.Andy
Apr 26, 04:27 PM
In Lanciano, Italy.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
This is absolutely and utterly insane. To believe this is exactly what is wrong with religious people's ability for critical thought. Honestly that in 2011 people can seriously put this stuff out in the public without being absolute laughing stocks astounds me. It's an utter sham and a hoax. Nothing more.
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
This is absolutely and utterly insane. To believe this is exactly what is wrong with religious people's ability for critical thought. Honestly that in 2011 people can seriously put this stuff out in the public without being absolute laughing stocks astounds me. It's an utter sham and a hoax. Nothing more.
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:52 PM
Do you mean some Magical force creating Eve from Adam's rib?
not even interesting :cool:
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
not even interesting :cool:
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
milo
Jul 13, 08:51 AM
Lame poll choices.
Most likely is BOTH woodcrest and conroe in different models. Woodcrest is necessary for quad, but using it in a single chip configuration is a waste of money.
Apple needs to deliver both maximum performance and reasonably fast performance at a reasonable price.
Most likely is BOTH woodcrest and conroe in different models. Woodcrest is necessary for quad, but using it in a single chip configuration is a waste of money.
Apple needs to deliver both maximum performance and reasonably fast performance at a reasonable price.
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 06:11 PM
PCUser:
Thanks! Didn't think about clock()!
Though, that gives me 100.8 seconds (assuming 10.08 seconds) when it ran in 10 seconds. Didn't you mean to divide by ten?
Thanks! Didn't think about clock()!
Though, that gives me 100.8 seconds (assuming 10.08 seconds) when it ran in 10 seconds. Didn't you mean to divide by ten?
bleachthru
Mar 18, 10:24 PM
All I have to sya is F*&% the RIAA, They are just a bunch of profiteering gluttons anyways. Kudos to whomever cracked the DRM, good work.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
Doctor Q
Mar 20, 06:21 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
FF_productions
Jul 11, 09:54 PM
I cannot wait!!!
jayenh
Feb 24, 08:44 AM
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
iphone users are the only people who do this. before the iphone it was pretty well accepted that your new nokia/sony ericson/blackberry/anything is only going to be new for the next 3 months tops until the next model comes out. the mobile industry used to be probably the fastest paced of the tech industries and at it's peak no one gave a crap that there phone manufacturer brought out a new phone every couple of months.
i suppose it was a little easier to swallow with 12 month contracts being the norm until the last couple of years (in the uk at least), but this is the fault of carriers, not the phone manufacturers. they are doing the exact same release cycle they always have done.
edit: not all iphone users, obviously, but probably a larger proportion of iphone users than [insert any phone here] users based on the outrage when the 3gs came out. and that was possibly only because of assumption (the mother of all f... ups) due to the cheap/free (?) upgrade of the 1st gen to 3g. i bet there won't be that outcry this year.
iphone users are the only people who do this. before the iphone it was pretty well accepted that your new nokia/sony ericson/blackberry/anything is only going to be new for the next 3 months tops until the next model comes out. the mobile industry used to be probably the fastest paced of the tech industries and at it's peak no one gave a crap that there phone manufacturer brought out a new phone every couple of months.
i suppose it was a little easier to swallow with 12 month contracts being the norm until the last couple of years (in the uk at least), but this is the fault of carriers, not the phone manufacturers. they are doing the exact same release cycle they always have done.
edit: not all iphone users, obviously, but probably a larger proportion of iphone users than [insert any phone here] users based on the outrage when the 3gs came out. and that was possibly only because of assumption (the mother of all f... ups) due to the cheap/free (?) upgrade of the 1st gen to 3g. i bet there won't be that outcry this year.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:17 PM
An interesting device it sounds like the El Gato EyeHome. As long as it can play all normal video/audio formats (whatever you have QuickTime components for) and it has support for El Gato EyeTV I'll happily replace my XP MCE box with one.
I actually have an EyeHome and if you ask me, the iTV is pretty much the same thing... There are only small obvious differences
-Wifi & HDMI on iTV
-Ability to stream Fairplay protected content...
Probably not enough for me to dump my EyeHome...
I actually have an EyeHome and if you ask me, the iTV is pretty much the same thing... There are only small obvious differences
-Wifi & HDMI on iTV
-Ability to stream Fairplay protected content...
Probably not enough for me to dump my EyeHome...
Multimedia
Nov 3, 06:02 AM
OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)I'm with you there. Not new that there is a small group here that can't understand why the Conroe card isn't being played yet. Kentsfield has got to be coming to a Mac Pro soon, iMacs next Spring and then Kentsfield's successor Bloomsfield in the 2008 iMacs later. Then in 2009 let's see 8-core Yorkfield in that year's iMacs please.
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)I'm with you there. Not new that there is a small group here that can't understand why the Conroe card isn't being played yet. Kentsfield has got to be coming to a Mac Pro soon, iMacs next Spring and then Kentsfield's successor Bloomsfield in the 2008 iMacs later. Then in 2009 let's see 8-core Yorkfield in that year's iMacs please.
MorphingDragon
Apr 30, 04:34 AM
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC???
Dumba$$
If you have Xeon Chips you'll have a Server or Workstation motherboard most likely with ECC RAM. Sorry dude, you have a workstation. :rolleyes:
Dumba$$
If you have Xeon Chips you'll have a Server or Workstation motherboard most likely with ECC RAM. Sorry dude, you have a workstation. :rolleyes:
WalkingDED
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
I actually paid for MyWi and I only use it to tether my iPad. I use it instead of (not in addition to) my iPhone and only when wifi is not available.
ductapesuprhero
Mar 20, 01:58 PM
I say break the law and be done with it.
It is a stupid law that deserves to be broken IMO.
I paid for the song and will do what I want with it - passive resistance is all well and good but sometimes there is no substitute for direct action. Given the sheer size of the P2P communities it is clear that the "law makers" are not representing their electorate very well.
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
It is a stupid law that deserves to be broken IMO.
I paid for the song and will do what I want with it - passive resistance is all well and good but sometimes there is no substitute for direct action. Given the sheer size of the P2P communities it is clear that the "law makers" are not representing their electorate very well.
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:57 PM
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
Seems logical that the suite can remain separate applications-- or better yet-- the new FCPX supports more extensive plugins so that you don't have the issues of round tripping, and you can use Magic bullet or whoever wants to make a grading app inside of FCPX.
Likely this is the kind of thing that will be announced in more detail at WWDC when Apple is able to give developers the tools and training they need to plug into the new architecture.
Seems logical that the suite can remain separate applications-- or better yet-- the new FCPX supports more extensive plugins so that you don't have the issues of round tripping, and you can use Magic bullet or whoever wants to make a grading app inside of FCPX.
Likely this is the kind of thing that will be announced in more detail at WWDC when Apple is able to give developers the tools and training they need to plug into the new architecture.
bigchief
May 5, 12:01 PM
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call. If I started having dropped calls I would change carriers.
CaoCao
Mar 25, 09:59 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
I'mAMac
Oct 29, 10:08 AM
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
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.
franswa za
Apr 9, 02:38 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
+1
and the ipipi
:D
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
+1
and the ipipi
:D
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 07:58 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.
I was paraphrasing something a nuclear physicist once told me. I didn't get the sense that he thought it mattered what type of human was involved.
I was paraphrasing something a nuclear physicist once told me. I didn't get the sense that he thought it mattered what type of human was involved.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
I can see where you're coming from regarding linear programming. However, commercials aren't going away and any effort to subvert advertising will be met with strong resistance from the content providers.
I can see where you're coming from regarding linear programming. However, commercials aren't going away and any effort to subvert advertising will be met with strong resistance from the content providers.
fpnc
Mar 20, 11:36 PM
I doubt Apple would waste their time and go after and sue the people who used this program and broke the iTunes contract. It seems like a relatively trivial matter. (But after looking at their thinksecret lawsuit, I don't know).
My comments were about the people who wrote the software, not those that just use it. It's the PyMusique programmers that may face legal troubles, while those who merely use the software may or may not face consequences (I suspect that the worse for them might be termination of their iTunes account, in which case they won't have to worry any longer about iTunes DRM).
My comments were about the people who wrote the software, not those that just use it. It's the PyMusique programmers that may face legal troubles, while those who merely use the software may or may not face consequences (I suspect that the worse for them might be termination of their iTunes account, in which case they won't have to worry any longer about iTunes DRM).
kurtsayin
Aug 30, 10:40 AM
Who cares what greenpeace says about anything anyways?! They are a bunch of whack jobs who have been caught numerous times for fraud and are CONSTANTLY under investigation for fraud. This means they have a very specific agenda: Not to make the world greener when they find a problem, but to make problems in order to feel effective - even when it is entirely unnecessary.
Besides, if Apple were to somehow change their operating procedures in order to comply with the "green" standards, they will do nothing but lose money through another transition period which will slow their growth, lessen their capital resources, and make for slower product upgrades and releases - which will hurt the company detrimentally!
Besides, what does PVC really do anyways? It is a water-resistent, non-corrosive, plastic compound. It isn't toxic- per-say. It is only toxic when burned, and only to people in direct contact with the fumes - which is basically nobody. The real reason green peace wants to push this issue right now is because they think they are part of some eco-revolution that will bring down all corporations and make it so we all live happily in tee-pees without our manufactured products. Frankly, I am happy with my ibook and my motorola phone, and buick lesabre, and my flat screen tv, and I think everyone else is too, so tell green peace to just mind their own business and go live out in one of our MILLION ACRE FORESTS if they don't like progress and technology!
Besides, if Apple were to somehow change their operating procedures in order to comply with the "green" standards, they will do nothing but lose money through another transition period which will slow their growth, lessen their capital resources, and make for slower product upgrades and releases - which will hurt the company detrimentally!
Besides, what does PVC really do anyways? It is a water-resistent, non-corrosive, plastic compound. It isn't toxic- per-say. It is only toxic when burned, and only to people in direct contact with the fumes - which is basically nobody. The real reason green peace wants to push this issue right now is because they think they are part of some eco-revolution that will bring down all corporations and make it so we all live happily in tee-pees without our manufactured products. Frankly, I am happy with my ibook and my motorola phone, and buick lesabre, and my flat screen tv, and I think everyone else is too, so tell green peace to just mind their own business and go live out in one of our MILLION ACRE FORESTS if they don't like progress and technology!
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 12:45 PM
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
It's been too long since I read any of that stuff. Regardless of their arguments, when I discuss the possible existence of a creator/god it is not specifically the God Judeo-Christian God.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
It's been too long since I read any of that stuff. Regardless of their arguments, when I discuss the possible existence of a creator/god it is not specifically the God Judeo-Christian God.
