GameBanshee Forums

They used Opera.

Stuck with writer's block again and having nothing better to do, I decided to browse through some readme files when I saw this line from the Opera readme file...

"YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN (I) ON-LINE CONTROL OF AIRCRAFT, AIR TRAFFIC, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR AIRCRAFT COMMUNICATIONS; OR (II) IN THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION OR MAINTENANCE OF ANY NUCLEAR FACILITY."

Which leads one to ask: since when has anyone attempted, quote, "on-line control of aircraft, air traffic, aircraft navigation or aircraft communications" using a web browser, or tried to design/construct/operate/maintain a nuclear facility?

Or maybe there was a precedent that led Opera Software to incoorporate this line into their License...which leads one to wonder how many serious aviation accidents and nuclear accidents were attributable to the use of Opera

Aw, that is so cute.

Well Opera is quite customizable. It could be possible.

Warning: Opera has encountered a fatal error and will be shut down. The nuclear reactor will now meltdown

(OMG another Rakka avatar)

Your nuclear reactor has been invaded. Please, await further instructions while we melt it down.

Ark!

Well I can se a perfect future for both of you in the P-fleet.

(Hey, I had this way before you.)

Well, in that case, imagine what would have happened if they were using Internet Explorer.

But perhaps the disaster could have been averted had they used firefox :speech:

Ahh well, we'll never know... unless someone feels like building a nuclear reactor and having a test?

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Well, in that case, imagine what would have happened if they were using Internet Explorer. [/QUOTE]
:speech: :speech: :speech:

I'm gonna get nightmares from this...

:laugh::laugh:

Forget that imagine a nuclear PC working on Windows 98 or Xp!

[QUOTE=ik911]
Well, that's true too.

BTW, on the site it says: "In September 2005 the Chernobyl Forum published a report (the Chernobyl Forum Report 2005), written by specialists from seven UN organisations including the WHO, the IAEA and the World Bank, as well as from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. The report concludes that, all in all, the Chernobyl disaster will claim roughly 4000 lives. By mid 2005, it says, just over 50 persons will have died as a direct consequence of nuclear exposure."

How should this be explained? The other 3950 will die soon? I don't get that.[/QUOTE]

The conclusion was heavily influenced by the inadimissability of medical evidence that couldn't absolutely *prove* that A was related to B. (Their actual language is "only hard-and-fast scientific findings.") So what if the incident of breast cancers has doubled in one of the most heavily contanimated areas, around Gomel? This doesn't automatically link it to Chernobyl. Systematically, every instance which can show wildly disproportionate increases in cancers of all sorts has been discounted and ignored--largely under pressure from the respective governments involved, who don't want their nations to assume any responsibility. It's rather like Agent Orange in the US, only on a far more massive scale: if the governments acknowledge the problem, then they leave themselves open to the possibility of class action suits. (The heads of government might have changed, but the government itself remains the body in charge of the nation, and the one that can be legally held accountable.) If all the cancers are figured in, the total goes far beyond 50,000. I have seen estimates approaching 5 million, with thyroid cancers, cancers of the spine appearing in startling numbers among newborns, etc.

That's Chernobyl's legacy.

[QUOTE=ik911]But I was refering to this piece of math: (...) the Chernobyl disaster will claim roughly 4000 lives. By mid 2005, it says, just over 50 persons will have died (...)

How? I assume it's an error of some sorts? But even for an error it doesn't make a lot of sense.[/QUOTE]

I think it's a misprint. Certainly the number of people who died from the immediate effects of radioactive poisioning within less than a year was considerably greater than 50.

I keep wondering about chernobyl and a local nuclear accident sometimes. If you live near a plant, you must be aware that you can die quick if something happens - or worst, you can die slow, very slow.

But you dont need to live near a plant, in fact. For example, there was the brazilian incident with cesium 137, which it seems came from a x-ray machine, dumped on a common scrap iron depot. A kid found it, and it glowed - of course the kid took it home to show his parents, who - inocently ignorant people - even rubbed the glowing dust on their bodies. The whole family died in a week.

The incident caused radiation to spread within an area, and till the causes were found and everyone involved was treated Brazil kinda stopped. New laws were created and I've tried to talk with a friend of my age about it and he didnt knew about the incident. I was shocked.

You cant expect to be safe from radiation... Damn. Ignorant people... Damn. Its a miracle we have survived up to this day.