greenstork
Sep 12, 06:50 PM
Thank you!
Finally. Most people are not getting it.
The only thing keeps me from screaming of excitement is IF the wireless stream will be perfect. If Apple can make it work, I'll do exactly what you have described above. Elgato will be my next purchase at the same time I'll buy ITV.
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
Finally. Most people are not getting it.
The only thing keeps me from screaming of excitement is IF the wireless stream will be perfect. If Apple can make it work, I'll do exactly what you have described above. Elgato will be my next purchase at the same time I'll buy ITV.
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
T'hain Esh Kelch
Sep 12, 03:38 PM
So basically this needs two things for me to buy it:
� You must be able to record from the TV, directly to your mac.
� It must replace Airport Express.
Im still not sure on the last one..
Optical drive isnt a biggie for me, since you can just stream from your Mac's Superdrive anyway.
And i like how they say 802.11 instead of 802.11g, which probably means we are gonna get 802.11n. Would also make sense why it isnt out now! :)
But why they are showing it of know.. Well.. Steve rreallyreallyreallyeally wanted to show of?
� You must be able to record from the TV, directly to your mac.
� It must replace Airport Express.
Im still not sure on the last one..
Optical drive isnt a biggie for me, since you can just stream from your Mac's Superdrive anyway.
And i like how they say 802.11 instead of 802.11g, which probably means we are gonna get 802.11n. Would also make sense why it isnt out now! :)
But why they are showing it of know.. Well.. Steve rreallyreallyreallyeally wanted to show of?
alexdrinan
Sep 12, 04:18 PM
It's already there they call it export to iPod.
Well there you go. But I assume it's converting the video to the low res format that the ipod can play. Do they have an export option that keeps it at the same quality it was recorded at?
Well there you go. But I assume it's converting the video to the low res format that the ipod can play. Do they have an export option that keeps it at the same quality it was recorded at?
leekohler
Apr 23, 08:42 AM
Hey- Macs "just work" right? Well, a lot of us apply that motto to our lives. For most of us, religion does not "just work". But people can believe what they want.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 12:35 PM
Of course you would say that, Finland gets ~30% of its energy from nuclear. Olkiluoto isn't exactly coming in under budget, is it?
Nothing stays in budget here. At least nuclear provides energy all around the year; solar, wind or water energy wouldn't.
It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Nothing stays in budget here. At least nuclear provides energy all around the year; solar, wind or water energy wouldn't.
It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Ravich
May 3, 08:40 PM
All this over someone not even intelligent enough to title their "manual installation required" malware 'security update for Snow Leopard'
I like how the solution is basically "delete it"
I like how the solution is basically "delete it"
citizenzen
Mar 14, 03:25 PM
It would require a multi-tiered approach.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
Beric
Mar 12, 03:36 AM
What the hell? Why doesn't the wind blow it into China instead??? :D
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
Again, it's a worse-case scenario. Still, get something in the gulf stream, and it's going everywhere.
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
Again, it's a worse-case scenario. Still, get something in the gulf stream, and it's going everywhere.
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:27 AM
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
Well please don't mis attribute that vile anti-gay message to me.
Thanks.
Well please don't mis attribute that vile anti-gay message to me.
Thanks.
cactusjackatu
Mar 18, 11:13 AM
To everyone that is running jailbroken and tethering (against your AT&T TOS) via MyWi. Did you purchase the app or are you pirating that as well?
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 09:48 AM
1. Android phones beat the iPhone to the punch. FACT.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
chasemac
Apr 13, 12:16 AM
A bad workman always blames his tools. ;)
Cheers!!
But it seems to me the man who uses tools is just a fool!:D Great song BTW! Songs of Yesterday
Cheers!!
But it seems to me the man who uses tools is just a fool!:D Great song BTW! Songs of Yesterday
jav6454
Mar 18, 04:07 AM
Big Thumbs up AT&T. I am glad they are just taking it to enroll people into the 2gig plan and add tethering, saves people the trouble of having to do it themselves!
Plus I won't have to subsidize their data usage from their stealing bandwidth and access from AT&T.
I can't wait though, in a few weeks / months, though, when we start seeing people complaining how AT&T screwed them and changed their dataplan even though they did nothing wrong and weren't using MyFi and AT&T is horrible and a crook.
It is coming...
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base. It is probably pretty easy for them to determine it. I suspect Apple has included some kind of method for them to determine it. People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Someone is failing... hard
Plus I won't have to subsidize their data usage from their stealing bandwidth and access from AT&T.
I can't wait though, in a few weeks / months, though, when we start seeing people complaining how AT&T screwed them and changed their dataplan even though they did nothing wrong and weren't using MyFi and AT&T is horrible and a crook.
It is coming...
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base. It is probably pretty easy for them to determine it. I suspect Apple has included some kind of method for them to determine it. People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Someone is failing... hard
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 03:42 PM
Will the "cloud" be hosted by Amazon in their North Virginia datacenter? :eek:
I'm sure users will love that "cloud", at least as much as they love the Playstation network...
Yup, and early PCs had bugs too. Keep living in the past . . .
I'm sure users will love that "cloud", at least as much as they love the Playstation network...
Yup, and early PCs had bugs too. Keep living in the past . . .
AndrewLockhart
Aug 25, 03:47 PM
For once I am glad to live in the UK. Usually we get ripped off left right and center. The iPhone4 is available on all networks, even if there is little difference in price.
Andy Lockhart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5GOFMuiFkk
Andy Lockhart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5GOFMuiFkk
Bonte
Sep 20, 02:00 AM
iTV is basically a limited Mini with better remote control software, if i can use an Elgato eyeTV on it to record i'm buying for sure. Ideally would be an eyeTV with a USB 2 connection to add a big HD.
Penfold2711
Apr 21, 07:02 AM
I love the title simply because it reads like its discussing Steve Jobs' involvement in fragmenting Android :D
Maybe thats why Steve has gone missing he's on a secret mission I can imagine Steve in dark glasses a trench coat and a hat running around google HQ with his macbook pro as we speak :D
Maybe thats why Steve has gone missing he's on a secret mission I can imagine Steve in dark glasses a trench coat and a hat running around google HQ with his macbook pro as we speak :D
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:13 AM
What hateful nonsense.
Everything is hate to people like you. It makes it impossible to have any kind of conversation.
Difference of opinion != Hate
Everything is hate to people like you. It makes it impossible to have any kind of conversation.
Difference of opinion != Hate
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 11:47 AM
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
So it's more about how effective, money-wise, it can be to buy a new computer. Doesn't really have much to do about their performance or longevity.
So it's more about how effective, money-wise, it can be to buy a new computer. Doesn't really have much to do about their performance or longevity.
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.
Intuit
Apr 21, 06:09 AM
I got to back chrono up I know tons of ways viruses can hide in windows. Here's a few.
Setting visibility to hidden.
Using file names that look like legitimate software.
editing the registry to disable 'show hidden folders'.
Registering the virus as a service.
Software level root kit using api hooks to modify the result of system calls.
Hardware level root kit changing the system itself.
.dll injection to force another process to run your code.
The entire window messaging system is insecure you can delete everything displayed in the process list of Task manager for example.
some of these techniques will make a virus completely invisible so don't bash
Setting visibility to hidden.
Using file names that look like legitimate software.
editing the registry to disable 'show hidden folders'.
Registering the virus as a service.
Software level root kit using api hooks to modify the result of system calls.
Hardware level root kit changing the system itself.
.dll injection to force another process to run your code.
The entire window messaging system is insecure you can delete everything displayed in the process list of Task manager for example.
some of these techniques will make a virus completely invisible so don't bash
iMeowbot
Jul 11, 10:25 PM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips. This is about as exciting as finding out that a faucet will have a red handle if it runs hot water, blue if cold. Whee.
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:22 PM
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 04:13 PM
(Examples = teaching)!= saying
The latter is specific to the situation.
This quote is sectioned to the event of homosexuality being concerned. However, you have to prove that woman is being obscene, which is almost impossible if you've got to find 1 doctor, 4 witnesses to event, and two family members to testify the same thing.
100 striped != death.
Adultery or fornication is VERY contentious in Islam. It is a big sin, and often breaks contracts, of nature of marriage. No death here.
...
If you're going to quote something, please be sure to complete the damn sentence... and not end it prematurely:
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
In other words, be modest.
as above, adultery is a greater sin. This, though, does not demonstrate honour killing. An honour killing is killing made by family or community that the victim has brought dishonour against the family or community.
In this case, is it not dishonour, is it considered to be criminal.
As above.
The latter is specific to the situation.
This quote is sectioned to the event of homosexuality being concerned. However, you have to prove that woman is being obscene, which is almost impossible if you've got to find 1 doctor, 4 witnesses to event, and two family members to testify the same thing.
100 striped != death.
Adultery or fornication is VERY contentious in Islam. It is a big sin, and often breaks contracts, of nature of marriage. No death here.
...
If you're going to quote something, please be sure to complete the damn sentence... and not end it prematurely:
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
In other words, be modest.
as above, adultery is a greater sin. This, though, does not demonstrate honour killing. An honour killing is killing made by family or community that the victim has brought dishonour against the family or community.
In this case, is it not dishonour, is it considered to be criminal.
As above.
No comments:
Post a Comment