oakejs
Apr 13, 11:09 AM
Pretty good quality video of the event:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77beFICSlI
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXL7L9fToQ
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77beFICSlI
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXL7L9fToQ
mrblack927
Apr 11, 01:22 PM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing. Command, which fills in for control in most cases, isn't in the "corners" (first and last keys in the bottom row) so instead of using my pinky + index finger for things like copy/paste, I had to get used to using thumb + index finger.
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
myamid
Sep 12, 07:05 PM
Yes, except the point is the iTunes/Movie interface with EyeHome does not have. What is cool is you can now use BOTH!!!
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Considering the quality of the content on iTunes... I'd say what I stream is about on par so I'm not loosing out too much...
And your first comment only applied to DRM protected content... for anything else, EyeHome is totally integrated with iTunes, iPhoto and movies...
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Considering the quality of the content on iTunes... I'd say what I stream is about on par so I'm not loosing out too much...
And your first comment only applied to DRM protected content... for anything else, EyeHome is totally integrated with iTunes, iPhoto and movies...
*LTD*
Apr 28, 07:43 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
Cheerwino
Apr 9, 08:32 PM
"In my day" a hardcore gamer was someone that custom built a gaming rig consisting of no less then 2 graphics cards (add a third and get SLI + PhysX), each costing at least if not more then a single PS3, the most expensive 'extreme' cpu they could find, and a small nuclear power plant for a PSU, then boasting about their 3D Mark scores.
Hmmm, in my day, a hardcore gamer was someone with a pocket full of quarters.;)
Hmmm, in my day, a hardcore gamer was someone with a pocket full of quarters.;)
AppliedVisual
Oct 20, 02:36 PM
So the high end will no longer be at 3ghz?
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
-aggie-
May 5, 10:40 AM
AT&T's plan worked brilliantly.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
I'm in your area, but out in the boonies. I've never had a dropped call.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
I'm in your area, but out in the boonies. I've never had a dropped call.
needthephone
Oct 8, 07:00 AM
No, sorry.
In three years time my new phone os will be number 1.
And Zunes will be the number 1 MP3 player
England will win the World Cup
Cars will run on water and out of the exhaust will pour a stream of pure molten gold. Fluffy white bunny rabbits will follow the cars collect the gold and post the driver back ingots to store in their garages.
Everyone will be paid a minimum wage of a million of pound.
Finally they will admit that Swine Flu was the biggest over reaction ever made by the WHO and the world's governments.
Wars will end and man will live in harmony for ever more
The end, and we all lived happily ever after.
oh yes the iphone is still the number one smart phone....
In three years time my new phone os will be number 1.
And Zunes will be the number 1 MP3 player
England will win the World Cup
Cars will run on water and out of the exhaust will pour a stream of pure molten gold. Fluffy white bunny rabbits will follow the cars collect the gold and post the driver back ingots to store in their garages.
Everyone will be paid a minimum wage of a million of pound.
Finally they will admit that Swine Flu was the biggest over reaction ever made by the WHO and the world's governments.
Wars will end and man will live in harmony for ever more
The end, and we all lived happily ever after.
oh yes the iphone is still the number one smart phone....
ryme4reson
Oct 10, 02:59 AM
Well I tested my G4 933, and I have CHUD tools installed so I can disable my L2 and L3 cache. I also could not get the java to work so I compiled with C++, its the same stuff, but I used time() with gave me seconds, so * 1000 to get the adjusted scores
Here are my scores
933 256L2 2MBL3 79 seconds or 79000
933 NO L2 or L3 124 seconds or 124000
933 L2 only 79 seconds
933 L3 only 79 seconds
Judging by these scores I have to think that CHUD is not working and it only worked with completely disabled. as the diff of 45 seconds.
And you can get CHUD from apple ftp.apple.com
Needless to say it takes me 79 seconds when a PV is completing this in 5-10 seconds, something is wrong!! (the the G4)
Lastly, I have not seen BACKTOTHEMAC telling us how great the G4 is lately, must be installing Win 2K under VPC with a stopwatch in 1 hand, an apple in the other, and a smile on his face...
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
Here are my scores
933 256L2 2MBL3 79 seconds or 79000
933 NO L2 or L3 124 seconds or 124000
933 L2 only 79 seconds
933 L3 only 79 seconds
Judging by these scores I have to think that CHUD is not working and it only worked with completely disabled. as the diff of 45 seconds.
And you can get CHUD from apple ftp.apple.com
Needless to say it takes me 79 seconds when a PV is completing this in 5-10 seconds, something is wrong!! (the the G4)
Lastly, I have not seen BACKTOTHEMAC telling us how great the G4 is lately, must be installing Win 2K under VPC with a stopwatch in 1 hand, an apple in the other, and a smile on his face...
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
OllyW
Apr 23, 02:28 PM
I don't think me being an atheist is connected to my choice of computer. I used Windows for 10 years before I bought my first Mac and I'd considered myself an atheist at least 10 years before I bought my first ever PC.
The Beatles
Apr 9, 11:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; 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)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
No need to soften the blow, I think your right on target.
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
No need to soften the blow, I think your right on target.
portishead
Apr 12, 10:56 PM
My take: I think what I want from Final Cut Pro is to be a GREAT Editing application first. Color correction, titles, capture, output etc. is nice, but it is an editing app, and should first and foremost excel at that.
I think with FCPX this is a step in that direction. I don't expect it to be perfect, and fully mature yet, but with a few releases I believe it can get there.
A lot of people are asking where are the other apps. It's obvious these haven't been re-written yet. I'm guessing Apple will re-work these in the future also.
For now, I think (hope) FCPX will be the start of a really great editing application. I will reserve my opinion until I get to use it in action though.
I think with FCPX this is a step in that direction. I don't expect it to be perfect, and fully mature yet, but with a few releases I believe it can get there.
A lot of people are asking where are the other apps. It's obvious these haven't been re-written yet. I'm guessing Apple will re-work these in the future also.
For now, I think (hope) FCPX will be the start of a really great editing application. I will reserve my opinion until I get to use it in action though.
bedifferent
May 2, 04:59 PM
My head hurts� everyone needs a time out! Go to your corners! :p
MacsRgr8
Sep 20, 06:10 AM
Maybe the HD has a slimmed down version of Mac OS X installed on it, making it necessary to be in there, and it's very likely for caching purposes too.
Wish it did have a DVD-player in it, so that it could replace any ol' DVD player hooked up to the TV aswell. With the iTV you still need one.
That's pretty much what I did with my Mac mini Core Duo.... I have a LCD TV hooked up to the mini via DVI. I use Front Row to watch all my favorite movies I have downladed, and VLC for some HD content. And I use the mini's DVD player for wathcing these. It's great!
Wish it did have a DVD-player in it, so that it could replace any ol' DVD player hooked up to the TV aswell. With the iTV you still need one.
That's pretty much what I did with my Mac mini Core Duo.... I have a LCD TV hooked up to the mini via DVI. I use Front Row to watch all my favorite movies I have downladed, and VLC for some HD content. And I use the mini's DVD player for wathcing these. It's great!
Multimedia
Sep 26, 10:06 AM
There'a a nifty device that I use, I forget who makes it, but it's a PCIe Card that holds up to 8GB of DDR2 Ram that is recognized as a Drive, I use it for VM, Paging, and a swapfile. Makes applications start up super fast.Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
hcho3
Nov 12, 12:35 AM
Jesus christ...
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
beatle888
Mar 20, 08:24 PM
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
sbarton
Jul 13, 08:47 AM
Originally Posted by sbarton
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 02:18 PM
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
This coming from a guy who overclocks his AMD chips...... talk about being a hippocrate. I very much doubt apple will deviate much from intel reference design. I expect something similar to the Intel 975x Bad Axe Motherboard for the MacPro.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
This coming from a guy who overclocks his AMD chips...... talk about being a hippocrate. I very much doubt apple will deviate much from intel reference design. I expect something similar to the Intel 975x Bad Axe Motherboard for the MacPro.
Don't panic
Mar 14, 11:03 AM
i find hard to believe that the casualties are only in the 1000-3000 range.
Naturally, I hope they are right and unfortunately that still is a lot of people, but with the news of tens of towns and villages completely razed in densely populated areas I am amazed if the numbers remain so (relatively) low.
it would be a true testament on how well-prepared they were.
Naturally, I hope they are right and unfortunately that still is a lot of people, but with the news of tens of towns and villages completely razed in densely populated areas I am amazed if the numbers remain so (relatively) low.
it would be a true testament on how well-prepared they were.
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.
odedia
Jul 12, 12:00 AM
Hate to say I told you so (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2559135#post2559135) ;)
Oded S.
Oded S.