skunk
Mar 14, 04:09 PM
what they went through was unprecedented, and beyond the worst case scenarios they were designed for, so if the accident is fully contained (which unfortunately seems less likely as time goes by) the whole system should be commended.Trouble with this argument is that if everything goes completely tits-up with any other kind of power station, the results are indeed containable, but in the case of a nuclear power station, the results can be catastrophically bad. It is taking a worst case scenario to a whole different level.
CompUser
Aug 29, 11:28 AM
You can't always win :rolleyes: :cool: :D
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
Multimedia
Oct 30, 11:47 AM
If I was running upcomming Leopard OSX, a few osx apps, the full upcoming CS3 Suite (not necessarily Batch Processing), have After Effects rendering a 30 minute clip in the background, downloading *legal torrents, watching internet tv (muted), while burning a DVD and listening to music..
That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet
Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..IMHO Definitely. With the Quad each process you describe will run slower and/or flat out bog down the Mac so you can't even word process without waiting for characters to appear. I know this 'cause I already have this happening to me a lot on the Quad G5.
That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet
Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..IMHO Definitely. With the Quad each process you describe will run slower and/or flat out bog down the Mac so you can't even word process without waiting for characters to appear. I know this 'cause I already have this happening to me a lot on the Quad G5.
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
fullstop102
Apr 13, 03:54 AM
Most people here, will tinker with FCP and never actually make feature films or shows. You all have an opinion, but I think that people that actually do this for a living will be very happy with the results.
I edit TV shows and make adverts as part of my job, so I can't wait to get my hands on it, and then after using it for my job for a while, I will be able to tell if it really is worth its weight in gold, but from what I can see 64bit processing, multicore use and all the rest will allow me to do my current daily tasks quicker (like converting/exporting shows from PAL to NTSC for multi format broadcast on an 8 core Mac Pro)
I edit TV shows and make adverts as part of my job, so I can't wait to get my hands on it, and then after using it for my job for a while, I will be able to tell if it really is worth its weight in gold, but from what I can see 64bit processing, multicore use and all the rest will allow me to do my current daily tasks quicker (like converting/exporting shows from PAL to NTSC for multi format broadcast on an 8 core Mac Pro)
.jpg "short haircuts for round faces")
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 04:10 PM
I'd just like to inject here that Apple is apparently complying with all U.S. environmental regulations and, to my mind anyway, has no corporate responsibility towards the environment beyond that. They are certainly not bound by the law to have CPU and iPod recycling programs, for example.
If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.
If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.
UnixMac
Oct 7, 06:54 PM
Sam
I share your very pro-mac attitude, but it IS pro-mac to call a spade a spade. I hate to admit it too, but Wintel is getting faster and faster and we're sitting still.
OS X is an amazing Unix based os that should Scream in every app, and yet Wintel is kicking our buts in 3D graphics which should be a mac relm. Instead of blindliy saying that Mac is best we should self examine and send Apple our opinion via their feedback on their website.
I know that people hate car examples so I will use a totally different one. War history.
Hitler was not only an evil Nazi facist, but he was once a corporal and knew little or nothing about war tactics/strategy. He had some of the greatest generals of the 20th century working for him. Field Marshalls Von Manstein, Von Rundstedt, Rommel & ColonelGeneral Guderian but to name a few. Read up on military history, these were great leaders of fighting men, and Hitler was a politician.
They constantly told him that he was doing things wrong and he just refused to listen, to the point of firing all of them at one time or another for telling him The Truth Now, granted, we are better off that Hitler lost (those Generals themselve were even happy about it) but that proves that you gain nothing by denying the truth.
now back to Apple. Apple is only gonna make machines that are faster than Intel (i.e. G5, G6 etc...) if we DEMAND it. If we are content with 800MHz note books, while IBM makes 2.0GHz and Alienware makes 2.6GHz ones that smoke us, then we are doing ourselves a disservice.
I am a dedicated Apple user, but only because of OS X, until OS X, I was a Windows guy and wanted an Apple, becasue back in 2000, the G4 was the top. I figured that between the G4 and Unix, I was gonna be top. But Apple has stood still (compared to Wintel) and I am starting to get anxious, and so are others.
there, I've said my $.02............can we still be friends?
I share your very pro-mac attitude, but it IS pro-mac to call a spade a spade. I hate to admit it too, but Wintel is getting faster and faster and we're sitting still.
OS X is an amazing Unix based os that should Scream in every app, and yet Wintel is kicking our buts in 3D graphics which should be a mac relm. Instead of blindliy saying that Mac is best we should self examine and send Apple our opinion via their feedback on their website.
I know that people hate car examples so I will use a totally different one. War history.
Hitler was not only an evil Nazi facist, but he was once a corporal and knew little or nothing about war tactics/strategy. He had some of the greatest generals of the 20th century working for him. Field Marshalls Von Manstein, Von Rundstedt, Rommel & ColonelGeneral Guderian but to name a few. Read up on military history, these were great leaders of fighting men, and Hitler was a politician.
They constantly told him that he was doing things wrong and he just refused to listen, to the point of firing all of them at one time or another for telling him The Truth Now, granted, we are better off that Hitler lost (those Generals themselve were even happy about it) but that proves that you gain nothing by denying the truth.
now back to Apple. Apple is only gonna make machines that are faster than Intel (i.e. G5, G6 etc...) if we DEMAND it. If we are content with 800MHz note books, while IBM makes 2.0GHz and Alienware makes 2.6GHz ones that smoke us, then we are doing ourselves a disservice.
I am a dedicated Apple user, but only because of OS X, until OS X, I was a Windows guy and wanted an Apple, becasue back in 2000, the G4 was the top. I figured that between the G4 and Unix, I was gonna be top. But Apple has stood still (compared to Wintel) and I am starting to get anxious, and so are others.
there, I've said my $.02............can we still be friends?
djgamble
Oct 7, 09:52 PM
Good luck to them then...
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 03:39 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; I know you may find this hard to believe, but the entire multimedia industry does not revolve around the Adobe Suite of graphics applications. Plus the industry is already rolling with G5 Quads for that work. There are plenty of other products that are way UB multi-core ready and/or would like to be run simultaneously in a fully blown multi-application multi-threaded workload.and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.Yeah. Professional Mac Pro users can't do the math. :rolleyes:
4 x 3=12GHz
or
8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz
I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.
Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
4 x 3=12GHz
or
8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz
I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.
Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
emotion
Sep 20, 10:40 AM
The obvious uses for a HDD to be included in the iTV have been discussed fairly extensivly. I'll try not to rehash anything, and all appologies if I do without giving credit. On to the point.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll be a new iPod/computer/iTV every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
You might have a point here but at that price point I suspect a 30GB HD and no PVR use. The HD could be used for caching and PPV/rental movies though.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll be a new iPod/computer/iTV every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
You might have a point here but at that price point I suspect a 30GB HD and no PVR use. The HD could be used for caching and PPV/rental movies though.
firestarter
Apr 23, 07:49 PM
Apple users question. Atheists/Agnostics question.
You see a trend yet?
Er?
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
You see a trend yet?
Er?
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
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.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:07 PM
That's a real shame and I hope that improves for you. I am proud that we appear to be more open minded on this side of the pond. I have had plenty of people disagree with me, but we can agree to accept our differences.
I was once pointed to an interesting indication of the difference in culture. In the USA I believe the $1 bill contains the phrase "In God We Trust". In the UK, we have Charles Darwin on our currency! He appears on the �10 note and a recent �2 coin. The �2 coin changes fairly regularly though.
The God thing is mainly just a way to fight communism in people's mind. It works well among with the propaganda that communism takes away your religion and freedom.
I was once pointed to an interesting indication of the difference in culture. In the USA I believe the $1 bill contains the phrase "In God We Trust". In the UK, we have Charles Darwin on our currency! He appears on the �10 note and a recent �2 coin. The �2 coin changes fairly regularly though.
The God thing is mainly just a way to fight communism in people's mind. It works well among with the propaganda that communism takes away your religion and freedom.
G4er?
Apr 28, 08:56 AM
Apple might have held onto 3rd place if it had a mid range desktop computer positioned between the mini and the Pro.
I know I would have bought a new Mac instead of not buying anything.
I know I would have bought a new Mac instead of not buying anything.
Icaras
Apr 21, 04:50 AM
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
I was thinking this as well :D
I was thinking this as well :D
FX120
Mar 13, 06:22 PM
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:51 PM
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
but it would be nice for the macs to close the speed gap someday, whether it's done with motorola processors or ibm processors
when i tell die hard mac users that one can do graphic design with pcs, they look at me like i am crazy
but today, in late-2002, it's entirely possible and if a computer user is used to using pcs for office stuff and wants to learn graphic design, it's ok for them to learn on their pc (assuming it's not too old)
only if they insist on a mac should they learn that platform to do most types of graphic design
at one time, the mac was the only real choice
it's kind of like music and rock and roll in the early days of recording that medium...if the bass player wanted to record an electric bass, it was almost always a "fender" inc. bass that was used
even years after bass players started using bass guitars made by other makers, they would still often get credited on the album as having played the fender bass or being the fender bass player
today, of course, a bass player is simply referred to as a bass player and their instrument of choice is as likely to be another make as it is to be a fender instruments electric bass guitar
but it would be nice for the macs to close the speed gap someday, whether it's done with motorola processors or ibm processors
when i tell die hard mac users that one can do graphic design with pcs, they look at me like i am crazy
but today, in late-2002, it's entirely possible and if a computer user is used to using pcs for office stuff and wants to learn graphic design, it's ok for them to learn on their pc (assuming it's not too old)
only if they insist on a mac should they learn that platform to do most types of graphic design
at one time, the mac was the only real choice
it's kind of like music and rock and roll in the early days of recording that medium...if the bass player wanted to record an electric bass, it was almost always a "fender" inc. bass that was used
even years after bass players started using bass guitars made by other makers, they would still often get credited on the album as having played the fender bass or being the fender bass player
today, of course, a bass player is simply referred to as a bass player and their instrument of choice is as likely to be another make as it is to be a fender instruments electric bass guitar
Swampthing
May 9, 09:33 AM
Been using my iPhone 3GS since July 2009 in the Washington DC metro area with almost ZERO dropped calls. It always seems that most of the AT&T dropped calls jokes and issues come from the West Coast...
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 06:33 PM
We will take your depleted uranium, and use it in our reactors. :D
But the U.S. is using this material to coat their artillery shells, the better to penetrate the Bad Guy's tanks and fortifications. :rolleyes:
But the U.S. is using this material to coat their artillery shells, the better to penetrate the Bad Guy's tanks and fortifications. :rolleyes:
leekohler
Mar 27, 11:12 AM
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 02:43 PM
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 08:53 PM
Also try physical keyboards, NFC, OLED screens, WiMax etc. As far as making it through the day is concerned, I can show you how to drain iPhone's battery in 6 hours. What's your point? Use LTE when you need it.
Just curious what NFC does in any Android device currently?
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Just curious what NFC does in any Android device currently?
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
The Beatles
Apr 9, 12:49 PM
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)
Ahhh. A Gamer. Thanks.;) What you are seeing is called RDF. That field will not be around forever.
Ahhh. A Gamer. Thanks.;) What you are seeing is called RDF. That field will not be around forever.
MacRumors
May 5, 10:15 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/05/05/atandt-customers-continuing-to-experience-excessive-dropped-calls/)
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
Reacent Post
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
0 comments:
Post a Comment