leekohler
Mar 25, 03:39 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
jegbook
Apr 12, 03:47 PM
Or press print-screen. It puts the screen capture on the clipboard instead of saving to the desktop, but just as easy. AFAIK there is no simple equiv. to cmd-shft-4. I usually open in Paint and crop.
If you can get your fingers to do the gymnastics, command-control-shift-3 (or 4) will put your screen shot (or partial screen shot) to the Clipboard instead of a file to allow for pasting where you want to.
Cheers.
If you can get your fingers to do the gymnastics, command-control-shift-3 (or 4) will put your screen shot (or partial screen shot) to the Clipboard instead of a file to allow for pasting where you want to.
Cheers.
aaronsullivan
Sep 20, 09:15 AM
No tv inputs on the iTV. No DVR capability. Please stop "wishing", "hoping", "suggesting."
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
Personally, I'm tired of unhooking and re-hooking our laptop to do this and a $300 device to keep things casual and instant looks great to me.
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
Personally, I'm tired of unhooking and re-hooking our laptop to do this and a $300 device to keep things casual and instant looks great to me.
Surely
Apr 15, 10:58 AM
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
acslater017
Apr 15, 11:00 AM
It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
What are you talking about? If you're talking about the Apple employees, this issue is obviously something that's very personal, real, and long-lasting for them. It's hardly a "hip" or "trendy" thing. If you're just talking about society (or the MacRumors forum), I don't understand that either. Many people are bullied, sure. But what's wrong with focusing on this particular group? There has been a recent spate in teen suicides due to teasing surrounding their sexual orientation.
Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?
What are you talking about? If you're talking about the Apple employees, this issue is obviously something that's very personal, real, and long-lasting for them. It's hardly a "hip" or "trendy" thing. If you're just talking about society (or the MacRumors forum), I don't understand that either. Many people are bullied, sure. But what's wrong with focusing on this particular group? There has been a recent spate in teen suicides due to teasing surrounding their sexual orientation.
Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?
benixau
Oct 10, 11:29 AM
Dear lord,
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 09:53 PM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
Anonymous Freak
Oct 7, 10:28 AM
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
Yeah, from what I've seen, it's very likely that Woodcrest (dual-core) and Clovertown (quad-core) could easily make it to the mid 3 GHz range on the current production process; and might even see 4 GHz. (Although 4 GHz would be toward the end of next year at the earliest.) With 45 nm production, we'll see bigger L2 caches, four cores as 'standard' on workstation/server chips, (four fully integrated cores, the way Woodcrest is two fully integrated cores now.)
But I in raw GHz, we'll be stuck at about 4 GHz as the max for quite a while. Remember, "Moore's Law" didn't predict GHz, it predicted 'number of transistors or cost per transistor'. As long as we're doublling the number of cores each 1.5-2 years, we're keeping up with Moore's Law.
Yeah, from what I've seen, it's very likely that Woodcrest (dual-core) and Clovertown (quad-core) could easily make it to the mid 3 GHz range on the current production process; and might even see 4 GHz. (Although 4 GHz would be toward the end of next year at the earliest.) With 45 nm production, we'll see bigger L2 caches, four cores as 'standard' on workstation/server chips, (four fully integrated cores, the way Woodcrest is two fully integrated cores now.)
But I in raw GHz, we'll be stuck at about 4 GHz as the max for quite a while. Remember, "Moore's Law" didn't predict GHz, it predicted 'number of transistors or cost per transistor'. As long as we're doublling the number of cores each 1.5-2 years, we're keeping up with Moore's Law.
RickyB
Apr 16, 11:30 AM
Also, if you enable "show path bar" in Finder, you can see the entire path you're in, and easily jump around.
And you can also go up a level in the directory structure by pressing [Command] + [Up arrow].
There's a load of shortcut keys here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
And you can also go up a level in the directory structure by pressing [Command] + [Up arrow].
There's a load of shortcut keys here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
bpaluzzi
Apr 29, 08:34 AM
There are thousands maybe millions of people out there that had there first computer experience on a Windows computer that now are sitting in the business world using Macs.
Who are they?
All those kids from all those schools that used to use Windows.
I am a teacher. I've personally taught lots of them. Schools are now using Mac machines. I'd been using Windows machines for 15 years. I got sick of using Windows bloated OS, waiting for Windows to get rid of the registry. I switched to Mac.
See, anecdotes are fun. But, uh, what's your point?
Who are they?
All those kids from all those schools that used to use Windows.
I am a teacher. I've personally taught lots of them. Schools are now using Mac machines. I'd been using Windows machines for 15 years. I got sick of using Windows bloated OS, waiting for Windows to get rid of the registry. I switched to Mac.
See, anecdotes are fun. But, uh, what's your point?
backinblack875
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
jragosta
Mar 18, 04:43 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. You still need to buy the music. So, at best, this makes it easier to share music, but it doesn't provide a new capability.
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Yes, they could do that.
They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.
Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .
No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Yes, they could do that.
They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.
Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .
No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:53 PM
As in he hopes since you have the view of people should not infringe on your rights, that you should hopefully not infringe on others....such by opposing gay marriage
Oh, that wasn't very clear, or maybe I'm being obtuse lol
I don't see how gay people marrying would infringe any of my rights.
I value the freedom of expression and speech a lot.
Oh, that wasn't very clear, or maybe I'm being obtuse lol
I don't see how gay people marrying would infringe any of my rights.
I value the freedom of expression and speech a lot.
milo
Sep 20, 11:21 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
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.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
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.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
Funkymonk
Apr 28, 10:13 AM
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:27 PM
I have seen this stated a few time - but not stated anywhere by apple.
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
Reg Traviss on the run from
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:02 PM
MacCoaster:
Missed your request for ASM directions for a sec there. :) Anyway, I use NASM. Available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm
I do my assembly in a .asm file, and use a C program as a wrapper to make things easy. C program, including my C loops. Notice that is't ugly and I manually change it to test different things, but hey it works. You can do better Im sure. :)
#include <math.h>
unsigned int asm_func1( );
unsigned int asm_func2( );
unsigned int asm_func3( );
unsigned int C_func1( )
{
Reg Traviss Amy Winehouse is
The singer is now dating Reg
Missed your request for ASM directions for a sec there. :) Anyway, I use NASM. Available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm
I do my assembly in a .asm file, and use a C program as a wrapper to make things easy. C program, including my C loops. Notice that is't ugly and I manually change it to test different things, but hey it works. You can do better Im sure. :)
#include <math.h>
unsigned int asm_func1( );
unsigned int asm_func2( );
unsigned int asm_func3( );
unsigned int C_func1( )
{
Chappers
Mar 13, 11:38 AM
That is far more destruction than the power station could bring.
I'm not against nuclear power but it is a bit more difficult to clear up after a bad nuclear leak and the risks to health from that leakage have the potential to be felt for a lot longer.
I'm not against nuclear power but it is a bit more difficult to clear up after a bad nuclear leak and the risks to health from that leakage have the potential to be felt for a lot longer.
gatekpr
Jun 8, 09:35 AM
I jailbroke my iPhone 3GS and switched to T-mobile. I haven't had ONE dropped call since I did that in November. The edge network is a little slower, but well worth the switch. I could never use the 3G in Houston anyway. Sad, the 4th largest city in the nation and I would get 5-10 dropped calls a day. It was worse with the Blackberry Bold--you can't turn off the 3G, so it would drop incessantly.
I'm excited about the iPhone 4, my sources tell me they already have a jailbreak for it. I'm excited!
I'm excited about the iPhone 4, my sources tell me they already have a jailbreak for it. I'm excited!
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
Torrijos
Apr 13, 07:56 AM
People don't even realize the amount of work necessary to bring a project like this to term.
I really hope all this goodness is going to trickle down the rest of Apple's software offering, from OS components to the rest of the Pro apps, through iApps (the iWork suite is in dire need of a refresh, Numbers has tons of bugs and slows to a crawl with complex projects).
I really hope all this goodness is going to trickle down the rest of Apple's software offering, from OS components to the rest of the Pro apps, through iApps (the iWork suite is in dire need of a refresh, Numbers has tons of bugs and slows to a crawl with complex projects).
Piggie
Apr 28, 09:44 AM
I just think Apple is making a mistake by not making some low end machines.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
diamond.g
Apr 21, 09:00 AM
How exactly did AT&T have a walled garden, at least in the same sense as Apple? Normally I'm against that much control, but I don't think it bothers me as much because there are other options.
I'd probably be less okay with Apple's garden if my choices were only Apple, and I've been a fan of/user of since OS 7. AT&T had less of a walled garden than Verizon. But the approach is more obvious if you look at phones being branded and carrier apps loaded (things the iPhone doesn't have done to it). Plus, in the case of Android phones, no side loading and tethering (which works by default in the OS) is turned off unless you pay (same as Apple).
This is a bad example, usually you pay a toll BECAUSE tax money was not used OR to fund half(or more) of the project.
I'd probably be less okay with Apple's garden if my choices were only Apple, and I've been a fan of/user of since OS 7. AT&T had less of a walled garden than Verizon. But the approach is more obvious if you look at phones being branded and carrier apps loaded (things the iPhone doesn't have done to it). Plus, in the case of Android phones, no side loading and tethering (which works by default in the OS) is turned off unless you pay (same as Apple).
This is a bad example, usually you pay a toll BECAUSE tax money was not used OR to fund half(or more) of the project.
dethmaShine
May 2, 09:45 AM
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Really? If they cannot differentiate b/w viruses, they have no right to comment on them. There's some basic education involved in dealing with such things.
If you cannot differentiate b/w a guest and an intruder, it's not my fault.
Congratulations.
Really? If they cannot differentiate b/w viruses, they have no right to comment on them. There's some basic education involved in dealing with such things.
If you cannot differentiate b/w a guest and an intruder, it's not my fault.