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?
kirk26
May 2, 11:36 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
http://www.mcafee.com/us/products/virusscan-for-mac.aspx
I have it on mine just in case. ;)
http://www.mcafee.com/us/products/virusscan-for-mac.aspx
I have it on mine just in case. ;)
Nuvi
Apr 13, 02:51 AM
I think they will still have the full studio boxed in store, I don't fancy downloading 6 DVDs worth of FCS from the app store, although it would make updates very easy.
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
bigwig
Oct 27, 06:08 PM
Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?
I don't know if Intel ever changed it, but one of the historical reasons you couldn't make a scalable multi-cpu x86 system is that x86s did bus snooping. Once you got more than ~3-4 x86s on the same bus the bus would be saturated by snooping traffic and there would be little room for real data. I think that's why Intel is pushing multi-core so much, it's a hack to work around Intel's broken bus. The RISC cpus (MIPS et al) didn't do that, that's why all the high cpu count systems used them.
I don't know if Intel ever changed it, but one of the historical reasons you couldn't make a scalable multi-cpu x86 system is that x86s did bus snooping. Once you got more than ~3-4 x86s on the same bus the bus would be saturated by snooping traffic and there would be little room for real data. I think that's why Intel is pushing multi-core so much, it's a hack to work around Intel's broken bus. The RISC cpus (MIPS et al) didn't do that, that's why all the high cpu count systems used them.
entatlrg
Mar 13, 01:58 PM
It's hard to be a fan of anything on this planet that is capable of destroying the planet.
Natural disaster, terrorism, sabotage, war, human error are all very real risks to nuclear power. Plus, disposing of, rather storing it's waste is just postponing problems...
Therefore nuclear energy is not a good idea, (imo).
Yes, other methods cost more, cause pollution or aren't as efficient, (in their current state) ...
How do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
Decades ago more research and money should of been thrown at alternative energy's. Innovations from that could of put us more safely further ahead.
There is a better way, timely and costly to find them and that takes away from the profits the already rich make from the 'nuclear industry', while they continue to brainwash the citizens of the world how safe it is .... "snap out of it I say"....
Natural disaster, terrorism, sabotage, war, human error are all very real risks to nuclear power. Plus, disposing of, rather storing it's waste is just postponing problems...
Therefore nuclear energy is not a good idea, (imo).
Yes, other methods cost more, cause pollution or aren't as efficient, (in their current state) ...
How do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
Decades ago more research and money should of been thrown at alternative energy's. Innovations from that could of put us more safely further ahead.
There is a better way, timely and costly to find them and that takes away from the profits the already rich make from the 'nuclear industry', while they continue to brainwash the citizens of the world how safe it is .... "snap out of it I say"....
Gelfin
Mar 26, 07:30 PM
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 06:16 PM
Everyone, as usual I'm answering posts in a non-chronological order. I'm not ignoring anyone. I need to think hard about what to write about a post by Gelfin. So I may need two or three days to think about it.
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
iStudentUK
Apr 24, 11:36 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
People don't like the idea of no longer existing, and religion solves that.
Plus, it is a way to control people. A very effective one! That's why it is still here today in the age of science. Religion has been refined over thousands of years to make sure it keeps itself going and keeps people believing without question.
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
People don't like the idea of no longer existing, and religion solves that.
Plus, it is a way to control people. A very effective one! That's why it is still here today in the age of science. Religion has been refined over thousands of years to make sure it keeps itself going and keeps people believing without question.
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 12:36 AM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
Voltes V
Sep 26, 12:53 AM
start savings and look for stuff to sell.
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
Peace
Sep 20, 06:09 PM
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
iindigo
May 2, 12:11 PM
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
Trash Can
Jun 19, 06:44 PM
panzer06,
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
KnightWRX
May 2, 03:24 PM
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
Link to Mac OS X virus please. Anything, a name, a description of what it does, something.
Viruses and malware are not the same thing.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
What's your point with ClamAV ? It's the defacto Unix anti-virus scanner that's used to scan for Windows viruses in e-mail servers usually.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
Link to Mac OS X virus please. Anything, a name, a description of what it does, something.
Viruses and malware are not the same thing.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
What's your point with ClamAV ? It's the defacto Unix anti-virus scanner that's used to scan for Windows viruses in e-mail servers usually.
peharri
Sep 24, 05:08 PM
The iTV most definitely requires a computer.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
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.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
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.
Palanka
Oct 26, 12:00 AM
I cant stand AT&T...Their service sucks.. Your company would go under if it were to their "business services" department.
iMikeT
Sep 20, 07:18 AM
I'm looking forward to iTV. [Wishful thinking] Too bad it doesn't run Mac OS X...
AndroidfoLife
Apr 9, 01:03 PM
Hard core gaming is PC gaming. Why because you have to really care about the quality of your games to go out and spend 1000 plus just to play games.
Second iOS devices are not competing with nintendo or Sony's portables. People buy an iPhone as a phone, not to play games and the same goes with all the iOS devices. People Pick up a Portable game like a DS or PSP to play games not to listen to music not to surf the web or watch movies. You are comparing a device that does gaming as a secondary function to something that was developed for the one purpose of gaming.
Second iOS devices are not competing with nintendo or Sony's portables. People buy an iPhone as a phone, not to play games and the same goes with all the iOS devices. People Pick up a Portable game like a DS or PSP to play games not to listen to music not to surf the web or watch movies. You are comparing a device that does gaming as a secondary function to something that was developed for the one purpose of gaming.
acearchie
Apr 13, 05:14 AM
Some of those questions actually were answered (for example that full keyboard control has been retained) and others are more or less no-brainers (like the stabilization question - you can enable/disable and even fine-tune that even in the dumbed-down iMovie, so why shouldn't you be able to do that in Final Cut).
