT&T, not the iPhone. Every call I make gets dropped. It makes no difference if I use my iPhone 4 or my LG phone.
Do you think problems will be resolved when / if verizon has access to the iphone (effectively lowering the burden on at&t, even thought they probably still wont be able to keep up)
It is the fault of AT&T, not the iPhone. Every call I make gets dropped. It makes no difference if I use my iPhone 4 or my LG phone.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:21 PM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
This is the problem with low-low pricing. If Apple charged $40k, maybe all the "professionals" would be onboard!
I think it is great to see the simplification of the product line. FCE always seemed an odd product out.
This is the internet. People are more invested in their egos than in understanding each other, and since several people have chosen to put words in my mouth to attack me, there's no point in really trying to advocate for the product here. Let the haters have the thread, I'm out.
Grow some perspective.
This is the problem with low-low pricing. If Apple charged $40k, maybe all the "professionals" would be onboard!
I think it is great to see the simplification of the product line. FCE always seemed an odd product out.
This is the internet. People are more invested in their egos than in understanding each other, and since several people have chosen to put words in my mouth to attack me, there's no point in really trying to advocate for the product here. Let the haters have the thread, I'm out.
Lesser Evets
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
Why does bullying have to be attached to GLBT?
I was never L, B, G, or T, and my 7th and 8th grade were a constant fist fight as I went from class to class... kinda cool, now that I look back at it. Never a dull moment.
I was never L, B, G, or T, and my 7th and 8th grade were a constant fist fight as I went from class to class... kinda cool, now that I look back at it. Never a dull moment.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 05:13 PM
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
No comments:
Post a Comment