flopticalcube
Mar 16, 01:29 PM
Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
MacBram
Aug 29, 12:15 PM
...Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling...
Yeah, Apple's problem is a bit like Land Rover's - 78% of the vehicles they have ever made are still on the road. (I know my old Apples are.) Dell, by contrast, performs very highly in product take back and recycling. :)
Yeah, Apple's problem is a bit like Land Rover's - 78% of the vehicles they have ever made are still on the road. (I know my old Apples are.) Dell, by contrast, performs very highly in product take back and recycling. :)
Marx55
Sep 20, 04:12 AM
What iTV needs is the option to boot Mac OS X to be used as a wireless computerless presentation remote tool. Just plug the flash disk with the Keynote or PowerPoint presentation made on a Mac or PC-Windows and use the remote control to give the presentation. Great for corporations, education and domestic markets. With a huge halo effect. Apple will sell millions.
charliehustle
Oct 8, 05:03 PM
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
faroZ06
May 2, 10:20 PM
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
Yeah. I actually like Safari way more than anything else because of all of the features and integration with Mac OS X that Firefox and Chrome lack. Also, Chrome hogs RAM, and Firefox takes a while to start. Don't even talk about IE :rolleyes:
And for me Firefox seems MORE bloated, but I haven't really run any tests. I've tested Chrome just to respond to eMails from my friend, a Google fanboy, about Chrome being "faster". :D
Yeah. I actually like Safari way more than anything else because of all of the features and integration with Mac OS X that Firefox and Chrome lack. Also, Chrome hogs RAM, and Firefox takes a while to start. Don't even talk about IE :rolleyes:
And for me Firefox seems MORE bloated, but I haven't really run any tests. I've tested Chrome just to respond to eMails from my friend, a Google fanboy, about Chrome being "faster". :D
Heilage
Mar 25, 03:02 PM
Dear The Vatican (att. Pope Benedict XVI aka. Darth Sidious Doppelganger)
**** you. If you keep on spreading hate throughout the world, I will ride your asses for it every single day.
Sincerely,
Heilage
(And that's all I have to say about that)
**** you. If you keep on spreading hate throughout the world, I will ride your asses for it every single day.
Sincerely,
Heilage
(And that's all I have to say about that)
javajedi
Oct 13, 05:56 PM
yeah, that's certianly possible. I'm not sure if that is or is not the case, but wouldn't be suprised if it is. I'll find out.
portishead
Apr 12, 11:02 PM
Seems logical that the suite can remain separate applications-- or better yet-- the new FCPX supports more extensive plugins so that you don't have the issues of round tripping, and you can use Magic bullet or whoever wants to make a grading app inside of FCPX.
Likely this is the kind of thing that will be announced in more detail at WWDC when Apple is able to give developers the tools and training they need to plug into the new architecture.
Exactly.
Likely this is the kind of thing that will be announced in more detail at WWDC when Apple is able to give developers the tools and training they need to plug into the new architecture.
Exactly.
JustAGuy
Oct 12, 05:05 PM
Hi all, just thought that I'd compile and run the tests on my G4/450 and PIII/733 for comparison. VERY interesting results. I had to change the i value from 20,000 down to 5,000 to save time...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
gorgeousninja
Apr 9, 09:20 PM
So I guess you don't watch movies, TV shows, go to the pub/bar, visit museums or browse the inte...
Hmmm ;)
I think it is precisely that so many people do enjoy, not only playing games, but going to the movies, bars etc that what is considered 'hard-core' gaming has become marginalized and frankly irrelevant.
Many many people, myself included' have spent endless hours playing games on both consoles and custom gaming rigs. I take issue when someone who knows nothing about me suggests that because I now have that same need satisfied by an iOS device means that I know nothing about gaming, whereas it is far more the case of 'been there done that'.
The stereotype of a person describing themselves as a 'hardcore gamer' being an adolescent boy with more disposable income than social skills seems, unfortunately, to be more than justified by some of the posts written here.
As someone pointed out a true 'hardcore gamer' plays games..full stop.
Games such as 'Bejewelled' and the Zynga 'Farmville' Facebook games, are played for hours and hours and hours, by millions of mainly women, who would never think of describing themselves as 'gamers', and yet to ignore that market sector, or the iOS devices is not only commercial suicide, but shows an ignorance of where the true future of gaming lies.
Hmmm ;)
I think it is precisely that so many people do enjoy, not only playing games, but going to the movies, bars etc that what is considered 'hard-core' gaming has become marginalized and frankly irrelevant.
Many many people, myself included' have spent endless hours playing games on both consoles and custom gaming rigs. I take issue when someone who knows nothing about me suggests that because I now have that same need satisfied by an iOS device means that I know nothing about gaming, whereas it is far more the case of 'been there done that'.
The stereotype of a person describing themselves as a 'hardcore gamer' being an adolescent boy with more disposable income than social skills seems, unfortunately, to be more than justified by some of the posts written here.
As someone pointed out a true 'hardcore gamer' plays games..full stop.
Games such as 'Bejewelled' and the Zynga 'Farmville' Facebook games, are played for hours and hours and hours, by millions of mainly women, who would never think of describing themselves as 'gamers', and yet to ignore that market sector, or the iOS devices is not only commercial suicide, but shows an ignorance of where the true future of gaming lies.
Multimedia
Sep 28, 04:40 PM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?Aparently the answer is "technically yes". See below. I did not know that. But from what they say and a practical point of view the answer is still no.
Simm0nS777
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
Peoples stupidity ITT is hilarious.
I RARELY crack the 2GB level on my unlimited data plan. I usually tether about 2 days a week for a few hours. I work at a job with a ton of downtime. I spend that downtime browsing forums. If ATT takes away my tethering ability (no way in hell Im pay an extra $45 to tether) I will then have to spend that downtime watching netflix which is going to use A LOT more bandwidth than browsing forums on my laptop.
So those of you not bright enough to realize that for many they will be using MORE data need to use that head of yours a little more.
Its funny that in your guys minds that its better for someone to use 15GB a month watching netflix/streaming pandora etc. than it is for me to use 2GB tethering.
I RARELY crack the 2GB level on my unlimited data plan. I usually tether about 2 days a week for a few hours. I work at a job with a ton of downtime. I spend that downtime browsing forums. If ATT takes away my tethering ability (no way in hell Im pay an extra $45 to tether) I will then have to spend that downtime watching netflix which is going to use A LOT more bandwidth than browsing forums on my laptop.
So those of you not bright enough to realize that for many they will be using MORE data need to use that head of yours a little more.
Its funny that in your guys minds that its better for someone to use 15GB a month watching netflix/streaming pandora etc. than it is for me to use 2GB tethering.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 03:09 PM
OK, so you want a completely independent tablet that does not communicate with anyone or anything unless you want it to but can still be useful as is. I don't think you are going to enjoy the next decade. That world is being pushed aside by the connected future. So while you will be able to get the tablet you want, it won't be the tablet most people will want.
You think me young for thinking most PCs are mostly useless without Net connectivity. Fine, make your assumptions. What I was talking about is the business cloud present and future where PCs are becoming front end devices to cloud databases.
As for personal use, most people don't even notice the hardware today any more than most people can tell you the ignition timing specs of their car. They just want to use their apps (drive their car). I think this is a healthy development because the computer should fade into the background for the next level of progress to be made. Don't worry, techies and hackers, you'll always have your devices to take apart (just as anyone can hack a car's engine if they wish). But the vast majority of computer users just want a device that gives them their apps. A new world awaits them, and they are going to love it.
You think me young for thinking most PCs are mostly useless without Net connectivity. Fine, make your assumptions. What I was talking about is the business cloud present and future where PCs are becoming front end devices to cloud databases.
As for personal use, most people don't even notice the hardware today any more than most people can tell you the ignition timing specs of their car. They just want to use their apps (drive their car). I think this is a healthy development because the computer should fade into the background for the next level of progress to be made. Don't worry, techies and hackers, you'll always have your devices to take apart (just as anyone can hack a car's engine if they wish). But the vast majority of computer users just want a device that gives them their apps. A new world awaits them, and they are going to love it.
Porchland
Sep 20, 09:46 AM
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
henhowc
May 6, 10:20 AM
I don't really get my calls dropped when I'm connected with someone. But I do get a lot of calls where it never rings or registers as a missed call and it just goes straight to voice mail. That's a bit frustrating. I'm in the West Los Angeles area and work in a densely populated college campus so I'm assuming that's probably contributing to the problem.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:50 PM
So based on what was shown today, the iTV itself is not presenting itself as a recording solution, only playback.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
alcaponek
Apr 20, 05:18 PM
It looks to me like they are waiting for the 2nd generation of LTE chips to implement it, arent they due to September as I heard somewhere ?
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.
toddybody
Apr 21, 09:50 AM
1. Android phones beat the iPhone to the punch. FACT.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
You forgot
1. Battlestar Galactica (remake) is the best sci fi show of all time (FACT)
2. Toaster Strudels are better than Pop Tarts (FACT)
3. Kennedy was shot by multiple gunman (FACT)
4. Brian Tong from CNET is worthless (FACT)
5. SC2 is the best competitive RTS (FACT)
6. Green is the new pink (FACT)
7. Lady Ga Ga was NOT born that way (FACT)
8. Republicans are heartless (FACT)
9. Democrats promise everything and never deliver (FACT)
10. OJ did it (FACT)
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
You forgot
1. Battlestar Galactica (remake) is the best sci fi show of all time (FACT)
2. Toaster Strudels are better than Pop Tarts (FACT)
3. Kennedy was shot by multiple gunman (FACT)
4. Brian Tong from CNET is worthless (FACT)
5. SC2 is the best competitive RTS (FACT)
6. Green is the new pink (FACT)
7. Lady Ga Ga was NOT born that way (FACT)
8. Republicans are heartless (FACT)
9. Democrats promise everything and never deliver (FACT)
10. OJ did it (FACT)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:00 PM
Yes, I would. But being gay is not a property I will ever lose. It's as much a part of me as my green eyes.
Although I'll always have my Cerebral Palsy, I could lose it. Sure, Lee, your green eyes are parts of you. But you could still survive an eye transplant when the surgeon replaced them with eyes of another color. Although you may always be homosexual, you could still survive, even if you became heterosexual. Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.
Although I'll always have my Cerebral Palsy, I could lose it. Sure, Lee, your green eyes are parts of you. But you could still survive an eye transplant when the surgeon replaced them with eyes of another color. Although you may always be homosexual, you could still survive, even if you became heterosexual. Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.
alex_ant
Oct 8, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
Rt&Dzine
Apr 26, 05:16 PM
You gotta do better than youtube videos.
Can you cite anything verified scientifically?
The Nun Bun. Verified to look like Mother Theresa.
283095
The Jesus toast. Verified to look like Jesus or Jeff Daniels.
283096
Can you cite anything verified scientifically?
The Nun Bun. Verified to look like Mother Theresa.
283095
The Jesus toast. Verified to look like Jesus or Jeff Daniels.
283096
BC2009
Mar 18, 11:34 AM
Someone is failing... hard
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 03:51 PM
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated. This is why i say they deserved to be suck with PowerPC maybe another 5yrs with IBM/Freescale will make them more greatful to Intel for bailing them out.
Freakin Core 2 is 80% redesigned from Core 1 and this was done is very short time, Inessence they were able to Beat AMD clock 4 clock while maintaining the insane clock scalibility of Netbust and at a lower wattage output , talk about having your cake and eating it too. It truly is a great technical achievement. Those guy at Intel Israel are geniuses.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated. This is why i say they deserved to be suck with PowerPC maybe another 5yrs with IBM/Freescale will make them more greatful to Intel for bailing them out.
Freakin Core 2 is 80% redesigned from Core 1 and this was done is very short time, Inessence they were able to Beat AMD clock 4 clock while maintaining the insane clock scalibility of Netbust and at a lower wattage output , talk about having your cake and eating it too. It truly is a great technical achievement. Those guy at Intel Israel are geniuses.
No comments:
Post a Comment