thejadedmonkey
Sep 20, 09:25 AM
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 06:17 PM
Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.
Apple leaves the default RAM configuration small so that people can customize it to their needs - even with aftermarket RAM. If they boosted the base RAM to 2GB (or even 4GB), that would be great, but only if the price was still competitive. Apple's current RAM prices are not competitive, nowhere near close. Several vendors are now selling FB-DIMM memory with Apple-compliant heatsinks for half of what Apple is charging. But it has also been a few months since Apple has adjusted their prices on RAM... I guess we'll just see what happens when the updated Mac Pro offerings are announced.
I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.
Apple leaves the default RAM configuration small so that people can customize it to their needs - even with aftermarket RAM. If they boosted the base RAM to 2GB (or even 4GB), that would be great, but only if the price was still competitive. Apple's current RAM prices are not competitive, nowhere near close. Several vendors are now selling FB-DIMM memory with Apple-compliant heatsinks for half of what Apple is charging. But it has also been a few months since Apple has adjusted their prices on RAM... I guess we'll just see what happens when the updated Mac Pro offerings are announced.
I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.
macrookie101
Jun 14, 01:42 PM
Theres one thing about Apple and thats they know how to integrate software and hardware to make a very slick user experience so i wouldn't rule Apple out :cool:
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 05:38 PM
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
LondonCentral
Apr 9, 12:18 AM
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Of course it's a complete joke. Xbox 360 and PS3 sales STILL increase annually. Kinect is the fastest selling gaming tech ever. The ONLY way Apple could ever move in on console territory is if they made Apple TV into a games console too and added real buttoned controllers, real games with depth and a real credible online service that isn't 'Games Center' or iTunes related.
After three years my xbox 360 succumbed to the ring of death. Microsoft replaced it with a brand new system, free of charge. I was very happy.
Don't even attempt to compare real consoles to iOS devices. It's way too soon. It's an interesting direction for Apple, although they'd have to give us technology that will last for 5 or 6 years rather than 'just enough on the spec sheet' to last a mere 12 months.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Of course it's a complete joke. Xbox 360 and PS3 sales STILL increase annually. Kinect is the fastest selling gaming tech ever. The ONLY way Apple could ever move in on console territory is if they made Apple TV into a games console too and added real buttoned controllers, real games with depth and a real credible online service that isn't 'Games Center' or iTunes related.
After three years my xbox 360 succumbed to the ring of death. Microsoft replaced it with a brand new system, free of charge. I was very happy.
Don't even attempt to compare real consoles to iOS devices. It's way too soon. It's an interesting direction for Apple, although they'd have to give us technology that will last for 5 or 6 years rather than 'just enough on the spec sheet' to last a mere 12 months.
MacFly123
Oct 7, 01:12 PM
All I have to say is EAT IT MICROSOFT! Windows Mobile SUCKS lol :D :p
I love seeing the way things are going for Microsoft. It is like watching a giant passing out about to SLAM and hit the ground collapsed. Always too little too late! :rolleyes:
I love seeing the way things are going for Microsoft. It is like watching a giant passing out about to SLAM and hit the ground collapsed. Always too little too late! :rolleyes:
lifeinhd
Apr 12, 10:21 PM
This is what iMovie after iMovie '06 should have been, if only because it has a PROPER FRICKIN' TIMELINE!
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
skunk
Mar 14, 07:38 PM
Did they attack your reading comprehension skills too?No, they didn't. They wouldn't dare. ;)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 12:07 AM
When your moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature are bigoted and wrong, yes, we will attack you. Get used to it because that is the direction the world is moving, like it or not.
Matthew 5:10-12
Matthew 5:10-12
mmmcheese
Jul 12, 09:54 AM
I expect they will be Xeon based....but here's a crazy thought. Maybe, since Intel is supposed to be designing the motherboard, they will be putting 2 dual core Conroe in each machcine. I know what you're saying...impossible. Yeah, Intel said that about the early Celeron too...no SMP, but it was possible, and popular with enthusiasts because it was affordable. If anyone would know the tricks and backdoors to unlocking the processors, it would be Intel.
Of course I'm sure Intel would prefer to sell Xeon processors to Apple, even if they sold them at the same price as Conroe. Since Apple is Intel's new show pony, they want to have their entire processor line represented. Budget/Yonah...Mobile/Merom...Mainstream Desktop/Conroe....Workstation and Server/Xeon.
Of course I'm sure Intel would prefer to sell Xeon processors to Apple, even if they sold them at the same price as Conroe. Since Apple is Intel's new show pony, they want to have their entire processor line represented. Budget/Yonah...Mobile/Merom...Mainstream Desktop/Conroe....Workstation and Server/Xeon.
firestarter
Mar 15, 07:13 AM
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Can I answer (raises hand!)?
Given that Germany probably isn't going to magic 7 renewable power stations out of thin air overnight, they'll be stepping up the burning of hydrocarbons.
So the German people will probably be paying more for electricity at a time when oil prices are at a high. It'll poison the environment more, and take Germany further away from realising their Kyoto agreement pledges. And it will probably increase the amount of radioactive material released into the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements), if some of that capacity is switched to coal.
So, a stupid and self serving action by German politicians.
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Can I answer (raises hand!)?
Given that Germany probably isn't going to magic 7 renewable power stations out of thin air overnight, they'll be stepping up the burning of hydrocarbons.
So the German people will probably be paying more for electricity at a time when oil prices are at a high. It'll poison the environment more, and take Germany further away from realising their Kyoto agreement pledges. And it will probably increase the amount of radioactive material released into the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements), if some of that capacity is switched to coal.
So, a stupid and self serving action by German politicians.
AP_piano295
Apr 23, 12:35 AM
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
SeattleMoose
Mar 11, 10:29 AM
I pray the loss of life is minimal. I was in the 6.8 Northridge Quake that hit LA back in the early 90's. That was a very destructive quake that caused whole buildings to tilt and knocked down part of the I-10 freeway.
But 8.9!!!! I can't even imagine...and then to have those Tsunami's on top of it.
:eek:
But 8.9!!!! I can't even imagine...and then to have those Tsunami's on top of it.
:eek:
Simm0nS777
Mar 18, 12:46 PM
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:45 PM
^^ It's hard not to veer from apocalypse to there's no problem,but I think a pragmatic view would be that there are serious problems (injecting seawater is a novel and DIY approach) but a meltdown is probably not on the cards,nevertheless they've got major problems,at least some core damage has happened but the reactors are shut down they've just got to get rid of the heat,so far so good.
New TEPCo press release:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031304-e.html
* High Pressure Coolant Injection System of Unit 3 automatically stopped.
six flags over georgia dare
Green Lantern (Six Flags Great
Green Lantern- Six Flags Great
to Six Flags America.
Reacent Post
New TEPCo press release:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031304-e.html
* High Pressure Coolant Injection System of Unit 3 automatically stopped.
Macnoviz
Sep 26, 03:59 AM
My bet? Specialized cores. You've got some that are optimized for floating point, some for application logic, some for media. This is where Cell gets it right, I think-- they're a step too far ahead for now though.
Biggest problem is getting the system to know what threads to feed to what core, and to get application writers to specialize their threads.
The Cell ? You mean we'll have to switch BACK to PowerPC ?:eek:
Biggest problem is getting the system to know what threads to feed to what core, and to get application writers to specialize their threads.
The Cell ? You mean we'll have to switch BACK to PowerPC ?:eek:
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
bghoward
Oct 7, 05:21 PM
SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
For one, Objective-C is really a pretty elegant language once you learn it, and if you really care you can write mostly in C/C++ with a few Objective-C hooks.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
As for the sdk, That will NEVER happen. Maybe for a hobbyist having to buy a mac may be a (very) slight issue, but if you can't afford $500 for a new mac-mini than you really aren't serious about developing an app are you? Why should Apple be serious about attracting you as a developer?
I remember reading a few weeks ago that apple has 125,000 developers signed up - finding eager devs willing to learn the platform and language is not a problem.
Look, I run an iPhone development business with 8 full time employees. A single iPhone game can cost us upwards of 6 figures (or more) to develop. What's a single one time cost of a few thousand in hardware?
Brian Howard
InMotion Software (http://www.inmotionsoftware.com)
For one, Objective-C is really a pretty elegant language once you learn it, and if you really care you can write mostly in C/C++ with a few Objective-C hooks.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
As for the sdk, That will NEVER happen. Maybe for a hobbyist having to buy a mac may be a (very) slight issue, but if you can't afford $500 for a new mac-mini than you really aren't serious about developing an app are you? Why should Apple be serious about attracting you as a developer?
I remember reading a few weeks ago that apple has 125,000 developers signed up - finding eager devs willing to learn the platform and language is not a problem.
Look, I run an iPhone development business with 8 full time employees. A single iPhone game can cost us upwards of 6 figures (or more) to develop. What's a single one time cost of a few thousand in hardware?
Brian Howard
InMotion Software (http://www.inmotionsoftware.com)
archipellago
May 2, 04:43 PM
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
H. Flower
Apr 12, 11:36 PM
Photoshop & AE are awesome applications. Premiere might be a decent editing app, but nobody in the industry uses it. A very small % sure, but only because they don't know FCP or Avid. Maybe do-it-all small post houses, but not dedicated editors. I'm not really trying to knock Premiere - just stating facts.
The BBC just purchased 4,000 Premiere systems.
The BBC just purchased 4,000 Premiere systems.
Hastings101
Apr 5, 08:29 PM
Things I miss from Windows:
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
Shotglass
Sep 12, 03:28 PM
Could you please provide a link to the coverage? I never heard of this.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:40 PM
Oh and Apple dosen't go to Samsung and Micron for it's ram like everyone else , or Pioneer/Toshiba/Matsushita for the DVD Burner , how bout Maxtor/Seagate for the Hard drives , Apple dosen't go to Samsung/LGPhillips for it's LCD Panels just like Dell and HP. now Intel for it's CPU/NorthBridge chipsets. c'mon it called a con they all shop at the same store dude. Newegg..lol
the only thing Apple about ur mac will be the Pretty case and OSX. Other then that it's just another PEECEE.
those things make no functional difference, you completely missed the point which was totally about motherboard design, which other than the case and sometimes the cpu is always unique on macs no matter if they are ppc or intel
the only thing Apple about ur mac will be the Pretty case and OSX. Other then that it's just another PEECEE.
those things make no functional difference, you completely missed the point which was totally about motherboard design, which other than the case and sometimes the cpu is always unique on macs no matter if they are ppc or intel
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment