Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 08:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
As for too many people buying iPad 1 for Christmas, thus denting iPad 2 sales, well, all previous iPad 1 sales are included in these numbers, are they not?
No, they are not. This report is for the Jan-March '11 quarter. Christmas sales were reflected in the Oct-Dec '10 quarter.
As for too many people buying iPad 1 for Christmas, thus denting iPad 2 sales, well, all previous iPad 1 sales are included in these numbers, are they not?
No, they are not. This report is for the Jan-March '11 quarter. Christmas sales were reflected in the Oct-Dec '10 quarter.
hcho3
Nov 12, 12:35 AM
Jesus christ...
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
EricNau
Sep 20, 07:30 PM
Steve Jobs claimed the iTV "completed the picture," but it does nothing of the sort (based on already revealed features). In reality there is still a hole large enough to fly a 747 through.
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription. If Apple expects us to drop our cable/dish and buy everything from the iTS, they are sadly mistaken...
In fact, the average american could not afford to cancel their cable subscription and buy their shows from the iTS. Consider this: the average cable bill is approximately $55 in the US for unlimited TV. This means for the same price you could buy about 25 episodes every month from the iTS. Let's say you watch The Daily Show, that is all you could watch.
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Apple needs a wake up call.
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription. If Apple expects us to drop our cable/dish and buy everything from the iTS, they are sadly mistaken...
In fact, the average american could not afford to cancel their cable subscription and buy their shows from the iTS. Consider this: the average cable bill is approximately $55 in the US for unlimited TV. This means for the same price you could buy about 25 episodes every month from the iTS. Let's say you watch The Daily Show, that is all you could watch.
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Apple needs a wake up call.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:05 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
But the idea of some "eternal" God(s) that created the Universe out of nothing comes from logic and reason? And the idea that this God made it so that humans eventually evolved so that they could worship this God(s), comes from logic and reason? And the only reason people believe this is because of an old compiled book of stories that were written by non-witnesses after the stories had been told and retold during ancient times. Is that logic and reason?
Interesting...
But the idea of some "eternal" God(s) that created the Universe out of nothing comes from logic and reason? And the idea that this God made it so that humans eventually evolved so that they could worship this God(s), comes from logic and reason? And the only reason people believe this is because of an old compiled book of stories that were written by non-witnesses after the stories had been told and retold during ancient times. Is that logic and reason?
Cabbit
Apr 15, 11:21 AM
I've never encountered discrimination of LSBT in ether Scotland, Germany, or Thailand. But i did encounter it a lot in the USA it was very surreal and with my partner living in the USA just now studying i hear he gets bullied a lot in college just for being transgendered which is just absolutely crazy and he'll is glad to coming back to Europe in the next few months.
This is a real issue i feel that needs to be tackled in the USA as before i went i had assumed that people would be a lot more open there than they were.
This is a real issue i feel that needs to be tackled in the USA as before i went i had assumed that people would be a lot more open there than they were.
megadon
Dec 27, 09:50 PM
Google has stated they will never have a smartphone. At best they just guide (rather closely) companies when producing Android handsets.
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Gooooooooogleee phone!!!
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Gooooooooogleee phone!!!
BriGuy20
Oct 8, 09:24 AM
The only reason I could see this happening is if Apple doesn't roll out the iPhone to other carriers or if it does so late in 2011 or something.
I could also see Google making more unit sales but with lower revenue (i.e. more low-end units).
I think the point will be moot because of the gazillion different iterations of hardware manufacturers tacking on their individualized stuff.
I could also see Google making more unit sales but with lower revenue (i.e. more low-end units).
I think the point will be moot because of the gazillion different iterations of hardware manufacturers tacking on their individualized stuff.
slinger1968
Oct 27, 02:39 AM
Yeah I'd love one too. A little pricey for a process since it's in the Extreme series though.I was thinking about the mainstream quadcore Kentsfield chips that will be released in Q1 07 but even an Extreme series 2.66GHz Kentsfield (~ $999) will be a lot cheaper than a 2 chip 2.66GHz Woodcrest ($715 x 2 @newegg).
I'd guess the mainstream 2.4GHz quad-core Kentsfield will be somewhere around $700, certainly cheaper than two 2.33GHz Woodcrest chips(I know this isn't currently an option on the Mac Pro) and probably about the same as two 2GHz Woodcrest chips.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217
Plus the chipset/motherboard and ram will be cheaper too.
By next spring/summer, just in time for CS3, Apple could reasonably sell a single chip quad-core Kentsfield towers for no more than $1999 but I don't think there's much of a chance it will happen. Too bad
I'd guess the mainstream 2.4GHz quad-core Kentsfield will be somewhere around $700, certainly cheaper than two 2.33GHz Woodcrest chips(I know this isn't currently an option on the Mac Pro) and probably about the same as two 2GHz Woodcrest chips.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217
Plus the chipset/motherboard and ram will be cheaper too.
By next spring/summer, just in time for CS3, Apple could reasonably sell a single chip quad-core Kentsfield towers for no more than $1999 but I don't think there's much of a chance it will happen. Too bad
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 08:27 PM
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 09:38 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.
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.
Trash Can
Jun 19, 06:44 PM
panzer06,
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
Machead III
Aug 29, 12:39 PM
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.
The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.
AP_piano295
Apr 23, 12:46 AM
I give it additional weight because those that believe in God are active in politics in a way that those who believe in witches are not.
We have to be careful to consider these things, lest we have a theocracy on our hands.
What you mean is that you take the religious seriously not necessarily religion.
In much the same way you might take a schizophrenic waving a gun proclaiming your bedroom is filled with demons very seriously indeed :D.
We have to be careful to consider these things, lest we have a theocracy on our hands.
What you mean is that you take the religious seriously not necessarily religion.
In much the same way you might take a schizophrenic waving a gun proclaiming your bedroom is filled with demons very seriously indeed :D.
mdriftmeyer
Apr 28, 08:35 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
Apple sold 820K+ more Macs in Q2 2011 over Q2 2010. You want to dismiss the halo effect that's your business.
Apple sold 3.76 million Macs during the quarter Q2 2011. [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/20results.html]
Apple sold 2.94 million Macintosh� computers during the quarter Q2 2010. [http://images.apple.com/euro/cemea_en/pr/library/2010/04/20results.pdf]
Come Q2 2012 we'll see that increase more than double year of year putting the Macs sold nearing 5.5+ million for Q2 2012. Of course, it will look small next to the 15 million iPads, but only a fool would think 5.5+ million in a quarter of Macs is small.
Face it. The trend lines of the top 3 is down, not up.
Apple sold 820K+ more Macs in Q2 2011 over Q2 2010. You want to dismiss the halo effect that's your business.
Apple sold 3.76 million Macs during the quarter Q2 2011. [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/20results.html]
Apple sold 2.94 million Macintosh� computers during the quarter Q2 2010. [http://images.apple.com/euro/cemea_en/pr/library/2010/04/20results.pdf]
Come Q2 2012 we'll see that increase more than double year of year putting the Macs sold nearing 5.5+ million for Q2 2012. Of course, it will look small next to the 15 million iPads, but only a fool would think 5.5+ million in a quarter of Macs is small.
Face it. The trend lines of the top 3 is down, not up.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:49 PM
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
Nope; they wont. But that's only because there's no hell.
It would be much better for all concerned if they just went to prison here on Earth. Unfortunately, the pope made that difficult when he decided to cover up all the child rape.
Nope; they wont. But that's only because there's no hell.
It would be much better for all concerned if they just went to prison here on Earth. Unfortunately, the pope made that difficult when he decided to cover up all the child rape.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:04 PM
Another 6.2 offshore 180K east from Tokio.
If you'd like more info or just to feed your nuclear paranoia look here:
http://twitter.com/arclight#
If you'd like more info or just to feed your nuclear paranoia look here:
http://twitter.com/arclight#
FX120
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Molten salt is an interesting concept, but of course it requires you to more than double the size of your array for an equivalent "24" hour average power output. Molten salt storage also doesn't scale very well into large arrays.
And you're still back to relying on gas, coal, oil, or nuclear to fill in when the sun isn't shining.
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Molten salt is an interesting concept, but of course it requires you to more than double the size of your array for an equivalent "24" hour average power output. Molten salt storage also doesn't scale very well into large arrays.
And you're still back to relying on gas, coal, oil, or nuclear to fill in when the sun isn't shining.
firestarter
Mar 13, 10:01 AM
i recommend thinking about what the results might have been if the earthquake hadn't been dozens of miles away, but in closer proximity (even at a lower magnitude)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
Well, this is still playing out. If they avoid a containment breech, then they'll have stood up as well as needs-be.
Safety has to be designed in to reactors from the ground up. 40 year old technology is 40 year old technology - no matter what tweaks you do at a later date.
Pontificating about the fate of nuclear power stations on seismic fault lines isn't any sort of argument against using them in Western Europe or in much of the USA.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
Figures I'm reading say we have 80 years of identified deposits with more to be discovered.
Main sources countries are politically pretty stable (more so than the Middle East!)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
Australia 31%
Kazakhstan 12%
Canada 9%
Russia 9%
Canada's supply is especially high quality.
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
Why doesn't it help? Unless you're advocating massive depopulation, we have a growing requirement for energy, and by not choosing nuclear, you are choosing fossil fuel - whether you like it or not! My opinion is that the oil industry and it's political ramifications are much more damaging than nuclear!
Just watch as the Europe and the US supports the Saudi royal family in the oppression of their people over the next few months. Democratic government is fine in Egypt, but there's no way we'll support it in Saudi - we care about their oil too much!
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
The Hoover dam has a lower impact than the Three Gorges by a long shot.
Personally, I believe in a balanced approach to energy production, but with a diminishing reliance on fossil fuel. In that context both nuclear and renewable power expansion is essential.
The point I was making is that the environmental argument against nuclear and for renewable is bogus. All forms of power generation have negative environmental impact.
Here's an interesting paper by the eminent Green advocate James Lovelock:
Nuclear power is the only green solution (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
Well, this is still playing out. If they avoid a containment breech, then they'll have stood up as well as needs-be.
Safety has to be designed in to reactors from the ground up. 40 year old technology is 40 year old technology - no matter what tweaks you do at a later date.
Pontificating about the fate of nuclear power stations on seismic fault lines isn't any sort of argument against using them in Western Europe or in much of the USA.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
Figures I'm reading say we have 80 years of identified deposits with more to be discovered.
Main sources countries are politically pretty stable (more so than the Middle East!)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
Australia 31%
Kazakhstan 12%
Canada 9%
Russia 9%
Canada's supply is especially high quality.
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
Why doesn't it help? Unless you're advocating massive depopulation, we have a growing requirement for energy, and by not choosing nuclear, you are choosing fossil fuel - whether you like it or not! My opinion is that the oil industry and it's political ramifications are much more damaging than nuclear!
Just watch as the Europe and the US supports the Saudi royal family in the oppression of their people over the next few months. Democratic government is fine in Egypt, but there's no way we'll support it in Saudi - we care about their oil too much!
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
The Hoover dam has a lower impact than the Three Gorges by a long shot.
Personally, I believe in a balanced approach to energy production, but with a diminishing reliance on fossil fuel. In that context both nuclear and renewable power expansion is essential.
The point I was making is that the environmental argument against nuclear and for renewable is bogus. All forms of power generation have negative environmental impact.
Here's an interesting paper by the eminent Green advocate James Lovelock:
Nuclear power is the only green solution (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)
triceretops
Apr 28, 12:32 PM
I'm sure if you rated all the companies on profit, Apple would be #1. Apple's margins are better.:)
adamfilip
Sep 20, 11:54 AM
The hard drive is just to store files while it outputs them to the tv
much easier to cache on the hard drive then play. rather then stream constantly. it also makes it more reliable and less prone to interference
Since there are no inputs on this thing it wont be a PVR
much easier to cache on the hard drive then play. rather then stream constantly. it also makes it more reliable and less prone to interference
Since there are no inputs on this thing it wont be a PVR
sbarton
Jul 13, 08:47 AM
Originally Posted by sbarton
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
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.
thejoshu
Mar 19, 10:31 PM
You're all far too willing to accept the RIAA's iron grip over downloading music. Apple's DRM is disgusting - but you want to say "shut it down! or our prices will go up! or they'll make the DRM worse!" Well, you've got to do better than that - because they owe it to us to sell a better product. I want to own my music - I know the paradigm is new, I know it's a virtual product any way you slice it, but DVD Jon is doing the right thing, and we need to send a message.
bartelby
Apr 15, 09:25 AM
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar