bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 01:06 PM
No I understand quite well. Your example leads me to believe you don't.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
Mac'nCheese
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
GGJstudios
Apr 13, 03:16 PM
I'm sure this has been mentioned.
Connecting other hard drives. I'm only able to read from most (windows) drives.
FAT32 (File Allocation Table)
View Hair Style: kate hudson
Curly Bridal Hairstyles
Skin Like Kate Husdon#39;s?
KATE HUDSON HAIRSTYLE
Kate Hudson Hairstyle
Kate Hudson Hairstyle
KATE HUDSON HAIRSTYLES OF 2011
kate-hudson-sexy-beach-
Kate Hudson#39;s Medium Hairstyle
Kate Hudson is seen here
Kate Hudson#39;s layered bob
Kate Hudson hairstyles
Kate Hudson
Kate Hudson Long Hairstyle
Kate Hudson, continued albino
Kate Hudson
Connecting other hard drives. I'm only able to read from most (windows) drives.
FAT32 (File Allocation Table)
Peterkro
Mar 14, 02:51 PM
something i noticed from the diagrams of the reactor layout: the water basin where the spent fuel rods are temporarily stored is actualy outside of the steel+concrete containment: so that might explain why some reactor only isotopes were detected
i just hope none of those depelted fuel rods where scattered around from the top superstructre explosion
There is some damage to the storage pools housing the spent fuel rods and they are a source of concern,an explosion caused by lack of water cover is a possibility.
i just hope none of those depelted fuel rods where scattered around from the top superstructre explosion
There is some damage to the storage pools housing the spent fuel rods and they are a source of concern,an explosion caused by lack of water cover is a possibility.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:57 AM
Funny. I find you to be the second most bigoted person I've seen so far on this thread. But that's just like, my opinion.
Calling you out on your religious garbage is not bigoted.
It's merely pointing out that until you provide some evidence for the existence of your invisible god, it might be a good idea to stop treating people like second-class humans based on the writings of 1st century nomads who didn't know enough about the realities of the universe to keep their food supplies away from their toilets.
It's pointing out that this Earth is littered with the bones of people who have been killed in the name of what you find 'sacred'.
Calling you out on your religious garbage is not bigoted.
It's merely pointing out that until you provide some evidence for the existence of your invisible god, it might be a good idea to stop treating people like second-class humans based on the writings of 1st century nomads who didn't know enough about the realities of the universe to keep their food supplies away from their toilets.
It's pointing out that this Earth is littered with the bones of people who have been killed in the name of what you find 'sacred'.
mpstrex
Aug 30, 10:25 AM
What about this:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
or this:
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/08/black_hydrogen.html
or this:
"Science politicized is science betrayed. Adamant focuses on advances in science and international security, and how the rhetoric of motives distorts them in public television, often thoughtless think tanks, and both sides of the aisle in a Congress where lawyers outnumber scientists 30 to 1.
"It also affords respite from the Science Wars by surveying bizarre things that surface in the 36,000 ostensibly learned journals to which Harvard's library's subscribes." -Physicist Dr. Russell Seitz
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
or this:
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/08/black_hydrogen.html
or this:
"Science politicized is science betrayed. Adamant focuses on advances in science and international security, and how the rhetoric of motives distorts them in public television, often thoughtless think tanks, and both sides of the aisle in a Congress where lawyers outnumber scientists 30 to 1.
"It also affords respite from the Science Wars by surveying bizarre things that surface in the 36,000 ostensibly learned journals to which Harvard's library's subscribes." -Physicist Dr. Russell Seitz
madoka
Mar 18, 06:07 PM
Obviously, Apple will freak (what else is new...), but all this does is provide a shortcut around the burn-to-CD-and-rerip shortcut that's built into iTunes.
Wouldn't this shortcut result in a loss in sound quality?
Wouldn't this shortcut result in a loss in sound quality?
brap
Mar 20, 07:35 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.
I can't see it having any knock-on effect with regards diversity, as has been said before labels are pretty much 'locked in' to the ITMS; there's also the inconvenience of downloading another application. It removes the ease-of-use facet, effectively ruling out a large proportion of the ITMS' customer base who simply want a quick 99c. fix of the latest song by whatserface.
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
I can't see it having any knock-on effect with regards diversity, as has been said before labels are pretty much 'locked in' to the ITMS; there's also the inconvenience of downloading another application. It removes the ease-of-use facet, effectively ruling out a large proportion of the ITMS' customer base who simply want a quick 99c. fix of the latest song by whatserface.
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
SandboxGeneral
Mar 13, 09:44 AM
I'm all for nuclear power. It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
As for the safety of nuclear energy, there are only two disasters that I know of, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I think there was a 3rd more minor one once, but I don't recall.
I'm sure there have been more disasters with all the other types of energy plants that have happened over time. However, when a nuclear plant has a problem, it's always going to be a big one.
Despite the risks of nuclear power, I still support it's use in countries that are responsible.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
As for the safety of nuclear energy, there are only two disasters that I know of, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I think there was a 3rd more minor one once, but I don't recall.
I'm sure there have been more disasters with all the other types of energy plants that have happened over time. However, when a nuclear plant has a problem, it's always going to be a big one.
Despite the risks of nuclear power, I still support it's use in countries that are responsible.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 03:57 AM
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
My guess is the full suite will continue to be sold as a boxed version. Apple did not announce then entire suite today, just FCP, so probably holding that for later. It's similar to the way they unbundled all the iWork apps on the App Store, but you can still buy the boxed iWork.
I know personally, I do not have the bandwidth to d/l the entire suite and supporting media. That would take a whole day. I'll gladly pay a $50 or $100 up charge for discs.
My guess is the full suite will continue to be sold as a boxed version. Apple did not announce then entire suite today, just FCP, so probably holding that for later. It's similar to the way they unbundled all the iWork apps on the App Store, but you can still buy the boxed iWork.
I know personally, I do not have the bandwidth to d/l the entire suite and supporting media. That would take a whole day. I'll gladly pay a $50 or $100 up charge for discs.
millerb7
May 2, 11:31 AM
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
HAHAHA! It's sad that I am probably the only one who liked that comment ;) I am a HUGE Shonen fan lol!
HAHAHA! It's sad that I am probably the only one who liked that comment ;) I am a HUGE Shonen fan lol!
ChrisA
Oct 26, 08:25 PM
Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?
The C2D was a general upgrade that applied to every MBP sold where as
Clovertown may be a build to order option.
The C2D was a general upgrade that applied to every MBP sold where as
Clovertown may be a build to order option.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:10 PM
It isn't fallacious when the source is known to be unreliable and non representative of the field which they purport to be a part of.
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
During this thread, I've just read an emotionally charged post that doesn't prove anything that the poster says about Nicolosi. I try to feel plenty of empathy. But if others keep attacking someone who disagrees with them, the attackers don't evoke my empathy. They decrease their credibility.
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
During this thread, I've just read an emotionally charged post that doesn't prove anything that the poster says about Nicolosi. I try to feel plenty of empathy. But if others keep attacking someone who disagrees with them, the attackers don't evoke my empathy. They decrease their credibility.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:39 AM
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
Michaelgtrusa
May 2, 10:07 AM
Be careful.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 12, 11:27 AM
The main island of Japan, the complete land mass, has moved sideways by eight feet (about 2.5 metres). And the earth, the entire planet, has shifted on its axis by about four inches (10cm)... according to geophysicists reported over at CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html)
This earthquake ranks 5th for strongest earthquakes accurately recorded.
It shifted the Earth four inches on its axis. If I understand correctly the 2010 Chilean earthquake actually shifted the Earth's axis. I wonder how often either of these events happen.
EDIT: The JPL now thinks that the Japan earthquake shifted the Earth's axis. I've found out this occurrence is somewhat "common".
This earthquake ranks 5th for strongest earthquakes accurately recorded.
It shifted the Earth four inches on its axis. If I understand correctly the 2010 Chilean earthquake actually shifted the Earth's axis. I wonder how often either of these events happen.
EDIT: The JPL now thinks that the Japan earthquake shifted the Earth's axis. I've found out this occurrence is somewhat "common".
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.
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:34 PM
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
grue
Apr 13, 01:29 AM
I was wracking my brain trying to figure out what the hell the face recognition feature would be used for. That makes sense, sports. Sadly we shoot a ton of skiing and snowboarding, so it probably won't work well for us since everyone is wearing hats/helmets and goggles.
It'll be excellent for film and TV work as well, being able to search by actor when making promo reels, trailers, etc.
It'll be excellent for film and TV work as well, being able to search by actor when making promo reels, trailers, etc.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:22 AM
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
Anandtech did a test with two Clovertown engineering samples several weeks ago. Seemed to work just fine. The only thing I could see as an issue is the BIOS/EFI might need an update in addition to simply swapping the CPUs.
Anandtech did a test with two Clovertown engineering samples several weeks ago. Seemed to work just fine. The only thing I could see as an issue is the BIOS/EFI might need an update in addition to simply swapping the CPUs.
Applespider
Mar 20, 04:48 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 09:12 AM
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
They offer an unlimited data plan for one device. There's nothing illegal about it. By sharing that data with other devices you are very clearly and very simply breaking the contract.
They offer an unlimited data plan for one device. There's nothing illegal about it. By sharing that data with other devices you are very clearly and very simply breaking the contract.
MacRumors
Jul 11, 09:51 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
AppleInsider claims they have confirmation (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877) that Apple will be using Intel's Xeon 5100 series processors, also known as "Woodcrest" to power their next generation Intel-based Mac Pro Workstations.
Previous claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609094241.shtml) indicated that the Mac Pro would continue the Quad-core tradition set by the latest batch of PowerMac G5's. However, in order for an Intel-based "Quad" to be developed, a multi-processor machine would be required, which inherently leaves out the use of Core 2 Duo "Conroe" based microprocessors, as they do not support multi-processor configurations.
Of note, ThinkSecret has maintained (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that they believe the Mac Pro will utilize Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
Additionally, AppleInsider speculates that Conroe may be used in a future iMac revision, while Merom will be used in future MacBook Pros and Yonah will remain in the MacBook and Mac Mini.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Pro_and_Woodcrest_Confirmed)
AppleInsider claims they have confirmation (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877) that Apple will be using Intel's Xeon 5100 series processors, also known as "Woodcrest" to power their next generation Intel-based Mac Pro Workstations.
Previous claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609094241.shtml) indicated that the Mac Pro would continue the Quad-core tradition set by the latest batch of PowerMac G5's. However, in order for an Intel-based "Quad" to be developed, a multi-processor machine would be required, which inherently leaves out the use of Core 2 Duo "Conroe" based microprocessors, as they do not support multi-processor configurations.
Of note, ThinkSecret has maintained (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that they believe the Mac Pro will utilize Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
Additionally, AppleInsider speculates that Conroe may be used in a future iMac revision, while Merom will be used in future MacBook Pros and Yonah will remain in the MacBook and Mac Mini.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Pro_and_Woodcrest_Confirmed)
shawnce
Jul 12, 05:07 PM
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
All of the Core / Core 2 based processors support SMP (they have two cores after all) but only the Xeon class chips and related chipset supports the ability to have more then a single CPU socket.
All of the Core / Core 2 based processors support SMP (they have two cores after all) but only the Xeon class chips and related chipset supports the ability to have more then a single CPU socket.