JAT
Apr 21, 10:33 AM
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
This is always a poor example. I don't think people understand just how under-funded the transport system in this county is. Here in MN we spend more on roads per population or capita than any other state, I believe. (I can't remember the stats) And our roads look like crap. You head south, where they think they can go 5x as long between repairs due to less temp variation than us here (and probably can), but really go 20x as long and also have crap roads. NO road is already "paid for".
Look Android lovers... this is an Apple site. You don't need to call us "Fanboys" in a condescending way here. We are here because we love our Macs, iOS devices or we develop for them and like to keep up on the news. Yes... many here are "fanboys".
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
Ah yes, logic. The one thing that escapes the whiny geeks.
This is always a poor example. I don't think people understand just how under-funded the transport system in this county is. Here in MN we spend more on roads per population or capita than any other state, I believe. (I can't remember the stats) And our roads look like crap. You head south, where they think they can go 5x as long between repairs due to less temp variation than us here (and probably can), but really go 20x as long and also have crap roads. NO road is already "paid for".
Look Android lovers... this is an Apple site. You don't need to call us "Fanboys" in a condescending way here. We are here because we love our Macs, iOS devices or we develop for them and like to keep up on the news. Yes... many here are "fanboys".
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
Ah yes, logic. The one thing that escapes the whiny geeks.
SRSound
Oct 29, 09:38 AM
The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year.
I wish we could get more details then "it could be released after mid-November.." OF COURSE it will be released after mid-November, but what does that mean? End of November? December? January? I just want to know when it will be out!!
I wish we could get more details then "it could be released after mid-November.." OF COURSE it will be released after mid-November, but what does that mean? End of November? December? January? I just want to know when it will be out!!
firestarter
Apr 23, 04:25 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
Your arguments would probably be stronger if you dropped this 'trendy' idea. Atheism is gaining in popularity in the US, and that increase in popularity may in part be due to other attributes of the atheist social group. But membership of social groups has always been this way... how many 'theists' go to church because they like to meet people, sing and have a cup of tea on a Sunday?
To label as 'trendy' is to apply a dismissive label, which I don't believe forwards the argument.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
I think you're probably right. American atheists probably aren't 'intellectually lazy' as they're forced to justify their position much more than a European atheist would be. They've consciously chosen to reject an established belief and choose an alternate - some thought and decision process would be involved in that.
It's easily possible for a European atheist to not be exposed to religion, grow up happily with their own set of ethics and morals, and never be challenged over their lack of belief. Intellectually lazy? Not really... why should anyone have to jump through hoops to prove the non existence of a god?
Your arguments would probably be stronger if you dropped this 'trendy' idea. Atheism is gaining in popularity in the US, and that increase in popularity may in part be due to other attributes of the atheist social group. But membership of social groups has always been this way... how many 'theists' go to church because they like to meet people, sing and have a cup of tea on a Sunday?
To label as 'trendy' is to apply a dismissive label, which I don't believe forwards the argument.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
I think you're probably right. American atheists probably aren't 'intellectually lazy' as they're forced to justify their position much more than a European atheist would be. They've consciously chosen to reject an established belief and choose an alternate - some thought and decision process would be involved in that.
It's easily possible for a European atheist to not be exposed to religion, grow up happily with their own set of ethics and morals, and never be challenged over their lack of belief. Intellectually lazy? Not really... why should anyone have to jump through hoops to prove the non existence of a god?
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 08:32 PM
Should they have a full-on meltdown, yes there will be fallout detected around the globe - but I doubt the levels will be high enough to cause concern after thousands of miles to disperse.
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 06:20 PM
I beg to differ: your electricity consumption is shocking too. It's all that AC. We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere, too. You have a ready supply of "illegals" who would jump at the chance.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 06:16 PM
Everyone, as usual I'm answering posts in a non-chronological order. I'm not ignoring anyone. I need to think hard about what to write about a post by Gelfin. So I may need two or three days to think about it.
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
Pgohlke
Apr 5, 05:25 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
steve_hill4
Jul 12, 06:13 AM
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)
I thought it was 88.2%?
;)
Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.
I thought it was 88.2%?
;)
Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.
boncellis
Jul 12, 06:16 PM
The upcomming WWDC has everything to be the coolest, most agressive WWDC ever. If Apple is up to it, we are set to see the strongest Apple line up ever. And thats saying a bit, since the current lineup is already mighty all by itself
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.
bousozoku
Aug 30, 07:19 AM
It does concern me but I've yet to dispose of any equipment. Everything about our daily lives abounds with waste, doesn't it?
I recycle whenever I can, but just because something has a recycling symbol doesn't mean that the company overseeing local recycling will accept it because they might not have the facilities to process it.
My car obviously pollutes more than I like even though the catalytic converter has been replaced and using air conditioning (car or home) uses chemicals that also pollute.
I don't trust Greenpeace any more than I trust our government. They're on opposite ends and neither cares about the truth. Either can be bought.
Having seen videos of Greenpeace in operation, I wonder if their "operations" are environmentally-friendly, whether it be a simple protest or an attack on a whaling ship.
After all this, Apple indeed need to get the lead out and clean up their act. Seeing as how the AirPort Extreme Basestation and iSight were recently removed from the EU shows that they have work to do.
I recycle whenever I can, but just because something has a recycling symbol doesn't mean that the company overseeing local recycling will accept it because they might not have the facilities to process it.
My car obviously pollutes more than I like even though the catalytic converter has been replaced and using air conditioning (car or home) uses chemicals that also pollute.
I don't trust Greenpeace any more than I trust our government. They're on opposite ends and neither cares about the truth. Either can be bought.
Having seen videos of Greenpeace in operation, I wonder if their "operations" are environmentally-friendly, whether it be a simple protest or an attack on a whaling ship.
After all this, Apple indeed need to get the lead out and clean up their act. Seeing as how the AirPort Extreme Basestation and iSight were recently removed from the EU shows that they have work to do.
Blue Velvet
Sep 26, 01:41 AM
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
Thanks. That's not particularly encouraging... I'm not in the habit of 'doing stuff in the background' when I'm working, unless it's disk-burning. :(
Thanks. That's not particularly encouraging... I'm not in the habit of 'doing stuff in the background' when I'm working, unless it's disk-burning. :(
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.
CHROMEDOME
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
Sweet...Octo-core.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:01 PM
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
Rend It
Aug 29, 01:59 PM
I see a lot of people in this thread are either blindly making excuses for Apple, or for the industry in general. I am most surprised that there is any Hg (mercury) anywhere in Apple's line. Likely, there's a Hg-vapor lamp for the LCD backlights.
An actual link to Apple's materials usage:
http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/
I'm not really sure what Greenpeace's deal is with the PVC and BFRs. What about the thousands of miles of PVC pipe in use in homes and elsewhere? As for BFRs, it's pretty damn important to make sure an object doesn't catch fire. Again, there are plenty of nasty non-asbestos fire-abatement materials used in building manufacturing. I'm not making excuses for Apple, but I think some perspective is called for here. I assume that Greenpeace's major issue is the toxicological effect these substances have on the environment. However, in terms of the actual amounts used, the electronics industry probably uses much less than the construction industry. True, there are probably companies leading the way in green building materials, but it certainly isn't an industry standard.
Apple is in compliance with RoHS; otherwise it couldn't sell computers in CA or in Europe. That means that they have probably stopped using Pb-based solders (which contained 40% Pb!). I'm dissappointed with the Hg issue, but it is a relatively small amount (less than 3.5 mg per lamp). Hopefully, the industry will soon find a replacement for these lamps, as well as the conventional printed circuit board materials. More importantly for Apple, I hope that they show more of a leadership role in this area than they have in the past. :(
An actual link to Apple's materials usage:
http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/
I'm not really sure what Greenpeace's deal is with the PVC and BFRs. What about the thousands of miles of PVC pipe in use in homes and elsewhere? As for BFRs, it's pretty damn important to make sure an object doesn't catch fire. Again, there are plenty of nasty non-asbestos fire-abatement materials used in building manufacturing. I'm not making excuses for Apple, but I think some perspective is called for here. I assume that Greenpeace's major issue is the toxicological effect these substances have on the environment. However, in terms of the actual amounts used, the electronics industry probably uses much less than the construction industry. True, there are probably companies leading the way in green building materials, but it certainly isn't an industry standard.
Apple is in compliance with RoHS; otherwise it couldn't sell computers in CA or in Europe. That means that they have probably stopped using Pb-based solders (which contained 40% Pb!). I'm dissappointed with the Hg issue, but it is a relatively small amount (less than 3.5 mg per lamp). Hopefully, the industry will soon find a replacement for these lamps, as well as the conventional printed circuit board materials. More importantly for Apple, I hope that they show more of a leadership role in this area than they have in the past. :(
Oneand0
Jun 24, 02:48 AM
Do a lot of travel around the U.S., about 25 trips a year. I have a Verizon phone with the US GOVT. and my cool Iphone. Let's just say that with every four or five dropped calls on Iphone, I get maybe 1 on the Verizon overall. Recently dropped a friend four times in a row using IPHONE at home, and I have no landline phone. As much as I like Apple and the Iphone, this DROID X is too beautiful of a screen for me to avoid July 15th, since I watch so many movies during travel on my iphone, not to mention the better service with Verizon.
Iphone it was nice knowing Ya!
I am going to keep my macbook pro and Hackintosh beast at home though! :)
Iphone it was nice knowing Ya!
I am going to keep my macbook pro and Hackintosh beast at home though! :)
CaoCao
Mar 26, 09:07 PM
there's no reason why the church can't continue for their believers if it learns to respect the rights of those who don't believe in its teachings
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:02 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
If you had read the first post you would realise they were in third place last quarter.
Dropping to fourth is not slipping upwards.
You do not "slip" upwards.
If you had read the first post you would realise they were in third place last quarter.
Dropping to fourth is not slipping upwards.
cmaier
Apr 21, 08:25 AM
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 04:34 PM
Does a partial melt-down equate with being a little bit pregnant?
of course things could still go South, but hopefully they won't
Inscrutable cat says
of course things could still go South, but hopefully they won't
Inscrutable cat says
Consultant
Apr 20, 05:36 PM
Good to hear Jobs isn't planning to retire. The question about Android being like Windows was to the Mac to iOS was probably the dumbest question of the call.
Exactly. Android doesn't have the IBM that give them the PC market.
Verizon was Android's IBM but now iPhone is now on vz.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
Exactly. Android doesn't have the IBM that give them the PC market.
Verizon was Android's IBM but now iPhone is now on vz.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
el-John-o
Apr 15, 09:41 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
Gotta agree with you there. Im sure they get bullied like everyone else, but I remember in high school an experience where I was harassed and picked on, beat up, hit in the head with a chair, etc, etc, and the administration did nothing. I was bigger than this guy, but I really didn't want to fight him, violence doesn't solve violence, finally the principal gave him a warning, which he laughed about.
Then I remember a gay kid, who was a friend of mine, who was called a ********t, the kid who called him that was suspended for two weeks for "sexual harassment".
So that's what I got out of it, if your straight your expected to fight, nevermind in the "real world" its called assault and the appropriate thing is to call law enforcement, fighting can land YOU in jail, even if they started it in most states. BUT, if you are a less common victim, then all they need to do is say a mean word to you and BAM suspension, requires counselling, and becoming a social outcast for being bigoted and insensitive.
Do I disagree with the school suspending them? Nope, not at all, I do, however, wish pop culture didn't have such an effect on the way schools are run. Pop culture has taken on the gay cause, good for them, but they continue to ignore all of the others, I think it's just stuck in their head that someone can't pick on someone bigger than them. They watch that video of that Australian kid and basically say "its your fault unless you fight back like him". Kids shouldn't have to fight back in school, they should learn and grow, it's not prison. School officials should stop ALL bullying, no matter how the issue is "stacked".
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
Gotta agree with you there. Im sure they get bullied like everyone else, but I remember in high school an experience where I was harassed and picked on, beat up, hit in the head with a chair, etc, etc, and the administration did nothing. I was bigger than this guy, but I really didn't want to fight him, violence doesn't solve violence, finally the principal gave him a warning, which he laughed about.
Then I remember a gay kid, who was a friend of mine, who was called a ********t, the kid who called him that was suspended for two weeks for "sexual harassment".
So that's what I got out of it, if your straight your expected to fight, nevermind in the "real world" its called assault and the appropriate thing is to call law enforcement, fighting can land YOU in jail, even if they started it in most states. BUT, if you are a less common victim, then all they need to do is say a mean word to you and BAM suspension, requires counselling, and becoming a social outcast for being bigoted and insensitive.
Do I disagree with the school suspending them? Nope, not at all, I do, however, wish pop culture didn't have such an effect on the way schools are run. Pop culture has taken on the gay cause, good for them, but they continue to ignore all of the others, I think it's just stuck in their head that someone can't pick on someone bigger than them. They watch that video of that Australian kid and basically say "its your fault unless you fight back like him". Kids shouldn't have to fight back in school, they should learn and grow, it's not prison. School officials should stop ALL bullying, no matter how the issue is "stacked".
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 12:32 PM
You misspeak and mischaracterize.
This is a thread on the Vatican correct? So far as I know, the Vatican is the leadership hierarchy for the Catholic Church. Please correct me if that's not right.
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
I can't and don't speak for that member. I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
This is a thread on the Vatican correct? So far as I know, the Vatican is the leadership hierarchy for the Catholic Church. Please correct me if that's not right.
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
I can't and don't speak for that member. I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:41 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
No comments:
Post a Comment