diamond.g
Apr 21, 08:51 AM
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
You are joking right?
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
MisterMe
May 2, 08:56 AM
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 02:18 PM
Valid points, except you're looking at a micro-niche of power-users, while the iPhone's massive growth comes from a much broader market than that. Android will (and does) take some power-user market share, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
yet all the one advantage the apple model has it killed by the fact that how difficult it is to get an app approved and no way to directly sell it to the consumer.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
yet all the one advantage the apple model has it killed by the fact that how difficult it is to get an app approved and no way to directly sell it to the consumer.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
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.
gugy
Sep 12, 03:18 PM
I love it! Great job Apple
Piggie
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
It's no surprise that Apple will never make much headway as they stubbornly refuse to make a range of computers to suit a range of customers.
In the UK, yesterday I visited 3 of the largest high street superstores we have, which sell a range of electrical goods (TV's SatNav's HiFi, and White goods) and computers.
In all three stores, there must have been at least 3 long tables packed with a vast number of PC laptops with price ranges from �199 upwards to high end models, and of course some desktops also.
In all designs, colours, styles, large and small, etc etc etc.
And in all 3 shops there was one small table with a couple of Apple Laptops and an iMac.
That's it, all at the very top of the price range. Probably around the most expensive computers in the whole store.
And we wonder why Apple is not making major headway in "Typical Customer" sales.
It does not exactly need Einstein to see what the problem is.
In the UK, yesterday I visited 3 of the largest high street superstores we have, which sell a range of electrical goods (TV's SatNav's HiFi, and White goods) and computers.
In all three stores, there must have been at least 3 long tables packed with a vast number of PC laptops with price ranges from �199 upwards to high end models, and of course some desktops also.
In all designs, colours, styles, large and small, etc etc etc.
And in all 3 shops there was one small table with a couple of Apple Laptops and an iMac.
That's it, all at the very top of the price range. Probably around the most expensive computers in the whole store.
And we wonder why Apple is not making major headway in "Typical Customer" sales.
It does not exactly need Einstein to see what the problem is.
SRSound
Sep 26, 12:00 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary �re-wire� applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 12:45 PM
But any time a fad gets discussed over a period of years, it's no longer a fad, it's a trend.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 04:08 PM
Greenpeace are terrorists.
:eek:
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
:eek:
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
EricNau
Sep 20, 01:07 AM
I didn't notice any TV inputs on the prototype, so unless Apple changes the design significantly and adds major features not discussed at the event, DVR is not a possibility (as far as this device is concerned).
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
emotion
Sep 20, 10:52 AM
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
Yeah but a Mini costs �400 (and up to �600 when properly equipped) and this will cost �200 or less.
Yeah but a Mini costs �400 (and up to �600 when properly equipped) and this will cost �200 or less.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 02:22 AM
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
A follow-up question: why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well. Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)? Everything related to Apple, OS X and Macs seem to boil down to "but what about PhotoShop?". Well, what about it?
You are worried about the fact that Adobe's apps are not yet Universal? Fine, then don't buy a MacIntel. Problem solved.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
A follow-up question: why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well. Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)? Everything related to Apple, OS X and Macs seem to boil down to "but what about PhotoShop?". Well, what about it?
You are worried about the fact that Adobe's apps are not yet Universal? Fine, then don't buy a MacIntel. Problem solved.
840quadra
Apr 28, 10:50 AM
Uhm, I still use an iPod. It carries all my music, usable contacts and calendar now and some games. And a touch interface. You are saying that my iPod Touch is not an Ipod. Guess we need to call it iTouch after all.
I still use a classic style iPod too, I even said that in the post you quoted.
Apple may market the iPod touch as an "iPod", but in all reality it is just an advanced PDA that has a really good music player inside it. More of an iPod by Label, than it is by past definition.
I think it is stretching it to call the iPod a fad. One of the defining aspects of a fad is its temporary nature. 8-10 years temporary? Everything is temporary.
I don't think it is. There are many past examples of fads that lasted an entire decade, even longer.
Multifunction devices (PDAs & Phones) existed during the peak of iPod popularity, however they were not sought after by the masses in the way the iPod was. Even now Apple still offers a clickwheel iPod alongside the Touch / iPhone. Because of that, you can't exactly say it has been replaced, when it is still offered (along with other smaller iPod music player offerings).
People have been migrating away from the dedicated iPod MP3 player, since the introduction of the iPhone, and Android devices. Many of us still buy and use classic iPod music players, but it is becoming more of an enthusiast / niche market than it is mainstream.
You may not want to call it a Fad even though it meets many of the criteria, which is fine. I am only one person with one opinion.
Like it or not, the iPod fad (or era) is drawing to a close, it is now the turn of the iPhone / Touch (or Android) and iPad (or Tablet).
I still use a classic style iPod too, I even said that in the post you quoted.
Apple may market the iPod touch as an "iPod", but in all reality it is just an advanced PDA that has a really good music player inside it. More of an iPod by Label, than it is by past definition.
I think it is stretching it to call the iPod a fad. One of the defining aspects of a fad is its temporary nature. 8-10 years temporary? Everything is temporary.
I don't think it is. There are many past examples of fads that lasted an entire decade, even longer.
Multifunction devices (PDAs & Phones) existed during the peak of iPod popularity, however they were not sought after by the masses in the way the iPod was. Even now Apple still offers a clickwheel iPod alongside the Touch / iPhone. Because of that, you can't exactly say it has been replaced, when it is still offered (along with other smaller iPod music player offerings).
People have been migrating away from the dedicated iPod MP3 player, since the introduction of the iPhone, and Android devices. Many of us still buy and use classic iPod music players, but it is becoming more of an enthusiast / niche market than it is mainstream.
You may not want to call it a Fad even though it meets many of the criteria, which is fine. I am only one person with one opinion.
Like it or not, the iPod fad (or era) is drawing to a close, it is now the turn of the iPhone / Touch (or Android) and iPad (or Tablet).
tkermit
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
Good to see :)
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 07:19 AM
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
Then again, the way Apple's pro segment machines have been going up in both power and price...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
Then again, the way Apple's pro segment machines have been going up in both power and price...
GraphicArmy
Jul 11, 11:07 PM
Yeah, I hope apple lower their price point for the pro models. It is way too much. I love mac computer, but come on; the prices vs the PC suckass.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
MacsAttack
Sep 29, 05:15 AM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 12:10 PM
Some helpful quotes from the modmyi thread:
-------
I helped my boss through this one... I had him call AT&T and explain that he received a message about something called "tethering" and to act dumb and explain that he is a heavy pandora and Netflix user and doesn't understand why he's going to be billed more for it. Bottom line they couldn't prove it so they apologized and removed issue from his account with no changes.
Good luck to everyone. (my boss was on 4.2.1 and he is using about 25gb per month)
AT&T is hoping people will either ignore the message or call to apologize (Don't act guilty and you'll be fine)
--------
I told AT&T that I stream Sirius all day. They said my plan can stay the same since i don't "tether" lol
-------
-------
I helped my boss through this one... I had him call AT&T and explain that he received a message about something called "tethering" and to act dumb and explain that he is a heavy pandora and Netflix user and doesn't understand why he's going to be billed more for it. Bottom line they couldn't prove it so they apologized and removed issue from his account with no changes.
Good luck to everyone. (my boss was on 4.2.1 and he is using about 25gb per month)
AT&T is hoping people will either ignore the message or call to apologize (Don't act guilty and you'll be fine)
--------
I told AT&T that I stream Sirius all day. They said my plan can stay the same since i don't "tether" lol
-------
Multimedia
Oct 26, 04:13 PM
I would think the dual quad cores are meant for clientèle a little up market from Adobe users.ROTFLMAO :D :p :) You're breaking my balls Ben.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 05:07 PM
You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
Stop harping on that post and ignoring my other one. I was just making a point that the poster with his obnoxious argument about "night" was ignoring. I already posted a very viable technology that could solve this problem. Look a few posts up and you'll find it. next time, read the whole thread
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
Stop harping on that post and ignoring my other one. I was just making a point that the poster with his obnoxious argument about "night" was ignoring. I already posted a very viable technology that could solve this problem. Look a few posts up and you'll find it. next time, read the whole thread
jefhatfield
Oct 10, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by benixau
Dear lord,
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
it reminds me of that janis joplin song...imagine the music in the background ;)
when motorola was stuck at 500 mhz for 18 months, then i started becoming very vocal about dropping them on the high end stuff and going to ibm when there were rumors that they can make a faster chip
but motorola has climbed, though somewhat slowly, out of their pit, and are doing ok
sure, it may be many months ahead when the pcs hit 3.5 ghz+, but i think motorola will deliver a 2 ghz chip sometime next year
and really, after 2 ghz, does anyone think speed will be a top five factor in why one buys a machine?
when i was a computer salesman in 1999, speed and price were the top two issues...and while price will remain a top issue until all computers get really cheap, i think speed will diminish in its importance for the average consumer
many seem to like the dual 1.25 ghz machines and we know apple will speed bump their whole line of powermacs early next year, if not sooner
a lot of the complaints about apple's speed on their machines sound like a lot of benchmark stats reading and not real world usage
most of us do email, internet, word processing, spreadsheets, and light graphics most of the time in the majority of users in the field...of the many machines i sold, i did not come across one high end graphics user or audio professional who needed more than our store was able to provide them
Dear lord,
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
it reminds me of that janis joplin song...imagine the music in the background ;)
when motorola was stuck at 500 mhz for 18 months, then i started becoming very vocal about dropping them on the high end stuff and going to ibm when there were rumors that they can make a faster chip
but motorola has climbed, though somewhat slowly, out of their pit, and are doing ok
sure, it may be many months ahead when the pcs hit 3.5 ghz+, but i think motorola will deliver a 2 ghz chip sometime next year
and really, after 2 ghz, does anyone think speed will be a top five factor in why one buys a machine?
when i was a computer salesman in 1999, speed and price were the top two issues...and while price will remain a top issue until all computers get really cheap, i think speed will diminish in its importance for the average consumer
many seem to like the dual 1.25 ghz machines and we know apple will speed bump their whole line of powermacs early next year, if not sooner
a lot of the complaints about apple's speed on their machines sound like a lot of benchmark stats reading and not real world usage
most of us do email, internet, word processing, spreadsheets, and light graphics most of the time in the majority of users in the field...of the many machines i sold, i did not come across one high end graphics user or audio professional who needed more than our store was able to provide them
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.
kdarling
Jun 1, 12:36 AM
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
A common mistake is in thinking that an IP based backhaul means voice calls don't get dedicated resources. However, carriers use TDM and/or pseudo-wire circuits to make sure that voice calls get all the QoS they need.
Data has to share the remaining bandwidth and is what is subject to congestion.
So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....
No. See above. Data loads alone should not cause problems with voice due to limited backhaul on either Verizon or AT&T. Data especially cannot cause a voice problem on Verizon because it's transmitted on separate channels.
Data can (and does) cause dropped voice calls on AT&T because GSM 3G shares the same channel for data and voice (thus allowing their simultaneous use). Data transmissions can affect voice calls, and vice versa. This is because more 3G voice or data users cause a cell's effective radius to shrink, and marginal users will often get dropped. So a new data user can drop voice users on AT&T.
Another problem with GSM 3G is that if you're on a voice call and then use data simultaneously, the phone+network has to drop the voice connection and reconnect instantly as a combined data call, which can fail. You might not even know the phone is trying to do this in the background for push email or notifications data. All you know is that your voice call dropped. (Which is why some people stick to EDGE, which does not support simultaneous comms.)
I get dropped calls constantly. I'd say it's approaching 50% of the time. I am not even in a rural area at all. My phone will say 3-4 bars and then when I go to make a call, it drops down to 0-1 bars. I just turned in on, just now and it showed 4 bars, and then it dropped to 2 bars immediately. I think their software is trying to be optimistic or something. It's like magic!
GSM uses a form of CDMA called WCDMA for 3G.
(W)CDMA works by having every phone talking at once, just like picking out a voice in a crowd in a noisy room. The more phones talking to a cell, the louder everyone has to talk to be heard. The overall signal level doesn't matter, but only the usable ratio of your own signal levels to the noise floor.
If a phone displayed this ratio, it would fluctuate wildly as users come and go. So idle phones usually display the steady power level of a transmitted pilot channel from the tower instead. Basically, the closer you are, the higher the level, which a user can understand.
Once you connect, the phone can actually determine the connection quality because then it knows its communication error rate. That's why the bars will fluctuate after connection.
Your phone could show only one bar of pilot signal, but still get a great connection if you're the only one using that cell. Or you could have full bars of pilot signal, but a terrible connection if you're sharing the cell with too many others.
So bars are basically meaningless until connected, and even then only show the quality incoming to the phone, not how well you transmit to the tower.
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
A common mistake is in thinking that an IP based backhaul means voice calls don't get dedicated resources. However, carriers use TDM and/or pseudo-wire circuits to make sure that voice calls get all the QoS they need.
Data has to share the remaining bandwidth and is what is subject to congestion.
So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....
No. See above. Data loads alone should not cause problems with voice due to limited backhaul on either Verizon or AT&T. Data especially cannot cause a voice problem on Verizon because it's transmitted on separate channels.
Data can (and does) cause dropped voice calls on AT&T because GSM 3G shares the same channel for data and voice (thus allowing their simultaneous use). Data transmissions can affect voice calls, and vice versa. This is because more 3G voice or data users cause a cell's effective radius to shrink, and marginal users will often get dropped. So a new data user can drop voice users on AT&T.
Another problem with GSM 3G is that if you're on a voice call and then use data simultaneously, the phone+network has to drop the voice connection and reconnect instantly as a combined data call, which can fail. You might not even know the phone is trying to do this in the background for push email or notifications data. All you know is that your voice call dropped. (Which is why some people stick to EDGE, which does not support simultaneous comms.)
I get dropped calls constantly. I'd say it's approaching 50% of the time. I am not even in a rural area at all. My phone will say 3-4 bars and then when I go to make a call, it drops down to 0-1 bars. I just turned in on, just now and it showed 4 bars, and then it dropped to 2 bars immediately. I think their software is trying to be optimistic or something. It's like magic!
GSM uses a form of CDMA called WCDMA for 3G.
(W)CDMA works by having every phone talking at once, just like picking out a voice in a crowd in a noisy room. The more phones talking to a cell, the louder everyone has to talk to be heard. The overall signal level doesn't matter, but only the usable ratio of your own signal levels to the noise floor.
If a phone displayed this ratio, it would fluctuate wildly as users come and go. So idle phones usually display the steady power level of a transmitted pilot channel from the tower instead. Basically, the closer you are, the higher the level, which a user can understand.
Once you connect, the phone can actually determine the connection quality because then it knows its communication error rate. That's why the bars will fluctuate after connection.
Your phone could show only one bar of pilot signal, but still get a great connection if you're the only one using that cell. Or you could have full bars of pilot signal, but a terrible connection if you're sharing the cell with too many others.
So bars are basically meaningless until connected, and even then only show the quality incoming to the phone, not how well you transmit to the tower.
balamw
Apr 6, 12:06 PM
Don't help evil screw Joe.
If Joe has already gotten past the FUD from the vast majority of Windows oriented sources to come here, and seriously consider a Mac, this won't dissuade him as there is plenty of positive in the thread.
There's plenty of FUD out there. Macs are only good for dummies (It's Unix under the hood, plenty of serious power there), Macs are underspecced and overpriced (Not really by the time you compare apples to apples), Macs can't do X or Y (Especially since they run Windows they can do anything a Windows box can), ... By the time you are seriously considering a Mac you've got to be beyond that.
B
If Joe has already gotten past the FUD from the vast majority of Windows oriented sources to come here, and seriously consider a Mac, this won't dissuade him as there is plenty of positive in the thread.
There's plenty of FUD out there. Macs are only good for dummies (It's Unix under the hood, plenty of serious power there), Macs are underspecced and overpriced (Not really by the time you compare apples to apples), Macs can't do X or Y (Especially since they run Windows they can do anything a Windows box can), ... By the time you are seriously considering a Mac you've got to be beyond that.
B