firestarter
Apr 24, 11:40 AM
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
Great, let's have a race to the bottom to see which faith is the more bigoted.
If you're being burnt at the stake, it doesn't make much difference whether that's because of a story someone made up 2000 years ago, or a story a priest made up today. Faith is still the excuse, and the result is the same.
Great, let's have a race to the bottom to see which faith is the more bigoted.
If you're being burnt at the stake, it doesn't make much difference whether that's because of a story someone made up 2000 years ago, or a story a priest made up today. Faith is still the excuse, and the result is the same.
shawnce
Oct 25, 11:53 PM
Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon? IBM has been shipping 8 core POWER5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5) in a single MCM with 36 MiBs of L3 cache for a couple of years now. IBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_POWER) has a long history with these types of things. ...of course they cost far more then what Intel is putting out in the near future.
grooveattack
Apr 13, 02:40 AM
Update: An Apple rep told LoopInsight to stay tuned for news on the rest of the suite:
"Today was just a sneak peak of Final Cut Pro, stay tuned"
Motion and colour should come soon
On FCPX
OH GOD IT LOOKS KINDA LIKE IMOVIE AND IT'S UNDER $1000! clearly not for the pros and now no one can edit on this
*sarcasm*
It has a tidy ui, fully 64bit, it's ganna use all 8 of my cores, can still do exactly what current FCP can do just easier.
Looking forward to it.
I think they will still have the full studio boxed in store, I don't fancy downloading 6 DVDs worth of FCS from the app store, although it would make updates very easy.
"Today was just a sneak peak of Final Cut Pro, stay tuned"
Motion and colour should come soon
On FCPX
OH GOD IT LOOKS KINDA LIKE IMOVIE AND IT'S UNDER $1000! clearly not for the pros and now no one can edit on this
*sarcasm*
It has a tidy ui, fully 64bit, it's ganna use all 8 of my cores, can still do exactly what current FCP can do just easier.
Looking forward to it.
I think they will still have the full studio boxed in store, I don't fancy downloading 6 DVDs worth of FCS from the app store, although it would make updates very easy.
Popeye206
Apr 9, 08:45 AM
And the Eco system grows. I love it!
I really feel that Gaming will eventually be one of the things that really make the iOS devices fly even more than now. :) Love it!
I really feel that Gaming will eventually be one of the things that really make the iOS devices fly even more than now. :) Love it!
YoungCreative
Jun 27, 07:56 PM
Bash AT&T and flame me all you want, but I had 2 nightmare years with Verizon before I purchased my iPhone three years ago. I couldn't get a signal in my home 90% of the time with Verizon. I usually had to walk outside to make a call. That was convenient in sub-freezing weather!
When I went to the Verizon store, they told me that there shouldn't be a problem since I live in the middle of a "very strong" signal area. :eek:
Even if I had a call going, it would drop as soon as I walked downstairs. The final straw was one day in the supermarket just 3 blocks from home. I could not get a signal on Verizon, yet there was someone talking on a cell phone right next to me. Yep! They had AT&T!
Now I have my iPhone and it works great...even in my basement AND in the store. My friend came over one day and said he tried to use his phone while he was here. No Signal! Yep! He has Verizon. He also said that he can't use his phone at the same store: No signal!
It all depends on the area. No carrier has as good of coverage as they claim in their ads. (Commercials are misleading? No! Say it ain't so! :D)
Go with the carrier that works for you and don't assume that yours is best for everyone. For me, AT&T works great...but I can't wait to upgrade my original iPhone and get rid of that annoying AT&T Edge buzz in my computer speakers and interference on my TV screen.
Bottom Line: I AGREE that Apple should open the iPhone up to other carriers. That way everyone can use the one that's best for them and just end this whole debate!
When I went to the Verizon store, they told me that there shouldn't be a problem since I live in the middle of a "very strong" signal area. :eek:
Even if I had a call going, it would drop as soon as I walked downstairs. The final straw was one day in the supermarket just 3 blocks from home. I could not get a signal on Verizon, yet there was someone talking on a cell phone right next to me. Yep! They had AT&T!
Now I have my iPhone and it works great...even in my basement AND in the store. My friend came over one day and said he tried to use his phone while he was here. No Signal! Yep! He has Verizon. He also said that he can't use his phone at the same store: No signal!
It all depends on the area. No carrier has as good of coverage as they claim in their ads. (Commercials are misleading? No! Say it ain't so! :D)
Go with the carrier that works for you and don't assume that yours is best for everyone. For me, AT&T works great...but I can't wait to upgrade my original iPhone and get rid of that annoying AT&T Edge buzz in my computer speakers and interference on my TV screen.
Bottom Line: I AGREE that Apple should open the iPhone up to other carriers. That way everyone can use the one that's best for them and just end this whole debate!
mdriftmeyer
Aug 29, 02:34 PM
Where is SUN? Brother, Samsung, Kodak, Minolta, SONY, etc?
I don't see any Television manufacturers? Philips? JVC? etc?
I don't see any Television manufacturers? Philips? JVC? etc?
ddtlm
Oct 13, 06:30 PM
javajedi:
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
Good to see the topic lives on. I thought about doing it yesterday but couldn't decide how I wanted to. I think it should be nonrecursive but honestly I haven't even decided how it can be reasonably done.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
JIT compilers are a mystery to me. I might add that they do exist at least a little for other languages too, read something somewhere about HP using them on their mega-servers for compiled apps. Can't remember details but it was said to help.
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
Good to see the topic lives on. I thought about doing it yesterday but couldn't decide how I wanted to. I think it should be nonrecursive but honestly I haven't even decided how it can be reasonably done.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
JIT compilers are a mystery to me. I might add that they do exist at least a little for other languages too, read something somewhere about HP using them on their mega-servers for compiled apps. Can't remember details but it was said to help.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:33 PM
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Not a fan of Pascal's assumption of Christianity as the basis for his theorem.
Look up Pascal's wager
Not a fan of Pascal's assumption of Christianity as the basis for his theorem.
leekohler
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Post reported. If you can't see fit to post without insulting the intelligence of other members, then maybe you should not post. Everyone makes mistakes. If you can't accept that others make them and address it in a civil manner, maybe you should sit back and chill for a minute.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Post reported. If you can't see fit to post without insulting the intelligence of other members, then maybe you should not post. Everyone makes mistakes. If you can't accept that others make them and address it in a civil manner, maybe you should sit back and chill for a minute.
Photics
Apr 9, 09:33 AM
Nah. All those games you mentioned would be part of a pack of 25 on Nintendo for 19.99.
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Dagless
Apr 13, 04:51 AM
Hmm, could be good. I've been using an old Final Cut that I bought whilst in university. Worked just fine for me but I only edit game trailers on it. If FCPX is that cheap in the UK too then I might just have to get it.
Maybe.
Apple have been doing a lot of simplifying of late and I hope it doesn't lose any depth.
Maybe.
Apple have been doing a lot of simplifying of late and I hope it doesn't lose any depth.
leekohler
Apr 15, 09:07 AM
This is great to see. Good job, Apple!
63dot
Apr 23, 04:03 PM
I believe in God or a higher power as some would call it.
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
That being said, there is a lot of good people on earth, perhaps a majority of people. But the evil people, especially the ones with power/money/weapons, are more than enough to destroy this planet and frankly, I am surprised we are still here. I could say it's because God intervened but since the departure of Christ, and before the second coming, the human race is all alone on this planet and in the way of any maladies we create for ourselves. Who knows if God is letting us alone to learn a lesson, or learn to treat each other better, but the process has been painful of man trying to govern themselves and simply get along with each other and the environment they live in.
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
That being said, there is a lot of good people on earth, perhaps a majority of people. But the evil people, especially the ones with power/money/weapons, are more than enough to destroy this planet and frankly, I am surprised we are still here. I could say it's because God intervened but since the departure of Christ, and before the second coming, the human race is all alone on this planet and in the way of any maladies we create for ourselves. Who knows if God is letting us alone to learn a lesson, or learn to treat each other better, but the process has been painful of man trying to govern themselves and simply get along with each other and the environment they live in.
Bosunsfate
Sep 12, 03:21 PM
So it seems from the coverage that the device has no optical drive, and no internal mass storage? Is that correct? And also that it is not itself a DVR? Don't get me wrong -- I'm reserving judgment. I just want to understand at this point. It sounds as if the basic purpose of the device is to draw high quality AV off a computer and onto a home entertainment system, sort of as the Roku SoundBridge did for the iPod's audio, but in a very Apple sort of way? In other words, it follows the computer-centric sort of model where a desktop or notebook Mac on the network is the "server"?
I would make the same quess as well.
Trying to get the QT stream, but overloaded right now.
I would make the same quess as well.
Trying to get the QT stream, but overloaded right now.
justflie
Sep 20, 08:28 AM
I guess it wouldn't necessarily even need a hard drive. what about the option of including some video inputs on the back and streaming the video it sees on the screen BACK to your computer? It already has the bandwidth to stream from your computer, so why wouldn't it be able to do the opposite (given it has video inputs)? While this might not be ideal for some people who don't have a lot of HDD space, it would allow for editing out commercials, compression to ipods, etc, much like my eyetv 250. I think it would probably be better this way since it would be cheaper buying an external HDD for your computer than havnig a big HDD in ur ITV.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 11:02 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'd be curious if any Christians here are open to considering other God(s) or a different type of creator than Jesus. Especially the ones who challenge atheists to be open to the possibility of God.
I'd be curious if any Christians here are open to considering other God(s) or a different type of creator than Jesus. Especially the ones who challenge atheists to be open to the possibility of God.
Cyrax
Apr 6, 10:45 AM
I just switched. Like, a week ago.
1. Expose + Spaces are GREAT window managers. I took to both like ducks to water.
2. Spotlight is pretty awesome and intuitive. However, Win 7 has features like that integrated.
3. I never used the Explorer, always just navigated through folders one by one (bad habit, I guess). So Finder has been a bit of a learning curve especially since the opening folders behavior is not quite the same. Like when you double click on a new folder a new window opens up.
4. No registry is great. Installing/uninstalling apps is clean and efficient. Just the way it should be.
5. The Dock is a mess. Of course, this is nothing new. Many, many people have spent tons of time talking about it. However, it is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It's also very tweakable for those who want to do it. I guess that's why Apple has kept it around.
6. I like how Mac OS X keeps all the power user features out there and accessible. Automator for example. OS X looks nice and is easy to use but is actually extremely flexible and powerful. Windows, of course, you can do a lot to tweak it, but it just doesn't feel the same.
7. Quicktime-stuff and iTunes run MUCH better on the Mac. No surprise there.
1. Expose + Spaces are GREAT window managers. I took to both like ducks to water.
2. Spotlight is pretty awesome and intuitive. However, Win 7 has features like that integrated.
3. I never used the Explorer, always just navigated through folders one by one (bad habit, I guess). So Finder has been a bit of a learning curve especially since the opening folders behavior is not quite the same. Like when you double click on a new folder a new window opens up.
4. No registry is great. Installing/uninstalling apps is clean and efficient. Just the way it should be.
5. The Dock is a mess. Of course, this is nothing new. Many, many people have spent tons of time talking about it. However, it is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It's also very tweakable for those who want to do it. I guess that's why Apple has kept it around.
6. I like how Mac OS X keeps all the power user features out there and accessible. Automator for example. OS X looks nice and is easy to use but is actually extremely flexible and powerful. Windows, of course, you can do a lot to tweak it, but it just doesn't feel the same.
7. Quicktime-stuff and iTunes run MUCH better on the Mac. No surprise there.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 01:09 PM
And do I care? Nah. Not one bit.
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Send my regards to your great-grandchildren will you?
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Send my regards to your great-grandchildren will you?
sblasl
Nov 2, 08:25 PM
Sorry, still trying to get up to speed on all of this intel stuff...:o
Howdr
Mar 18, 11:23 AM
People who complain that your service provider is going to make you follow the ru:eek:les unnerve me with their uncanny ability to disregard all that stands to reason with the sustainability of your "toys." They are like little sissies on the playground crying after a Barbie Doll has been taken from them. Those people should man up and start paying for the footprint they leave on the network.
WOW in plain English......... If you use a lot you should pay for it.
OK I agree
but AT&T are the ones who advertise Unlimited Data
Should they not "Man UP"? and stop this hiding behind definitions of nonsense in a contract.
Essentially the point many and I make is
we pay for Data that is contracted as unlimited,
At&t then has a contract that says its unlimited Data with us and then says they can decide when its abused.
OK using 5gb or less is not considered abuse by them, OK
But tethering 100mb of that 5gb is abuse even though it does not go over the usage and it makes no network difference to At&t
the problem is the contract itself is contradictory in how it is written and the enforcement of this issue is in huge suspect, At&t truly may not have one kb of proof that you tethered.
I see many problems with this.
Lawsuits? Class action maybe not individuals.
and it would have to be those paying for tethering and or charged a fine for doing so or forced into a tethering contract.
Not I, I have no emails nothing, = No harm.
WOW in plain English......... If you use a lot you should pay for it.
OK I agree
but AT&T are the ones who advertise Unlimited Data
Should they not "Man UP"? and stop this hiding behind definitions of nonsense in a contract.
Essentially the point many and I make is
we pay for Data that is contracted as unlimited,
At&t then has a contract that says its unlimited Data with us and then says they can decide when its abused.
OK using 5gb or less is not considered abuse by them, OK
But tethering 100mb of that 5gb is abuse even though it does not go over the usage and it makes no network difference to At&t
the problem is the contract itself is contradictory in how it is written and the enforcement of this issue is in huge suspect, At&t truly may not have one kb of proof that you tethered.
I see many problems with this.
Lawsuits? Class action maybe not individuals.
and it would have to be those paying for tethering and or charged a fine for doing so or forced into a tethering contract.
Not I, I have no emails nothing, = No harm.
TuckBodi
Aug 23, 10:04 AM
I had maybe one dropped call this whole year. But I don't talk on my phone as much as someone else may.
I had one an hour ago........and another an hour before that.
I had one an hour ago........and another an hour before that.
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.
!� V �!
Apr 9, 09:11 PM
I agree with another commenter regarding removal of default applications i.e. Game Centre, Weather. I believe you can deactivate YouTube via system preferences and it hides the application, why not the same for other default apps.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 26, 10:48 PM
And UT2007 and Q4 and render video. All at the same time :confused:
Do we need that?
Sounds kind of fun :cool:
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
Got to love Renderman, Global Illumination and Raytraced Shadows.....
The rendertime is a bitch but it looks totally sweet.
Do we need that?
Sounds kind of fun :cool:
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
Got to love Renderman, Global Illumination and Raytraced Shadows.....
The rendertime is a bitch but it looks totally sweet.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий