Thunderhawks
Apr 9, 11:42 AM
Velly Intelrsting. Did they start out making games from rocks?
Yes!
280466
Yes!
280466
Simm0nS777
Mar 18, 12:46 PM
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
mac1984user
Apr 15, 09:55 AM
Focus should be on ending/surviving ALL bullying, not just victims choosing a hip counterculture.
Because being gay, or supporting those who suffer from abuse, is the same as joining a 'hip counterculture' movement. Get real, dude. That's ridiculous.
This video was great. I'm glad it made it to the 1st page.
Because being gay, or supporting those who suffer from abuse, is the same as joining a 'hip counterculture' movement. Get real, dude. That's ridiculous.
This video was great. I'm glad it made it to the 1st page.
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:31 AM
By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
–noun
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
–noun
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
torbjoern
Apr 23, 11:27 PM
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Oh yes. A true empiricist I am, indeed. I will never follow any doctrine, faith or political ideology blindly just because a book tells me to do so, not even when it refers to itself (and particularly not then). Hey - I even had a schoolmate who tried to get me into believing that The Protocols of the Elderly of Zion was authentic, "proving" its authenticity by referencing the book itself. Of course I'm an empiricist - it would be madness to found my life on anything else, be it ever so sacred.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
Asking how the universe existed prior to us has been quite meaningful for believers to invalidate the absence of religion. "The universe can't have always existed!" Yes, it can. If it's possible for God to have "always existed", then it's certainly possible for the universe. The universe is less advanced than its creator if there ever were one, so that should be even easier to accept.
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
What is your point? You would still not stand above the law of gravity and neither would your robots, which is why your robots would fall "down" and have to stand up again when you turned the room 90 degrees.
Oh yes. A true empiricist I am, indeed. I will never follow any doctrine, faith or political ideology blindly just because a book tells me to do so, not even when it refers to itself (and particularly not then). Hey - I even had a schoolmate who tried to get me into believing that The Protocols of the Elderly of Zion was authentic, "proving" its authenticity by referencing the book itself. Of course I'm an empiricist - it would be madness to found my life on anything else, be it ever so sacred.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
Asking how the universe existed prior to us has been quite meaningful for believers to invalidate the absence of religion. "The universe can't have always existed!" Yes, it can. If it's possible for God to have "always existed", then it's certainly possible for the universe. The universe is less advanced than its creator if there ever were one, so that should be even easier to accept.
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
What is your point? You would still not stand above the law of gravity and neither would your robots, which is why your robots would fall "down" and have to stand up again when you turned the room 90 degrees.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:13 AM
What hateful nonsense.
Everything is hate to people like you. It makes it impossible to have any kind of conversation.
Difference of opinion != Hate
Everything is hate to people like you. It makes it impossible to have any kind of conversation.
Difference of opinion != Hate
Thunderhawks
Apr 21, 01:36 PM
This entire thread is hilarious.
May be it's time to let the Android users in on the joke:
You are all owners of iphones.
Whatever is different from a real iphone is just a cover up by Apple.
They ousted Schmitt from the board of directors and gave him the phone number for the retired dude in Mexico who was on the iphone development team.
They then promised that guy a permanent cure from "Montezuma's Revenge" (rampant in Mexico)if he would only share his expertise on the iphone.
Trouble is he doesn't remember all the iphone details, so what you get with the Android is an iphone with whatever he can remember.
Some manufacturers are trying to fill in the blanks or give these things for FREE so nobody can really complain. (They do, see my sig below)
In summary, thank you all for using iphones with different names and recognizing that ONLY APPLE put a device together you all love now .
It makes for fun reading:-)
Copy on dudes and Happy Easter!:-)
May be it's time to let the Android users in on the joke:
You are all owners of iphones.
Whatever is different from a real iphone is just a cover up by Apple.
They ousted Schmitt from the board of directors and gave him the phone number for the retired dude in Mexico who was on the iphone development team.
They then promised that guy a permanent cure from "Montezuma's Revenge" (rampant in Mexico)if he would only share his expertise on the iphone.
Trouble is he doesn't remember all the iphone details, so what you get with the Android is an iphone with whatever he can remember.
Some manufacturers are trying to fill in the blanks or give these things for FREE so nobody can really complain. (They do, see my sig below)
In summary, thank you all for using iphones with different names and recognizing that ONLY APPLE put a device together you all love now .
It makes for fun reading:-)
Copy on dudes and Happy Easter!:-)
Photics
Apr 9, 09:33 AM
Nah. All those games you mentioned would be part of a pack of 25 on Nintendo for 19.99.
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
ZilogZ80
Apr 6, 04:02 AM
Most of these "problems" are down to people not knowing how to operate their Macs. I would recommend to any new switcher (& a lot of the people who have posted in this thread!) get a good book ("The Missing Manual" is great) which explains everything you need to know.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 09:16 AM
Have we established that turning off location services actually disables this "feature"?
No, I misunderstood what he was referring to. After reading more into it, it's different than the locations feature on there. Instead of using it like a GPS, it actually seems to track based off tower triangulation.
No, I misunderstood what he was referring to. After reading more into it, it's different than the locations feature on there. Instead of using it like a GPS, it actually seems to track based off tower triangulation.
Nameci
Apr 5, 10:06 PM
I have switched to OSX 4 years ago... and never went back to Windows as my personal computer operating system.
What I don't like after switching is that I did not have the appetite anymore to play games. It did make me more productive.
What I don't like after switching is that I did not have the appetite anymore to play games. It did make me more productive.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 05:55 PM
You may not like the lack of start menu...
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
ChrisA
Sep 26, 01:40 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing........
That is not the way it's done. One does not asign threads to cores. What yu do is crate threads and let the operating system shedle cores to "ready" threads
That is not the way it's done. One does not asign threads to cores. What yu do is crate threads and let the operating system shedle cores to "ready" threads
damienvfx
Sep 12, 06:03 PM
and this was a smart move on Steve's part. He is trying to garner support for his movie download service, just like a producer would try and hedge his/her film to a few different production companies.
Makes people more excited about the possibilities ahead. Which in tun production companies will want to jump on the bandwagon and reap some of the benefits.
The preview wasn't for you and me per se. It was for Universal, Paramount, MGM, & Fox to see just how interested the market is in such a peripheral. Steve's got their attention now.
Makes people more excited about the possibilities ahead. Which in tun production companies will want to jump on the bandwagon and reap some of the benefits.
The preview wasn't for you and me per se. It was for Universal, Paramount, MGM, & Fox to see just how interested the market is in such a peripheral. Steve's got their attention now.
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:19 AM
2. Many programs want you to manage files from within programs. Itunes does not want you organizing music folders. It wants you to organize in itunes. iphoto is the same. You just have to let go of folder management...except for documents. Its a hard habit to break. Let the programs do the organization.
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
+simpson+2011+weight+gain
Simpson for gaining weight
designer Jessica Simpson
Simpson “Fat Weight Gain”
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
timswim78
Sep 12, 07:35 PM
I could not disagree more.
It exceeds the xBox 360 due to the inclusion of HDMI.
- XBOX might be getting HDMI, or maybe not.
It will play DVD's, for sure, through the desktop server
- Not very convenient to have to have a computer turned on to play DVD's. If your computer is in another room, changing DVD"s will be a real pain in the neck. It would be a whole lot simpler to just have a DVD drive in the unit.
It uses the superior FrontRow navigation system
- Superior to what? FrontRow has nothing on MCE's interface. I've used both, and MCE is better, IMO. (Of course, MCE allows one to record television.)
It has a cleaner appearance than xbox, no power brick, runs quieter and cooler
- No moving parts would make something quieter and cooler. However, this is not a standalone unit, and the need to run a server computer changes the quietness and coolness. I don't really want to look at computer or A/V equipment anyway.
Will not crash like the hot running xBox.
- And you know this from the test unit that Apple sent to you?
Will be prices slightly cheaper allowing for inclusion on multiple TV's throughout the home
- Cheaper than what? Or do you mean a quantity based discount?
It does not play games will work in Apple's favor as many parents don't want this feature for their children.
- So, these paretns should buy a networked DVD/Media player or a Media Center Extender. Are these the same parents that don't want their kids watching crappy TV, or is it OK for kids to watch horrible televsion programming as long as they don't play games?
Digital Cable and TV recording to Hard Disk are handled by the Media SERVER (desktop) using cheap and currently available 3rd party products -- watch for apple to bundle this in the coming year and one half.
- Sounds like a hodge-podged mess to me. If you really want simplicity, just buy a Media Center PC and one of the Windows Meda Extenders.
iTV is a winner for sure.
- I'll hold off judgement until I try one out for myself. (Actually, I probably won't try one. I only have on small TV in my house, and I only get over-the-air HDTV programming, no cable or sattelite.)
It exceeds the xBox 360 due to the inclusion of HDMI.
- XBOX might be getting HDMI, or maybe not.
It will play DVD's, for sure, through the desktop server
- Not very convenient to have to have a computer turned on to play DVD's. If your computer is in another room, changing DVD"s will be a real pain in the neck. It would be a whole lot simpler to just have a DVD drive in the unit.
It uses the superior FrontRow navigation system
- Superior to what? FrontRow has nothing on MCE's interface. I've used both, and MCE is better, IMO. (Of course, MCE allows one to record television.)
It has a cleaner appearance than xbox, no power brick, runs quieter and cooler
- No moving parts would make something quieter and cooler. However, this is not a standalone unit, and the need to run a server computer changes the quietness and coolness. I don't really want to look at computer or A/V equipment anyway.
Will not crash like the hot running xBox.
- And you know this from the test unit that Apple sent to you?
Will be prices slightly cheaper allowing for inclusion on multiple TV's throughout the home
- Cheaper than what? Or do you mean a quantity based discount?
It does not play games will work in Apple's favor as many parents don't want this feature for their children.
- So, these paretns should buy a networked DVD/Media player or a Media Center Extender. Are these the same parents that don't want their kids watching crappy TV, or is it OK for kids to watch horrible televsion programming as long as they don't play games?
Digital Cable and TV recording to Hard Disk are handled by the Media SERVER (desktop) using cheap and currently available 3rd party products -- watch for apple to bundle this in the coming year and one half.
- Sounds like a hodge-podged mess to me. If you really want simplicity, just buy a Media Center PC and one of the Windows Meda Extenders.
iTV is a winner for sure.
- I'll hold off judgement until I try one out for myself. (Actually, I probably won't try one. I only have on small TV in my house, and I only get over-the-air HDTV programming, no cable or sattelite.)
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.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 07:06 PM
Mac Pro is only true desktop offering from Apple. That's the problem.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.
Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.
This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.
Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.
This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.
dnedved
Sep 12, 05:04 PM
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes.
As an IT consultant you should know about caching. The bandwidth is there, a little bit of caching and the inconsistency caused by an occasional glitch in the throughput won't even be noticed. OS X doesn't do extensive read-ahead caching over network file systems. It's arguable whether a general-purpose OS even should (You and I probably both want it to but how often do you hear other users asking for it?) But with the workload that this device will be doing it's a no-brainer that doing 64-128MB of read-ahead would be a good idea. You can bet that Apple is smart enough to think of that. Hell, if they get the downloads working over the internet connection, the delivery around the LAN is much easier -- wired or wireless. 802.11g is a MUCH fatter pipe than anybody here's internet connection I'm willing to bet.
I agree with you about the current situation. It's just a simple tweak on the client though. Right now I even have occasional glitches streaming video off my NAS over GigE but it's just the lack of caching, it's certainly not a bandwidth issue with GigE!!!
As an IT consultant you should know about caching. The bandwidth is there, a little bit of caching and the inconsistency caused by an occasional glitch in the throughput won't even be noticed. OS X doesn't do extensive read-ahead caching over network file systems. It's arguable whether a general-purpose OS even should (You and I probably both want it to but how often do you hear other users asking for it?) But with the workload that this device will be doing it's a no-brainer that doing 64-128MB of read-ahead would be a good idea. You can bet that Apple is smart enough to think of that. Hell, if they get the downloads working over the internet connection, the delivery around the LAN is much easier -- wired or wireless. 802.11g is a MUCH fatter pipe than anybody here's internet connection I'm willing to bet.
I agree with you about the current situation. It's just a simple tweak on the client though. Right now I even have occasional glitches streaming video off my NAS over GigE but it's just the lack of caching, it's certainly not a bandwidth issue with GigE!!!
smetvid
Apr 13, 04:32 AM
People you seem to be missing the point that the $299.00 price is for FCP and not the entire studio package. Remember FCP was only one of many applications in FCS. I would expect the other applications to be similar priced in the app store. So in the end I think you may end up paying just as much.
What I did find interesting is no mention of upgrade pricing for existing FCS users. How will they handle upgrades per application?
Remember for current users we paid a small feee to upgrade the entire studio package.
As an editor I can say this is pretty interesting. I would expect the same level of precision we are used to now under the hood. I think the main focus of this demonstration was to show the new features and how easy FCP can be now for the non tech people.
My only concern at this point is every iMovie user now thinking they can be a pro editor with no training and very little cost. Even a 10 year old kid will be using FCP. This is going to affect the editing job market and make editors a dime a dozen. Sure talent still matters but it is going to be harder for companies to sift through 5000 demo reels trying to find that talent. Apple has pretty much turned editing into Wal-Mart.
You might as well kiss Avid goodbye as well. I'm sure there will be die hards for the old way of editing but if FCPX can hang on to the precision of a pro editor without the complex overhead then Apple has just sent Avid yet another major blow. Adobe and Vegas are still a bit safe since they had a lot of these features for awhile now. In fact I see a lot of similarities with Sony Vegas. To me FCPX is the way Vegas should have been from what I have seen so far.
Perhaps Avid will finally wake up and overhaul their entire interface the way they should have 4 years ago already. Avid had the opportunity when they bought Pinnacle Liquid to have a NLE with background rendering and other newage features but they killed it in favor of their dinosaur. The new FCPX is what Liquid could have been if development would have kept going.
What I did find interesting is no mention of upgrade pricing for existing FCS users. How will they handle upgrades per application?
Remember for current users we paid a small feee to upgrade the entire studio package.
As an editor I can say this is pretty interesting. I would expect the same level of precision we are used to now under the hood. I think the main focus of this demonstration was to show the new features and how easy FCP can be now for the non tech people.
My only concern at this point is every iMovie user now thinking they can be a pro editor with no training and very little cost. Even a 10 year old kid will be using FCP. This is going to affect the editing job market and make editors a dime a dozen. Sure talent still matters but it is going to be harder for companies to sift through 5000 demo reels trying to find that talent. Apple has pretty much turned editing into Wal-Mart.
You might as well kiss Avid goodbye as well. I'm sure there will be die hards for the old way of editing but if FCPX can hang on to the precision of a pro editor without the complex overhead then Apple has just sent Avid yet another major blow. Adobe and Vegas are still a bit safe since they had a lot of these features for awhile now. In fact I see a lot of similarities with Sony Vegas. To me FCPX is the way Vegas should have been from what I have seen so far.
Perhaps Avid will finally wake up and overhaul their entire interface the way they should have 4 years ago already. Avid had the opportunity when they bought Pinnacle Liquid to have a NLE with background rendering and other newage features but they killed it in favor of their dinosaur. The new FCPX is what Liquid could have been if development would have kept going.
mdntcallr
Sep 25, 11:58 PM
well sounds like i need to chill out and not but the mac pro i was thinking of. perhaps i will wait till they are refreshed with this.
Hopefully the new mac pro's will also have a blu-ray drive option with HDMI HDTV option.
also, with new HDTV TV/Monitor with Speakers integrated Displays.
Hopefully the new mac pro's will also have a blu-ray drive option with HDMI HDTV option.
also, with new HDTV TV/Monitor with Speakers integrated Displays.
CalBoy
Mar 27, 07:14 PM
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
There is a big difference between felling conflicted about one's sexual attractions (because it is taboo for example) and desiring to change it. There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
We can surgically change gender, but everyone I've ever spoken to who has had such a procedure done has told me that they never felt "at home" in their prior gender. The medical procedures we have help to align how a person feels their body should be, not the other way around.
There is a big difference between felling conflicted about one's sexual attractions (because it is taboo for example) and desiring to change it. There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
We can surgically change gender, but everyone I've ever spoken to who has had such a procedure done has told me that they never felt "at home" in their prior gender. The medical procedures we have help to align how a person feels their body should be, not the other way around.
bfar5
Aug 17, 07:30 AM
hahahahahahaha That was a good one.
lmao
lmao
Liquorpuki
Mar 16, 01:18 PM
1/ Oil is relevant to electricity generation as we move forwards with more use of hybrids/electric vehicles. Using nuclear and renewables we have a chance to offset oil burning vehicles with non-fossil fuel power. Powering those electric vehicles off coal generated electricity limits their effectiveness.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
My point is that if you're talking about energy independence and importing, you're talking about oil. If you're talking about greening the portfolio (nuclear vs coal vs wind, etc), you're not talking about oil because hardly anybody burns oil anymore for electricity generation. Oil is used for fleet and equipment, but rarely burned to spin turbines anymore and has a very marginal role in the portfolio. Two different topics.
Hybrids/EV's are a way to ween off oil dependence. Fivepoint is arguing that we should facilitate oil dependence by drilling more. I can't tell whether you agree with him or not. Also, EV's/Hybrids don't generate electricity, they consume it. And I don't get why you're using coal and oil interchangeably. Coal is used in power plants to generate electricity. Oil is used in vehicles for what can now be considered a substitute for electricity. Different roles.
Natural Gas is a way to ween off both coal and oil dependence. One of the places you can find it is in oil beds, which is why the oil industry is involved. You can also find it on its own. But it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal and oil so it's a viable alternative for both electricity generation and vehicles.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
My point is that if you're talking about energy independence and importing, you're talking about oil. If you're talking about greening the portfolio (nuclear vs coal vs wind, etc), you're not talking about oil because hardly anybody burns oil anymore for electricity generation. Oil is used for fleet and equipment, but rarely burned to spin turbines anymore and has a very marginal role in the portfolio. Two different topics.
Hybrids/EV's are a way to ween off oil dependence. Fivepoint is arguing that we should facilitate oil dependence by drilling more. I can't tell whether you agree with him or not. Also, EV's/Hybrids don't generate electricity, they consume it. And I don't get why you're using coal and oil interchangeably. Coal is used in power plants to generate electricity. Oil is used in vehicles for what can now be considered a substitute for electricity. Different roles.
Natural Gas is a way to ween off both coal and oil dependence. One of the places you can find it is in oil beds, which is why the oil industry is involved. You can also find it on its own. But it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal and oil so it's a viable alternative for both electricity generation and vehicles.