appleguy123
Mar 24, 06:41 PM
GENEVA (Reuters) - People who criticise gay sexual relations for religious or moral reasons are increasingly being attacked and vilified for their views, a Vatican diplomat told the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday.
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples. But those who express these views are faced with "a disturbing trend," he said.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council.
"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.
More@Source (http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE72L4XU20110322)
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples. But those who express these views are faced with "a disturbing trend," he said.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council.
"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.
More@Source (http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE72L4XU20110322)
supermacdesign
Sep 12, 06:20 PM
I am dying to see what this thing looks like. Does anyone have an image of it?
Please?!
Please?!
desdomg
Mar 20, 05:51 PM
If you view debate as a means to some sort of winner and looser type outcome the I can understand that you would reach that conclusion. However, the merits of a good debate, particularly one where their are strong opposing views, lie in the illumination of many points of view.
bringing IMO, this whole discussion has deteriorated beyond any form of usefulness. However, it does reaffirm two points -- never discuss either politics ("laws") or religion ("right" and "wrong") in mixed company. :)
The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.
It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?
bringing IMO, this whole discussion has deteriorated beyond any form of usefulness. However, it does reaffirm two points -- never discuss either politics ("laws") or religion ("right" and "wrong") in mixed company. :)
The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.
It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?
CorvusCamenarum
Mar 25, 10:58 AM
Ah yes, the old, call it a privilege when you try to deny it to a class of people and not a right trick. :rolleyes:
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
miles01110
Apr 28, 07:22 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Cape Cod Rick
Jul 7, 06:00 AM
I love my new IPhone 4. However, I am dropping many more calls with the IPhone 4 than I did with IPhone 3G!! Yesterday, my phone dropped 3 calls- even when I was holding the phone with only two fingers and away from the bottom!!
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 03:29 PM
No I didn't... I provided an explanation as supplementary evidence to the rebuttal made by myself. You didn't explain what Sharia Law is at all.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
yes, I did explain what sharia law is.
I'll now ask you to provide examples of where it is stated that a father must kill their child for disobeying them.
Cultural is extending to the entire region, which it is. There is no source in Islam telling fathers to perform honour killings on the basis.
Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:
Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”
Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”
Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.”
Now some sahih hadiths:
Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."
Al-Bukhari:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise”.
Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others:
Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, “No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!” In another version, it is stated, “When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”.
Al-Bayhaqi:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one’s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire.”
EDIT: it seems a lot of muslims are misinterpreting islam somehow.
http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
EDIT part 2:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
yes, I did explain what sharia law is.
I'll now ask you to provide examples of where it is stated that a father must kill their child for disobeying them.
Cultural is extending to the entire region, which it is. There is no source in Islam telling fathers to perform honour killings on the basis.
Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:
Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”
Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”
Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.”
Now some sahih hadiths:
Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."
Al-Bukhari:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise”.
Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others:
Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, “No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!” In another version, it is stated, “When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”.
Al-Bayhaqi:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one’s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire.”
EDIT: it seems a lot of muslims are misinterpreting islam somehow.
http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
EDIT part 2:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:48 AM
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
It doesn't take a smart person to prune information out to support their claim, while redacting information which doesn't. Why didn't you include the full spec?
"Weta Digital uses HP�s BladeSystem c7000 chassis with BL2x220 server modules, with redundant HP Virtual Connect networking modules, full HP redundant thermal logic power supplies and fans, redundant management modules, each server had two Intel L5335 50w processors, 24GB memory and a mixture of 60GB and 120GB hard disk drives."
Most definitely NOT PCs. Sorry, try again.
It doesn't take a smart person to prune information out to support their claim, while redacting information which doesn't. Why didn't you include the full spec?
"Weta Digital uses HP�s BladeSystem c7000 chassis with BL2x220 server modules, with redundant HP Virtual Connect networking modules, full HP redundant thermal logic power supplies and fans, redundant management modules, each server had two Intel L5335 50w processors, 24GB memory and a mixture of 60GB and 120GB hard disk drives."
Most definitely NOT PCs. Sorry, try again.
rasmasyean
Apr 22, 09:28 PM
Well, I can see why there would be "a lot" of atheists here from a "statistical" relation.
1) Mac users are prolly richer on average.
Let's be honest, many ppl consider Macs a rip-off, really. :D But if you have money to blow, who cares!
Wealth goes up with educational attainment. Numerous studies show this.
Educational attainment causes theism to go down. Numerous studies show this too.
This applies for young (not yet "educated") ppl from "wealthy" families as well because parents who don't take theism seriously are less likely to pass it on to children.
2) PRSI forum users are into "knowledge" and current events.
The internet is one big information gateway in general.
Those who are enthusiastic enough to use it for the purpose of extracting knowledge, are likely more educated (refer #1) and/or know much more about the world. The more you know about the world and your environment and other cultures (aka educated), the less your exposure is restricted to your immediate community. Therefore, you are more open to other religious as well as the idea of "not picking a side".
1) Mac users are prolly richer on average.
Let's be honest, many ppl consider Macs a rip-off, really. :D But if you have money to blow, who cares!
Wealth goes up with educational attainment. Numerous studies show this.
Educational attainment causes theism to go down. Numerous studies show this too.
This applies for young (not yet "educated") ppl from "wealthy" families as well because parents who don't take theism seriously are less likely to pass it on to children.
2) PRSI forum users are into "knowledge" and current events.
The internet is one big information gateway in general.
Those who are enthusiastic enough to use it for the purpose of extracting knowledge, are likely more educated (refer #1) and/or know much more about the world. The more you know about the world and your environment and other cultures (aka educated), the less your exposure is restricted to your immediate community. Therefore, you are more open to other religious as well as the idea of "not picking a side".
arkitect
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Although I suppose you'd go for c and d. Right?
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Although I suppose you'd go for c and d. Right?
ReanimationLP
Oct 14, 03:38 PM
Wow, the Quad Xeon is the Pentium D all over again!
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
leekohler
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Post reported. If you can't see fit to post without insulting the intelligence of other members, then maybe you should not post. Everyone makes mistakes. If you can't accept that others make them and address it in a civil manner, maybe you should sit back and chill for a minute.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Post reported. If you can't see fit to post without insulting the intelligence of other members, then maybe you should not post. Everyone makes mistakes. If you can't accept that others make them and address it in a civil manner, maybe you should sit back and chill for a minute.
latergator116
Mar 20, 08:11 PM
Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
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.
milo
Sep 12, 03:48 PM
Thats where having your Mac Mini in the living room comes into play. Its basically just a box to interface from a computer to the TV, where you put the computer is up to you, and in this case why not have a Mac Mini in the living room?
Why would you? I want my computer on my desk, with the right chair and the right monitor. In the living room, it's cumbersome to use as a computer, it's tied up when someone is watching TV, and my TV makes a poor monitor. This box is great because it lets me avoid doing that.
Now if it would stream HD content... that would be another story. Give me another option other than participating in Sony and Toshibas little spat. That would be cool.
Given the ports, sounds like it might.
Why would you? I want my computer on my desk, with the right chair and the right monitor. In the living room, it's cumbersome to use as a computer, it's tied up when someone is watching TV, and my TV makes a poor monitor. This box is great because it lets me avoid doing that.
Now if it would stream HD content... that would be another story. Give me another option other than participating in Sony and Toshibas little spat. That would be cool.
Given the ports, sounds like it might.
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 09:49 AM
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Please show me where Intel says that a Core Duo is *not* SMP ! Note that "way" (as in "2-way") meaning "socket" isn't the same thing.
Don't search for "SMP Core.Duo" at apple.com, you'll find lines like Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent. (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/demos_updates/quake4.html)
Please install Linux on a Core Duo and tell me if it installs the SMP kernel !
I can tell you for sure that XP installs the SMP version of the kernel on a Core Duo !
Google for "SMP Core.Duo" and notice 68K hits, and then do "not.SMP Core.Duo" and notice the 110 hits. (Many of them in Mac forums :eek: )
Yes, there's a vast conspiracy that considers multi-core to be SMP... Many of them happen to have computer science training, experience and degrees. ;)
...truly enough.
Please show me where Intel says that a Core Duo is *not* SMP ! Note that "way" (as in "2-way") meaning "socket" isn't the same thing.
Don't search for "SMP Core.Duo" at apple.com, you'll find lines like Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent. (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/demos_updates/quake4.html)
Please install Linux on a Core Duo and tell me if it installs the SMP kernel !
I can tell you for sure that XP installs the SMP version of the kernel on a Core Duo !
Google for "SMP Core.Duo" and notice 68K hits, and then do "not.SMP Core.Duo" and notice the 110 hits. (Many of them in Mac forums :eek: )
Yes, there's a vast conspiracy that considers multi-core to be SMP... Many of them happen to have computer science training, experience and degrees. ;)
...truly enough.
darkplanets
Mar 12, 02:14 PM
While I am not a nuclear engineer, I do have a fair amount of knowledge in the area, so with that in mind I can personally say that this will NOT become another Chernobyl situation. Again though as a disclaimer, this is not my career.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
Amazing Iceman
May 2, 09:27 AM
How stupid does a user needs to be in order to install, run and then enter credit card information into an application that pops up by itself?
:eek:
:eek:
ddtlm
Oct 7, 11:14 AM
I'd be more impressed with these "tests" if the pro-Mac cowards had used a top-of-the-line Athlon system (1.8ghz is available for duals, 2.13ghz is pretty much available for singles) or a top-of-the-line P4 (2.0ghz? haha!). The 2.0ghz P4 runs on the old 400mhz FSB whereas there is a 533mhz FSB P4 clocking at 2.8ghz available. They also make no mention of memory type used on any platform. For the P4, PC1066 RDRAM is tops, for the Athlon the new nForce2 with 2 channels of 333mhz DDR is tops (although I will admit that chipset still has a one-month ETA). OK, so maybe use the VIA KT400 for the Athlon, it's pretty good.
And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...
Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...
Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
Peace
Sep 12, 04:57 PM
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
joemama
Sep 20, 06:04 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
MacRumors
Oct 25, 10:19 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Appleinsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2176) that Apple is indeed planning on introducing a 8-Core Mac Pro using the Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors from Intel.
The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year. The exact timing of the release is not clear, but must wait for the official release of Clovertown.
As it stands, the release of the eight-core Mac Pro hinges on both Intel and Apple. But following Intel's mid-Nov. quad-core Xeon launch, the ball should be completely on Apple's side of the court. It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season.
Details of the Clovertown processors were revealed in September (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060926002955.shtml), showing two versions of the chip that support the same 1333MHz bus as the Mac Pro. These processors (X5355 and E5345) run at 2.66 and 2.33GHz respectively.
Appleinsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2176) that Apple is indeed planning on introducing a 8-Core Mac Pro using the Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors from Intel.
The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year. The exact timing of the release is not clear, but must wait for the official release of Clovertown.
As it stands, the release of the eight-core Mac Pro hinges on both Intel and Apple. But following Intel's mid-Nov. quad-core Xeon launch, the ball should be completely on Apple's side of the court. It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season.
Details of the Clovertown processors were revealed in September (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060926002955.shtml), showing two versions of the chip that support the same 1333MHz bus as the Mac Pro. These processors (X5355 and E5345) run at 2.66 and 2.33GHz respectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment