Scarlet Fever
Jul 12, 01:26 AM
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X
Funny choice, noting your username...
Apple can't afford to use anything less that 4 x 2.5GHz for their high-end machine, because on paper, it doesnt look as impressive. If Intel cant get the hardware right, Apple should just upgrade the G5 and wait till Intel can get 16x PCI, 4 cores, etc.
Just a moment of reflection... a year ago, if someone asked us which Intel chip we thought would find its way into a PowerMac , we would probably curse them for blasphemy :rolleyes: . Now were having a poll, and getting excited about the prospect of Woodcrest chips...
As to the poster who wished for the Apple Mac, i think that would be brilliant. i want a machine which i can put new parts in, but doesn't cost me an arm to buy. Here, the base model G5 powermac is around 3000, which is out of my price range. If they introduced something like the iMac, but with user replaceable parts, i think they would sell well.
Funny choice, noting your username...
Apple can't afford to use anything less that 4 x 2.5GHz for their high-end machine, because on paper, it doesnt look as impressive. If Intel cant get the hardware right, Apple should just upgrade the G5 and wait till Intel can get 16x PCI, 4 cores, etc.
Just a moment of reflection... a year ago, if someone asked us which Intel chip we thought would find its way into a PowerMac , we would probably curse them for blasphemy :rolleyes: . Now were having a poll, and getting excited about the prospect of Woodcrest chips...
As to the poster who wished for the Apple Mac, i think that would be brilliant. i want a machine which i can put new parts in, but doesn't cost me an arm to buy. Here, the base model G5 powermac is around 3000, which is out of my price range. If they introduced something like the iMac, but with user replaceable parts, i think they would sell well.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
wlh99
Apr 6, 10:04 AM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
It's cmd-del. And yes you can move up the directory structure.
As someone else pointed out, it's just different. I have used PC's since around DOS 3. I still use them extensively, and also use Macs and manage both as the IT person at work.
My belief is the better a person is at both, the more they realize it doesn't matter. Both have problems, and both work very well. They are just different. When someone thinks one is far better than the other, they probably lack skills in the system they don't like - whether they know they lack the skills or not.
If when you swtich, you will have a month or so of frustration as you struggle to do things that were easy with the PC, like how to delete a file with the keyboard, or that there isn't an up button in the finder. But you will soon find that cmd-del works, and that you can click on the directory hierarchy at the button of the finder window.
My biggest frustrations have been that shortcuts are very different. I use office products a-lot on both platforms, and it is hard to go back and forth. Particularly the usage of the home and end keys. Also, shortcuts are inconsistent between apps on the Mac.
If your PC is old and needs replacement, get a Mac or a Windows 7 PC. You will probably be happy with either in the long run. If you like learning new things, the Mac might be more fun and exciting. Although if you were still on XP, Windows 7 would be different as well.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
It's cmd-del. And yes you can move up the directory structure.
As someone else pointed out, it's just different. I have used PC's since around DOS 3. I still use them extensively, and also use Macs and manage both as the IT person at work.
My belief is the better a person is at both, the more they realize it doesn't matter. Both have problems, and both work very well. They are just different. When someone thinks one is far better than the other, they probably lack skills in the system they don't like - whether they know they lack the skills or not.
If when you swtich, you will have a month or so of frustration as you struggle to do things that were easy with the PC, like how to delete a file with the keyboard, or that there isn't an up button in the finder. But you will soon find that cmd-del works, and that you can click on the directory hierarchy at the button of the finder window.
My biggest frustrations have been that shortcuts are very different. I use office products a-lot on both platforms, and it is hard to go back and forth. Particularly the usage of the home and end keys. Also, shortcuts are inconsistent between apps on the Mac.
If your PC is old and needs replacement, get a Mac or a Windows 7 PC. You will probably be happy with either in the long run. If you like learning new things, the Mac might be more fun and exciting. Although if you were still on XP, Windows 7 would be different as well.
RedTomato
Mar 15, 06:17 PM
Continuous live timestamped text based updates:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
(may be a different link tomorrow, but check on the front page for the current link to live updates)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/15/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-japan
(link changes each day, check on front page for the current day's link)
BBC is slightly slower but more accurate (but they beat the Guardian when announcing the 4th explosion).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
(may be a different link tomorrow, but check on the front page for the current link to live updates)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/15/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-japan
(link changes each day, check on front page for the current day's link)
BBC is slightly slower but more accurate (but they beat the Guardian when announcing the 4th explosion).
rxse7en
Oct 11, 01:40 PM
Er... No rotation with nVidia? nVidia supports rotation on Windows, haven't tried it on Mac. I don't see any option for it on my G5, but I just assumed it was a limitation of the 30" Dell I'm using (doesn't rotate). Actually that's a dumb assumption. Weird... Wonder why.
I'd like the link to that coupon as well too... Although it probably doesn't work with the current 15% off (which expires today, doesn't it?).
Here ya go: http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=creativecontest&message.id=143&l=en&s=dhs
I'd like the link to that coupon as well too... Although it probably doesn't work with the current 15% off (which expires today, doesn't it?).
Here ya go: http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=creativecontest&message.id=143&l=en&s=dhs
Draythor
Apr 13, 04:33 PM
GGJstudios
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 04:47 PM
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
leekohler
Apr 15, 10:01 AM
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
Many church groups are trying to take away your our rights. We're just trying to be ourselves. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for any group that wants to take the rights of others. We are not trying to take anything form religious groups that don;t like us, but they are trying to take something form us. Big difference.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
Many church groups are trying to take away your our rights. We're just trying to be ourselves. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for any group that wants to take the rights of others. We are not trying to take anything form religious groups that don;t like us, but they are trying to take something form us. Big difference.
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:49 PM
Not if you believe HBO! All Roman women were raging lesbians (or at least bi-sexual).
The hunky men, not so much� *sigh*
:p
Shhhh... don't let them know that...
Lucy Lawless *swoon*
Screw you people, I'm allowed to have my one stereotypical crush (yes, and I'm a raging Xena/Gabby shipper... Don't judge me :()
The hunky men, not so much� *sigh*
:p
Shhhh... don't let them know that...
Lucy Lawless *swoon*
Screw you people, I'm allowed to have my one stereotypical crush (yes, and I'm a raging Xena/Gabby shipper... Don't judge me :()
iJohnHenry
Mar 24, 07:35 PM
"Stigmatised"? Is that a best-case description of what the church has done?
No, sodomised might be closer, but we don't talk about that anymore, right?
No, sodomised might be closer, but we don't talk about that anymore, right?
r0k
Apr 15, 07:30 AM
0. "Get Info"on multiple items. WTF.
1. Crazy mouse acceleration curve. Why there isn't be a simple config option for this under mouse controls I'll never understand.
2. Trackpad acceleration. Why there isn't a simple option for absolute coordinates on the trackpad, so your finger position is mapped 1:1 to your position on screen, I'll also never understand. The trackpads are big enough. A corresponding area of equal size on a wacom digitizer is fine. ...but i need to lug around a wacom just so I don't have to chase my cursor all over the screen? Crazy.
3. Finder. If I delete a file, don't kick me out of the whole folder and make me come back in and go through all the files again to get back to where I was in the file list. It's rude.
4. Finder. Apple has all the pieces, now if they'd just put em together. Cascade thru folders in column view, and when your selection lands on files, display details. Let us see previews in coverflow. Like this:
I really like #4. The whole cover flow thing in Finder seems like it's useless but merging cover flow with another view, now that's awesome. I tend to like one feature in windows explorer better than finder. I like the view where the entire folder structure is in the left pane and the current folder is in the right pane. Finder offers a column view that I never quite got used to. But one thing prevents me from even thinking about liking windows over OS X: Quick View. There is nothing like it on Windows. I know MS tried. They added some sort of thumbnail sort of a thing but they don't offer anything that I could use the word "quick" to describe. Meanwhile quick view on OS X and on iOS knows how to open the majority of files I use and care about. For this reason, even though I like your #4 suggestion, because we have quick view, the merged cover flow view is only a nice to have. Have you brought this suggestion up to the folks that make Pathfinder? I bet they would consider doing it. Of course once somebody is doing it on third party software, Apple is more likely to pick it up as a feature in future versions of OS X.
I'm not sure I've ever noticed #s 1-3. I don't use a trackpad and leave it disabled. In fact, when my BT mouse batteries being replaced, the tired old trackpad on my Macbook misbehaves badly. For deletion I always right-click and pick "move to trash" and I'm not kicked out of finder at all. Every now and then I lose track of the mouse on my two monitor setup. OS X doesn't want to allow the mouse back onto my Macbook screen from the bottom of the external monitor. I have to go up and then right to get my cursor back. It's mildly annoying but I live with it.
1. Crazy mouse acceleration curve. Why there isn't be a simple config option for this under mouse controls I'll never understand.
2. Trackpad acceleration. Why there isn't a simple option for absolute coordinates on the trackpad, so your finger position is mapped 1:1 to your position on screen, I'll also never understand. The trackpads are big enough. A corresponding area of equal size on a wacom digitizer is fine. ...but i need to lug around a wacom just so I don't have to chase my cursor all over the screen? Crazy.
3. Finder. If I delete a file, don't kick me out of the whole folder and make me come back in and go through all the files again to get back to where I was in the file list. It's rude.
4. Finder. Apple has all the pieces, now if they'd just put em together. Cascade thru folders in column view, and when your selection lands on files, display details. Let us see previews in coverflow. Like this:
I really like #4. The whole cover flow thing in Finder seems like it's useless but merging cover flow with another view, now that's awesome. I tend to like one feature in windows explorer better than finder. I like the view where the entire folder structure is in the left pane and the current folder is in the right pane. Finder offers a column view that I never quite got used to. But one thing prevents me from even thinking about liking windows over OS X: Quick View. There is nothing like it on Windows. I know MS tried. They added some sort of thumbnail sort of a thing but they don't offer anything that I could use the word "quick" to describe. Meanwhile quick view on OS X and on iOS knows how to open the majority of files I use and care about. For this reason, even though I like your #4 suggestion, because we have quick view, the merged cover flow view is only a nice to have. Have you brought this suggestion up to the folks that make Pathfinder? I bet they would consider doing it. Of course once somebody is doing it on third party software, Apple is more likely to pick it up as a feature in future versions of OS X.
I'm not sure I've ever noticed #s 1-3. I don't use a trackpad and leave it disabled. In fact, when my BT mouse batteries being replaced, the tired old trackpad on my Macbook misbehaves badly. For deletion I always right-click and pick "move to trash" and I'm not kicked out of finder at all. Every now and then I lose track of the mouse on my two monitor setup. OS X doesn't want to allow the mouse back onto my Macbook screen from the bottom of the external monitor. I have to go up and then right to get my cursor back. It's mildly annoying but I live with it.
Bonte
Sep 20, 02:00 AM
iTV is basically a limited Mini with better remote control software, if i can use an Elgato eyeTV on it to record i'm buying for sure. Ideally would be an eyeTV with a USB 2 connection to add a big HD.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these?
I would presume he means human and legal rights. I think it is fair to say that its a human right to love whom you wish and that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract about their future together (AKA marriage).
I would presume he means human and legal rights. I think it is fair to say that its a human right to love whom you wish and that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract about their future together (AKA marriage).
OllyW
Apr 28, 10:08 AM
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
Apple sold around 14.5 million Macs last year (2.94m Q2 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/04/20results.html), 3.47m Q3 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/20results.html), 3.89m Q4 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18results.html), 4.13m Q1 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/18results.html)). The Global sales for computers was almost 351 million (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1519417).
I've done some research and still make it 4.1%. :)
Apple sold around 14.5 million Macs last year (2.94m Q2 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/04/20results.html), 3.47m Q3 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/20results.html), 3.89m Q4 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18results.html), 4.13m Q1 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/18results.html)). The Global sales for computers was almost 351 million (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1519417).
I've done some research and still make it 4.1%. :)
nbs2
Aug 29, 12:06 PM
I'm sure that if I cared about Greenpeace, I might care about this news. But honestly, I really could not care less about them. So I don't care.
People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
wkhahn
Sep 22, 09:11 AM
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
Raytard is not a "Kitchen Fox". For that, just watch Giada.
-Clive
Raytard is not a "Kitchen Fox". For that, just watch Giada.
baryon
Apr 13, 03:32 AM
Amazing! I love it. This is what Video Editing was in serious need of.
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.
.gif "humour, mobile wallpapers,")
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.
snoopy
Oct 11, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
Multimedia
Sep 26, 10:06 AM
There'a a nifty device that I use, I forget who makes it, but it's a PCIe Card that holds up to 8GB of DDR2 Ram that is recognized as a Drive, I use it for VM, Paging, and a swapfile. Makes applications start up super fast.Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:55 AM
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
i meant for graphics.
oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window
as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.
i meant for graphics.
oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window
as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.
Abulia
Sep 29, 11:03 AM
No.
Not helpful and wrong.
The most efficent use of the riser slots are dual rank FB-DIMMs and 4 of them. So 4 1GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks.
Four FB-DIMMs is the sweet spot between memory bandwidth and latency, based on tests.
Not helpful and wrong.
The most efficent use of the riser slots are dual rank FB-DIMMs and 4 of them. So 4 1GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks.
Four FB-DIMMs is the sweet spot between memory bandwidth and latency, based on tests.
frogger2020
Apr 5, 11:02 PM
The thing that bugs me the most is that Windows Explorer is so much better than Finder.