Rodimus Prime
Mar 13, 04:46 PM
One word.
Battery.
You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
Battery.
You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
more...
skunk
Mar 27, 03:10 PM
But I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what point I missed.The point, though it's off-topic, is that your RC friend (that's a homophone, by the way) wanted, for reasons best known to himself, to communicate with you in Latin, but to translate a "sign of contradiction" you have to use the word for "sign" as in signifier (n), rather than the word for "sign" as in sign your name (vb). He obviously looked up the wrong meaning and thus mangled his translation.
more...
balamw
Sep 20, 07:51 PM
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
TheFink
Oct 9, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Cappy
Faster this, faster that. Software here, software there. Upgrade this, upgrade that. Blah! Blah! Blah!
I like computers just as much as the next geek but when you break it all down what can't you do with computers and OS's from even 5 years ago that you can today? In truth the only real benefits are that Windows and Mac systems are faster and more stable than they used to be. For Macs to make any inroads more innovation is the key. They cannot compete on price/performance and never will. Moving to x86 could help of course. Note that most people don't buy Macs because of price and not because of performance issues.
So with this in mind if you set aside the small contingent that truly needs faster Macs for their jobs in professional settings, the Mac really needs lower prices and more innovation. Do that and Apple will have a winner that they would need to open up the clone market again just to be able to make enough of them.
Frankly this whole benchmark argument is stupid for most of the people here. Benchmarks should be used as nothing more than a guide and you should have multiple sources if you want to base a purchasing decision from them alone. Too many people treat them as the end all be all.
One point you are missing is that I can upgrade my PC 5 times over and still have the cost be lower than buying a new Mac. So a mac can run modern apps 5 years later. For the same price, I can get a PC, drop a new HD, video card, and CPU in a few years later and then end up with a leading edge PC, and not a bleading edge mac. My B&W G3 isn't even upgradable to the speeds of the current iMacs. With a PC a new mobo and CPU will get me into whatever is the current CPU class....
Faster this, faster that. Software here, software there. Upgrade this, upgrade that. Blah! Blah! Blah!
I like computers just as much as the next geek but when you break it all down what can't you do with computers and OS's from even 5 years ago that you can today? In truth the only real benefits are that Windows and Mac systems are faster and more stable than they used to be. For Macs to make any inroads more innovation is the key. They cannot compete on price/performance and never will. Moving to x86 could help of course. Note that most people don't buy Macs because of price and not because of performance issues.
So with this in mind if you set aside the small contingent that truly needs faster Macs for their jobs in professional settings, the Mac really needs lower prices and more innovation. Do that and Apple will have a winner that they would need to open up the clone market again just to be able to make enough of them.
Frankly this whole benchmark argument is stupid for most of the people here. Benchmarks should be used as nothing more than a guide and you should have multiple sources if you want to base a purchasing decision from them alone. Too many people treat them as the end all be all.
One point you are missing is that I can upgrade my PC 5 times over and still have the cost be lower than buying a new Mac. So a mac can run modern apps 5 years later. For the same price, I can get a PC, drop a new HD, video card, and CPU in a few years later and then end up with a leading edge PC, and not a bleading edge mac. My B&W G3 isn't even upgradable to the speeds of the current iMacs. With a PC a new mobo and CPU will get me into whatever is the current CPU class....
Piggie
Apr 10, 04:46 AM
Trying to use a finger controlled touch screen as the new answer to everything, and young people thinking this is right, in a way reminds me of being at work.
We have a company that's been around for 60 or 70 years and has many systems in place to run smoothly that have been perfected over the decades as proven ways of doing things.
Many years later the original management retire etc, and very young, fresh faced managers straight from school come in, and want to "make their mark" they then set about rubbishing all the "old ways" of doing things, for no really reason other than THEY don't like them, and they are things of the past, hence they must be wrong for just this reason.
Old = Wrong, New = right.
They then implemented for force through their new systems, ignoring people who tell them "this won't work" and "you can't do it like that" as, in these young eyes, these people are just stick in the muds resistant to change.
Move forward a few years of this and everything is a mess, things are way more complicated than they every were, paperwork is much more and things that used to be simple are now causing people all sorts of issues.
But still the young managers refuse to admit they might be wrong and the ways things used to be done were better, and all the "workers" are struggling having the keep the new systems working.
A little like, someone saying, Oh a round steering wheel in a car? How old that design is, it has to be wrong, from now on all our cars won't have steering wheels, that's for old people, we are moving forward to a flat touch screen panel in the car, much more modern, and those people who don't like them, or think a car is harder to control are just old people who can't understand the possibilities that this will bring.
We have a company that's been around for 60 or 70 years and has many systems in place to run smoothly that have been perfected over the decades as proven ways of doing things.
Many years later the original management retire etc, and very young, fresh faced managers straight from school come in, and want to "make their mark" they then set about rubbishing all the "old ways" of doing things, for no really reason other than THEY don't like them, and they are things of the past, hence they must be wrong for just this reason.
Old = Wrong, New = right.
They then implemented for force through their new systems, ignoring people who tell them "this won't work" and "you can't do it like that" as, in these young eyes, these people are just stick in the muds resistant to change.
Move forward a few years of this and everything is a mess, things are way more complicated than they every were, paperwork is much more and things that used to be simple are now causing people all sorts of issues.
But still the young managers refuse to admit they might be wrong and the ways things used to be done were better, and all the "workers" are struggling having the keep the new systems working.
A little like, someone saying, Oh a round steering wheel in a car? How old that design is, it has to be wrong, from now on all our cars won't have steering wheels, that's for old people, we are moving forward to a flat touch screen panel in the car, much more modern, and those people who don't like them, or think a car is harder to control are just old people who can't understand the possibilities that this will bring.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:19 PM
Yeah, I hope apple lower their price point for the pro models. It is way too much. I love mac computer, but come on; the prices vs the PC suckass.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
As I said above, I don't think the difference will be terribly huge. But if apple doesn't move the prices of their top computers too much we'll be in for a good price comparitively. Apple is also likely to offer a larger amount of RAM available. The Dell workstations I configured in the post could only be configured with up to 4GB RAM, anything else you had to add yourself. Of course, apple RAM may be more expensive by a good deal so we will probably see a lot of people buying 3rd party here.
And lets see if apple has another quad at 2x 2.3ghz dual core, that saves $520 more versus the 2x2.66 DC quad, or $1340 versus the 2x3GHz DC quad. Past that point you have diminishing returns. Quad core 2x2.0GHz dual core saves you $260 over the 2.3GHz, $780 over the 2.66, or $1600 over the 3GHz.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
As I said above, I don't think the difference will be terribly huge. But if apple doesn't move the prices of their top computers too much we'll be in for a good price comparitively. Apple is also likely to offer a larger amount of RAM available. The Dell workstations I configured in the post could only be configured with up to 4GB RAM, anything else you had to add yourself. Of course, apple RAM may be more expensive by a good deal so we will probably see a lot of people buying 3rd party here.
And lets see if apple has another quad at 2x 2.3ghz dual core, that saves $520 more versus the 2x2.66 DC quad, or $1340 versus the 2x3GHz DC quad. Past that point you have diminishing returns. Quad core 2x2.0GHz dual core saves you $260 over the 2.3GHz, $780 over the 2.66, or $1600 over the 3GHz.
more...
lifeinhd
Apr 8, 11:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Not really impressed by the whole push into gaming-- gaming is what I use my iPT and iPad for the least. In fact, Game Center is in a folder marked "Undeletable Crap" on both devices, along with address book, FaceTime, calendar, and stocks (on the iPT). Really wish Apple allowed you to delete whatever you wanted-- but of course they know what I want better than I do.
Not really impressed by the whole push into gaming-- gaming is what I use my iPT and iPad for the least. In fact, Game Center is in a folder marked "Undeletable Crap" on both devices, along with address book, FaceTime, calendar, and stocks (on the iPT). Really wish Apple allowed you to delete whatever you wanted-- but of course they know what I want better than I do.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:25 PM
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare. Gabrielle Giffords survived a point-blank gunshot to the head. Is that the work of divine intervention? Or is it simply a matter that if you shot a number of people in the head, a very small fraction would survive? Likewise, among the millions of people with cancer, it shouldn't come as a surprise to find a small fraction that beat the odds to make a remarkable recovery. If Purell kills 99.99% of bacteria, does that make the .01% of survivors "miracles"?
In this video, there's a doctor who may doubt that Giffords got a miracle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgVnjJLarwk
In this video, there's a doctor who may doubt that Giffords got a miracle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgVnjJLarwk
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 10:49 PM
My thoughts exactly. It almost has to be the next step for :apple:
I guess. I figure they will eventually, but I hope Apple releases an actual TV first.
I guess. I figure they will eventually, but I hope Apple releases an actual TV first.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:22 AM
Please point that out in the contract, know it all.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
more...
Kilamite
May 2, 09:15 AM
I don't believe this can install without user intervention? Even the screenshot shows you need to click continue.
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.
more...
Scarlet Fever
Jul 12, 01:26 AM
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X
Funny choice, noting your username...
Apple can't afford to use anything less that 4 x 2.5GHz for their high-end machine, because on paper, it doesnt look as impressive. If Intel cant get the hardware right, Apple should just upgrade the G5 and wait till Intel can get 16x PCI, 4 cores, etc.
Just a moment of reflection... a year ago, if someone asked us which Intel chip we thought would find its way into a PowerMac , we would probably curse them for blasphemy :rolleyes: . Now were having a poll, and getting excited about the prospect of Woodcrest chips...
As to the poster who wished for the Apple Mac, i think that would be brilliant. i want a machine which i can put new parts in, but doesn't cost me an arm to buy. Here, the base model G5 powermac is around 3000, which is out of my price range. If they introduced something like the iMac, but with user replaceable parts, i think they would sell well.
Funny choice, noting your username...
Apple can't afford to use anything less that 4 x 2.5GHz for their high-end machine, because on paper, it doesnt look as impressive. If Intel cant get the hardware right, Apple should just upgrade the G5 and wait till Intel can get 16x PCI, 4 cores, etc.
Just a moment of reflection... a year ago, if someone asked us which Intel chip we thought would find its way into a PowerMac , we would probably curse them for blasphemy :rolleyes: . Now were having a poll, and getting excited about the prospect of Woodcrest chips...
As to the poster who wished for the Apple Mac, i think that would be brilliant. i want a machine which i can put new parts in, but doesn't cost me an arm to buy. Here, the base model G5 powermac is around 3000, which is out of my price range. If they introduced something like the iMac, but with user replaceable parts, i think they would sell well.
more...
cublah
Mar 18, 09:26 AM
I use HandyLight to tether, but only occasionally. I wonder if they can detect that. I don't know what method the jailbreak way uses.
They can detect in a lot of way, for instance since you can't use flash on an iphone or iPad, if they see lots of flash stuff they you are probably tethering, also certain popular sites detect mobile devices and send the mobile version of the site if you are loading the full versions of those sites they could detect tethering, these are only a couple of simple things but there are plenty more, so I don't think this is going to be limited to the latest iOS.
Just my thought on the matter.
They can detect in a lot of way, for instance since you can't use flash on an iphone or iPad, if they see lots of flash stuff they you are probably tethering, also certain popular sites detect mobile devices and send the mobile version of the site if you are loading the full versions of those sites they could detect tethering, these are only a couple of simple things but there are plenty more, so I don't think this is going to be limited to the latest iOS.
Just my thought on the matter.
more...
liketom
Sep 20, 02:09 AM
to make this work better and for apple to take the number 1 slot of internet download movies - they need an TV ad like the mac/pc ones
movie trailer then apple text - jack Sparrow+ Apple - download from $12.99 - iTunes store. simple infact i just made one as a looksy
Apple might also do well in selling the DVD + download for $19.99 - 24.99 as an option.
they have proved this concept works with the 125k downloads in 1 week now they need to feed people with movies for there iTV device
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFwhVsSDr_4
movie trailer then apple text - jack Sparrow+ Apple - download from $12.99 - iTunes store. simple infact i just made one as a looksy
Apple might also do well in selling the DVD + download for $19.99 - 24.99 as an option.
they have proved this concept works with the 125k downloads in 1 week now they need to feed people with movies for there iTV device
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFwhVsSDr_4
jav6454
Mar 18, 01:39 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
more...
alex_ant
Oct 10, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by TheFink
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
Yes actually!
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
Yes actually!
illegalprelude
Sep 20, 04:06 AM
This indeed makes a nice add on to the Soon Blue-Ray player and the home theater setup but this will never replace a tivo. The amount of things I can do with my Tivo, the fact that im always wirelessly streaming media from it to my computer and the fact that my Tivo can have slide shows and play my music like the iTV says alot. Again, it will be a nice add on if it dosent limit you to just iTunes downloads but never will it replace my trusty Tivo
Sydde
Mar 14, 02:39 PM
We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that.
We may have lots and lots of coal, but actually getting at it economically without human catastrophe or long-term environmental destruction kind outweighs most of its value. Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
We may have lots and lots of coal, but actually getting at it economically without human catastrophe or long-term environmental destruction kind outweighs most of its value. Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
more...
ddtlm
Oct 10, 07:55 PM
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
ryme4reson
Oct 9, 12:56 PM
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
I am in a critical thinking class, and we spend 3 hrs a day, 2 times a week talking about people who rationalize like BackToTheMac. "No one will ever change my mind"
That is complete suppression of all the facts that are given to you. I think its a shame that you logically in your mind come to these conclusions. I bet you think Friday the 13th is dangerous, and you have lucky numbers huh :)
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
I am in a critical thinking class, and we spend 3 hrs a day, 2 times a week talking about people who rationalize like BackToTheMac. "No one will ever change my mind"
That is complete suppression of all the facts that are given to you. I think its a shame that you logically in your mind come to these conclusions. I bet you think Friday the 13th is dangerous, and you have lucky numbers huh :)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:33 PM
In all probability made much worse by listening to people like you sermonising them with absolutely unfounded and hateful rubbish for the good of their benighted souls.
If I've harmed anyone in anyone in any way, I want to hear about that from the harmed ones. Everyone here is welcome to his opinion about me. If anyone here hates me, he's welcome to say so publicly or privately. But I think I'm the only one here who knows whether I hate anyone. We're strangers to one another.
If I've harmed anyone in anyone in any way, I want to hear about that from the harmed ones. Everyone here is welcome to his opinion about me. If anyone here hates me, he's welcome to say so publicly or privately. But I think I'm the only one here who knows whether I hate anyone. We're strangers to one another.
more...
Apple OC
Mar 12, 02:48 PM
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8008582
Nice to see this response coming out of Los Angeles ... apparently they have already left.
Nice to see this response coming out of Los Angeles ... apparently they have already left.
more...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 02:17 PM
Sometimes it's the homo that's the problem.
Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.
Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.
more...