macrookie101
Jun 14, 01:42 PM
Theres one thing about Apple and thats they know how to integrate software and hardware to make a very slick user experience so i wouldn't rule Apple out :cool:
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
The result for my OSX 10.2 DP 800 G4 on the floating test is 85.56 seconds. I used -O and -funroll-loops as flags.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
Other than a -O to enable/disable any optimisations at all, what effect can you achieve with the remaining optimistion flags to GCC? I'm more surprised by the lack of variation they achieve on PPC than the actual relative performance - having looked at the PPC code briefly, it looks like I'd expect it to be slow :mad:
The result for my OSX 10.2 DP 800 G4 on the floating test is 85.56 seconds. I used -O and -funroll-loops as flags.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
Other than a -O to enable/disable any optimisations at all, what effect can you achieve with the remaining optimistion flags to GCC? I'm more surprised by the lack of variation they achieve on PPC than the actual relative performance - having looked at the PPC code briefly, it looks like I'd expect it to be slow :mad:
diamornte
Apr 13, 02:50 AM
Wait, what happened to all that talk of iPad integration? Another Macrumorfanboy wet dream?
R.Perez
Apr 15, 01:05 PM
LGBTQ teens are at the highest risk factor for suicide among ANY of their peers. That is why videos like this are more important than say "fat bullying."
teasphere
Apr 13, 12:24 PM
I've just gone and read through the tweets from @fcpsupermeet, which describe the event. From comments like this (I pick this one as an example, loads of people are expressing the sentiment) I was expecting something really consumer-focussed, rather than:
Now, I'm not a video pro. I'll admit I'm a hobbyist: I was part of my university's film making society, and I've done various projects myself, but it's not my professional gig. But I can't see anything here that shows Apple moving away from the pro market. As far as I can tell they've done a really ambitious ground-up Cocoa rewrite of FCP, streamlining the workflow to make it quicker to use (no more render dialogs!), and at the same time building in loads of new tech like colour matching throughout.
Is the only thing people are bothered about the fact that they changed the UI? Because other than that, I just can't see what the complaints are about. We haven't heard any actual confirmed statements of features being removed, so why assume that any crucial ones have been? They'd have been nuts to switch away from a timeline-based system like iMovie did, and so of course they didn't do that. They rewrote everything from scratch to remove a bunch of legacy baggage (like the lack of multithreading, and the Carbon UI that prevented it going 64 bit), which is awesome, but I completely can't see any evidence of a change of focus.
Amorya
Just to clarify, I was speaking more to true high-end pro scalability... and I tried to be clear that while the product is still "pro" software alone is not the whole story. Many products in the truly pro arena are highly scalable and it just seems that Apple is moving away from this and back to single computer apps. No servers, no farms, no virtualization, etc. and as I said I am an IT professional and have and do support many systems like I mentioned and Apple is becoming essentially impossible to utilize in an environment like that.
We're talking about two different things. You are talking from an end-user/single user "pro" side and I am talking about multi-user, large-scale, modern datacenter, "pro" side. And also, I'm saying that I'd LOVE to see Apple more in that space, not less as it is going.
Now, I'm not a video pro. I'll admit I'm a hobbyist: I was part of my university's film making society, and I've done various projects myself, but it's not my professional gig. But I can't see anything here that shows Apple moving away from the pro market. As far as I can tell they've done a really ambitious ground-up Cocoa rewrite of FCP, streamlining the workflow to make it quicker to use (no more render dialogs!), and at the same time building in loads of new tech like colour matching throughout.
Is the only thing people are bothered about the fact that they changed the UI? Because other than that, I just can't see what the complaints are about. We haven't heard any actual confirmed statements of features being removed, so why assume that any crucial ones have been? They'd have been nuts to switch away from a timeline-based system like iMovie did, and so of course they didn't do that. They rewrote everything from scratch to remove a bunch of legacy baggage (like the lack of multithreading, and the Carbon UI that prevented it going 64 bit), which is awesome, but I completely can't see any evidence of a change of focus.
Amorya
Just to clarify, I was speaking more to true high-end pro scalability... and I tried to be clear that while the product is still "pro" software alone is not the whole story. Many products in the truly pro arena are highly scalable and it just seems that Apple is moving away from this and back to single computer apps. No servers, no farms, no virtualization, etc. and as I said I am an IT professional and have and do support many systems like I mentioned and Apple is becoming essentially impossible to utilize in an environment like that.
We're talking about two different things. You are talking from an end-user/single user "pro" side and I am talking about multi-user, large-scale, modern datacenter, "pro" side. And also, I'm saying that I'd LOVE to see Apple more in that space, not less as it is going.
adder7712
May 2, 10:24 AM
Still insignificant compared to Windows rogues.
Windows rogue do more to the system.
Hopefully, Chrome, Firefox and Opera users will be safe.
Windows rogue do more to the system.
Hopefully, Chrome, Firefox and Opera users will be safe.
Eidorian
Oct 26, 09:15 PM
I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.I think the FSB issue is over now. I've seen some preliminary benchmarks that dropped the FSB to 1066 MHz. 1333 MHz offered a little improvement. If you need MORE CORES, get them now.
Did youknow I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya... It's to be expected. I should show up more often too.
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.I think the FSB issue is over now. I've seen some preliminary benchmarks that dropped the FSB to 1066 MHz. 1333 MHz offered a little improvement. If you need MORE CORES, get them now.
Did youknow I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya... It's to be expected. I should show up more often too.
rasmasyean
Apr 24, 03:56 AM
In my short time serving in the Canadian military, I had not seen this. There was a rather flexible chaplain who served the religious needs of several faiths but most soldiers were left to stew in their own thoughts.
Well…we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don’t have to go there. :p
All I’m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what “cannon fodder” is. Sometimes you can’t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal…or even victory. It’s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of “god and heaven”.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly “crushing an inferior force” type of wars we’ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don’t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of “zealots” to do the job. But if there was a “real war”, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other… Don’t laugh. If the “middle east” turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to “the west” too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much “better” than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a “sophisticated Westerner” think about China…or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn’t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
Well…we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don’t have to go there. :p
All I’m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what “cannon fodder” is. Sometimes you can’t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal…or even victory. It’s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of “god and heaven”.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly “crushing an inferior force” type of wars we’ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don’t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of “zealots” to do the job. But if there was a “real war”, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other… Don’t laugh. If the “middle east” turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to “the west” too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much “better” than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a “sophisticated Westerner” think about China…or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn’t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
Groovey
Aug 30, 03:48 AM
I think people are missing the point....
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Is 99 for your year of birth? It's not like there's ten of them. You've probably had too many nightmares about Woodstock.
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Is 99 for your year of birth? It's not like there's ten of them. You've probably had too many nightmares about Woodstock.
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:07 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
Please elaborate LTD.
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
zacman
Oct 7, 01:41 PM
Apple already seems to have lost some parts of the European market with the 3GS because they didn't add the features that are frequently used there (like HSUPA, (r)SAP, etc.). For example GFK numbers showed that the Android based HTC Hero outsold the 3GS in Germany.
JnericMBP
Sep 1, 12:43 AM
Another fallout from terrible AT&T service is that in many shops and restaurants, at least in the San Francisco area, and especially Berkeley, you can't check in using location services like Foursquare or Facebook Places since there isn't adequate coverage- eg: no service, no signal etc.
That's bad for business.
Merchants too should press AT&T and local authorities for more towers and better connections.
I'd think that for the "check in" portion of those apps, that would be a good thing. I don't know about you but I don't want big brother knowing everywhere I go. Just a thought...:cool:
That's bad for business.
Merchants too should press AT&T and local authorities for more towers and better connections.
I'd think that for the "check in" portion of those apps, that would be a good thing. I don't know about you but I don't want big brother knowing everywhere I go. Just a thought...:cool:
drapacioli
Sep 2, 03:43 PM
You might have a point. I've been side by side with another person (also an AT&T subscriber) who has a Nokia. I have no or low bars and they have bars.
It's just from my experience. I've been with AT&T for five years and had 4 cell phones throughout my contracts. Some phones, such as my LG Vu and Motorola RAZR had spotty reception, but my K1 and Captivate had almost no dropped calls except in the mountains where you can't expect cell reception to be high anyway.
Not to say I love AT&T or anything like that, they are expensive and the 3G signal is not always the best. However we can get our way with AT&T when phones break or problems occur because we have been with them for a while.
It's just from my experience. I've been with AT&T for five years and had 4 cell phones throughout my contracts. Some phones, such as my LG Vu and Motorola RAZR had spotty reception, but my K1 and Captivate had almost no dropped calls except in the mountains where you can't expect cell reception to be high anyway.
Not to say I love AT&T or anything like that, they are expensive and the 3G signal is not always the best. However we can get our way with AT&T when phones break or problems occur because we have been with them for a while.
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.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 07:43 AM
Apple should be courting game developers, not their execs. These execs usually don't know much games other than to milk franchises until they're useless while the gameplay suffers.
circulatory system for kids
circulatory system for kids diagram. the circulatory system; the circulatory system. CplBadboy. Apr 5, 04:44 PM. Hopefully there will be new iMacs to
circulatory system diagram
safarka
Apr 9, 03:40 PM
Can anyone tell me what are the names of 2 games placed on the picture above the article. One is Tony Hawk i guess but the second? Thanks
darkplanets
Mar 11, 06:38 PM
And this is why we have passive cooling and shutdown systems, so you don't have to rely on mechanical means for core safety. It is my understanding that these reactors should have control rods to pretty much kill the core, however since it's a BWR that doesn't mean the heat will stop. I'll bet money that the safety systems aren't up to par, and since these were constructed in the 80's there certainly isn't any passive control systems.
Macsavvytech
May 3, 06:37 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Better question is,
Miles, why are you so irritated over this? No one really cares anyway.
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Better question is,
Miles, why are you so irritated over this? No one really cares anyway.
Silencio
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
Ah, now this is what I've been waiting for: the Airport Express for video, plus a little bit more. If it were shipping today, I'd high-tail it to the Apple Store and buy one. But given a few months to think about the $299 price tag, we shall see if that feeling holds up.
This is very wisely not a direct competitor to MCE. Those who don't want to buy an entire separate computer to play their digital media on their home entertainment systems don't have to. But I suppose you could get the full-featured MCE-type setup by simply adding a Mac mini to the mix (and perhaps one of those NewerTech 500GB Mac mini-shaped external drives while you're at it).
This is very wisely not a direct competitor to MCE. Those who don't want to buy an entire separate computer to play their digital media on their home entertainment systems don't have to. But I suppose you could get the full-featured MCE-type setup by simply adding a Mac mini to the mix (and perhaps one of those NewerTech 500GB Mac mini-shaped external drives while you're at it).
ct2k7
Apr 24, 07:36 PM
so you admit that freedom of conscience is prohibited in Islam and that people who leave their Islamic religion should be sentenced to death? Or are you saying blasphemers should be punished?
In the West we would tolerate the Ahmadiyya, not persecute them. Would Muslims in the West disobey our tolerance of the Ahmadiyya because it contravenes Sharia law?
You are confusing yourself in a convoluted mess you've created. In fact, you are twisting everything to suit what you want.
There are standards and by that, certain pillars which must be recognised for someone to be regarded as a Muslim.
Put simply, if you break one of them, then you are not a Muslim.
I trust that this is simple enough for you to understand, and not talk about freedom? I feel as if you've been infringed by something in your childhood.
In the West we would tolerate the Ahmadiyya, not persecute them. Would Muslims in the West disobey our tolerance of the Ahmadiyya because it contravenes Sharia law?
You are confusing yourself in a convoluted mess you've created. In fact, you are twisting everything to suit what you want.
There are standards and by that, certain pillars which must be recognised for someone to be regarded as a Muslim.
Put simply, if you break one of them, then you are not a Muslim.
I trust that this is simple enough for you to understand, and not talk about freedom? I feel as if you've been infringed by something in your childhood.
Darth.Titan
Oct 7, 11:45 AM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
You, sir have hit the nail on the head.
You, sir have hit the nail on the head.
crees!
Aug 29, 11:46 AM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
Piggie
Apr 28, 11:18 AM
Companies that "ship" stuff that people don't buy do not stay in business very long. Therefore, "shipping" is a good enough estimate 99% of the time. The other 1% is quickly identified and purged from the economy.
Does this rule apply to non Apple computers and tablets?
I recall only a short time ago when non Apple companies where posting numbers, people on these forums were ripping the figures to shreds as they said they were not sold items but only shipped items.
Do we all agree the same rules for everyone :)
Does this rule apply to non Apple computers and tablets?
I recall only a short time ago when non Apple companies where posting numbers, people on these forums were ripping the figures to shreds as they said they were not sold items but only shipped items.
Do we all agree the same rules for everyone :)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar