darkplanets
Mar 14, 01:23 PM
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
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.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 24, 07:06 PM
"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
As soon as they quit trying to legislate and force their beliefs on the rest of us, the sooner they will be left alone to wallow in their archaic beliefs.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
As soon as they quit trying to legislate and force their beliefs on the rest of us, the sooner they will be left alone to wallow in their archaic beliefs.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:02 AM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
In a way, yes. And I think that ThinkSecret is right as well: I bet that we will see a "MacPro Mini" featuring a mini-tower-design (or maybe pizzabox) that will use Conroe. MacPro would be all quad-core. The Mini would cost $1499 - $1999, whereas MacPro would cost $2499 - $3499. iMac would get Merom.
I made this prediction a while ago, and I still stand by it.
In a way, yes. And I think that ThinkSecret is right as well: I bet that we will see a "MacPro Mini" featuring a mini-tower-design (or maybe pizzabox) that will use Conroe. MacPro would be all quad-core. The Mini would cost $1499 - $1999, whereas MacPro would cost $2499 - $3499. iMac would get Merom.
I made this prediction a while ago, and I still stand by it.
roland.g
Sep 20, 09:56 AM
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
iTV is a great product. If you want a DVR, buy a DVR, if you want the next level of streaming, iTV is it. I already use Airtunes alot. It is hooked up to my stereo. Anytime I'm out in the yard or having a BBQ, I just plug in the Express and some speakers out back and stream music there.
I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
iTV is a great product. If you want a DVR, buy a DVR, if you want the next level of streaming, iTV is it. I already use Airtunes alot. It is hooked up to my stereo. Anytime I'm out in the yard or having a BBQ, I just plug in the Express and some speakers out back and stream music there.
I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.
sososowhat
Sep 12, 03:22 PM
The price seems high to me - I wonder if they'll cut it to $249 or $199 before the actual release. Also, does this act like an Airport Express for extending WiFI range?
bokdol
Aug 29, 02:28 PM
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
i think what he is trying to say is. greenpeace is against genetic modification. even if that modifaction is helpful to the environment.
as in the case of the enviropig
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786176/site/newsweek
clearly greenpeace has something against science and genetic modifiaction. even if it is helpful to people and or the world. while i dont know much about this pig it soulnds like a good idea. maybe i need more research.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
i think what he is trying to say is. greenpeace is against genetic modification. even if that modifaction is helpful to the environment.
as in the case of the enviropig
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786176/site/newsweek
clearly greenpeace has something against science and genetic modifiaction. even if it is helpful to people and or the world. while i dont know much about this pig it soulnds like a good idea. maybe i need more research.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 08:44 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I don't Know what type of Atheists you meet, but most of those in this forum(theists too :D) DO argue their beliefs and do not expect them to go unchecked.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I don't Know what type of Atheists you meet, but most of those in this forum(theists too :D) DO argue their beliefs and do not expect them to go unchecked.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 01:31 PM
The same thing happened when PCs first hit the work place. Then it was all about minicomputers and mainframes, not these toy devices. But hey, put a 3270 card into the PC, hook it up to the big iron, and now you had a real computer device! People simply couldn't imagine that these little PCs would ever surpass the big iron in both power and popularity. But eventually they did.
Tablets are the same way. People are blindly assuming that the tablet of today is what we will be using in 2020. It isn't, any more than the iPod touch is the same as the 2001 original iPod. Things change, devices get vastly more powerful and full of features that people simply could not imagine when they began.
The post-PC era is going to steamroller the naysayers.
THIS. One hundred times, this.
And (sadly), it's always the people that are the power users of the "old way" that are the most surprised when their way of doing things is replaced.
Tablets are the same way. People are blindly assuming that the tablet of today is what we will be using in 2020. It isn't, any more than the iPod touch is the same as the 2001 original iPod. Things change, devices get vastly more powerful and full of features that people simply could not imagine when they began.
The post-PC era is going to steamroller the naysayers.
THIS. One hundred times, this.
And (sadly), it's always the people that are the power users of the "old way" that are the most surprised when their way of doing things is replaced.
CrAkD
Mar 18, 01:09 PM
Woohoo I switched from my 1st gen wifi iPad with mywi on my iPhone to a 3G iPad 2 just in time.
LondonCentral
Apr 8, 10:25 PM
Also, the next Apple TV will be...a fully fledged games console in disguise.:cool:
liketom
Sep 20, 02:09 AM
to make this work better and for apple to take the number 1 slot of internet download movies - they need an TV ad like the mac/pc ones
movie trailer then apple text - jack Sparrow+ Apple - download from $12.99 - iTunes store. simple infact i just made one as a looksy
Apple might also do well in selling the DVD + download for $19.99 - 24.99 as an option.
they have proved this concept works with the 125k downloads in 1 week now they need to feed people with movies for there iTV device
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFwhVsSDr_4
movie trailer then apple text - jack Sparrow+ Apple - download from $12.99 - iTunes store. simple infact i just made one as a looksy
Apple might also do well in selling the DVD + download for $19.99 - 24.99 as an option.
they have proved this concept works with the 125k downloads in 1 week now they need to feed people with movies for there iTV device
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFwhVsSDr_4
amorya
Apr 13, 09:38 AM
I do have to agree that Apple is strangely moving away from the core pro market that was very loyal.
I've just gone and read through the tweets from @fcpsupermeet, which describe the event. From comments like this (I pick this one as an example, loads of people are expressing the sentiment) I was expecting something really consumer-focussed, rather than:
"Really great color tools built in. Animated windows, keyed secondaries, demo looks really good."
"Auto guides and keyframes for motion effects a lot like Motion (without the silly record button)."
"Single clip match grade between shots. Just saw a VERY fast auto render."
"Automatic dual system audio via waveform analysis"
""Compound Clips": collapse chunks of media into a single clip on the timeline. How nesting always should have worked."
"Can start editing during ingest of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests"
"Resolution independent playback/timeline all the way up to 4K"
Now, I'm not a video pro. I'll admit I'm a hobbyist: I was part of my university's film making society, and I've done various projects myself, but it's not my professional gig. But I can't see anything here that shows Apple moving away from the pro market. As far as I can tell they've done a really ambitious ground-up Cocoa rewrite of FCP, streamlining the workflow to make it quicker to use (no more render dialogs!), and at the same time building in loads of new tech like colour matching throughout.
Is the only thing people are bothered about the fact that they changed the UI? Because other than that, I just can't see what the complaints are about. We haven't heard any actual confirmed statements of features being removed, so why assume that any crucial ones have been? They'd have been nuts to switch away from a timeline-based system like iMovie did, and so of course they didn't do that. They rewrote everything from scratch to remove a bunch of legacy baggage (like the lack of multithreading, and the Carbon UI that prevented it going 64 bit), which is awesome, but I completely can't see any evidence of a change of focus.
Amorya
I've just gone and read through the tweets from @fcpsupermeet, which describe the event. From comments like this (I pick this one as an example, loads of people are expressing the sentiment) I was expecting something really consumer-focussed, rather than:
"Really great color tools built in. Animated windows, keyed secondaries, demo looks really good."
"Auto guides and keyframes for motion effects a lot like Motion (without the silly record button)."
"Single clip match grade between shots. Just saw a VERY fast auto render."
"Automatic dual system audio via waveform analysis"
""Compound Clips": collapse chunks of media into a single clip on the timeline. How nesting always should have worked."
"Can start editing during ingest of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests"
"Resolution independent playback/timeline all the way up to 4K"
Now, I'm not a video pro. I'll admit I'm a hobbyist: I was part of my university's film making society, and I've done various projects myself, but it's not my professional gig. But I can't see anything here that shows Apple moving away from the pro market. As far as I can tell they've done a really ambitious ground-up Cocoa rewrite of FCP, streamlining the workflow to make it quicker to use (no more render dialogs!), and at the same time building in loads of new tech like colour matching throughout.
Is the only thing people are bothered about the fact that they changed the UI? Because other than that, I just can't see what the complaints are about. We haven't heard any actual confirmed statements of features being removed, so why assume that any crucial ones have been? They'd have been nuts to switch away from a timeline-based system like iMovie did, and so of course they didn't do that. They rewrote everything from scratch to remove a bunch of legacy baggage (like the lack of multithreading, and the Carbon UI that prevented it going 64 bit), which is awesome, but I completely can't see any evidence of a change of focus.
Amorya
benixau
Oct 12, 10:41 AM
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. My brother does maths better than me but i kick him in english.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 04:53 PM
The U.S. is proving to be the worst thing to happen to Mother Earth since the inception of time.
...until the next global power comes along.
I'm kinda dumbfounded that electrical use in the US would be climbing when:
Modern lightbulbs and computers don't use much energy, my laptop and a single energy efficient light bulb probably use less energy than just a incandescent light bulb from 20 years ago.
Indeed. You can power several compact fluorescent lights and a smaller laptop using the same amount of electricity as one 40 or 60 watt bulb. But 20 years ago we didn't all have laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices - or as many people using them.
...until the next global power comes along.
I'm kinda dumbfounded that electrical use in the US would be climbing when:
Modern lightbulbs and computers don't use much energy, my laptop and a single energy efficient light bulb probably use less energy than just a incandescent light bulb from 20 years ago.
Indeed. You can power several compact fluorescent lights and a smaller laptop using the same amount of electricity as one 40 or 60 watt bulb. But 20 years ago we didn't all have laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices - or as many people using them.
WilliamBos
Apr 14, 05:34 PM
After getting a new mini for my b-day, I have to wait until tomorrow to use it, as I need the apple only DVI-VGA adapter. Aftermarket stuff don't work... :(
FoxyKaye
Apr 15, 09:56 AM
Like many of the "It Gets Better" videos, this was very touching. Great job Apple employees, and thank you!
aegisdesign
Sep 20, 06:56 AM
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 06:38 PM
Anyone got a screenshot from the keynote?
What do you mean? That's a picture from the keynote this morning posted by one of the Gizmodo guys who was there.
What do you mean? That's a picture from the keynote this morning posted by one of the Gizmodo guys who was there.
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 11:18 PM
No I am not kidding. What option to buy a Quad? Clovertowns are Quads used in pairs to make 8-core OctoMacs not Quads. Clovertowns are scheduled to begin shipping in November. This is not news. It's been known for at least 3 months. Did you not see that thread?
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:44 PM
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
fixyourthinking
Sep 20, 10:22 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Ironically the set top box was "field tested" at Disneyland in California. It was going to be a movie/cableTV and shopping kiosk in your hotel room via your TV.
I own several of these boxes and the hard drives contained videos of Disneyland and shopping.
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Ironically the set top box was "field tested" at Disneyland in California. It was going to be a movie/cableTV and shopping kiosk in your hotel room via your TV.
I own several of these boxes and the hard drives contained videos of Disneyland and shopping.
citizenzen
Mar 14, 03:25 PM
It would require a multi-tiered approach.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
cocky jeremy
May 16, 02:53 PM
I used to never get dropped calls on AT&T and lastnight alone i had 2-4. To top that off, i called my GF and it was ringing (at least on my end) and her phone never even rang. Called both of my parents, same thing. They were 5 feet away from me at the time. WTF. :eek:
No comments:
Post a Comment