AidenShaw
Sep 21, 11:15 AM
...you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
You have some interesting points, but for some people there are other considerations....
Sony Ericsson X8 XPERIA black
Sony Ericsson Xperia X8
sony ericsson xperia x8 pink.
Sony Ericsson X8 – available
sony ericsson x8 white pink.
Sony Ericsson Xperia X8
X8,Sony Ericsson XPERIA
sony ericsson x8 shakira.
Sony Ericsson X8
Sony Ericsson Xperia X8
sony ericsson x8 shakira. sony
sony ericsson xperia x8 pink
Sony Ericsson X8 – Compare
sony ericsson x8 shakira
sony ericsson x8.
Sony Ericsson Xperia X8
sony ericsson x8.
sony ericsson x8 mini. for
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
You have some interesting points, but for some people there are other considerations....
BJNY
Nov 1, 04:08 AM
Clovertons to run hot until 2007 according to:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/
UnixMac
Oct 9, 05:51 PM
Bottom line.......Macs are over priced....we just keep buying them and so why would the accountants want to change that gig?
Stella
Feb 20, 09:22 AM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
carmenodie
Mar 18, 08:14 AM
I went to att's site and 4 gigs of downloads cost 45 dollars. Kiss my @@@!!!
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
mscriv
Apr 6, 01:39 PM
i think some people just hold their preference too dearly sometimes, and then insist that anything that falls outside their comfort-zone is annoying.
that's like saying it's annoying because in another language you have to say 'house white', instead of 'white house', or english is better because you only have 'the' and not 'la' or 'le'... or german is annoying because 'no' sounds like '9'.
in my opinion nothing is annoying about one or the other, they're just different.
take control of the situation and become fluent in both.
approach it with the right frame of mind.
you either 'want' to learn, or you 'have' to learn.
Fgirl, I just wanted you to know that I think your post is right on target and I enjoyed reading it.
I'm what I call "bi-platform" in that I use Mac in my personal life and Windows at work. I'm "fluent" in both and agree that it's not typically one being better than the other, but just being different.
For the OP, in terms of general navigation and customization I would say a Mac can do everything you are wondering about. It will do it differently than Windows does, but it can do it. The "shift" vs. "cmd" for shortcuts is an example. The buttons function the same, it's just a different button on a mac keyboard than on a PC keyboard.
Best of luck with your decision.
Oh, and for the person who made the "troll" post... seriously??? The OP put "for switchers only" because he wants to hear from people who have actually made the decision to switch. He wants to learn from their experiences as opposed to just getting bashed by Apple fanboys who'll belittle his question and not provide any genuine help.
that's like saying it's annoying because in another language you have to say 'house white', instead of 'white house', or english is better because you only have 'the' and not 'la' or 'le'... or german is annoying because 'no' sounds like '9'.
in my opinion nothing is annoying about one or the other, they're just different.
take control of the situation and become fluent in both.
approach it with the right frame of mind.
you either 'want' to learn, or you 'have' to learn.
Fgirl, I just wanted you to know that I think your post is right on target and I enjoyed reading it.
I'm what I call "bi-platform" in that I use Mac in my personal life and Windows at work. I'm "fluent" in both and agree that it's not typically one being better than the other, but just being different.
For the OP, in terms of general navigation and customization I would say a Mac can do everything you are wondering about. It will do it differently than Windows does, but it can do it. The "shift" vs. "cmd" for shortcuts is an example. The buttons function the same, it's just a different button on a mac keyboard than on a PC keyboard.
Best of luck with your decision.
Oh, and for the person who made the "troll" post... seriously??? The OP put "for switchers only" because he wants to hear from people who have actually made the decision to switch. He wants to learn from their experiences as opposed to just getting bashed by Apple fanboys who'll belittle his question and not provide any genuine help.
UnixMac
Oct 9, 08:47 PM
Alex you have made some very cogent points. I hope someone at Apple will listen.
TuckBodi
May 12, 10:12 AM
WTF? Why do people buy phones without knowing if they work in their areas first? If I went by what people say on these boards, I'd have bought a Verizon phone that wouldn't work in my area, and on a phone that's crap....
STOP MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS!
Maybe you can help me out...I bought my 2G iPhone the day it was released. I did my research and knew I was going to lose a few bars going from T-Mo to AT$T. At home (where I work) I was getting 3 bars, which was 'okay.' A year later it dropped a bar and a year after that it dropped another bar+. I've swapped out phones and etc. AT$T continues to blame me, Apple, my trees, my microwave and even my fridge.
About 2 months ago I was finally creeping up to the 2-3 bar range and was again getting okay service. Then all of a sudden, about a week ago, I'm back to 1 bar and multiple dropped calls a day. What gives?
In the meantime I've been doing my *research* on Verizon and hoping Apple finally makes the jump in June.
STOP MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS!
Maybe you can help me out...I bought my 2G iPhone the day it was released. I did my research and knew I was going to lose a few bars going from T-Mo to AT$T. At home (where I work) I was getting 3 bars, which was 'okay.' A year later it dropped a bar and a year after that it dropped another bar+. I've swapped out phones and etc. AT$T continues to blame me, Apple, my trees, my microwave and even my fridge.
About 2 months ago I was finally creeping up to the 2-3 bar range and was again getting okay service. Then all of a sudden, about a week ago, I'm back to 1 bar and multiple dropped calls a day. What gives?
In the meantime I've been doing my *research* on Verizon and hoping Apple finally makes the jump in June.
citizenzen
Apr 26, 03:19 PM
Miraculous cure in Lourdes, France?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKMF059m29Y&feature=related
Eucharistie miracles?
In the Vatican
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
In Lanciano, Italy.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
You gotta do better than youtube videos. I can use youtube to prove Bigfoot (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bigfoot&aq=f), Mothman (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mothman&aq=f), and chupacabras. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chupacabra&aq=0s&oq=Chupra)
Can you cite anything verified scientifically?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKMF059m29Y&feature=related
Eucharistie miracles?
In the Vatican
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
In Lanciano, Italy.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
You gotta do better than youtube videos. I can use youtube to prove Bigfoot (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bigfoot&aq=f), Mothman (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mothman&aq=f), and chupacabras. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chupacabra&aq=0s&oq=Chupra)
Can you cite anything verified scientifically?
SandynJosh
Apr 8, 11:12 PM
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
Apple doesn't care what you plug into the 30 pin adapter. Go here (http://www.itechnews.net/tag/iphone-controller/) to see all kinds of button-rich controllers for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Some plug into the connector and some operate the game over wifi, and one allows both methods. Before commenting, let Google be your friend. :)
Apple doesn't care what you plug into the 30 pin adapter. Go here (http://www.itechnews.net/tag/iphone-controller/) to see all kinds of button-rich controllers for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Some plug into the connector and some operate the game over wifi, and one allows both methods. Before commenting, let Google be your friend. :)
Red-red
Apr 9, 08:26 PM
Sorry I have such a small brain.
I never said you had a small brain at any point nor did I ever insinuate you were stupid.
Not understanding something doesn't make anyone stupid.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
They've hired two people who work in PR. Probably for their contacts and influence. Their hiring has little to do with Apple's direction into gaming.
They're already well established and have their direction planned out. All you need to do is connect the dots to see where they're heading.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
You're not getting a controller with buttons. It isn't happening.
You have to look at it not by what "you" want "now". It's typical of tech forums because people find it very hard to distinguish between the two.
Is it what I want? I'm not so sure. It's an interesting concept and the potential is certainly huge not only for gaming but app's.
Whether we'll see fully fledged games like we're used to or it'll continue to be a foray into the casual is something else that we don't really know yet. It's up to developers to create the apps & games to drive the platform and ecosystem forward but the potential would certainly be there and as we see more and more people shift toward these devices the desire for more complex forms of entertainment will increase.
We've only scratched the surface.
I never said you had a small brain at any point nor did I ever insinuate you were stupid.
Not understanding something doesn't make anyone stupid.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
They've hired two people who work in PR. Probably for their contacts and influence. Their hiring has little to do with Apple's direction into gaming.
They're already well established and have their direction planned out. All you need to do is connect the dots to see where they're heading.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
You're not getting a controller with buttons. It isn't happening.
You have to look at it not by what "you" want "now". It's typical of tech forums because people find it very hard to distinguish between the two.
Is it what I want? I'm not so sure. It's an interesting concept and the potential is certainly huge not only for gaming but app's.
Whether we'll see fully fledged games like we're used to or it'll continue to be a foray into the casual is something else that we don't really know yet. It's up to developers to create the apps & games to drive the platform and ecosystem forward but the potential would certainly be there and as we see more and more people shift toward these devices the desire for more complex forms of entertainment will increase.
We've only scratched the surface.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 21, 07:05 AM
I am an Apple shareholder. I feel entitled to DRM-free products.Good for you, I am too. But as someone else here said, "I want a pony!"
Present your opinion at the next shareholder's meeting. Presuming you own enough shares to bend their ear, they might listen. If not, then vote down Jobs and/or the board (again, owning a bunch of shares is helpful here.)
Remember though, what Apple owes us is return on investment. The only logical reason to buy shares in a company is that you either want to earn profits from it or you intend to buy it out (and earn profits from that). Ask yourself this: does Apple removing DRM from iTMS tracks make financial sense? Before answering, consider that Jobs said (the day the iTMS openned) that the FairPlay DRM was the best balance they could strike with all of the record labels. I'm sure any change in DRM would require ratification of the contracts with those record companies. Fat chance. (The only way I could see this happenning would be if un-DRM'ed tracks cost $5 or something - but even then, I doubt it)
The other reason to buy stock is because you like the company and want to support it. This is less of a logical reason, though, and falls under emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that (it's probably part of my decision to own AAPL).
Present your opinion at the next shareholder's meeting. Presuming you own enough shares to bend their ear, they might listen. If not, then vote down Jobs and/or the board (again, owning a bunch of shares is helpful here.)
Remember though, what Apple owes us is return on investment. The only logical reason to buy shares in a company is that you either want to earn profits from it or you intend to buy it out (and earn profits from that). Ask yourself this: does Apple removing DRM from iTMS tracks make financial sense? Before answering, consider that Jobs said (the day the iTMS openned) that the FairPlay DRM was the best balance they could strike with all of the record labels. I'm sure any change in DRM would require ratification of the contracts with those record companies. Fat chance. (The only way I could see this happenning would be if un-DRM'ed tracks cost $5 or something - but even then, I doubt it)
The other reason to buy stock is because you like the company and want to support it. This is less of a logical reason, though, and falls under emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that (it's probably part of my decision to own AAPL).
BrianMojo
Sep 12, 05:09 PM
This was released to make the other movie companies fold and agree to sign and give Apple their content. Why else would they allow everyone this info this early in the game? It is to make the movie industry drool and sell their stuff through iTunes.
Nail on the head, imo.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
Nail on the head, imo.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:38 PM
I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
Satoneko
Mar 11, 02:34 AM
I'm in Tokyo. The big shake happened around 3 in the afternoon. I was walking around outside. Returned immediately to my apartment. Lots of broken glass and plates. Books have fallen from the shelf and my office was a mess, but my old mother, dog & cats, and Macs are okay. The aftershocks are continuing.
The damage in Tokyo seems to be fairly light. The situation in Sendai (northern part of Japan) is very serious. It's been hit by tsunami. The TV is showing these helicopter shots of tsunami coming in, and you can actually see cars and buildings and sometimes people being washed away. Can't do anything. I stopped watching TV.
The damage in Tokyo seems to be fairly light. The situation in Sendai (northern part of Japan) is very serious. It's been hit by tsunami. The TV is showing these helicopter shots of tsunami coming in, and you can actually see cars and buildings and sometimes people being washed away. Can't do anything. I stopped watching TV.
bokdol
May 2, 01:57 PM
i just cleaned out of the the computers at work. and the person had the installer window still open. they pressed ok but because they had 10 other windows open they really did not realize they authorized it to install.
it is not that they did not authorize it's that their computer had soo much stuff on they did not realize they authorized it.
it is not that they did not authorize it's that their computer had soo much stuff on they did not realize they authorized it.
entatlrg
Mar 13, 02:04 PM
Perfectly fine using the new designs that run safer and can even recycle their own waste. I would not have dismissed the entire car industry just because the early models lacked safety features and had high fatality and breakdown rates. It's early days still for the nuclear power industry. We do need to work on uranium mining and milling practices, however.
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
Multimedia
Sep 26, 04:48 PM
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.No I am not kidding. What option to buy a Quad? Clovertowns are Quads used in pairs to make 8-core OctoMacs not Quads. Clovertowns are scheduled to begin shipping in November. This is not news. It's been known for at least 3 months. Did you not see that thread?
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Just to keep the numbers rolling:
Reacent Post
Eidorian
Sep 26, 10:44 AM
Thanks but that looks like it's only of PCs. Do you know it works in Mac G5 Quads and Mac Pros?You only have PCI Express slots in those models. I don't know what kind of controller chip it uses but it should just show up as a normal hard drive to your SATA onboard.
emotion
Sep 20, 08:50 AM
I have one of these devices, it's excellent. Especially with the user community at http://toppy.org.uk/.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
I'm glad I piped up about this now, thanks for that info tyr2.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
I'm glad I piped up about this now, thanks for that info tyr2.
firestarter
Mar 13, 01:21 PM
...but if a coal plant blows it's over soon, if a nuke plant blows it's over in 250 thousand years.
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
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.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 05:25 PM
Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly.
But that is how the world really is I'm afraid.
But that is how the world really is I'm afraid.
0 comments:
Post a Comment