Lord Blackadder
Mar 15, 07:29 PM
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
I don't know much about the situation, but it seems to me that if the reactors are already up and running, the majority of the environmental impact has already happened. Shutting them off now versus when the currently installed fuel rods are spent does not significaly reduce the environmental impact of the stations - all it does is take 7 gW out of the grid, energy that will presumably have to be made up through increased output from coal/gas/oil plants. However, as you said:
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
If they really can afford to take them off the grid, then why are they running? Perhaps they are sewlling the enegry to other countries and don't want to lose the revenue? Or maybe the German government is unwilling to remove a domestic power-producing option in favor of fuels they have to import from elsewhere?
An intersting situation.
A cold comfort considering it is now already thought to be close to a level 6 incident on the INES scale.
Yes, but you'd be saying the same thing regardless of where this incident fell on the INES scale, wouldn't you? As long as global energy consumption continues to grow, you'd better get used to living with nuclear power, because right now there just isn't an alternative. Turning off all the nuclear plants will put much heavier pressure on the oil, coal and gas industries, and that will have its own set of consequences.
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
I don't know much about the situation, but it seems to me that if the reactors are already up and running, the majority of the environmental impact has already happened. Shutting them off now versus when the currently installed fuel rods are spent does not significaly reduce the environmental impact of the stations - all it does is take 7 gW out of the grid, energy that will presumably have to be made up through increased output from coal/gas/oil plants. However, as you said:
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
If they really can afford to take them off the grid, then why are they running? Perhaps they are sewlling the enegry to other countries and don't want to lose the revenue? Or maybe the German government is unwilling to remove a domestic power-producing option in favor of fuels they have to import from elsewhere?
An intersting situation.
A cold comfort considering it is now already thought to be close to a level 6 incident on the INES scale.
Yes, but you'd be saying the same thing regardless of where this incident fell on the INES scale, wouldn't you? As long as global energy consumption continues to grow, you'd better get used to living with nuclear power, because right now there just isn't an alternative. Turning off all the nuclear plants will put much heavier pressure on the oil, coal and gas industries, and that will have its own set of consequences.
mkrishnan
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
I guess I could see this supplementing my DVR. My Mac can actually already stream video to my TV wirelessly using my DVR, but the video must be in an MPEG2 format, I believe, which makes the feature fairly limiting.... So I could see it.
I'm not too much of a dinosaur to abandon cable in terms of purchasing content, although it seems like it would be a much tougher sell than, say, abandoning having a landline telephone. I'm not sure about downloading movies. I think I really like the idea, and Apple is on the right track in that it's worth nothing to me without a way to watch on TV.
Anyway, I hope Apple wins with this. :)
BTW this reminds me of something very OT.... I have an iMac G5 rev B, right? It has mini-VGA out. Can it use the S-Video adaptor? If so, I really ought to just get an S-Video out for it and plug it into my TV that way...in my current apartment arrangement, it wouldn't be too much of a nuisance to use wires.
I'm not too much of a dinosaur to abandon cable in terms of purchasing content, although it seems like it would be a much tougher sell than, say, abandoning having a landline telephone. I'm not sure about downloading movies. I think I really like the idea, and Apple is on the right track in that it's worth nothing to me without a way to watch on TV.
Anyway, I hope Apple wins with this. :)
BTW this reminds me of something very OT.... I have an iMac G5 rev B, right? It has mini-VGA out. Can it use the S-Video adaptor? If so, I really ought to just get an S-Video out for it and plug it into my TV that way...in my current apartment arrangement, it wouldn't be too much of a nuisance to use wires.
gonzoh
May 5, 11:16 AM
I am based in Los Angeles and I had very few dropped calls until about a month ago. I now get about 2 dropped calls a day
Typical really, it was just after I told a colleague I was never having a real problem with my iPhone!
Typical really, it was just after I told a colleague I was never having a real problem with my iPhone!
.jpg "wallpapers for desktop 3d,")
reel2reel
Apr 15, 09:50 AM
That's awesome.
Humans can be some nasty creatures.
Yep, this hate is dying off. Demographics are destiny. Younger people, writ large, are not homophobic or anti-gay.
But they're still pretty good at hating and excluding for other reasons. Some things never change, unfortunately.
Humans can be some nasty creatures.
Yep, this hate is dying off. Demographics are destiny. Younger people, writ large, are not homophobic or anti-gay.
But they're still pretty good at hating and excluding for other reasons. Some things never change, unfortunately.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
addicted44
Apr 20, 11:58 PM
Ah yes, the ever present "Android users must be smarter because they can customize their phones more" argument. It's still as irritating and off-base as it always was. :rolleyes:
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
nagromme
Aug 29, 11:58 AM
A lot of people seem to believe Greenpeace has fabricated their data. (Which would be pretty stupid since it can be checked!) But if so, why not put Dell at the bottom for publicity purposes? That makes more sense than Acer if this is all lies instead of research.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:22 AM
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
Anandtech did a test with two Clovertown engineering samples several weeks ago. Seemed to work just fine. The only thing I could see as an issue is the BIOS/EFI might need an update in addition to simply swapping the CPUs.
Anandtech did a test with two Clovertown engineering samples several weeks ago. Seemed to work just fine. The only thing I could see as an issue is the BIOS/EFI might need an update in addition to simply swapping the CPUs.
GraphicArmy
Jul 11, 11:07 PM
Yeah, I hope apple lower their price point for the pro models. It is way too much. I love mac computer, but come on; the prices vs the PC suckass.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
BigMac Attack
Apr 13, 02:11 AM
FCP has been plagued with FUNDAMENTAL problems since it's creation. And initial peaks seems to suggest that instead of building on it's basis and creating a stronger, leaner, more professional tool Apple has once again decided to ditch it's professional (and there must be a distinction) users for the prosumer crowd.
We aren't talking about those video hobbyists making montage reels of Johnny's 2011 soccer season, we are talking about those of us cutting high-profile commercials and films you see on television and in theaters. And this update has us worried that we've WASTED the last decade at the lunch table arguing with the Avid dinosaurs, "Oh I know FCP could be better in this respect and that respect, but, but, but just wait for FCP8 it's going to be SO much better." Now skip to FCPX. I wanted to see them release FCP8 for GOD'S SAKE! You can see where this is going, Shake anyone?
Many questions remain and yet it seems they have obviously sold their pro users down stream:
What of better TRIM? SOURCE RECORD TIMELINE EDITING? What about a COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT? SERVER BASED TECHNOLOGY? And MEDIA MANAGEMENT? Weakest parts of FCP I can tell you first hand, the lack of media management. It's an assistant�s nightmare. We deal with it on a daily basis.
Oh but it will sync the sound for you. Have you seen what it can do with iChat?
If none of this made any sense to you then you are probably not a pro-user, so I guess you're excited to get the new FCPX. But what you should really be saying to yourself is, "Isn't it so awesome they're releasing iMovie Pro in June!?"
We aren't talking about those video hobbyists making montage reels of Johnny's 2011 soccer season, we are talking about those of us cutting high-profile commercials and films you see on television and in theaters. And this update has us worried that we've WASTED the last decade at the lunch table arguing with the Avid dinosaurs, "Oh I know FCP could be better in this respect and that respect, but, but, but just wait for FCP8 it's going to be SO much better." Now skip to FCPX. I wanted to see them release FCP8 for GOD'S SAKE! You can see where this is going, Shake anyone?
Many questions remain and yet it seems they have obviously sold their pro users down stream:
What of better TRIM? SOURCE RECORD TIMELINE EDITING? What about a COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT? SERVER BASED TECHNOLOGY? And MEDIA MANAGEMENT? Weakest parts of FCP I can tell you first hand, the lack of media management. It's an assistant�s nightmare. We deal with it on a daily basis.
Oh but it will sync the sound for you. Have you seen what it can do with iChat?
If none of this made any sense to you then you are probably not a pro-user, so I guess you're excited to get the new FCPX. But what you should really be saying to yourself is, "Isn't it so awesome they're releasing iMovie Pro in June!?"
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 10:49 PM
My thoughts exactly. It almost has to be the next step for :apple:
I guess. I figure they will eventually, but I hope Apple releases an actual TV first.
I guess. I figure they will eventually, but I hope Apple releases an actual TV first.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 03:01 PM
Don't get me wrong, it's good that companies are giving time scales, but they don't really mean jack until they're implemented (the UK committed to the Kyoto protocol and will miss it's commitments by miles)
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
sjo
Aug 29, 01:22 PM
Have you read what you just wrote? Who said anything about hunting whales? Eating whale meat? Or being poor?
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.