Does that mean that all the features will be retained then since if I can currently operate a tool from my keyboard in FCP7 then surely that same tool will be available in FCPX.
On a side note Lethal wanted to know whether the keyboard was programmable not if it was the same layout.
Full keynote has been uploaded to YouTube -
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Hmmm could have been positioned better personally but it�s better than nothing!
Does that mean that all the features will be retained then since if I can currently operate a tool from my keyboard in FCP7 then surely that same tool will be available in FCPX.
On a side note Lethal wanted to know whether the keyboard was programmable not if it was the same layout.
Full keynote has been uploaded to YouTube -
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Hmmm could have been positioned better personally but it�s better than nothing!
deconai
Aug 29, 04:04 PM
Greenpeace are terrorists. I have seen them endanger human life for the sake of an environment that does a pretty good job of taking care of itself. I laugh at their hitlists. Hahahahaha. :|
Capitalism thrives on being able to recycle resources, but it must be profitable in the first place to become feasible. You can't expect companies to take large hits on their bottom line to appease the Greenpeace crowd (not that they couldn't afford it, that would just go against the policy of capitalism). You can, however, expect them to do whatever is in their power to make business as efficient and clean as possible, mostly because it's cheaper in the long run. That's what Apple does. We really can't ask for anything more, unless we're willing to see them pack up and move to India.
Capitalism thrives on being able to recycle resources, but it must be profitable in the first place to become feasible. You can't expect companies to take large hits on their bottom line to appease the Greenpeace crowd (not that they couldn't afford it, that would just go against the policy of capitalism). You can, however, expect them to do whatever is in their power to make business as efficient and clean as possible, mostly because it's cheaper in the long run. That's what Apple does. We really can't ask for anything more, unless we're willing to see them pack up and move to India.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 09:12 AM
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
They offer an unlimited data plan for one device. There's nothing illegal about it. By sharing that data with other devices you are very clearly and very simply breaking the contract.
They offer an unlimited data plan for one device. There's nothing illegal about it. By sharing that data with other devices you are very clearly and very simply breaking the contract.
takao
Mar 15, 11:25 AM
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
on the television i'm afraid:
they showed archive footage of the same place before the tsunami and then typical amateur footage of it getting hit
the construction looked like a 3-4 meter high reenforced-concrete wall on top of a usual levy
perhaps it's purpose was only protection against smaller tsunamies or to 'buy' more valuable seconds for evacuation or to get people into safer locations
i have heard of such constructions in Japan before so i didn't listen that closely ... hopefully it worked and saved a few hundred lives by delaying it a little bit, i don't know
regarding fuel rods being layered away:
*those in the actual reactor: yes
*but i somehow question (IMHO) the design decisions to store the spent fuel rods directly in the same building but outside of the containment:
according to the cut away charts the only thing between the fuel rods and the atmosphere is the superstructure above the containment and the direct cover of the basin
on reactors 1+3 the superstructure blew away because of a hydrogen explosion leaving one barrier directly over the basin behind and teared holes into the structure of reactor 4 having the same effect
what i have asking myself something regarding the cooling layout in regards to the spent fuel basins: the media/translation isn't clear if or how the cooling on those are potentially connected to the reactor cooling system and it's back up systems
in the shut down reactors 5+6 the temperature of the basin water has raised up to 84� from the usual 30-40 because of a cooling problem
do have any information in regards to how those cooling systems are connected to reactor cooling ? because it seems confusing that those basins are now causing so much problems now
(i suspect that the spent fuel storage thing is handled differently on newer reactor designs)
on the television i'm afraid:
they showed archive footage of the same place before the tsunami and then typical amateur footage of it getting hit
the construction looked like a 3-4 meter high reenforced-concrete wall on top of a usual levy
perhaps it's purpose was only protection against smaller tsunamies or to 'buy' more valuable seconds for evacuation or to get people into safer locations
i have heard of such constructions in Japan before so i didn't listen that closely ... hopefully it worked and saved a few hundred lives by delaying it a little bit, i don't know
regarding fuel rods being layered away:
*those in the actual reactor: yes
*but i somehow question (IMHO) the design decisions to store the spent fuel rods directly in the same building but outside of the containment:
according to the cut away charts the only thing between the fuel rods and the atmosphere is the superstructure above the containment and the direct cover of the basin
on reactors 1+3 the superstructure blew away because of a hydrogen explosion leaving one barrier directly over the basin behind and teared holes into the structure of reactor 4 having the same effect
what i have asking myself something regarding the cooling layout in regards to the spent fuel basins: the media/translation isn't clear if or how the cooling on those are potentially connected to the reactor cooling system and it's back up systems
in the shut down reactors 5+6 the temperature of the basin water has raised up to 84� from the usual 30-40 because of a cooling problem
do have any information in regards to how those cooling systems are connected to reactor cooling ? because it seems confusing that those basins are now causing so much problems now
(i suspect that the spent fuel storage thing is handled differently on newer reactor designs)
alex_ant
Oct 7, 11:27 AM
...but usually slower
Taz Mangus
Apr 21, 03:10 PM
still not raking in the huge lion's share of industry profits? apple is, android manufacturers arent.
AndroidfoLife is quite impressed with the fact that Andriod now runs on applicances. I get a good laugh everytime I think about that. Talk about racing to the bottom.
AndroidfoLife is quite impressed with the fact that Andriod now runs on applicances. I get a good laugh everytime I think about that. Talk about racing to the bottom.
0 comments:
Post a Comment