Apple OC
Apr 24, 02:06 PM
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
I have never been to a Muslim country, but I am sure the results are amplified outside of North America ... I have worked with many Muslims here in Canada ... I have never met even one that was not completely controlling over their spouse or daughters.
20 years ago I had never heard of a Father murdering their Daughter because she was dressing "too western"
Thanks EdifyingG ... I was not going to look up all that ... pretty much sums things up
I have never been to a Muslim country, but I am sure the results are amplified outside of North America ... I have worked with many Muslims here in Canada ... I have never met even one that was not completely controlling over their spouse or daughters.
20 years ago I had never heard of a Father murdering their Daughter because she was dressing "too western"
Thanks EdifyingG ... I was not going to look up all that ... pretty much sums things up
Rocketman
Sep 26, 10:42 AM
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4160
anandtech.com did a speed test too. I don't have the link.
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4160
anandtech.com did a speed test too. I don't have the link.
onicon
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
Knowing how bullying feels like when it's done to you, no matter why or what the difference is, i really appreciate them doing this.
robertcoogan
May 9, 09:02 PM
Weird...I have had no problems with dropped calls or any part of my service since getting my iPhone.
kdarling
Oct 7, 05:24 PM
For those who like the iPhone, this works in our favor. With iPhone OS, there's only one hardware platform developers have to deal with. All they need to do for QC is make sure their apps work on the latest OS rev.
The iPhone platform has some significant variations. Location precision (lack of GPS), microphone or speaker existence on the touch, existence of MMS, CPU speed between models, amount of RAM (a potentially big problem for game makers).
So software that runs fine on one phone won't run on others and might even brick them because of different hw configurations. It happened with Windows Mobile.
Really. Do you have an example of an app bricking a WM phone?
It's rare that an app will make your OS unstable, brick your phone, and make you restore factory settings just to get it running again.
Sometimes it just takes getting an iPhone OS update to get into that situation.
Far as jailbreaking, to put it in perspective, look how bad Verizon cripples ALL their phones on release.
Verizon doesn't cripple their smartphones. Even their GPS is unlocked now.
Yea I have to hack the iphone to install maybe 5 choice apps I can't get otherwise,
So you admit that it's hobbled in its stock form? ATT / Verizon / Sprint don't block any apps you want to use on their smartphones. Or themes. Or anything else.
but at least my phone didn't have its GPS and bluetooth disabled, RAM cut in half, wi-fi disabled so I'd have to use 3g even though I'm at home, etc
The iPhone's Bluetooth was crippled to begin with... and still is. The original iPhone will always lack GPS and 3G.
I would just stick with the claim that Apple's total control over their platform can be helpful.
The iPhone platform has some significant variations. Location precision (lack of GPS), microphone or speaker existence on the touch, existence of MMS, CPU speed between models, amount of RAM (a potentially big problem for game makers).
So software that runs fine on one phone won't run on others and might even brick them because of different hw configurations. It happened with Windows Mobile.
Really. Do you have an example of an app bricking a WM phone?
It's rare that an app will make your OS unstable, brick your phone, and make you restore factory settings just to get it running again.
Sometimes it just takes getting an iPhone OS update to get into that situation.
Far as jailbreaking, to put it in perspective, look how bad Verizon cripples ALL their phones on release.
Verizon doesn't cripple their smartphones. Even their GPS is unlocked now.
Yea I have to hack the iphone to install maybe 5 choice apps I can't get otherwise,
So you admit that it's hobbled in its stock form? ATT / Verizon / Sprint don't block any apps you want to use on their smartphones. Or themes. Or anything else.
but at least my phone didn't have its GPS and bluetooth disabled, RAM cut in half, wi-fi disabled so I'd have to use 3g even though I'm at home, etc
The iPhone's Bluetooth was crippled to begin with... and still is. The original iPhone will always lack GPS and 3G.
I would just stick with the claim that Apple's total control over their platform can be helpful.
Liquorpuki
Oct 7, 06:44 PM
And how does carrier matter at all in your argument. Sorry but that entire augment there has no meaning in this debate.
You were arguing in your little list that having to jailbreak their iphone is gonna make users want to migrate to Android phones. Jailbreaking is basically hacking and phones are hacked because functionality is crippled. I'm pointing out that Android phones can have the same problem, especially if they come out on carriers such as Verizon, which goes further and also cripples hw features iPhone users take for granted.
The iPhone platform has some significant variations. Location precision (lack of GPS), microphone or speaker existence on the touch, existence of MMS, CPU speed between models, amount of RAM (a potentially big problem for game makers).
The context isn't how many variables exist but how many variables devs have to deal with. iPhone app developers have to deal with much less than developers on decentralized hardware platforms. WM developers have several different OEM's to deal with as well as all their models and generations thereof. If you can't see how the complexity translates into a harder development process, I don't know what to tell you.
Really. Do you have an example of an app bricking a WM phone
I had a couple apps brick my i730 back when I was on Verizon. I ended up having to hard reset and resync all my contacts.
Verizon doesn't cripple their smartphones. Even their GPS is unlocked now
the folks at the Verizon forums disagree with you
So you admit that it's hobbled in its stock form? ATT / Verizon / Sprint don't block any apps you want to use on their smartphones. Or themes. Or anyt
First most phones I've seen are hobbled in its stock form, not just the iPhone. But personally I think the quality of the iPhone and all the other things the design engineers got right outweighs the fact I have to jailbreak it to put a 5x5 matrix of icons on my screen out the box.
I hate AT&T service here in LA and I hate the fact I can't tether but I put up with it because it's such a good phone. I don't care that Android or Sprint doesn't screen apps because to take advantage of that, at this point in time I'd have to downgrade to a shttier phone and go to an app store that has less than 25% of the apps Apple does, and ironically, because they don't screen, more of them suck
The iPhone's Bluetooth was crippled to begin with... and still is. The original iPhone will always lack GPS
Crippled means the hw is functional but was disabled by the carrier or MFGer. An iPhone that wasn't designed with a GPS chip is not crippled. An iPhone having a fullly functional GPS chip that won't work without purchasing Telenav is crippled.
You were arguing in your little list that having to jailbreak their iphone is gonna make users want to migrate to Android phones. Jailbreaking is basically hacking and phones are hacked because functionality is crippled. I'm pointing out that Android phones can have the same problem, especially if they come out on carriers such as Verizon, which goes further and also cripples hw features iPhone users take for granted.
The iPhone platform has some significant variations. Location precision (lack of GPS), microphone or speaker existence on the touch, existence of MMS, CPU speed between models, amount of RAM (a potentially big problem for game makers).
The context isn't how many variables exist but how many variables devs have to deal with. iPhone app developers have to deal with much less than developers on decentralized hardware platforms. WM developers have several different OEM's to deal with as well as all their models and generations thereof. If you can't see how the complexity translates into a harder development process, I don't know what to tell you.
Really. Do you have an example of an app bricking a WM phone
I had a couple apps brick my i730 back when I was on Verizon. I ended up having to hard reset and resync all my contacts.
Verizon doesn't cripple their smartphones. Even their GPS is unlocked now
the folks at the Verizon forums disagree with you
So you admit that it's hobbled in its stock form? ATT / Verizon / Sprint don't block any apps you want to use on their smartphones. Or themes. Or anyt
First most phones I've seen are hobbled in its stock form, not just the iPhone. But personally I think the quality of the iPhone and all the other things the design engineers got right outweighs the fact I have to jailbreak it to put a 5x5 matrix of icons on my screen out the box.
I hate AT&T service here in LA and I hate the fact I can't tether but I put up with it because it's such a good phone. I don't care that Android or Sprint doesn't screen apps because to take advantage of that, at this point in time I'd have to downgrade to a shttier phone and go to an app store that has less than 25% of the apps Apple does, and ironically, because they don't screen, more of them suck
The iPhone's Bluetooth was crippled to begin with... and still is. The original iPhone will always lack GPS
Crippled means the hw is functional but was disabled by the carrier or MFGer. An iPhone that wasn't designed with a GPS chip is not crippled. An iPhone having a fullly functional GPS chip that won't work without purchasing Telenav is crippled.
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 02:22 PM
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim (Yes, I am well aware that the West Coast of the United States lies on the Pacific Rim). A majority of the problems Japan faces currently appear to stem from the earthquake and the fact that the plants were dated and not built to withstand the magnitude of the quake (they were built to within a 7.5 quake, no?).
From what I heard, it wasn't the quake that was the problem, it was the Tsunami that destroyed the backup generators that were supposed to maintain the cooling system. After that the cooling system defaulted to battery power, which drained within 8 hours. After that the overheating started.
I think if the engineers who designed the plant paid as much attention to protecting the backup generators as they did to protecting the reactors, there'd be no issues right now.
From what I heard, it wasn't the quake that was the problem, it was the Tsunami that destroyed the backup generators that were supposed to maintain the cooling system. After that the cooling system defaulted to battery power, which drained within 8 hours. After that the overheating started.
I think if the engineers who designed the plant paid as much attention to protecting the backup generators as they did to protecting the reactors, there'd be no issues right now.
Macinthetosh
Apr 28, 12:55 PM
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
MacBook Pros, iMacs, and iPads are seen everywhere you look at LMU, UCLA, and USC.
MacBook Pros, iMacs, and iPads are seen everywhere you look at LMU, UCLA, and USC.
alexf
Aug 29, 12:17 PM
I could not care any less.
Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 11:50 AM
"China syndrome", not "Japan" syndrome.
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
shawnce
Jul 12, 10:53 AM
The most intelligent post on this thread.
...but Intel has workstation chipsets that support the Xeon 51xx series and they have 16x PCIe (among several other nice things)...
For example...
Intel� 5000X Chipset (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm) (Product Brief PDF (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/product_brief.pdf))
Also review page 7 of this PDF (http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf).
...but Intel has workstation chipsets that support the Xeon 51xx series and they have 16x PCIe (among several other nice things)...
For example...
Intel� 5000X Chipset (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm) (Product Brief PDF (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/product_brief.pdf))
Also review page 7 of this PDF (http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf).
KnightWRX
May 2, 03:56 PM
It can't achieve privilege escalation without the user entering their admin password. That means it can't damage your Mac OS X installation.
Are you purposefully ignoring my point ? Look, if you don't know and don't care about the finer points, don't reply or try to participate.
I'm curious how it auto-executes the installer because that can have potential damaging results for a user account, without privilege escalation. My data is all in my user account, I don't care about a few system files so much as I care about my data.
Can we please leave the bickering and "it's just an installer" out of it and discuss the technical requirements behind this malware so we can better understand it ?
Are you purposefully ignoring my point ? Look, if you don't know and don't care about the finer points, don't reply or try to participate.
I'm curious how it auto-executes the installer because that can have potential damaging results for a user account, without privilege escalation. My data is all in my user account, I don't care about a few system files so much as I care about my data.
Can we please leave the bickering and "it's just an installer" out of it and discuss the technical requirements behind this malware so we can better understand it ?
Hisdem
Mar 11, 03:48 PM
Last year, after having close friends suffering in Chile, I assumed it would be a very long time until the world saw such a powerful quake. Unfortunately, I was wrong. I hope the loss of life is minimal, and I think it will be possible to achieve this goal. Luckily, the japanese people are very well prepared for this kind of situation.
Of course, one can never ever get used to this kind of thing. Best wishes to everyone in Japan, our thoughts are with you all!
Of course, one can never ever get used to this kind of thing. Best wishes to everyone in Japan, our thoughts are with you all!
todstiles
Aug 29, 04:57 PM
You people that are quoting and referencing information on wikipedia are really funny. Since when is anything that is written there taken as fact?
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 07:09 PM
I can understand why people would think this is a good thing. But at the same time, there are consequences for Apple. Apple sells others peoples songs, if they thought that selling to Apple would mean that their songs could be immediately transfered to P2P outlets they would be reluctant to supply ITMS with any songs.
When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.
I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.
Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.
This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.
On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.
On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.
For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.
When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.
I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.
Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.
This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.
On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.
On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.
For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.
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.
Digital Skunk
Apr 13, 09:56 AM
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
Okay, I watched the videos anyway . . . :):D :p Whatever, I was curious and they are the only one's I've seen in the past hour.
There's not one added feature that a student/hobbyist/professional or game changer shouldn't like.
Things like Magnetic Timeline would actually help an editor cut faster. I digress again.
Things like Magnetic Timeline however, COULD make certain tools like trim, roll, and slip not needed. I am sure they'll be in the palette, but no more trim --> highlight --> grab and move --> deselect. You just move the clip. I'd like to see that in more detail though, the video had it cut off.
Another example of what some may be talking about . . . Nesting and Compound clips. Nesting was nice, but terribly executed. Compound Clips ------>>>>>>> Nice!
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
Okay, I watched the videos anyway . . . :):D :p Whatever, I was curious and they are the only one's I've seen in the past hour.
There's not one added feature that a student/hobbyist/professional or game changer shouldn't like.
Things like Magnetic Timeline would actually help an editor cut faster. I digress again.
Things like Magnetic Timeline however, COULD make certain tools like trim, roll, and slip not needed. I am sure they'll be in the palette, but no more trim --> highlight --> grab and move --> deselect. You just move the clip. I'd like to see that in more detail though, the video had it cut off.
Another example of what some may be talking about . . . Nesting and Compound clips. Nesting was nice, but terribly executed. Compound Clips ------>>>>>>> Nice!
MacRumors
Sep 20, 12:28 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 10:31 PM
lol ... there are some weird things on the US currency ... what is with the floating eye on top of a Pyramid?
Don't open that can of worms. We'll get the trilateral conspiracists all excited.
Don't open that can of worms. We'll get the trilateral conspiracists all excited.
einmusiker
Mar 18, 09:46 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Thanks for the insight Debbie downer
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Thanks for the insight Debbie downer
MacCoaster
Oct 13, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
Yup. Proven technology. I sure hope he gets the picture.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
Yup. Proven technology. I sure hope he gets the picture.
JackAxe
Apr 8, 10:58 PM
I hope they poach someone that likes BUTTONS.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:08 PM
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Didn't you read this?
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Didn't you read this?
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
portishead
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
ROTFL!! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh! Start burnin' them bridges early, son!!
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
No comments:
Post a Comment