supmango
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base....People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Please elaborate.
Please elaborate.
philbeeney
Mar 11, 02:38 PM
Yet another one. 6.6 off the north west coast. Here's a link to the USGS website showing all the quake locations in northern Japan.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_40.php
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_40.php
dobbin
Sep 20, 03:45 AM
I don't want to have to put yet another box on the shelf under my TV and have yet another remote control kicking around my living room.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
dmelgar
Jul 8, 12:01 AM
I'm still on the iPhone 3G. I was seriously considering ditching AT&T and the iPhone 4 for Sprint/EVO 4G or Verizon/Droid X because I was dropping call every single call in my house (no joke, every single call) and multiple calls per day around town a few weeks ago, BUT...
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I've had poor AT&T coverage as well. Could never reliably make a call at home. After suffering for 2 years I ditched and went with the HTC Incredible on Verizon. Couldn't be happier. 3G coverage EVERYWHERE. I forgot what it was like to have coverage. Its like day and night. Over the last month, I've grown to really like Android as well.
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I've had poor AT&T coverage as well. Could never reliably make a call at home. After suffering for 2 years I ditched and went with the HTC Incredible on Verizon. Couldn't be happier. 3G coverage EVERYWHERE. I forgot what it was like to have coverage. Its like day and night. Over the last month, I've grown to really like Android as well.
skunk
Mar 26, 07:14 PM
I guess I need a better dictionary
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).Ego te absolvo, fili mi.
Fili mi is the vocative of filius meus, in case you were wondering...
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).Ego te absolvo, fili mi.
Fili mi is the vocative of filius meus, in case you were wondering...
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ. The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose. Those false Christians make me sick.
I agree. People should focus exclusively on the New Testament, where hateful behaviour is unequivocally denounced.
Take slavery, for instance. If ever there was a hateful action that we call all be united against, it's slavery. Good thing the NT takes a firm stance against slavery...
ohh.... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18)
damn... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/6.html#1)
it doesn't... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22)
We should also commend Jesus himself, for taking such a firm stance against the horrors of the Old Testament...
wait... (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm)
that's not correct... (http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm)
I agree. People should focus exclusively on the New Testament, where hateful behaviour is unequivocally denounced.
Take slavery, for instance. If ever there was a hateful action that we call all be united against, it's slavery. Good thing the NT takes a firm stance against slavery...
ohh.... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18)
damn... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/6.html#1)
it doesn't... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22)
We should also commend Jesus himself, for taking such a firm stance against the horrors of the Old Testament...
wait... (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm)
that's not correct... (http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm)
dguisinger
Mar 19, 04:37 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
chakraj
Mar 18, 12:30 PM
Dont you all understand, Unlimited is the name of the plan not the discription of the amount of data used.
Much like the Ford LTD, or Limited, they were just named LTD, they were not actually a limited edition vehicle.
ATT REP; Hello sir, would you like to sign up for our unlimited data plan? with that plan you get 5gigs, you can use anyway you want, as long as it is viewing facebook or google only, any other web traffic is not in your unlimited plan. For that you would need our world wide Unlimited web access plan. With that plan you get 5gigs and you also get to look at youtube and Amazon. If you want more there is our unlimited universal time and space plan. With that plan you get everything from the other unlimited plan plus you get access to ebay!. for a limited time..
Much like the Ford LTD, or Limited, they were just named LTD, they were not actually a limited edition vehicle.
ATT REP; Hello sir, would you like to sign up for our unlimited data plan? with that plan you get 5gigs, you can use anyway you want, as long as it is viewing facebook or google only, any other web traffic is not in your unlimited plan. For that you would need our world wide Unlimited web access plan. With that plan you get 5gigs and you also get to look at youtube and Amazon. If you want more there is our unlimited universal time and space plan. With that plan you get everything from the other unlimited plan plus you get access to ebay!. for a limited time..
xIGmanIx
Apr 10, 11:06 AM
Epic is garbage and their engine is garbage.
paradox00
Oct 7, 05:26 PM
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
toddicus
Nov 3, 08:08 AM
I have to say that I would have always agreed with you in the past. Apple just didnt seem to want to play in the mainstream desktop PC arena before. But if the Mac Pro goes 8 core (which is inevitible IMO) then there is a big yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, both price wise and performance wise. I dont understand why Apple seems content to leave it empty. Is it because there is no money to be made there?
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:02 PM
Are you purposefully ignoring my point ? Look, if you don't know and don't care about the finer points, don't reply or try to participate.
I'm curious how it auto-executes the installer because that can have potential damaging results for a user account, without privilege escalation. My data is all in my user account, I don't care about a few system files so much as I care about my data.
Can we please leave the bickering and "it's just an installer" out of it and discuss the technical requirements behind this malware so we can better understand it ?
No one is pointing fingers or bickering. I'm responding to your question. The only technical requirement that was satisfied is that the user had "Open "safe" files after downloading" selected. An app installer is not unsafe. Whether the app to be installed is safe or not is another matter, but the installer cannot harm your system or your user files, simply by launching. If you don't want apps... installers or otherwise... to launch after downloading, simply deselect that box.
Macs are more vulnerable than people think.
They just have such a lower market share and percentage of users than Microsoft that its not worth it to write malware and virus's for them.
As Apple and OSX grows, this kind of thing will become more common and Apple will be more at risk
The market share myth is exactly that: a myth. It doesn't hold water.
I'm curious how it auto-executes the installer because that can have potential damaging results for a user account, without privilege escalation. My data is all in my user account, I don't care about a few system files so much as I care about my data.
Can we please leave the bickering and "it's just an installer" out of it and discuss the technical requirements behind this malware so we can better understand it ?
No one is pointing fingers or bickering. I'm responding to your question. The only technical requirement that was satisfied is that the user had "Open "safe" files after downloading" selected. An app installer is not unsafe. Whether the app to be installed is safe or not is another matter, but the installer cannot harm your system or your user files, simply by launching. If you don't want apps... installers or otherwise... to launch after downloading, simply deselect that box.
Macs are more vulnerable than people think.
They just have such a lower market share and percentage of users than Microsoft that its not worth it to write malware and virus's for them.
As Apple and OSX grows, this kind of thing will become more common and Apple will be more at risk
The market share myth is exactly that: a myth. It doesn't hold water.
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 08:32 PM
Should they have a full-on meltdown, yes there will be fallout detected around the globe - but I doubt the levels will be high enough to cause concern after thousands of miles to disperse.
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:00 PM
I don't believe in God. To me, I haven't seen anything to convince me of his existence and it just seems way too convenient of a way to explain away difficult questions. I also don't think that religion would add anything to my life - it's just not an issue for me, I don't even think about it until asked.
I am interested in this thread, just because I am not used to people questioning my viewpoint, or even really caring about how big the atheist population is. In the UK, it just doesn't seem that the issue is that important.
Is this a bigger issue in the US, and do atheists abroad feel pressure to at least consider the idea of a God?
I'm in the U.S, and I do receive a lot of pressure! I get on average 4-5 messages a week from believers on Facebook warning me of hellfire. :-/ and I'm not even too strident in my disbelief.
Normally I just take it as a joke, but lately its been getting to me. I think that my hellfire threats are above average even for American atheists.
I am interested in this thread, just because I am not used to people questioning my viewpoint, or even really caring about how big the atheist population is. In the UK, it just doesn't seem that the issue is that important.
Is this a bigger issue in the US, and do atheists abroad feel pressure to at least consider the idea of a God?
I'm in the U.S, and I do receive a lot of pressure! I get on average 4-5 messages a week from believers on Facebook warning me of hellfire. :-/ and I'm not even too strident in my disbelief.
Normally I just take it as a joke, but lately its been getting to me. I think that my hellfire threats are above average even for American atheists.
LagunaSol
Apr 21, 04:10 PM
I love seeing this "As long as you know what you're doing, and you're not an idiot, you're fine" attitude.
"Blame the user." It's the Microsoft way.
"Blame the user." It's the Microsoft way.
sisyphus
Sep 25, 11:59 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Kentsfield/Core 2 Quadro is also unlikely to see an inclusion in any current models.
Which of course leads to the missing piece! :D
We can't just go from 2 Cores on the iMac to 8 Cores on the Mac Pro without a handy dandy 4 core prosumer model in the middle. ;)
(Somebody around here has to keep the "Mac" computer around in the rumor threads). :rolleyes:
I had thought Apple was going to release a Conroe based computer, but now seeing that Intel is releasing the Kentsfield as early as Late October/Early November it would make no sense. Apple would release the machine in September, be unable to meet demand then replace it less than 2 months later? Not very Appleish (ignore the November/January iMac occurence last year ;) ).
But now that would make a hot item for the Christmas shopping season wouldn't it? This is the reason Apple didn't release a Conroe based system... too short of a time in the pipeline.
This now gives us the perfect differentiated lineup going into Christmas:
Mac Mini - Core Duo
iMac - Core 2 Duo
Mac - Core 2 Quattro
Mac Pro - Dual Cloverton (May not arrive until MWSF)
I'd buy myself a Mac Quattro for Christmas! :D
Kentsfield/Core 2 Quadro is also unlikely to see an inclusion in any current models.
Which of course leads to the missing piece! :D
We can't just go from 2 Cores on the iMac to 8 Cores on the Mac Pro without a handy dandy 4 core prosumer model in the middle. ;)
(Somebody around here has to keep the "Mac" computer around in the rumor threads). :rolleyes:
I had thought Apple was going to release a Conroe based computer, but now seeing that Intel is releasing the Kentsfield as early as Late October/Early November it would make no sense. Apple would release the machine in September, be unable to meet demand then replace it less than 2 months later? Not very Appleish (ignore the November/January iMac occurence last year ;) ).
But now that would make a hot item for the Christmas shopping season wouldn't it? This is the reason Apple didn't release a Conroe based system... too short of a time in the pipeline.
This now gives us the perfect differentiated lineup going into Christmas:
Mac Mini - Core Duo
iMac - Core 2 Duo
Mac - Core 2 Quattro
Mac Pro - Dual Cloverton (May not arrive until MWSF)
I'd buy myself a Mac Quattro for Christmas! :D
After G
Sep 12, 08:05 PM
I don't watch TV - the market for it is not me ... TV these days is too full of crap. No DVR because I don't want to save crap.
My watching model is: I watch it once, I know what happened, I don't care for keeping it. Because of this, I don't buy DVDs. I don't want to pay $20 for a watch-once movie. And most of the $5-11 deals aren't. The theater is a better offer for me, but the environment sucked a long time ago, and still does.
Hmm ... I find myself doing more with the computer ... and less everywhere else. Sounds like I fit right in to the iTV demographic, that "digital hub" thing.
My watching model is: I watch it once, I know what happened, I don't care for keeping it. Because of this, I don't buy DVDs. I don't want to pay $20 for a watch-once movie. And most of the $5-11 deals aren't. The theater is a better offer for me, but the environment sucked a long time ago, and still does.
Hmm ... I find myself doing more with the computer ... and less everywhere else. Sounds like I fit right in to the iTV demographic, that "digital hub" thing.
novagamer
Jul 12, 05:22 PM
Point Proven..Noobs like this are the reason why sites like \http://mac-sucks.com/ exist.
This is pretty immature.
Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.
I've had a DFI board kill 2 CPUs, a few Abit boards that were extremely flaky, one of which won't run 4 sticks of RAM anymore, another that crashed randomly and had to be RMAd, and don't not forget about the bad caps that a lot of older Abit boards (hello KT7 series) are having right about now.
I've also had an Asus board die spontaneously when I put a (supported) higher wattage processor in it, and come on you quoted VIA. Since when has VIA been a GOOD thing. I remember swapping 4-in-1 drivers every week in order to find a stability that really wasn't ever truly there. With the earliest Via Athlon chipsets it was literally possible to install drivers in the wrong order, so that the OS would continually reboot- even in safe mode! Boy, that sure was fun.
Remember the Socket A processors and their accompanying core-crushing heatsinks? When you get heatsinks that literally have the nickname of 'corecrusher' which I believe a (Thermaltake?) Volcano did, then you've got a bit of a problem. You're using the same argument that enthusiasts use against dell, except you forget that none of those computers can legally run OSX and the accompanying programs.
I've also had a Xeon system, with an iWill workstation motherboard that actually ran without FANS for a little while and survived completely fine, and is still used by the person I sold it to right now. Stability is of utmost importance with workstation/server class hardware, and that's why you won't find a lot of problems with them. Even the original G5 dual CPU system sold in 2003 has pretty much no known issues, whereas you'll find a lot of other (cheaper) Mac hardware does. R&D on solid hardware is very expensive.
Clearly you're a hardware enthusiast from an overclocker's board, and on that note do not quote an overclocked anything if you're going on a Mac forum where people use their machines to make a living: nobody overclocks their work machine unless they're a kid making $50 to do a website for their cousin or something like that, some people's day to day lifestyle rides on the machines they use and the support that is behind it (which Apple has been pretty great, in my experience, with).
If you're comparing stock configurations, the 3GHz Woodcrest Xeon is actually faster than even the ($150 more expensive) Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition (Core 2 Duo X6800) which is going to be only 2.93GHz. Also note that Woodcrest's FSB is 1333MHz while Conroe's tops out at 1066. The slightly lower performance of the Xeons, brought by the use of FB-DIMM memory, will be handily offset by the faster FSB, and it will of course allow for an incredible amount of memory, which servers and workstations need, to be used.
The fact is there are a lot of people in these forums who have used a Mac for their entire lives, and have never dealt with anything on the enthusiast side of the hardware spectrum, so they buy anything people tell them, which can make it tedious to read some of the nonsense that appears infrequently, as well as the hilarious zealot like posting of the few people who DO know something that try to come across as knowing EVERYTHING. You don't really fall into that category, but I think that you're probably at the wrong message board.
Go check out xtremesystems and have a blast, if you're comfortable running windows then it is quite fun being an enthusiast and getting the most bang for your buck, but you really can't advise or look down on people here that literally depend on their Macs to make a living. Have a great week though and try to relax a bit.
This is pretty immature.
Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.
I've had a DFI board kill 2 CPUs, a few Abit boards that were extremely flaky, one of which won't run 4 sticks of RAM anymore, another that crashed randomly and had to be RMAd, and don't not forget about the bad caps that a lot of older Abit boards (hello KT7 series) are having right about now.
I've also had an Asus board die spontaneously when I put a (supported) higher wattage processor in it, and come on you quoted VIA. Since when has VIA been a GOOD thing. I remember swapping 4-in-1 drivers every week in order to find a stability that really wasn't ever truly there. With the earliest Via Athlon chipsets it was literally possible to install drivers in the wrong order, so that the OS would continually reboot- even in safe mode! Boy, that sure was fun.
Remember the Socket A processors and their accompanying core-crushing heatsinks? When you get heatsinks that literally have the nickname of 'corecrusher' which I believe a (Thermaltake?) Volcano did, then you've got a bit of a problem. You're using the same argument that enthusiasts use against dell, except you forget that none of those computers can legally run OSX and the accompanying programs.
I've also had a Xeon system, with an iWill workstation motherboard that actually ran without FANS for a little while and survived completely fine, and is still used by the person I sold it to right now. Stability is of utmost importance with workstation/server class hardware, and that's why you won't find a lot of problems with them. Even the original G5 dual CPU system sold in 2003 has pretty much no known issues, whereas you'll find a lot of other (cheaper) Mac hardware does. R&D on solid hardware is very expensive.
Clearly you're a hardware enthusiast from an overclocker's board, and on that note do not quote an overclocked anything if you're going on a Mac forum where people use their machines to make a living: nobody overclocks their work machine unless they're a kid making $50 to do a website for their cousin or something like that, some people's day to day lifestyle rides on the machines they use and the support that is behind it (which Apple has been pretty great, in my experience, with).
If you're comparing stock configurations, the 3GHz Woodcrest Xeon is actually faster than even the ($150 more expensive) Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition (Core 2 Duo X6800) which is going to be only 2.93GHz. Also note that Woodcrest's FSB is 1333MHz while Conroe's tops out at 1066. The slightly lower performance of the Xeons, brought by the use of FB-DIMM memory, will be handily offset by the faster FSB, and it will of course allow for an incredible amount of memory, which servers and workstations need, to be used.
The fact is there are a lot of people in these forums who have used a Mac for their entire lives, and have never dealt with anything on the enthusiast side of the hardware spectrum, so they buy anything people tell them, which can make it tedious to read some of the nonsense that appears infrequently, as well as the hilarious zealot like posting of the few people who DO know something that try to come across as knowing EVERYTHING. You don't really fall into that category, but I think that you're probably at the wrong message board.
Go check out xtremesystems and have a blast, if you're comfortable running windows then it is quite fun being an enthusiast and getting the most bang for your buck, but you really can't advise or look down on people here that literally depend on their Macs to make a living. Have a great week though and try to relax a bit.
leekohler
Mar 28, 03:22 AM
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they thought they they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still wouldn't accept gay sex. Neither would any orthodox pope.
I'm sorry, but who says you have to have gay sex? Obviously, it's what made those artists happy, but ultimately it's none of your or anyone else's business. Why you constantly try to make it your business is puzzling.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Oh- I most certainly do. It means, "Be who you are, just don't act like who you are." It's quite clear. And if me loving another human being and building a life with them makes your god angry, so be it. I have no use for that god. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than spend eternity with something that horrible and judgemental. Fortunately, "god" does not exist, and when we die, we die. While I'm here, I will make the most of my life and help others do the same. You can do what you want.
I'm sorry, but who says you have to have gay sex? Obviously, it's what made those artists happy, but ultimately it's none of your or anyone else's business. Why you constantly try to make it your business is puzzling.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Oh- I most certainly do. It means, "Be who you are, just don't act like who you are." It's quite clear. And if me loving another human being and building a life with them makes your god angry, so be it. I have no use for that god. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than spend eternity with something that horrible and judgemental. Fortunately, "god" does not exist, and when we die, we die. While I'm here, I will make the most of my life and help others do the same. You can do what you want.
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.
Swampthing
May 9, 09:33 AM
Been using my iPhone 3GS since July 2009 in the Washington DC metro area with almost ZERO dropped calls. It always seems that most of the AT&T dropped calls jokes and issues come from the West Coast...
mostman
Sep 20, 03:42 PM
The iTV makes the elgato eyetv hybrid even more appealing. :)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
Well.... not quite.
You see the ElGato stuff does not decode digital channels. Not only that, they can't even control your Comcast cable box to tell it to change the channel. So any channel that is digital (>125) you are going to have to manually change before recording.
Sound appealing? No, of course not.
This is the reason solutions like ElGato have not really caught on yet. Add a cable card system and its game over.
-Mike
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
Well.... not quite.
You see the ElGato stuff does not decode digital channels. Not only that, they can't even control your Comcast cable box to tell it to change the channel. So any channel that is digital (>125) you are going to have to manually change before recording.
Sound appealing? No, of course not.
This is the reason solutions like ElGato have not really caught on yet. Add a cable card system and its game over.
-Mike
rovex
Mar 12, 08:20 AM
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Let's put things into perspective...
60% of china's electricity is generated through the burning of coal - a heavy pollutant, which is not a renewable source. Thus not viable.
china has 9 nuclear power plants which account for 2% of chinas energy, whilst France has 59 plants accounting for 80% of the country's energy. And Nuclear power IS a viable form of energy in contrast to coal. And fundamentally better for the environment (although not totally unharmful).
Let's put things into perspective...
60% of china's electricity is generated through the burning of coal - a heavy pollutant, which is not a renewable source. Thus not viable.
china has 9 nuclear power plants which account for 2% of chinas energy, whilst France has 59 plants accounting for 80% of the country's energy. And Nuclear power IS a viable form of energy in contrast to coal. And fundamentally better for the environment (although not totally unharmful).
ddtlm
Oct 12, 07:40 PM
Anyway I've had my fun here for now. I think it is settled that the G4 does poorly at this particular float test. I've done everything I can think of and gone though all sorts of variations of the loop trying to increase the IPC but I could never make significant headway on either the PC or the Mac.
That said, this test is essentialy a test where we do 400000000 double precision square roots which we don't even store and nothing else. There are no memory access, only very predictable branches. I have radically changed the loop and compiler flags and essentially nothing besides the sqrt() makes any difference.
I do not regard this test as important in the overall picture. It does not illustrate anything important to anyone, unless someone sits around doing square roots all day.
I might also add that designing a meaningful benchmark is very hard. I think SPEC is about as good as it gets, and yes the G4 looses in floats there too. :)
That said, this test is essentialy a test where we do 400000000 double precision square roots which we don't even store and nothing else. There are no memory access, only very predictable branches. I have radically changed the loop and compiler flags and essentially nothing besides the sqrt() makes any difference.
I do not regard this test as important in the overall picture. It does not illustrate anything important to anyone, unless someone sits around doing square roots all day.
I might also add that designing a meaningful benchmark is very hard. I think SPEC is about as good as it gets, and yes the G4 looses in floats there too. :)