puma1552
Mar 12, 05:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Also FTR the 60 km radius is old news on Japanese TV, and telling us they are detecting Cesium and outright telling that it may indicate a meltdown doesn't sound like covering things up to me.
Also FTR the 60 km radius is old news on Japanese TV, and telling us they are detecting Cesium and outright telling that it may indicate a meltdown doesn't sound like covering things up to me.
more...
awmazz
Mar 13, 11:34 PM
Why can't people get away from the concept of a centralized power source, like a coal or nuclear plant or even a wind farm to generate their national needs? I even see arguments that 'we don't have the space' for alternative power. Look at an aerial photo of any city and all you see is miles and miles of dead empty blank rooves. Solar panels or even small wind turbines on every single roof in every city will have people either reducing their reliance on a central power source or even contributing their own electricity to the grid to the point you may not even need a central power source, or maybe just one - which could be a wind farm or a nice clean geothermal plant.
Of course that all requires people actually caring more about the world than money, so it ain't gonna happen.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
I wish people would stop repeating this public relations line from the nuclear industry PR depts. If they were making cheese, would you believe their cheese is cheesier?
I posted on the first page of this thread that it only looks clean on your end because all the filth and pollution is on our end where it's mined. To wit, 60 MILLION TONNES of radioactive tailings waste from just one mine in just 20 years. Seriously think how much that is - it's one fifth of a tonne of radioactive tailings waste for EVERY man woman and child in the USA. EVERY twenty years. From JUST ONE MINE. Now assure me again how 'clean' nuclear is?
And then once the toxic fuel is spent where to dump all that filthy poisonous waste? In 40 gallon drums in the ocean? Pay another country to bury it so it leaches into their water table?
The *only* clean part nuclear power is the part with the white whispy steam. Ah, look, it's just water, how cleaaaaann! But for the non-steam parts, it really does sound like shatting over the edge of your nests onto others' heads where you can't see the diarrheous filth and delude yourselves into proclaiming that you are being 'clean'. If it was a cartoon it'd actually be funny.
Of course that all requires people actually caring more about the world than money, so it ain't gonna happen.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
I wish people would stop repeating this public relations line from the nuclear industry PR depts. If they were making cheese, would you believe their cheese is cheesier?
I posted on the first page of this thread that it only looks clean on your end because all the filth and pollution is on our end where it's mined. To wit, 60 MILLION TONNES of radioactive tailings waste from just one mine in just 20 years. Seriously think how much that is - it's one fifth of a tonne of radioactive tailings waste for EVERY man woman and child in the USA. EVERY twenty years. From JUST ONE MINE. Now assure me again how 'clean' nuclear is?
And then once the toxic fuel is spent where to dump all that filthy poisonous waste? In 40 gallon drums in the ocean? Pay another country to bury it so it leaches into their water table?
The *only* clean part nuclear power is the part with the white whispy steam. Ah, look, it's just water, how cleaaaaann! But for the non-steam parts, it really does sound like shatting over the edge of your nests onto others' heads where you can't see the diarrheous filth and delude yourselves into proclaiming that you are being 'clean'. If it was a cartoon it'd actually be funny.
more...
Fotek2001
Sep 20, 05:54 AM
actually... he doesn't indicate a HD... why? well the iTV (sorry, not really impressed with this name) streams...
You don't need to be impressed with the name 'iTV' because it's a code name... There are at least three companies in this space using similar names already so Apple wouldn't be able to use it even if they wanted to.
You don't need to be impressed with the name 'iTV' because it's a code name... There are at least three companies in this space using similar names already so Apple wouldn't be able to use it even if they wanted to.
rasmasyean
Mar 13, 10:15 PM
Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
more...
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:20 PM
Exactly what I was thinking. Screw the next 4 hours, for the next month I'm going to non-stop stream audio and video. I even disabled WiFi so I don't use my works connection I use only AT&T's.
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
And this accomplishes what - exactly?
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
And this accomplishes what - exactly?
more...
roland.g
Sep 20, 09:51 AM
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
CalBoy
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
His only publications are those he's published himself. Nothing peer-reviewed, nothing backed up by psychologists at large. If that weren't proof enough, he also proposes to "cure" something which every other psychologist, psychiatrist, and neurosurgeon says is beyond our capability of understanding fully at this time.
He is nothing more than a closeted [insert profanity of choice] trying to validate his shame. There's a word for people like that, and it isn't "credible."
His only publications are those he's published himself. Nothing peer-reviewed, nothing backed up by psychologists at large. If that weren't proof enough, he also proposes to "cure" something which every other psychologist, psychiatrist, and neurosurgeon says is beyond our capability of understanding fully at this time.
He is nothing more than a closeted [insert profanity of choice] trying to validate his shame. There's a word for people like that, and it isn't "credible."
more...
jholzner
Sep 20, 09:58 AM
Woohoo a hard drive! :D
I wasn't planning on buying CenterStage, but the DVR functionality(?) would make it very appealing.
Not sure how it would have DVR capabilities since there is no coax input but who knows. If it could do DVR I'd buy in a second and replace my Tivo. However, it seems Apple wants to sell you shows not let you record them for free so I don't see them adding it. Here's hoping!
I wasn't planning on buying CenterStage, but the DVR functionality(?) would make it very appealing.
Not sure how it would have DVR capabilities since there is no coax input but who knows. If it could do DVR I'd buy in a second and replace my Tivo. However, it seems Apple wants to sell you shows not let you record them for free so I don't see them adding it. Here's hoping!
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.
more...
andiwm2003
Jul 12, 01:40 PM
.....................................I am now convinced that many people who post in these forums are stupid(not refering to u sbarton) , If half these dumb comments went up on Xtremesystems/THG/Anandtech Forums people would get laughed at right out of the forums. Please if you do not have any sort of technical knowledge please do not post ignorant comments about how conroe deserves to go into an iMac and MacPro is too good for it.
I find it very disturbing that while many of the forums I just mentioned are salivating for conroe chips to hit retail , the mac snobs in this forum act like it's some bastardized step child to woodcrest. Lets me tell you noob's something after seeing Coolaler hit 4ghz on a Kentsfield nothing impresses me anymore. lets see your MacPro score 2000 in Cinebench and render in 11secs.
I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac.
I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.
.......................................................................APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS[/B] incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p
aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
I find it very disturbing that while many of the forums I just mentioned are salivating for conroe chips to hit retail , the mac snobs in this forum act like it's some bastardized step child to woodcrest. Lets me tell you noob's something after seeing Coolaler hit 4ghz on a Kentsfield nothing impresses me anymore. lets see your MacPro score 2000 in Cinebench and render in 11secs.
I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac.
I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.
.......................................................................APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS[/B] incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p
aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
more...
takao
Mar 15, 04:16 AM
Here is the article to which you referred. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12740843
It fails to mention that the statistic noted, "8,217 microsieverts an hour" was measured at the front door of the damaged power plant. Link (http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_view.asp?location=1&mn_id=3149) As was said in the article I quoted above, radiation levels decrease drastically with distance.
true but still it's way more than is acceptable for nuclear station personal.. or otherwise they wouldn't have evacuated wouldn't they ? ;)
as you say this 8.000 microSievert were recorded at the gate. Did you hear how much the maximum value was they recorded on site around the hot points ? (don't know wether that was reactor 2 or the fire involving spent fuel in reactor 4) they actually mentioned it in one of the press conferences last night:
100 mSv ....that is 100.000 microSievert or 41,5 the average yearly dosis or _twice they yearly legal limit for nuclear powerplant workers_
i don't need a reporter telling me about Sievert values. i measured them myself while i wearing a thick rubber suit.
It fails to mention that the statistic noted, "8,217 microsieverts an hour" was measured at the front door of the damaged power plant. Link (http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_view.asp?location=1&mn_id=3149) As was said in the article I quoted above, radiation levels decrease drastically with distance.
true but still it's way more than is acceptable for nuclear station personal.. or otherwise they wouldn't have evacuated wouldn't they ? ;)
as you say this 8.000 microSievert were recorded at the gate. Did you hear how much the maximum value was they recorded on site around the hot points ? (don't know wether that was reactor 2 or the fire involving spent fuel in reactor 4) they actually mentioned it in one of the press conferences last night:
100 mSv ....that is 100.000 microSievert or 41,5 the average yearly dosis or _twice they yearly legal limit for nuclear powerplant workers_
i don't need a reporter telling me about Sievert values. i measured them myself while i wearing a thick rubber suit.
more...
Will_reed
Jul 11, 10:12 PM
I wonder if this will be good enough to cut my 4k footage off my yet to purchase red camera. How ever I think the quad g5 would be enough.
more...
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:32 PM
i don't see a single pci express 16 x slot on any of the dell poweredge servers, what site are you looking at?
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
Why are you looking at servers? that would be XServe. We're talking workstations here. Go to Dell's Precision workstation series for the medium&large businesses.
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
Why are you looking at servers? that would be XServe. We're talking workstations here. Go to Dell's Precision workstation series for the medium&large businesses.
more...
mac jones
Mar 12, 10:35 PM
Well it appears thing have gotten worse. I guess now all we can do is wait and see what can be done. I have the greatest confidence in the Japanese ability to deal with this, and the international communities contributions.
more...
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 04:34 PM
Does a partial melt-down equate with being a little bit pregnant?
of course things could still go South, but hopefully they won't
Inscrutable cat says
of course things could still go South, but hopefully they won't
Inscrutable cat says
more...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 07:11 PM
Including a completely identifiable chief god and pantheon shared with other local polytheistic religions. The only difference was that in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the polytheism was suppressed and the chief god reigned unchallenged.
Maybe not in those exact words, butandcome pretty damned close.
The Old Testament is absolutely valid for Christians. Without the Old Testament, the entire dynastic myth collapses on itself.
Those verses you quoted are, as I said, historical. They're not a commandment or an exhortation to continue doing those things. Sharia law hasn't been developed using those verses.
No, Jesus Christ's law takes over all laws from the old testament, and anyway those verses you quoted aren't laws, they're just saying what happened, they're not prescriptions of how to act or behave. The Qur'an is prescriptive.
The Ahmadiyya sect goes against the first pillar of Islam. :/
so you admit that freedom of conscience is prohibited in Islam and that people who leave their Islamic religion should be sentenced to death? Or are you saying blasphemers should be punished?
In the West we would tolerate the Ahmadiyya, not persecute them. Would Muslims in the West disobey our tolerance of the Ahmadiyya because it contravenes Sharia law?
Maybe not in those exact words, butandcome pretty damned close.
The Old Testament is absolutely valid for Christians. Without the Old Testament, the entire dynastic myth collapses on itself.
Those verses you quoted are, as I said, historical. They're not a commandment or an exhortation to continue doing those things. Sharia law hasn't been developed using those verses.
No, Jesus Christ's law takes over all laws from the old testament, and anyway those verses you quoted aren't laws, they're just saying what happened, they're not prescriptions of how to act or behave. The Qur'an is prescriptive.
The Ahmadiyya sect goes against the first pillar of Islam. :/
so you admit that freedom of conscience is prohibited in Islam and that people who leave their Islamic religion should be sentenced to death? Or are you saying blasphemers should be punished?
In the West we would tolerate the Ahmadiyya, not persecute them. Would Muslims in the West disobey our tolerance of the Ahmadiyya because it contravenes Sharia law?
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:08 AM
I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
more...
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 04:12 PM
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
(I've posted this before but since you brought it up, I thought I'd share my theory again...)
There's a MUCH more systematic way that Apple could name this product.
"AirPort" is derrived from "Air" (being the medium through which the device works) and "Port" (gateway/portal to aforementioned medium)
So this iTV box:
The medium through which the device works is Television and the device is a gateway/portal to the Television so add "port" to the end. Thus...
"TelePort."
-Clive
(I've posted this before but since you brought it up, I thought I'd share my theory again...)
There's a MUCH more systematic way that Apple could name this product.
"AirPort" is derrived from "Air" (being the medium through which the device works) and "Port" (gateway/portal to aforementioned medium)
So this iTV box:
The medium through which the device works is Television and the device is a gateway/portal to the Television so add "port" to the end. Thus...
"TelePort."
-Clive
dragonsbane
Mar 21, 08:06 AM
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
more...
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 10:53 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
But they also offer Conroe-priced single-socket workstations.
The dual-socket Xeon systems with single socket populated are much more expensive than the single-socket only systems.
Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.
But they also offer Conroe-priced single-socket workstations.
The dual-socket Xeon systems with single socket populated are much more expensive than the single-socket only systems.
Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.
more...
tveric
Mar 18, 05:04 PM
The most important thing to note, however, is if you use PyMusique you may have your account cancelled (and Apple knows who you are and where you "live" based upon your credit card). So, if you really want to take that risk go ahead. And remember, you could also be found guilty of violating the DMCA even if you just try to use this tool. It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute. Basically, you're stupid to even try to use PyMusique.
So, if I use PyMusique, and Apple cancels my account, thereby forcing me to use some other music store, or P2P service, Apple comes out ahead how, exactly?
No one's account is getting cancelled. Apple will quickly negate the effects of this work-around just like they did the other ones. And I find it funny that every time someone finds a hole in the iTMS DRM and thereby forces Apple to make the iTMS more secure, a bunch of gloom-and-doom types weigh in on how bad, bad, bad it is to write/use such exploits. Just read some of the posts in this thread, it's friggin' hilarious.
Everybody relax.
So, if I use PyMusique, and Apple cancels my account, thereby forcing me to use some other music store, or P2P service, Apple comes out ahead how, exactly?
No one's account is getting cancelled. Apple will quickly negate the effects of this work-around just like they did the other ones. And I find it funny that every time someone finds a hole in the iTMS DRM and thereby forces Apple to make the iTMS more secure, a bunch of gloom-and-doom types weigh in on how bad, bad, bad it is to write/use such exploits. Just read some of the posts in this thread, it's friggin' hilarious.
Everybody relax.
more...
campingsk8er
May 2, 09:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
likemyorbs
Mar 27, 09:18 PM
You might want to learn a little about Courage, Fr. John Harvey's apostolate to people who feel same-sex attraction. His organization believes sexual orientation can change. But Courage doesn't try to change anyone's sexual orientation. Fr. Harvey and his colleagues try to help people who feel same-sex attraction live holy, chaste, celibate lives.
But why should they have to be celibate just because some religious nuts have a problem with them? His organization can do whatever they want, but the point of organizations is to try to improve life for the future. And making gay people celibate will not be the way of the future, i can promise you that. Actually, it's not even the way of the present, only unintelligent people would want to do that.
But why should they have to be celibate just because some religious nuts have a problem with them? His organization can do whatever they want, but the point of organizations is to try to improve life for the future. And making gay people celibate will not be the way of the future, i can promise you that. Actually, it's not even the way of the present, only unintelligent people would want to do that.
more...
takao
Mar 15, 06:46 AM
Factor in the Japanese culture where self-sacrifice for the good of their people is looked highly upon. I'd say there's a damn good chance they know their killing themselves, but will continue to work to their ends.
while the situation is very,very serious i think it's still on the level of a controllable risk to health if the operators are rotated enough/monitored and depending on exposure are protected with equipment
especially if radiation leaks are limited to very short time frames
it's still a far cry from the stuff what some firefighters/engineers did in 1986 to prevent worse
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
that is somehow baffling me as well: the heat should be dropping at a logrithmical rate after an emergency shutdown and thus within 24 hours the heat should have dropped very fast
yet today is tuesday and still cooling problems it just doesn't sound correct. might there some design deficits at work ? like control rods not really adequate sized? or is it simply because of partial meltdowns/damages inside the reactor ?
edit: getting really serious now: according to a japanese news outlet a reactor control room has been evacuated because of radiation
while the situation is very,very serious i think it's still on the level of a controllable risk to health if the operators are rotated enough/monitored and depending on exposure are protected with equipment
especially if radiation leaks are limited to very short time frames
it's still a far cry from the stuff what some firefighters/engineers did in 1986 to prevent worse
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
that is somehow baffling me as well: the heat should be dropping at a logrithmical rate after an emergency shutdown and thus within 24 hours the heat should have dropped very fast
yet today is tuesday and still cooling problems it just doesn't sound correct. might there some design deficits at work ? like control rods not really adequate sized? or is it simply because of partial meltdowns/damages inside the reactor ?
edit: getting really serious now: according to a japanese news outlet a reactor control room has been evacuated because of radiation
more...