CaryMacGuy
Mar 18, 09:11 AM
I will do what I want when I want on a device that I purchased. If AT&T doesn't like it, I can tell them where to go. They can cancel me and I will just take my business to Verizon. I am sure they don't want that.
KnightWRX
Apr 9, 06:32 AM
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
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.
milbournosphere
Apr 15, 09:08 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
iliketyla
Apr 21, 07:35 PM
Hence the robust market for Windows anti-virus software?
(As for malware vs. virus, to the consumer it doesn't matter. Both suck.)
....yeah the anti-virus software that I don't use.
It's a clever marketing ploy.
OH MY GOD MY TEH PC COULD GET HAXORED?!?!!@2/22?
I CAN HAZ NORTON ANTI-VIRUS!?34@
OMNONNOMNNONOMNONOM
(As for malware vs. virus, to the consumer it doesn't matter. Both suck.)
....yeah the anti-virus software that I don't use.
It's a clever marketing ploy.
OH MY GOD MY TEH PC COULD GET HAXORED?!?!!@2/22?
I CAN HAZ NORTON ANTI-VIRUS!?34@
OMNONNOMNNONOMNONOM
Iscariot
Mar 24, 09:15 PM
Could you cite examples of mainline Catholicism lynching homosexuals, burning cross on their lawns, bombing their houses etc?
March 1970 - Howard Efland, a gay man who had checked into the Dover Hotel under the pseudonym of J. McCann, was beaten to death by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.[6]
June 24, 1973 - The Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans, a gay bar, was burned by an arsonist, killing 32 people.[7]
June 21, 1977 - Robert Hillsborough was stabbed to death in San Francisco by a man shouting "******".[8]
July 5, 1978 - A gang of youths armed with baseball bats and tree branches assaulted several men in an area of Central Park in New York City known to be frequented by homosexuals. The victims were assaulted at random, but the assailants later confessed that they had deliberately set out to the park to attack homosexuals. One of those injured was former figure skater Dick Button, who was assaulted while watching a fireworks display in the park.[9][10]
November 27, 1978 - Openly gay San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk, along with Mayor George Moscone, was assassinated by political rival Dan White at San Francisco City Hall. Outrage over the assassinations and the short sentence given to White (seven years) prompted the White Night Riots.[11]
January 1979 - Tennessee Williams was the victim of an assault in Key West, being beaten by five teenage boys. He escaped serious injury. The episode was part of a spate of anti-gay violence inspired by an anti-gay newspaper ad run by a local Baptist minister.[12]
June 5, 1979 - Terry Knudsen was beaten to death by three men in Loring Park in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[13]
September 7, 1979 - Robert Allen Taylor was stabbed to death near Loring Park in Minneapolis. A local reporter interviewed the murderer from jail and was told, "I don't like gays. Okay?"[13]
October 7, 1979 - 17 year old Steven Charles of Newark was beaten to death in New York City by Costabile "Gus" Farace, Robert DeLicio, David Spoto and Farace's cousin Mark Granato. They also beat Charles' friend, 16 year old Thomas Moore of Brooklyn. Moore was critically injured but managed to get help at a nearby residence. It was Moore that identified the four men via a lineup four days after the incident. Farace, the leader of the attack, plead guilty to first-degree manslaughter. He was paroled after 8 years, in 1988. He himself was murdered on November 17, 1989.[14]
[edit]1980�1989
1984 - Charlie Howard was drowned in Bangor, Maine.[15]
May 13, 1988 - Rebecca Wight was killed when she and her partner, Claudia Brenner, were shot by Stephen Roy Carr while hiking and camping along the Appalachian Trail. Carr later claimed that he became enraged by the couple's lesbianism when he saw them having sex [16]
[edit]1990�1999
1990 - James Zappalorti, a gay Vietnam veteran, was stabbed to death.[17]
July 2, 1990 - Julio Rivera was murdered in New York City by two men who beat him with a hammer and stabbed him with a knife because he was gay.[18]
1991 - Paul Broussard, a Houston-area banker, was murdered.
October 27, 1992 - U.S. Navy Petty Officer Allen Schindler was murdered by a shipmate who stomped him to death in a public restroom in Japan.[19] Schindler had complained repeatedly about anti-gay harassment aboard ship.[19] The case became synonymous with the gays in the military debate that had been brewing in the United States culminating in the "Don't ask, don't tell" bill.[20]
1993 - Brandon Teena, a transman, was raped and later killed when his birth gender was revealed by police to male friends of his.[21] The events leading to Teena's death were depicted in the movie Boys Don't Cry.[22]
March 9, 1995 - Scott Amedure was murdered after revealing his attraction to his friend Jonathan Schmitz on a The Jenny Jones Show episode about secret crushes. Schmidtz purchased a shotgun to kill Amedure and did so after Amedure implied he still was attracted to him; Schmitz then turned himself in to police.[23][24]
December 4, 1995 - Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill, a lesbian couple in Medford, Oregon, were murdered by a man who said he had "no compassion" for bisexual or homosexual people.[25] Robert Acremant was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection.[26]
February 21, 1997 - The Otherside Lounge, a lesbian nightclub in Atlanta, was bombed by Eric Robert Rudolph, the "Olympic Park Bomber;" five bar patrons were injured. In a statement released after he was sentenced to five consecutive life terms for his several bombings, Rudolph called homosexuality an "aberrant lifestyle".
October 7, 1998 - Matthew Shepard, a gay student, in Laramie, Wyoming was tortured, beaten severely, tied to a fence, and abandoned; he was found 18 hours after the attack and succumbed to his injuries less than a week later, on October 12. His attackers, Russell Arthur Henderson and Aaron James McKinney, are both serving two consecutive life sentences in prison.[27]
July 1, 1999 - Gay couple Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder were murdered by white supremacist brothers Matthew and Tyler Williams in Redding, California. Tyler Williams was sentenced to a minimum of 33 years in prison, to be served after his completion of a 21-year sentence for firebombing synagogues and an abortion clinic.[28] Benjamin Williams claimed that by killing the couple he was "obeying the laws of the Creator".[29] He committed suicide in 2003 while awaiting trial. Their former pastor described the brothers as "zealous in their faith" but "far from kooks".[30]
July 6, 1999 - U.S. Army Pfc. Barry Winchell was murdered in Fort Campbell, Kentucky by fellow soldier Calvin Glover. Winchell was beaten to death with a baseball bat after rumors spread on base of his relationship with transgendered author Calpernia Addams. Glover was sentenced to life in prison.[31]
September 1999 - Steen Fenrich was murdered, apparently by his stepfather, John D. Fenrich, in Queens, New York. His dismembered remains were found in March with the phrase "gay ****** number one" scrawled on his skull along with his social security number. His stepfather fled from police while being interviewed, then committed suicide.[32]
October 15, 1999 - Sissy "Charles" Bolden was found shot to death in Savannah, Georgia. Police arrested Charles E. Wilkins, Jr., in July 2003; he admitted the killing, and was charged in two other homicides, according to the Savannah Police Department.
[edit]2000�2009
On the 29 April The U.S. House of Representatives voted to extend federal laws to classify as "hate crimes" attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation or gender identity (as well as mental or physical disability).[33]
July 3, 2000 - Arthur "J.R." Warren was punched and kicked to death in Grant Town, West Virginia by two teenage boys who reportedly believed Warren had spread a rumor that he and one of the boys, David Allen Parker, had a sexual relationship. Warren's killers ran over his body to disguise the murder as a hit-and-run. Parker pleaded guilty and was sentenced to "life in prison with mercy", making him eligible for parole after 15 years.[34] His accomplice, Jared Wilson, was sentenced to 20 years.[35]
September 22, 2000 - Ronald Gay entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia and opened fire on the patrons, killing Danny Overstreet, 43 years old, and severely injuring six others. Ronald said he was angry over what his name now meant, and deeply upset that three of his sons had changed their surname. He claimed that he had been told by God to find and kill lesbians and gay men, describing himself as a "Christian Soldier working for my Lord;" Gay testified in court that "he wished he could have killed more fags," before several of the shooting victims as well as Danny Overstreet's family and friends.[36]
March 1970 - Howard Efland, a gay man who had checked into the Dover Hotel under the pseudonym of J. McCann, was beaten to death by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.[6]
June 24, 1973 - The Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans, a gay bar, was burned by an arsonist, killing 32 people.[7]
