steadysignal
May 3, 07:24 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how your post is at -19.
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how your post is at -19.
hstaniloff
May 5, 05:30 PM
I live on the north shore of Long Island. The service is the worst. Absolutely the worst. I get little to no service in my home. When out and about, the phone is only reliable about 30% of the time. Dropped calls every singe time. Every time. Pitiful. Everywhere else - the Hamptons, off LI like down in Virginia or Florida, the phone works great. I love the iPhone but the service is making me bail. As soon as they come out with a Verizon version of the iPhone, I'm outta here AT&T!
UnixMac
Oct 10, 06:34 PM
my 500mhz MP did it in 87 seconds.
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
Porchland
Mar 18, 03:06 PM
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
macintel4me
Sep 20, 05:31 AM
I think the HD is using just for caching the streamed content. My prediction is that Apple will come out with a SAN with iTV/FrontRow streaming smarts in it. This way we don't have to run into our office to turn on our computer so we can watch TV in our living room.
Huntn
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
theheyes
May 2, 05:10 PM
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.
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.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:19 AM
Had to assumed that Intego is the one that created it... think about it: All virus writers works for anti-viruses companies :)
Hate to break it to you, but it's someone at Apple that flagged "Zip files" as safe for Safari to open ;)
That guy needs his head examined.
Hate to break it to you, but it's someone at Apple that flagged "Zip files" as safe for Safari to open ;)
That guy needs his head examined.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. 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.
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. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
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. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. 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.
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. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
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. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
tjcampbell
Apr 24, 05:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone : Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
danielwsmithee
Aug 29, 11:10 AM
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 09:27 PM
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
MacSA
Jul 12, 04:02 AM
At the bottom of the article they seem to imply that Apple will stick with Core Solo chips for the entry level mini.... YUCK :eek:
Peterkro
Mar 12, 07:08 PM
Number three reactor at the same plant has cooling and containment issues hopefully they can get it under control.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:35 PM
MacCoaster:
Ok, here we go. You have a program.c so compile it into compiler.o like this:
gcc -c program.c
You may place flags such as -O before -c, or maybe even after it. But certainly before it. Anyway, you have some asm_func.asm, so compile it into asm_func.o like this:
nasm -f elf asm_func.asm
Now, you can link these two .o files like this:
gcc *o -o exe
Which makes an executable named exe (which of course you can change to be whatever you want).
Anyway, do note that the ASM funcs do the integer "benchmark" and not the float one. Also, I think because I overwrite ebx when I am not supposed to, the asm routines tend to cause program segaults after they exit. :) But they still provide a valid result. I could fix that, but whatever.
Ok, here we go. You have a program.c so compile it into compiler.o like this:
gcc -c program.c
You may place flags such as -O before -c, or maybe even after it. But certainly before it. Anyway, you have some asm_func.asm, so compile it into asm_func.o like this:
nasm -f elf asm_func.asm
Now, you can link these two .o files like this:
gcc *o -o exe
Which makes an executable named exe (which of course you can change to be whatever you want).
Anyway, do note that the ASM funcs do the integer "benchmark" and not the float one. Also, I think because I overwrite ebx when I am not supposed to, the asm routines tend to cause program segaults after they exit. :) But they still provide a valid result. I could fix that, but whatever.
Popeye206
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
This is good to see. Seems as though teens are under many social pressures that didn't seem to exist when I was a teen (in the 70's). Knowing there is a light at the end of the tunnel may help a few from making the ultimate bad choice.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
InfoTime
Apr 28, 08:05 AM
iPads retail at $499+. HP, Acer and Dell sell lots of laptops for $399+. Based on the retail pricing of the devices, I'd say it makes sense to count iPads.
SPUY767
Jul 12, 08:58 AM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.
awmazz
Mar 11, 07:51 AM
Japanese police are reporting several hundred bodies on a beach near Sendai so it looks like as per the Indonesian tsunami the official toll will skyrocket once the water recedes.
gwangung
Apr 15, 09:41 AM
yeah that is kind of been my issue with this at well. They focus on the LGBT community but complete side track what I am willing to be is a larger group of striaght kids who get bullied and have long term emotional problems from bullies. That be the fact kids, kids with random disability or just easy targets for one reason or another but they are straight so they do not get focuses on by the media..
Can not always do that. Also I was bullied to the point of near sucided when I was younger. I have always been skinny kid. I was not so much bullied because of weight or being skinny. I was a tall bean pole and hell even as an adult I am pretty much a bean poll. Currently I am 6'4" 175lb with out an ounce of fat on. 6 months ago I was 155 same weight I have been for nearly 10 years.
Fat kids was used as an example. But there are many others who are not fat and not looks and nothing can be done about it.
Then widen the focus on your own.
You're not powerless on this, you know.
Can not always do that. Also I was bullied to the point of near sucided when I was younger. I have always been skinny kid. I was not so much bullied because of weight or being skinny. I was a tall bean pole and hell even as an adult I am pretty much a bean poll. Currently I am 6'4" 175lb with out an ounce of fat on. 6 months ago I was 155 same weight I have been for nearly 10 years.
Fat kids was used as an example. But there are many others who are not fat and not looks and nothing can be done about it.
Then widen the focus on your own.
You're not powerless on this, you know.
Gelfin
Mar 26, 12:59 AM
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
Daveoc64
Mar 13, 08:44 AM
Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:46 PM
One word.
Night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night).
One word.
Battery.
Night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night).
One word.
Battery.
