TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:56 AM
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
Abulia
Sep 26, 06:41 PM
I think beyond a certain level all these Cores are only going to be good for building up your ePeen, speaking of which where can I get one? :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
balamw
Apr 11, 08:42 AM
But, who knows... maybe some day.
So what is it that you and your family like about the iOS devices? Why did you choose them over a WinMo device? Why haven't you gone over to Windows Phone 7?
Why is it all or nothing? Mac or Windows and not Mac and Windows.
B
So what is it that you and your family like about the iOS devices? Why did you choose them over a WinMo device? Why haven't you gone over to Windows Phone 7?
Why is it all or nothing? Mac or Windows and not Mac and Windows.
B
citizenzen
Apr 24, 01:53 PM
If I told you I were a homosexual would that discredit or vindicate my views? Would it make them more... acceptable?
I'm just trying to find out how much you really love freedom.
So what is it?
Thumbs up for giving gays the freedom to legally commit themselves to a life-long partnership?
Or thumbs down?
I'm just trying to find out how much you really love freedom.
So what is it?
Thumbs up for giving gays the freedom to legally commit themselves to a life-long partnership?
Or thumbs down?
dontwalkhand
Apr 9, 12:49 AM
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
Because they do not want games that only work if you buy the controller.
Because they do not want games that only work if you buy the controller.
Benjamins
Apr 9, 01:59 AM
That's fine. As long as Apple does not come in to the gaming market and starts trying to strong arm third party big names all is good.
lol you are saying it like they can be strong armed. If you call paying large sums of money for exclusives "strong arming" then it's already happening in the gaming world.
It is really simple big names go to where the money is.
Apple has their rules. If you believe you can't work with them go somewhere else. It's a business, not a country you are born into.
lol you are saying it like they can be strong armed. If you call paying large sums of money for exclusives "strong arming" then it's already happening in the gaming world.
It is really simple big names go to where the money is.
Apple has their rules. If you believe you can't work with them go somewhere else. It's a business, not a country you are born into.
Eso
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
you can buy an iPhone without signing a contract (eBay, from a friend, etc.) however you cannot get service for the iPhone (in the U.S. at least) without entering into an agreement with a carrier, which a court will enforce as a contract, regardless whether there's a physical signature or not.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 04:56 PM
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
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.
edesignuk
Oct 8, 03:33 AM
I'm looking forward to it :D
Full of Win
Apr 13, 02:31 AM
I think u r right about apple but I have I have a F150 XLT 2011 and it's great!
Tell me how great it is in 2016...if it last that long.
Tell me how great it is in 2016...if it last that long.
MagnusVonMagnum
May 3, 06:28 PM
It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
100% bullcrap. I just waded through this god-awful thread and almost every single post that said anything positive about Windows in any way, shape or form (truth or nonsense alike) got zapped with negative votes. Anything that contradicted the idea that OSX is 100% safe and that there's no possibility of any kind of malware got zapped with negative votes. Any time anyone says anything against Apple or Steve Jobs or any feature that someone doesn't like about either OSX or hardware offerings from Apple (no matter how true), it gets zapped by the usual suspects. You don't need a flipping degree in rocket science to make that observation dude. But then you ARE one of the usual suspects, so I shouldn't be shocked.
Here's a great example of 100% BS from YOU. A claim was made about 100 million Mac users and growing. A guy replied with proof that the number of OSX users is currently 50 million. Here's your reply:
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
You are clearly implying that the 'other' 50 MILLION "Macs" out there are pre-OSX (i.e. OS9 or earlier). And don't tell me you meant "iOS" devices as they are not "Macs" and your reply specifically says Macs.
That is just a laughing crock of BS it's just unbelievable. For god's sake man, you are telling me that there are JUST AS MANY OS9 and earlier Mac users out there as current OSX users?????? REALLY?????????? WTF!? Man, why isn't Chrome offered for OS9 if there's so many OS9 users out there? Firefox and Google alike declined to even offer it for PPC users because their statistics showed only a tiny percentage of active users even show up at their sites using PPC (let alone OS9!) and yet you want me to believe HALF of all current Mac users are using something other than OSX. I can smell that BS from a thousand miles away dude. WTF should anyone believe anything you say ever when you post such obvious BS on here?
If that's not a prime example of fanboy DRIVEL and the total biased slant against everything that isn't Apple/Mac around here, I don't know WTF is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The report I read in 2009 stated "OSX" users went from 25 million in 2007 (including a lot of PPC users who have since dumped their machines because they are not terribly useful or have upgraded, which is 1:1, not an increase) to 75 million but the article specifically said it included iPhone and iPod Touch devices, which aren't Macs (iOS is derived from OSX, but it's not quite the same thing and they aren't called Macs). 50 million is a fair estimate, IMO for actual active Macs. It's certainly nowhere near 100 million without iOS devices.
In any case, SOME of us don't give a crap about Apple Vs. Microsoft. I don't like EITHER company. I use whatever computer and OS suits me. Right now I have more OSX computers than Windows/Linux, but I use all three. That could change in the future, particularly IF Apple at some point decides to make OSX closed like iOS. But the point is I hate fanatical BS around here. This is not the Mac Advocate Forums, but some days I'd never guess it. I come here for news and rumors and I wish useful discussion, but I see more arguments over STUPID BS than I'd care to see and it gets OLD.
100% bullcrap. I just waded through this god-awful thread and almost every single post that said anything positive about Windows in any way, shape or form (truth or nonsense alike) got zapped with negative votes. Anything that contradicted the idea that OSX is 100% safe and that there's no possibility of any kind of malware got zapped with negative votes. Any time anyone says anything against Apple or Steve Jobs or any feature that someone doesn't like about either OSX or hardware offerings from Apple (no matter how true), it gets zapped by the usual suspects. You don't need a flipping degree in rocket science to make that observation dude. But then you ARE one of the usual suspects, so I shouldn't be shocked.
Here's a great example of 100% BS from YOU. A claim was made about 100 million Mac users and growing. A guy replied with proof that the number of OSX users is currently 50 million. Here's your reply:
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
You are clearly implying that the 'other' 50 MILLION "Macs" out there are pre-OSX (i.e. OS9 or earlier). And don't tell me you meant "iOS" devices as they are not "Macs" and your reply specifically says Macs.
That is just a laughing crock of BS it's just unbelievable. For god's sake man, you are telling me that there are JUST AS MANY OS9 and earlier Mac users out there as current OSX users?????? REALLY?????????? WTF!? Man, why isn't Chrome offered for OS9 if there's so many OS9 users out there? Firefox and Google alike declined to even offer it for PPC users because their statistics showed only a tiny percentage of active users even show up at their sites using PPC (let alone OS9!) and yet you want me to believe HALF of all current Mac users are using something other than OSX. I can smell that BS from a thousand miles away dude. WTF should anyone believe anything you say ever when you post such obvious BS on here?
If that's not a prime example of fanboy DRIVEL and the total biased slant against everything that isn't Apple/Mac around here, I don't know WTF is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The report I read in 2009 stated "OSX" users went from 25 million in 2007 (including a lot of PPC users who have since dumped their machines because they are not terribly useful or have upgraded, which is 1:1, not an increase) to 75 million but the article specifically said it included iPhone and iPod Touch devices, which aren't Macs (iOS is derived from OSX, but it's not quite the same thing and they aren't called Macs). 50 million is a fair estimate, IMO for actual active Macs. It's certainly nowhere near 100 million without iOS devices.
In any case, SOME of us don't give a crap about Apple Vs. Microsoft. I don't like EITHER company. I use whatever computer and OS suits me. Right now I have more OSX computers than Windows/Linux, but I use all three. That could change in the future, particularly IF Apple at some point decides to make OSX closed like iOS. But the point is I hate fanatical BS around here. This is not the Mac Advocate Forums, but some days I'd never guess it. I come here for news and rumors and I wish useful discussion, but I see more arguments over STUPID BS than I'd care to see and it gets OLD.
firestarter
Mar 13, 10:01 AM
i recommend thinking about what the results might have been if the earthquake hadn't been dozens of miles away, but in closer proximity (even at a lower magnitude)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
Well, this is still playing out. If they avoid a containment breech, then they'll have stood up as well as needs-be.
Safety has to be designed in to reactors from the ground up. 40 year old technology is 40 year old technology - no matter what tweaks you do at a later date.
Pontificating about the fate of nuclear power stations on seismic fault lines isn't any sort of argument against using them in Western Europe or in much of the USA.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
Figures I'm reading say we have 80 years of identified deposits with more to be discovered.
Main sources countries are politically pretty stable (more so than the Middle East!)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
Australia 31%
Kazakhstan 12%
Canada 9%
Russia 9%
Canada's supply is especially high quality.
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
Why doesn't it help? Unless you're advocating massive depopulation, we have a growing requirement for energy, and by not choosing nuclear, you are choosing fossil fuel - whether you like it or not! My opinion is that the oil industry and it's political ramifications are much more damaging than nuclear!
Just watch as the Europe and the US supports the Saudi royal family in the oppression of their people over the next few months. Democratic government is fine in Egypt, but there's no way we'll support it in Saudi - we care about their oil too much!
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
The Hoover dam has a lower impact than the Three Gorges by a long shot.
Personally, I believe in a balanced approach to energy production, but with a diminishing reliance on fossil fuel. In that context both nuclear and renewable power expansion is essential.
The point I was making is that the environmental argument against nuclear and for renewable is bogus. All forms of power generation have negative environmental impact.
Here's an interesting paper by the eminent Green advocate James Lovelock:
Nuclear power is the only green solution (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
Well, this is still playing out. If they avoid a containment breech, then they'll have stood up as well as needs-be.
Safety has to be designed in to reactors from the ground up. 40 year old technology is 40 year old technology - no matter what tweaks you do at a later date.
Pontificating about the fate of nuclear power stations on seismic fault lines isn't any sort of argument against using them in Western Europe or in much of the USA.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
Figures I'm reading say we have 80 years of identified deposits with more to be discovered.
Main sources countries are politically pretty stable (more so than the Middle East!)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
Australia 31%
Kazakhstan 12%
Canada 9%
Russia 9%
Canada's supply is especially high quality.
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
Why doesn't it help? Unless you're advocating massive depopulation, we have a growing requirement for energy, and by not choosing nuclear, you are choosing fossil fuel - whether you like it or not! My opinion is that the oil industry and it's political ramifications are much more damaging than nuclear!
Just watch as the Europe and the US supports the Saudi royal family in the oppression of their people over the next few months. Democratic government is fine in Egypt, but there's no way we'll support it in Saudi - we care about their oil too much!
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
The Hoover dam has a lower impact than the Three Gorges by a long shot.
Personally, I believe in a balanced approach to energy production, but with a diminishing reliance on fossil fuel. In that context both nuclear and renewable power expansion is essential.
The point I was making is that the environmental argument against nuclear and for renewable is bogus. All forms of power generation have negative environmental impact.
Here's an interesting paper by the eminent Green advocate James Lovelock:
Nuclear power is the only green solution (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)
Daveoc64
Mar 13, 08:44 AM
Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
Huntn
Mar 11, 06:08 PM
Not one but two reactors could be headed for meltdown. U.S. Rushes Coolant to Japan Nuclear Plant to Prevent Meltdown (http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/u-s-rushes-coolant-to-japan-nuclear-plant-to-prevent-a-meltdown/). Primary power was lost. A backup generator failed to start. Plant is venting radioactive steam... God, I hope this does not happen.
11.31am: The Associated Press has more details on the state of emergency issued at nuclear plant after its cooling system failed:
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano says the nuclear power plant in Fukushima developed a mechanical failure in the system needed to cool the reactor after it was shut down in Friday's earthquake.
He said the measure was a precaution and there was no radiation leak at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. He said the facility was not in immediate danger.
----------------------------------------------
Thats pretty bloody serious.... eeeek :eek:
11.31am: The Associated Press has more details on the state of emergency issued at nuclear plant after its cooling system failed:
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano says the nuclear power plant in Fukushima developed a mechanical failure in the system needed to cool the reactor after it was shut down in Friday's earthquake.
He said the measure was a precaution and there was no radiation leak at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. He said the facility was not in immediate danger.
----------------------------------------------
Thats pretty bloody serious.... eeeek :eek:
AppleinJapan
Sep 20, 10:26 PM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ???????? Apple must first provide the same content on all their stores.....I know its not Apples fault but this iTV device is going in the wrong direction if it is only going to play itunes movies etc etc.....The rest of the world is STILL waiting to buy tv shows....
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ???????? Apple must first provide the same content on all their stores.....I know its not Apples fault but this iTV device is going in the wrong direction if it is only going to play itunes movies etc etc.....The rest of the world is STILL waiting to buy tv shows....
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:18 PM
Can we talk about Greenpeace's environmental track record for a minute?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to?
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
I think it was a big mistake not to add a HD/TV-tuner/optical reader... THAT could be a killer. Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
darbus69
Apr 20, 06:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
Please explain to me how I am experiencing a "degraded" experience on my current Android phone?
I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
Ease of use in Android is just as simple as an iPhone, with the ability to customize IF YOU SO PLEASE.
So if you would, cut the degraded experience crap.
so glad you think stealing an artists work is a proper and moral thing to do, plz stay on your platform, the rest of us will take the high road and pay an enormous fee of .99 to 1.29 per song...geez
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
Please explain to me how I am experiencing a "degraded" experience on my current Android phone?
I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
Ease of use in Android is just as simple as an iPhone, with the ability to customize IF YOU SO PLEASE.
So if you would, cut the degraded experience crap.
so glad you think stealing an artists work is a proper and moral thing to do, plz stay on your platform, the rest of us will take the high road and pay an enormous fee of .99 to 1.29 per song...geez
Blue Velvet
Mar 27, 09:01 AM
Who said anything about gender identity?
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
The APA quotation suggests that although there is evidence for that, it's unconvincing.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
That's obviously ad hominem.
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
The APA quotation suggests that although there is evidence for that, it's unconvincing.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
That's obviously ad hominem.
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
Lesser Evets
Apr 28, 07:35 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
And growth is bad?
And growth is bad?
darwen
Sep 20, 01:02 AM
Did I read Hard Dive? Yay for apple putting a DVR in it!
Oh..... you mean they didnt say there was also a DVR program.... well then. It is time to upgrade that Hard Drive and rewrite the OS so it can run EyeTV (haha - EYETV on iTV... That is funny).
Oh..... you mean they didnt say there was also a DVR program.... well then. It is time to upgrade that Hard Drive and rewrite the OS so it can run EyeTV (haha - EYETV on iTV... That is funny).
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 09:12 AM
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
They offer an unlimited data plan for one device. There's nothing illegal about it. By sharing that data with other devices you are very clearly and very simply breaking the contract.
They offer an unlimited data plan for one device. There's nothing illegal about it. By sharing that data with other devices you are very clearly and very simply breaking the contract.
AppliedVisual
Oct 31, 11:59 PM
Sorry for the noob question, but does anyone know how well Maya 7 will scale with 8 cores? My buddy is debating whether to buy a single Kentsfield or step up to dual Clovertons. He has a freelance business in which he uses Maya 7 quite a bit. Thanks.
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment