Mord
Jul 12, 02:21 PM
thats on my gameing rig, i don't use my pc for work.
balamw
Apr 10, 08:08 AM
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
For switchers in particular I do think it is worthwhile to leave the defaults as they are and understand what the defaults are and why before they try to impose something else.
As you said about the heat issue: They just need to adjust their thinking.
My giving in to iTunes on Windows was the first step on my way back to Apple. It's not perfect, but it is "good enough" so that the value I get by not having to deal with it myself far outweighs the lack of perfection.
If you've tried the standard/recommended way for a while and it doesn't work then try looking for alternatives.
It's just like the lack of cut and paste in Finder. Try working without it for a while, use multiple Finder columns and windows. If you really don't like it, then try Path Finder or something like that.
B
For switchers in particular I do think it is worthwhile to leave the defaults as they are and understand what the defaults are and why before they try to impose something else.
As you said about the heat issue: They just need to adjust their thinking.
My giving in to iTunes on Windows was the first step on my way back to Apple. It's not perfect, but it is "good enough" so that the value I get by not having to deal with it myself far outweighs the lack of perfection.
If you've tried the standard/recommended way for a while and it doesn't work then try looking for alternatives.
It's just like the lack of cut and paste in Finder. Try working without it for a while, use multiple Finder columns and windows. If you really don't like it, then try Path Finder or something like that.
B
ezekielrage_99
Sep 26, 10:48 PM
And UT2007 and Q4 and render video. All at the same time :confused:
Do we need that?
Sounds kind of fun :cool:
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
Got to love Renderman, Global Illumination and Raytraced Shadows.....
The rendertime is a bitch but it looks totally sweet.
Do we need that?
Sounds kind of fun :cool:
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
Got to love Renderman, Global Illumination and Raytraced Shadows.....
The rendertime is a bitch but it looks totally sweet.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:36 AM
This post is not doing much to convince me.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
Then, you know what, you should have left at that. I can accept and understand that no two people will always agree. Hell, these forums are flooded with arguments, every single day, and that's fine. Go ahead and argue your point of view against mine. I can take it.
What I will NOT tolerate is disrespect. You had no business accusing me of self-hatred, since you know nothing of me. One does not need to hate himself/herself just because they disagree with certain things. Would it be fair to say you "hate" Apple because you don't think the new MBA's have a C2D processor? See my point?
Anyway...I'm done. Obviously people have very different views and this site, for me, is about relaxing and taking my mind off work and everything else. I'm not going to sit here and argue and debate with any one of you.
Ok, everyone needs to chill. And Darth Maul...back off Caliber. Your militant defense of morals is counter productive.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
Then, you know what, you should have left at that. I can accept and understand that no two people will always agree. Hell, these forums are flooded with arguments, every single day, and that's fine. Go ahead and argue your point of view against mine. I can take it.
What I will NOT tolerate is disrespect. You had no business accusing me of self-hatred, since you know nothing of me. One does not need to hate himself/herself just because they disagree with certain things. Would it be fair to say you "hate" Apple because you don't think the new MBA's have a C2D processor? See my point?
Anyway...I'm done. Obviously people have very different views and this site, for me, is about relaxing and taking my mind off work and everything else. I'm not going to sit here and argue and debate with any one of you.
Ok, everyone needs to chill. And Darth Maul...back off Caliber. Your militant defense of morals is counter productive.
leekohler
Mar 25, 02:54 PM
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
That isn't what's at issue in same-sex marriage. The issue is whether the criteria themselves are a violation of equal protection (which they unequivocally are).
It could, for example, be a requirement that in order to drive a Class C vehicle, one must be Buddhist. This requirement would deny others with the same ability to drive a license to drive and it would deny everyone who wasn't Buddhist equal protection under the law.
Similarly, a gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of producing a loving household with shared duties and responsibilities, and yet they are excluded from the rights of marriage based on nothing more than old fashioned prejudices.
Funny how they always run when proven wrong. Just once, I would like to see someone admit they were wrong in here. It sure would be nice. I've done it before, that's for sure.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
That isn't what's at issue in same-sex marriage. The issue is whether the criteria themselves are a violation of equal protection (which they unequivocally are).
It could, for example, be a requirement that in order to drive a Class C vehicle, one must be Buddhist. This requirement would deny others with the same ability to drive a license to drive and it would deny everyone who wasn't Buddhist equal protection under the law.
Similarly, a gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of producing a loving household with shared duties and responsibilities, and yet they are excluded from the rights of marriage based on nothing more than old fashioned prejudices.
Funny how they always run when proven wrong. Just once, I would like to see someone admit they were wrong in here. It sure would be nice. I've done it before, that's for sure.
Wilbah
Jun 3, 09:53 AM
I have set up a contract with a provider BEFORE committing to a long iphone contract. I go into the said telephone store and set up some other non iphone device. Then return home and test its capability and signal strength. If it is acceptable I return the above phone for a full refund(I use it far less than the maximum 30 days. Then when the desired iphone is purchased I will expect the same performance.
Not sure this is a good test...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
I have reset the network settings on iphone, to no avail...
Before this week and the microcell experiment, I wouldnt have said this, but I honestly believe that the software that drives the phone is playing a huge part in how the phone handles tower switches, and thus is a culprit in the dropped call phenomena.
Not sure this is a good test...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
I have reset the network settings on iphone, to no avail...
Before this week and the microcell experiment, I wouldnt have said this, but I honestly believe that the software that drives the phone is playing a huge part in how the phone handles tower switches, and thus is a culprit in the dropped call phenomena.
intoxicated662
Mar 18, 02:17 PM
You get what you deserve and for those of you who kept telling others about an Unlock and to suffer the consequences, KARMA.
EricNau
Mar 13, 09:23 PM
MODERATOR NOTE
Please, this is not the place to debate the advantages and disadvantageous of nuclear power, nor any other politically-charged issue. From the Forum Rules:
Threads and posts on controversial political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum, and made only by those eligible for that forum.
If you wish to discuss this issue, please start a thread in PRSI (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) if you qualify. Thanks
Meanwhile, my sincerest condolences to all who were affected by this disaster. Hang in there, and stay safe.
Please, this is not the place to debate the advantages and disadvantageous of nuclear power, nor any other politically-charged issue. From the Forum Rules:
Threads and posts on controversial political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum, and made only by those eligible for that forum.
If you wish to discuss this issue, please start a thread in PRSI (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) if you qualify. Thanks
Meanwhile, my sincerest condolences to all who were affected by this disaster. Hang in there, and stay safe.
Mister Snitch
Apr 9, 11:46 AM
I am firmly against poaching executives. They should always be deep-fried.
r0k
Apr 11, 01:11 PM
i miss wasting most of my time waiting for windows to start up / shut down / update / virus scan / defrag / pop up warnings / etc. :rolleyes:
+999
+999
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:30 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
Just because you can't see the difference between 480p and 720p doesn't mean that other people can't. I think this distinction is like night and day, but quality is subjective, I'll give you that.
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
Just because you can't see the difference between 480p and 720p doesn't mean that other people can't. I think this distinction is like night and day, but quality is subjective, I'll give you that.
mikethebigo
Apr 8, 10:46 PM
This shows how much Apple has learned from the past. They will not make the same mistake they did during the Mac vs. PC era by ignoring games. They're throwing the best mobile GPUs into their products and advertising gaming heavily, good for them.
Cheerwino
Apr 9, 08:47 PM
Guys, they hired PR people. I'm a PR person. We promote things that other people create. They are not developers, programmers, designers or even marketers -- they are press and industry promoters. You want folks with contacts in an industry, good at getting press and related placements, who are also good at running a PR department. It's important and useful for companies, part of the marketing mix but not the whole show.
Folks need to realize there are multiple consumer segments in any product category with varying degrees of interest and values around any product. This is true for cereal, furniture, tires, games and just about any consumer product. Thanks to our somewhat free market capitalism we have a choice in products, so companies work hard to figure out the ideal formula to reach certain target groups. Those groups overlap and vary according to the brand and product. This stuff is complex and there aren't easy, clear answers.
I think these hires just show Apple is serious about the gaming market (an all it's variety) and trying to maximize what is possible within the context of their product capabilities. [gag, spoken like a true PR person, I see] :rolleyes:
Folks need to realize there are multiple consumer segments in any product category with varying degrees of interest and values around any product. This is true for cereal, furniture, tires, games and just about any consumer product. Thanks to our somewhat free market capitalism we have a choice in products, so companies work hard to figure out the ideal formula to reach certain target groups. Those groups overlap and vary according to the brand and product. This stuff is complex and there aren't easy, clear answers.
I think these hires just show Apple is serious about the gaming market (an all it's variety) and trying to maximize what is possible within the context of their product capabilities. [gag, spoken like a true PR person, I see] :rolleyes:
AppleScruff1
Apr 28, 05:06 PM
I used a few Bulletin boards on old 300 baud modems, and also Prestel in the UK at 1200/75 speeds.
Don't know how many here are old enough and UK enough to remember using Prestel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestel
And I thought the 14.4 modems were slow!
Don't know how many here are old enough and UK enough to remember using Prestel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestel
And I thought the 14.4 modems were slow!
ddtlm
Oct 12, 07:52 PM
javajedi:
Sheesh, I have no idea how Java is defeating C... and those scores are still bizzarre. However PCUser did get 8.86 seconds on an Athlon 1533 with the right compiler flags. Looking at that, I wonder if the compiler flags are the cause here. Since this whole thing is essentially sqrt(), I wonder if the newer x86 chips are packing some strange special sqrt() assembly instruction that makes this huge difference. Hmmm. Otherwise I wonder how an Athlon at a little more than twice my clock speed (compared to the Xeon) can post results that are more than 4 times as fast.
Anyway this is it for me, since this is the weekend. I'll look for some x86 fast sqrt function Monday at work (I am pretty sure that such a thing exists, and if so it may be used in this test).
Sheesh, I have no idea how Java is defeating C... and those scores are still bizzarre. However PCUser did get 8.86 seconds on an Athlon 1533 with the right compiler flags. Looking at that, I wonder if the compiler flags are the cause here. Since this whole thing is essentially sqrt(), I wonder if the newer x86 chips are packing some strange special sqrt() assembly instruction that makes this huge difference. Hmmm. Otherwise I wonder how an Athlon at a little more than twice my clock speed (compared to the Xeon) can post results that are more than 4 times as fast.
Anyway this is it for me, since this is the weekend. I'll look for some x86 fast sqrt function Monday at work (I am pretty sure that such a thing exists, and if so it may be used in this test).
CQd44
Apr 21, 02:53 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Are you ****ing serious?
I don't use Apple products but oh my god I feel bad for you guys. Having a fanboy like this must be ridiculously crappy.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Are you ****ing serious?
I don't use Apple products but oh my god I feel bad for you guys. Having a fanboy like this must be ridiculously crappy.
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.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:39 PM
Indeed sir, that is why I tried.
Deo favente
Pax
Thank you. That's very kind of you.
Deo favente
Pax
Thank you. That's very kind of you.
Mac'nCheese
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
deputy_doofy
Apr 21, 07:54 AM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
faroZ06
May 2, 09:06 PM
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
Agreed. Also, "fanboy" counts as a personal insult, which is against the rules. I almost got banned for calling some moron a moron (he was complaining about how he didn't care about an article, and I asked him why he clicked on it).
If that guy thinks that MACDefender (not a virus) is an issue, he would faint if he saw a Windows virus.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
Agreed. Also, "fanboy" counts as a personal insult, which is against the rules. I almost got banned for calling some moron a moron (he was complaining about how he didn't care about an article, and I asked him why he clicked on it).
If that guy thinks that MACDefender (not a virus) is an issue, he would faint if he saw a Windows virus.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:57 AM
Funny. I find you to be the second most bigoted person I've seen so far on this thread. But that's just like, my opinion.
Calling you out on your religious garbage is not bigoted.
It's merely pointing out that until you provide some evidence for the existence of your invisible god, it might be a good idea to stop treating people like second-class humans based on the writings of 1st century nomads who didn't know enough about the realities of the universe to keep their food supplies away from their toilets.
It's pointing out that this Earth is littered with the bones of people who have been killed in the name of what you find 'sacred'.
Calling you out on your religious garbage is not bigoted.
It's merely pointing out that until you provide some evidence for the existence of your invisible god, it might be a good idea to stop treating people like second-class humans based on the writings of 1st century nomads who didn't know enough about the realities of the universe to keep their food supplies away from their toilets.
It's pointing out that this Earth is littered with the bones of people who have been killed in the name of what you find 'sacred'.
EricNau
Sep 20, 12:40 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 13, 09:43 AM
[SIZE=1]
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAHHAHAA!
OMG I almost fell out of my chair cracking up when I saw this last statement. That just goes to show just how much you DON'T know. IT professional don't feel threatened at all by Apple. Its just the opposite. After Apple dropped the Xserve and delivered us a Macbook Pro Early 2011 that requires its own special build of OSX most IT professionals are rethinking the Apple strategy all together. I know here and a lot of places are moving away from XServes into the Windows world. If you want to see real Mac IT professionals check out the JAMF Casper User Forum. Some of the brightest Mac admins in world. We are all pretty much in the same boat. Apple is making our jobs harder and making it harder for us to justify getting Macs for our customers. Thank God for a company like JAMF because Apple hasn't given any of its IT supporters tools to support the environment. Unlike lets say... Microsoft. :rolleyes: How great is it when a VP comes up to you and says we need 50 copies of X software but we can only get it from the AppStore. Apple doesn't care about the IT world or its corp. user base.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAHHAHAA!
OMG I almost fell out of my chair cracking up when I saw this last statement. That just goes to show just how much you DON'T know. IT professional don't feel threatened at all by Apple. Its just the opposite. After Apple dropped the Xserve and delivered us a Macbook Pro Early 2011 that requires its own special build of OSX most IT professionals are rethinking the Apple strategy all together. I know here and a lot of places are moving away from XServes into the Windows world. If you want to see real Mac IT professionals check out the JAMF Casper User Forum. Some of the brightest Mac admins in world. We are all pretty much in the same boat. Apple is making our jobs harder and making it harder for us to justify getting Macs for our customers. Thank God for a company like JAMF because Apple hasn't given any of its IT supporters tools to support the environment. Unlike lets say... Microsoft. :rolleyes: How great is it when a VP comes up to you and says we need 50 copies of X software but we can only get it from the AppStore. Apple doesn't care about the IT world or its corp. user base.
No comments:
Post a Comment