Gamoe
Apr 9, 05:12 AM
I think iOS games have great potential, but I still feel that there is a gap between okay and great that is differentiated by physical controls. All we need are a few buttons and a joystick and/or d-pad. But Apple's design-style doesn't seem to allow that, and I for one think that's a shame.
nixd2001
Oct 12, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
javajedi's Java and Cocoa/Objective-C code has been available here (http://members.ij.net/javajedi) for a couple of days. My C# port is available for examination if you e-mail me.
I was thinking of the x86 and PPC assembler produced for the core loops. I could bung the C through GCC and get some assembler on my windy tunnels, true, but I'm not geared up to do the Windows side of things.
javajedi's Java and Cocoa/Objective-C code has been available here (http://members.ij.net/javajedi) for a couple of days. My C# port is available for examination if you e-mail me.
I was thinking of the x86 and PPC assembler produced for the core loops. I could bung the C through GCC and get some assembler on my windy tunnels, true, but I'm not geared up to do the Windows side of things.
stoid
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
![authentication code for sony vegas pro. Sony Vegas Pro 10 [ 32 bits ]](http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9709/completen.jpg "Sony Vegas Pro 10 [ 32 bits ]")
jayducharme
May 5, 02:26 PM
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
There seems to be a real split in this thread: people who get lots of dropped calls with the iPhone and people who get none. I haven't had any dropped calls in the two years I've had my iPhone. But there have been many calls that never rang and instead went straight to voicemail.
I'm wondering if Apple might have produced a slew of defective iPhones, and those are the ones that are dropping calls. It's so strange that people are having such vastly different experiences, regardless of the call area. It sounds more like a hardware/software problem.
There seems to be a real split in this thread: people who get lots of dropped calls with the iPhone and people who get none. I haven't had any dropped calls in the two years I've had my iPhone. But there have been many calls that never rang and instead went straight to voicemail.
I'm wondering if Apple might have produced a slew of defective iPhones, and those are the ones that are dropping calls. It's so strange that people are having such vastly different experiences, regardless of the call area. It sounds more like a hardware/software problem.
generik
Jul 12, 12:02 AM
Here's a little list i put together last week of my predictions for the next 6 months or so of a roadmap (whenever merom goes to 800 MHz on its bus, so maybe 9 months)
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I doubt it will be like this. While this was the trend back in the PPC days when consumers have no alternatives to make comparisons with, people can make direct comparisons now, and no way will your Macbook look remotely attractive when a PC at 70% of the price has better specs.
"It runs MacOS" just doesn't cut it to switchers, sad to say. The corollary to that is "PCs come with Windows Vista".
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I doubt it will be like this. While this was the trend back in the PPC days when consumers have no alternatives to make comparisons with, people can make direct comparisons now, and no way will your Macbook look remotely attractive when a PC at 70% of the price has better specs.
"It runs MacOS" just doesn't cut it to switchers, sad to say. The corollary to that is "PCs come with Windows Vista".
G58
Oct 15, 07:39 AM
Some conventions are worth adopting, if only for the reasons they are created. For instance, when writing in the English language, the convention is to begin at the left, with each sentence starting with an upper case letter.
Now, I have no evidence to guide me here, but I suspect you're either lazy, or your shift key has broken on your keyboard. PCs do tend to ship with poor, cheap keyboards based on a thirty year old design.
But the important thing is that no matter if your points were in some small way credible, by presenting them the way you have, you've rendered the possibility of their credibility less easy to discern.
Thank you for participating. The exit is on the left and the keyboard repair service is next to the typing 101 class.
However, I love Google for many reasons. However, none of them is not that they make great hardware, support great software, support great hardware, or understand how to do any of these.
Google's support of Adroid is both admirable and, to a large extent altruistic, as well as an attempt to expand into other markets. But like Amazon, they don't understand the game. The kindle, for instance is actually useless as a textbook medium, yet this hasn't stopped Bezos from hawking it as such.
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in and is the 21st Century answer to the Kibbutz, or workers' collective. Both were very optimistic ideas with worthy ideals. But both failed because they relied upon a greater input of encouragement and resources than they were ever capable of producing in terms of meaningful contribution or profits.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net. But no matter how many manufacturers jump on the Android handset bandwagon, none of them will come close to creating a coherent user-base, or to matching Apple's business model.
And that, my dear typographically challenged friend is the key here. Ultimately, numbers are irrelevant if they only represent a fragmented 'diaspora' of the Android faithful. The sum total will only ever be quotable as a statistic.
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Now, I have no evidence to guide me here, but I suspect you're either lazy, or your shift key has broken on your keyboard. PCs do tend to ship with poor, cheap keyboards based on a thirty year old design.
But the important thing is that no matter if your points were in some small way credible, by presenting them the way you have, you've rendered the possibility of their credibility less easy to discern.
Thank you for participating. The exit is on the left and the keyboard repair service is next to the typing 101 class.
However, I love Google for many reasons. However, none of them is not that they make great hardware, support great software, support great hardware, or understand how to do any of these.
Google's support of Adroid is both admirable and, to a large extent altruistic, as well as an attempt to expand into other markets. But like Amazon, they don't understand the game. The kindle, for instance is actually useless as a textbook medium, yet this hasn't stopped Bezos from hawking it as such.
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in and is the 21st Century answer to the Kibbutz, or workers' collective. Both were very optimistic ideas with worthy ideals. But both failed because they relied upon a greater input of encouragement and resources than they were ever capable of producing in terms of meaningful contribution or profits.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net. But no matter how many manufacturers jump on the Android handset bandwagon, none of them will come close to creating a coherent user-base, or to matching Apple's business model.
And that, my dear typographically challenged friend is the key here. Ultimately, numbers are irrelevant if they only represent a fragmented 'diaspora' of the Android faithful. The sum total will only ever be quotable as a statistic.
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:52 PM
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
dudemac
Mar 18, 07:11 PM
DRM has everything
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.
![authentication code for sony vegas pro. [2010] Sony Vegas Pro 9 0e (32](http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f087a59e337347412c3a9060f129f6436g.jpg "[2010] Sony Vegas Pro 9 0e (32")
~loserman~
Mar 20, 07:25 PM
Not to the holder of the copyright.
Agreed.
If these people who argue against copyright were having their creations stolen and it was affecting their living they would feel differently.
Agreed.
If these people who argue against copyright were having their creations stolen and it was affecting their living they would feel differently.
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 01:21 PM
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Wow people are ignorant. It is clearly not Windows only. I can compile it on my mac if I want to. You must not have any idea what you are talking about.
Wow people are ignorant. It is clearly not Windows only. I can compile it on my mac if I want to. You must not have any idea what you are talking about.
vniow
Oct 9, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
or Authentication code.
Vegas Pro 10 overview:
Sony Vegas 8 Pro FREE!
Download SONY Vegas PRO 8 0 Build 179 With Working Video FXs Torrent - Fenopy.eu
Sony Vegas Pro 10 x76-x64
Get sony vegas pro 10 free
Sony Vegas Pro 9.0e Build 1147
The Vegas Pro 9 collection
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
rasmasyean
Apr 23, 02:11 AM
It's easier to admit being an atheist on the Internet than in the real world, as even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists. Although only a fool would say in his heart "there is no god", it should be legitimate to say "I want to see proof before I believe".
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I depends on where you are at and what company you are in. Your "immediate culture" plays a large factor in how you are "accepted into society". It's no different from nerds vs jocks in adolescence. People are people. For example,
It's hard to "admit being an atheist" in the rural areas.
It's easier to admit it being an atheist in the big cities.
It's hard to admit being an atheist among working class folk.
It's easy to admit being an atheist among college students and higher class folk.
It's hard to admit being atheist among white and latino ppl.
It's easy to admit being atheist among Asian ppl.
When you're always surrounded by ppl of a particular culture that is majority religious, you will think that "atheists" are closet freaks. Just like how "gays" are stereotyped to be. But that's not true everywhere. And there are many ppl who say "there is no god", but personally I find that it's usually younger ppl. A lot of ppl with higher education also would say this, but they are very careful, because when you are "mature", you are also wary about respecting other ppl's beliefs around you so they are careful not to say it to a religious person. Because it might insult them...as many religous ppl are also implicitly taught to HATE others who are not like them.
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I depends on where you are at and what company you are in. Your "immediate culture" plays a large factor in how you are "accepted into society". It's no different from nerds vs jocks in adolescence. People are people. For example,
It's hard to "admit being an atheist" in the rural areas.
It's easier to admit it being an atheist in the big cities.
It's hard to admit being an atheist among working class folk.
It's easy to admit being an atheist among college students and higher class folk.
It's hard to admit being atheist among white and latino ppl.
It's easy to admit being atheist among Asian ppl.
When you're always surrounded by ppl of a particular culture that is majority religious, you will think that "atheists" are closet freaks. Just like how "gays" are stereotyped to be. But that's not true everywhere. And there are many ppl who say "there is no god", but personally I find that it's usually younger ppl. A lot of ppl with higher education also would say this, but they are very careful, because when you are "mature", you are also wary about respecting other ppl's beliefs around you so they are careful not to say it to a religious person. Because it might insult them...as many religous ppl are also implicitly taught to HATE others who are not like them.
DrDomVonDoom
May 3, 01:37 AM
I think a few points of mine should be made.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Sigh.
Gay is not a "hip counterculture"; that implies it's a choice, pure and simple. It's a state of being. It's like being 6 feet tall, or having blue eyes, or brown hair. It's simply a characteristic of a person.
You know what IS a choice? Religion. And look at the lengths we go to to protect the right of every last believer to say and do the most ridiculous, hateful things.
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Sigh.
Gay is not a "hip counterculture"; that implies it's a choice, pure and simple. It's a state of being. It's like being 6 feet tall, or having blue eyes, or brown hair. It's simply a characteristic of a person.
You know what IS a choice? Religion. And look at the lengths we go to to protect the right of every last believer to say and do the most ridiculous, hateful things.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 12:48 PM
Blasphemy is only one aspect of religious control and oppression in society.
While faith is used as the reason behind the denial of rights associated with sexuality, family planning, education, electoral representation, it's ridiculous to pretend that Western Christianity is any more benign than Islam. You just notice it less, because your culture is steeped in it.
You're wrong, Christianity (either Western or Eastern) is categorically more benign (as is Judaism). This is because of various reasons but mainly:
1. The Qur'an is considered the literal word of God, thus to go against any Qur'anic teachings (such as slay the infidel wher'er ye may find him or strike terror in the hearts of the enemy of Islam) is considered blasphemy in a way that the Bible is not (because the Bible is not considered the literal word of God.)
2. The Qur'an exhorts its votaries to follow muhammad's example because he is the perfect man and that anyone who obeys muhammad obeys allah. That's why Bangladeshis are protesting the outlawing of child marriage (older men marrying girls as young as 6) because they say to ban it is to criticise muhammad (who married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated it when she was 9), which is blasphemy.
Your points about faith being used for the denial of rights may be pertinent for the US but the US is not the only Western Democracy. Abortion is legal here in Europe, even Italy and Greece.
It sounds like you're extremely ignorant and refuse to be enlightened. That's your choice but the last thing I'll say in the matter is you're a fool if you think you should enable islam or defend it. I'd rather all religions be abolished than Islam gain dominance. Hell, I'd rather the world be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust than Islam ascend any more than it has already. Islam is poisonous to freedom.
While faith is used as the reason behind the denial of rights associated with sexuality, family planning, education, electoral representation, it's ridiculous to pretend that Western Christianity is any more benign than Islam. You just notice it less, because your culture is steeped in it.
You're wrong, Christianity (either Western or Eastern) is categorically more benign (as is Judaism). This is because of various reasons but mainly:
1. The Qur'an is considered the literal word of God, thus to go against any Qur'anic teachings (such as slay the infidel wher'er ye may find him or strike terror in the hearts of the enemy of Islam) is considered blasphemy in a way that the Bible is not (because the Bible is not considered the literal word of God.)
2. The Qur'an exhorts its votaries to follow muhammad's example because he is the perfect man and that anyone who obeys muhammad obeys allah. That's why Bangladeshis are protesting the outlawing of child marriage (older men marrying girls as young as 6) because they say to ban it is to criticise muhammad (who married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated it when she was 9), which is blasphemy.
Your points about faith being used for the denial of rights may be pertinent for the US but the US is not the only Western Democracy. Abortion is legal here in Europe, even Italy and Greece.
It sounds like you're extremely ignorant and refuse to be enlightened. That's your choice but the last thing I'll say in the matter is you're a fool if you think you should enable islam or defend it. I'd rather all religions be abolished than Islam gain dominance. Hell, I'd rather the world be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust than Islam ascend any more than it has already. Islam is poisonous to freedom.
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.
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 07:57 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
The concerns expressed here have been echoed by many who have attended the Supermeet.
FCP needed an overhaul and it got it. No complaints there.
The concerns expressed here have been echoed by many who have attended the Supermeet.
FCP needed an overhaul and it got it. No complaints there.
AP_piano295
Apr 26, 01:27 PM
Not all religion is about the belief in God. In Buddhism (http://http://buddhismbeliefs.org/), it doesn't matter one way or the other if God exists or not. In many ways, my thinking follows the Buddhist way. By it's very definition (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion), atheism can be considered a religion. #2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
I'm getting tired of shooting down this massive and prevalent mis-conception over and over again so I'll just copy paste my post from the "why are there so many atheists" thread.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
I'm getting tired of shooting down this massive and prevalent mis-conception over and over again so I'll just copy paste my post from the "why are there so many atheists" thread.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
dlcrow
Mar 18, 10:23 AM
How exactly are they able to tell if someone is tethering or not?
Every OS and application creates network data in a way that network sniffing can do a pretty good job of detecting where it is coming from.
In the simplest case, browsers put User-Agent strings into every HTTP request. For a more complex case, just looking at the TCP packets can often tell you where they came from. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP_stack_fingerprinting for more details.
It's not a hard problem to tell if you are tethering or not.
Every OS and application creates network data in a way that network sniffing can do a pretty good job of detecting where it is coming from.
In the simplest case, browsers put User-Agent strings into every HTTP request. For a more complex case, just looking at the TCP packets can often tell you where they came from. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP_stack_fingerprinting for more details.
It's not a hard problem to tell if you are tethering or not.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:15 AM
I don't believe you. I use applications that want 3-4 cores EACH. And I need to run 2-4 of them simultaneously. No way is Apple going to ship dual Clovertowns if they provide no benefit. I think AppliedVisual also does not believe you. In other words:
You may be mistaken.
Looks like others have addressed it, but OSX along with the Tiger kernel updates, scales pretty good. Every bit as good as any Linux implementation and probably as good or better than WinXP.
They will ship Clovertowns as soon as they can... As I've said, it's a software issue, so know your software before you choose 8-core vs. 4-core. But there's plenty of software out their that can benefit from the 8-core system. Like I've said, Photoshop itself isn't multithreaded/multi-core capable directly, but various plug-ins are. It's also possible to spread multiple batch instances across CPU cores, so even though much of our current software is limited (or just plain multi-core ignorant), there's still ways to utilize the multiple cores within just about any production workflow.
You may be mistaken.
Looks like others have addressed it, but OSX along with the Tiger kernel updates, scales pretty good. Every bit as good as any Linux implementation and probably as good or better than WinXP.
They will ship Clovertowns as soon as they can... As I've said, it's a software issue, so know your software before you choose 8-core vs. 4-core. But there's plenty of software out their that can benefit from the 8-core system. Like I've said, Photoshop itself isn't multithreaded/multi-core capable directly, but various plug-ins are. It's also possible to spread multiple batch instances across CPU cores, so even though much of our current software is limited (or just plain multi-core ignorant), there's still ways to utilize the multiple cores within just about any production workflow.
JesterJJZ
Apr 12, 10:16 PM
Might be great down the road, but something tells me my FCP7 will be plenty useful for at least the next couple years.
Consultant
Apr 11, 11:17 AM
I miss wasting most of my time waiting for windows to start up / shut down / update / virus scan / defrag / pop up warnings / etc. :rolleyes:
JackSYi
Jul 11, 11:41 PM
I like Appleinsider, and I believe that they are going to be right. But since this is all speculation at this point, anything can happen. Either way Mac users win.
takao
Mar 13, 04:40 PM
I wouldn't be so smug if I was you. Looks like Austria uses over 60% imported oil and gas for electricity manufacture (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_at_en.pdf)... that Persian Gulf political turmoil must be pretty exciting for you guys, yes? Probably costly too.
You're also reliant on those nice people in Russia to keep their natural gas pipelines open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–Ukraine_gas_disputes), aren't you... being land-locked and all.
you know what actually is costly ? the US policies in regard to Iran: it actually prevented developing the south iranian gas fields for use for european earth gas users since the US embargoes any company doing business with iran in excess of 10 million dollar ... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
nice distraction from your own argument ... where is the terror and war in which austria is involved because of the lack of nuclear energy ?
i would rather claim that nuclear power plants, construction of such powerplants, nuclear fuel production etc. bring forward a lot more international conflict
You're also reliant on those nice people in Russia to keep their natural gas pipelines open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–Ukraine_gas_disputes), aren't you... being land-locked and all.
you know what actually is costly ? the US policies in regard to Iran: it actually prevented developing the south iranian gas fields for use for european earth gas users since the US embargoes any company doing business with iran in excess of 10 million dollar ... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
nice distraction from your own argument ... where is the terror and war in which austria is involved because of the lack of nuclear energy ?
i would rather claim that nuclear power plants, construction of such powerplants, nuclear fuel production etc. bring forward a lot more international conflict
No comments:
Post a Comment