Sodner
Mar 18, 12:39 PM
LOL yeah Right,
I have dealt with the president of At&t on a serious matter this past year.
I will not get into what Apple does to At&t but it was over my Iphone
anyway, I do not make such calls or demands on At&t and in fact I like at&t over Verizon.
But if you advertise unlimited as At&t does and did, it should be unlimited no matter what (Slimey) lawyer drafts a document meant to swindle people is signed.
Hayley Williams - Paramore
Hayley Williams of Paramore
Hayley Williams
Hayley Williams of Paramore
Hayley Williams (Paramore)-
Hayley Williams, Jeremy Davis,
Hayley Williams PARAMORE
Hayley Williams: Paramore
hayley williams paramore
Hayley Williams Paramore
great and Hayley Williams
Hayley Williams (Paramore)
Hayley Williams PARAMORE by
paramore hayley williams
hayley williams paramore.
hayley, williams, paramore
Hayley Williams TwitPic - The
Hayley Williams and Paramore
I have dealt with the president of At&t on a serious matter this past year.
I will not get into what Apple does to At&t but it was over my Iphone
anyway, I do not make such calls or demands on At&t and in fact I like at&t over Verizon.
But if you advertise unlimited as At&t does and did, it should be unlimited no matter what (Slimey) lawyer drafts a document meant to swindle people is signed.
pubwvj
Oct 9, 07:26 PM
"Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012?"
Wow. Boring, baseless prediction. Everyone will forget it since it won't come to be. If by some remote chance it comes to be then they get to claim they made the prediction. This is hocus-pocus. They create a large base line of many varied predictions so that later they can claim accurate prediction. Typical of soothesayers and investment bankers.
Wow. Boring, baseless prediction. Everyone will forget it since it won't come to be. If by some remote chance it comes to be then they get to claim they made the prediction. This is hocus-pocus. They create a large base line of many varied predictions so that later they can claim accurate prediction. Typical of soothesayers and investment bankers.
munkery
May 2, 04:42 PM
google...
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 10:00 AM
I like this term, very good!!! Subgames. (This is not to be taken as sarcasm.) With your permission, I'm going to use this from now on.;)
Um... it's not my term... I was publishing games with sub-games in back on the Amiga.
BUT feel free to use it!
Um... it's not my term... I was publishing games with sub-games in back on the Amiga.
BUT feel free to use it!
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:22 AM
My family, two parents and two kids, have purchased 6 ipods over the years.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Peterkro
Mar 14, 02:51 PM
something i noticed from the diagrams of the reactor layout: the water basin where the spent fuel rods are temporarily stored is actualy outside of the steel+concrete containment: so that might explain why some reactor only isotopes were detected
i just hope none of those depelted fuel rods where scattered around from the top superstructre explosion
There is some damage to the storage pools housing the spent fuel rods and they are a source of concern,an explosion caused by lack of water cover is a possibility.
i just hope none of those depelted fuel rods where scattered around from the top superstructre explosion
There is some damage to the storage pools housing the spent fuel rods and they are a source of concern,an explosion caused by lack of water cover is a possibility.
theelysium
May 16, 05:52 PM
I have a huge drop call and coverage issue at my new home in Rancho Cordova, CA. I live by Jackson HWY (16). I have been excessive with my reports through my AT&T iPhone app "Mark The Spot". After 6 months of reports for only about 10% of the issues (I have so many issue here 10% was a lot :eek: of reporting!) I've experience they sent me a message letting me know that my reports helped pinpoint a tower issues and it will be replaced in a few weeks!
I know AT&T has issues, but I'd like to see if Verizon would actually do something like this! I am not happy with the network experience I've had here, but I am really happy to see that my voice was heard from a large company using innovative tools created by them on my iPhone.
I can tell that the tower is currently being worked on, because my service is getting worse. It won't be long now that I'll finally be able to a constant signal and hopefully no more dropped calls.
Before I received the message that they would replace the tower I ordered an AT&T micro cell. I think I'll install it anyway just to see how it will improve my coverage. This also brings up another point that they are giving us the ability to fix coverage issues with the Micro Cell they are offering. I know it's $150 (expensive), but at least they are offering an alternative for you.
One thing I've noticed as a customer is any aspect of the New AT&T that was legacy Cingular seems in the most part to be fine. It's all the junk they merged in from the legacy AT&T Wireless. This goes for call centers, towers, policies, etc. If I call customer service and have an excellent experience I'll ask the rep, "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" Every time they say Cingular. Of course if I have the opposite and ask "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" They either don't know what the word legacy means (which I then have to explain) or they say of course AT&T! I wish Cingular stayed Cingular and let AT&T die off! Legacy AT&T is the cancer in the New AT&T which is just Cingular with AT&T's name.
It's silly to think that the AT&T name is so valuable that they'd buy the crappy company just to use their stupid :eek: name. Who cares if AT&T is as recognizable as Coca Cola overseas?! Why not be so great at what you do that your name (Cingular), becomes as recognizable as Coca Cola! Cingular shouldn't have bought recognition... they should have tried to earn it! If they had tried to earn their recognition we wouldn't have Legacy AT&T's cancer in our cell phone company!:(
I know AT&T has issues, but I'd like to see if Verizon would actually do something like this! I am not happy with the network experience I've had here, but I am really happy to see that my voice was heard from a large company using innovative tools created by them on my iPhone.
I can tell that the tower is currently being worked on, because my service is getting worse. It won't be long now that I'll finally be able to a constant signal and hopefully no more dropped calls.
Before I received the message that they would replace the tower I ordered an AT&T micro cell. I think I'll install it anyway just to see how it will improve my coverage. This also brings up another point that they are giving us the ability to fix coverage issues with the Micro Cell they are offering. I know it's $150 (expensive), but at least they are offering an alternative for you.
One thing I've noticed as a customer is any aspect of the New AT&T that was legacy Cingular seems in the most part to be fine. It's all the junk they merged in from the legacy AT&T Wireless. This goes for call centers, towers, policies, etc. If I call customer service and have an excellent experience I'll ask the rep, "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" Every time they say Cingular. Of course if I have the opposite and ask "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" They either don't know what the word legacy means (which I then have to explain) or they say of course AT&T! I wish Cingular stayed Cingular and let AT&T die off! Legacy AT&T is the cancer in the New AT&T which is just Cingular with AT&T's name.
It's silly to think that the AT&T name is so valuable that they'd buy the crappy company just to use their stupid :eek: name. Who cares if AT&T is as recognizable as Coca Cola overseas?! Why not be so great at what you do that your name (Cingular), becomes as recognizable as Coca Cola! Cingular shouldn't have bought recognition... they should have tried to earn it! If they had tried to earn their recognition we wouldn't have Legacy AT&T's cancer in our cell phone company!:(
Dan--
Mar 18, 07:32 AM
On a limited plan, the carriers have NO business saying how the data should be used. You pay for the data, and they do NOTHING to provide the service of tethering. But I agree that on an unlimited plan, tethering is a little like someone said, going to an all-you-can-eat-buffet, paying for one, and then sharing. Of course, you're not likely to be tethering all the time that you're paying for the service, so not exactly the same.
What the carriers should do is make tethering completely, 100% free for anyone on a capped plan, and replace the current "unlimited" plan with 2 plans - one that costs the same, but has a cap of say 2GB over the next lower plan, and another that's a true unlimited plan that adds and includes the cost of tethering.
This kind of cr*p makes me mad.
Dan
What the carriers should do is make tethering completely, 100% free for anyone on a capped plan, and replace the current "unlimited" plan with 2 plans - one that costs the same, but has a cap of say 2GB over the next lower plan, and another that's a true unlimited plan that adds and includes the cost of tethering.
This kind of cr*p makes me mad.
Dan
generik
Sep 26, 01:39 AM
Can I ask a question? I'm a bit non-technical when it comes to things like this.
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
awmazz
Mar 13, 11:24 AM
I'm all for nuclear power. It's the cleanest
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented. We have three uranium mines:
The Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP Billiton in Roxby Downs here has so far produced over 60 MILLION TONNES of polluting radioactive tailings waste in just 23 years of operation. BHP plans a $5 billion expansion of this single mine. Not more mines, just this one, a whopping $5 billion to expand just one mine. It's very profitable and will become more so as reserves deplete. People in the northern hemisphere are prepared to pay handsomely to shat their energy pollution in other peoples' yards instead of their own.
And then you have the other arseholes owners at the Beverly Mine going by the name of General Atomics who insist on using the ever so lovely even filthier acid-method known as 'in-situ leaching' mining technique, basically because they don't give a flying feck. Their radioactive particles, heavy metals and the acid used to separate the uranium is simply dumped into an aquifier and leaches into our groundwater. No commercial acid leach mine in the USA has ever been given environmental approval, yet here is an American company insisting on using it here as if our environment is their shareholders' own private toilet and spittoon.
The third mine owned by Rio Tinto has just been one environmental or health and safety breach after another. Even to their own workers, exposed to process water 400x maximum Aust safety standards in 2004. Then there was the 2 MILLION LITRES of tailings containing high levels of manganese, uranium and radium which leaked from a pipe. Then there was the contaminated water containing high uranium cocentrations released into the Coonjimba and Magela Creeks.
Depite having over one fifth of the world's reserves and the growing profitibility of yellowcake to the economy, the Australian govt has limited yellowcake mining to the three existing mines. Because it's just too damn filthy and polluting to open new ones.
Cleanest? Coal mining is much cleaner. Why should you consider there's a whole production line of pollution to get that 'clean' energy into your home, not just the painted white-for-purity nuclear power plant at the end.
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented. We have three uranium mines:
The Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP Billiton in Roxby Downs here has so far produced over 60 MILLION TONNES of polluting radioactive tailings waste in just 23 years of operation. BHP plans a $5 billion expansion of this single mine. Not more mines, just this one, a whopping $5 billion to expand just one mine. It's very profitable and will become more so as reserves deplete. People in the northern hemisphere are prepared to pay handsomely to shat their energy pollution in other peoples' yards instead of their own.
And then you have the other arseholes owners at the Beverly Mine going by the name of General Atomics who insist on using the ever so lovely even filthier acid-method known as 'in-situ leaching' mining technique, basically because they don't give a flying feck. Their radioactive particles, heavy metals and the acid used to separate the uranium is simply dumped into an aquifier and leaches into our groundwater. No commercial acid leach mine in the USA has ever been given environmental approval, yet here is an American company insisting on using it here as if our environment is their shareholders' own private toilet and spittoon.
The third mine owned by Rio Tinto has just been one environmental or health and safety breach after another. Even to their own workers, exposed to process water 400x maximum Aust safety standards in 2004. Then there was the 2 MILLION LITRES of tailings containing high levels of manganese, uranium and radium which leaked from a pipe. Then there was the contaminated water containing high uranium cocentrations released into the Coonjimba and Magela Creeks.
Depite having over one fifth of the world's reserves and the growing profitibility of yellowcake to the economy, the Australian govt has limited yellowcake mining to the three existing mines. Because it's just too damn filthy and polluting to open new ones.
Cleanest? Coal mining is much cleaner. Why should you consider there's a whole production line of pollution to get that 'clean' energy into your home, not just the painted white-for-purity nuclear power plant at the end.
matticus008
Mar 20, 05:22 AM
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it.
Abortion isn't even on the same plane of existence as this issue, and as for the legal sphere, abortions are not illegal. I'm not advocating a stance against something that is legal to do, and I'm not arguing for reducing your personal rights to take something that you can do legally and make it illegal. I am stating that what this software does is illegal and that it's not DRM use/the law interfere with legitimate exercise of rights. It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more. If you need a different sort of DRM or no DRM for your uses, then you need to buy that product instead.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights. In practice, you might come across incompatibilities due to the individual designs of the DRM models and a competitive, segmented market. The law has provisions for your rights to use the content and that DRM is used to protect against infringement on those rights. There is not just one DRM that works for everything, so when you buy music with DRM, you the consumer are responsible for making sure it works with what you intend to use it for. Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Abortion isn't even on the same plane of existence as this issue, and as for the legal sphere, abortions are not illegal. I'm not advocating a stance against something that is legal to do, and I'm not arguing for reducing your personal rights to take something that you can do legally and make it illegal. I am stating that what this software does is illegal and that it's not DRM use/the law interfere with legitimate exercise of rights. It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more. If you need a different sort of DRM or no DRM for your uses, then you need to buy that product instead.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights. In practice, you might come across incompatibilities due to the individual designs of the DRM models and a competitive, segmented market. The law has provisions for your rights to use the content and that DRM is used to protect against infringement on those rights. There is not just one DRM that works for everything, so when you buy music with DRM, you the consumer are responsible for making sure it works with what you intend to use it for. Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
GooMan
Aug 29, 11:48 AM
I could not care any less.
Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)
Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:24 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:50 AM
Well, the LGBT folks can't tolerate anyone having an idea like that - they'll even organize and boycott and pressure Apple until they remove some lame, lonely little app from the App Store.
Meanwhile - need to find a glory hole or a cruising area nearby? There's an App for That!
BEST. POST. EVER.
Ok, everyone needs to chill. And Darth Maul...back off Caliber. Your militant defense of morals is counter productive.
I'm straight and I understand your point fine. Because you don't fit into the other gay gentlemans stereotype of "what it is to be gay to him" he labeled you a self hater, which is absurd. How hard is it to understand that?
Thank goodness for people that are able to have a neutral mentality. That much is refreshing and encouraging. You all have a FABULOUS day! (I gotta go out and buy something to wear for the Lady Gaga concert tonight!) :p
Meanwhile - need to find a glory hole or a cruising area nearby? There's an App for That!
BEST. POST. EVER.
Ok, everyone needs to chill. And Darth Maul...back off Caliber. Your militant defense of morals is counter productive.
I'm straight and I understand your point fine. Because you don't fit into the other gay gentlemans stereotype of "what it is to be gay to him" he labeled you a self hater, which is absurd. How hard is it to understand that?
Thank goodness for people that are able to have a neutral mentality. That much is refreshing and encouraging. You all have a FABULOUS day! (I gotta go out and buy something to wear for the Lady Gaga concert tonight!) :p
d0minick
Mar 18, 06:02 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
You did pay for the amount of data you signed for!
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
You did pay for the amount of data you signed for!
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.
Ateazz
Oct 9, 01:57 PM
Hi guy's
A job has to be done so use the best software to do that.
In my case OS-X can't be beaten.
Look at "The Knowledgenavigator", not about speed but easy to use.
Make life easy, and Think different.
greetz
A job has to be done so use the best software to do that.
In my case OS-X can't be beaten.
Look at "The Knowledgenavigator", not about speed but easy to use.
Make life easy, and Think different.
greetz
Grimace
Jul 11, 10:01 PM
My credit card is ready! I would love a machine to make Aperture a little more zippy.
rjjkp
May 31, 09:22 PM
:apple: How would you go about finding out if a phone or carrier service worked in a certain area if you didn't consult other people or credible sources? Wouldn't you have to make a decision based on 'Other Peoples Opinions' in order to find out? If you know Verizon service yields 0 bars in your area do you know this as a previous Verizon service customer, consult someone directly or take the 'Opinion' of the AT&T salesman?
Are you so inflexible as to believe no one in the universe has occasional connection problems? Do you live under an AT&T tower and never stray far from it? I'm looking to get an iPhone in 2 months and I hope it really is as reliable as you describe.
I have set up a contract with a provider BEFORE committing to a long iphone contract. I go into the said telephone store and set up some other non iphone device. Then return home and test its capability and signal strength. If it is acceptable I return the above phone for a full refund(I use it far less than the maximum 30 days. Then when the desired iphone is purchased I will expect the same performance.
Are you so inflexible as to believe no one in the universe has occasional connection problems? Do you live under an AT&T tower and never stray far from it? I'm looking to get an iPhone in 2 months and I hope it really is as reliable as you describe.
I have set up a contract with a provider BEFORE committing to a long iphone contract. I go into the said telephone store and set up some other non iphone device. Then return home and test its capability and signal strength. If it is acceptable I return the above phone for a full refund(I use it far less than the maximum 30 days. Then when the desired iphone is purchased I will expect the same performance.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 03:23 PM
Why are so many of these posts so vehemently anti-Greenpeace? What have they done, or alleged to have done, that I've missed?
tkermit
Mar 15, 07:29 PM
There's too much hysteria over this. This plant has been hit by a force 9 earthquake and a tsunami and yet although some radiation has been released this is by no means anything like as serious as Chernobyl.
A cold comfort considering it is now already thought to be close to a level 6 incident on the INES scale. :(
A cold comfort considering it is now already thought to be close to a level 6 incident on the INES scale. :(
LagunaSol
Apr 9, 09:24 PM
Real StarCraft for iPad, Blizzard. Make it happen.
Chwisch87
Jun 7, 09:42 PM
what is the number one thing people actually use ... its the phone.
atnt here in ATL has gotten noticeably worse over the past month. It was already bad. This puts serious damper on my staying with atnt and switching over to verizon with android.
atnt here in ATL has gotten noticeably worse over the past month. It was already bad. This puts serious damper on my staying with atnt and switching over to verizon with android.
LethalWolfe
Apr 13, 12:19 AM
From what I've been able to cobble together it looks like there is some very cool new stuff in FCP X. I can't wait for Apple to update its page and to actually kick the tires of the program. Hopefully it works as advertised (ex. FCP's current attempt at an 'open timeline' is nothing to write home about and the "auto correct" button in Apple Color is laughably bad) and I also hope all the helpful auto-features can be toggled on/off. For example, audio and video track assignments are a very common and very useful way to keep your timeline organized and easy to navigate around in (especially in a multi-user environment). White space is not a four letter word. ;)
There are times when software can try to be too helpful and it ends up just getting in the way so I hope Apple considered this and gives us the option to toggle a lot of these things on/off.
Lethal
There are times when software can try to be too helpful and it ends up just getting in the way so I hope Apple considered this and gives us the option to toggle a lot of these things on/off.
Lethal
No comments:
Post a Comment