June 21, 1977 - Robert Hillsborough was stabbed to death in San Francisco by a man shouting "******".[8]
July 5, 1978 - A gang of youths armed with baseball bats and tree branches assaulted several men in an area of Central Park in New York City known to be frequented by homosexuals. The victims were assaulted at random, but the assailants later confessed that they had deliberately set out to the park to attack homosexuals. One of those injured was former figure skater Dick Button, who was assaulted while watching a fireworks display in the park.[9][10]
November 27, 1978 - Openly gay San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk, along with Mayor George Moscone, was assassinated by political rival Dan White at San Francisco City Hall. Outrage over the assassinations and the short sentence given to White (seven years) prompted the White Night Riots.[11]
January 1979 - Tennessee Williams was the victim of an assault in Key West, being beaten by five teenage boys. He escaped serious injury. The episode was part of a spate of anti-gay violence inspired by an anti-gay newspaper ad run by a local Baptist minister.[12]
June 5, 1979 - Terry Knudsen was beaten to death by three men in Loring Park in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[13]
September 7, 1979 - Robert Allen Taylor was stabbed to death near Loring Park in Minneapolis. A local reporter interviewed the murderer from jail and was told, "I don't like gays. Okay?"[13]
October 7, 1979 - 17 year old Steven Charles of Newark was beaten to death in New York City by Costabile "Gus" Farace, Robert DeLicio, David Spoto and Farace's cousin Mark Granato. They also beat Charles' friend, 16 year old Thomas Moore of Brooklyn. Moore was critically injured but managed to get help at a nearby residence. It was Moore that identified the four men via a lineup four days after the incident. Farace, the leader of the attack, plead guilty to first-degree manslaughter. He was paroled after 8 years, in 1988. He himself was murdered on November 17, 1989.[14]
[edit]1980�1989
1984 - Charlie Howard was drowned in Bangor, Maine.[15]
May 13, 1988 - Rebecca Wight was killed when she and her partner, Claudia Brenner, were shot by Stephen Roy Carr while hiking and camping along the Appalachian Trail. Carr later claimed that he became enraged by the couple's lesbianism when he saw them having sex [16]
[edit]1990�1999
1990 - James Zappalorti, a gay Vietnam veteran, was stabbed to death.[17]
July 2, 1990 - Julio Rivera was murdered in New York City by two men who beat him with a hammer and stabbed him with a knife because he was gay.[18]
1991 - Paul Broussard, a Houston-area banker, was murdered.
October 27, 1992 - U.S. Navy Petty Officer Allen Schindler was murdered by a shipmate who stomped him to death in a public restroom in Japan.[19] Schindler had complained repeatedly about anti-gay harassment aboard ship.[19] The case became synonymous with the gays in the military debate that had been brewing in the United States culminating in the "Don't ask, don't tell" bill.[20]
1993 - Brandon Teena, a transman, was raped and later killed when his birth gender was revealed by police to male friends of his.[21] The events leading to Teena's death were depicted in the movie Boys Don't Cry.[22]
March 9, 1995 - Scott Amedure was murdered after revealing his attraction to his friend Jonathan Schmitz on a The Jenny Jones Show episode about secret crushes. Schmidtz purchased a shotgun to kill Amedure and did so after Amedure implied he still was attracted to him; Schmitz then turned himself in to police.[23][24]
December 4, 1995 - Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill, a lesbian couple in Medford, Oregon, were murdered by a man who said he had "no compassion" for bisexual or homosexual people.[25] Robert Acremant was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection.[26]
February 21, 1997 - The Otherside Lounge, a lesbian nightclub in Atlanta, was bombed by Eric Robert Rudolph, the "Olympic Park Bomber;" five bar patrons were injured. In a statement released after he was sentenced to five consecutive life terms for his several bombings, Rudolph called homosexuality an "aberrant lifestyle".
October 7, 1998 - Matthew Shepard, a gay student, in Laramie, Wyoming was tortured, beaten severely, tied to a fence, and abandoned; he was found 18 hours after the attack and succumbed to his injuries less than a week later, on October 12. His attackers, Russell Arthur Henderson and Aaron James McKinney, are both serving two consecutive life sentences in prison.[27]
July 1, 1999 - Gay couple Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder were murdered by white supremacist brothers Matthew and Tyler Williams in Redding, California. Tyler Williams was sentenced to a minimum of 33 years in prison, to be served after his completion of a 21-year sentence for firebombing synagogues and an abortion clinic.[28] Benjamin Williams claimed that by killing the couple he was "obeying the laws of the Creator".[29] He committed suicide in 2003 while awaiting trial. Their former pastor described the brothers as "zealous in their faith" but "far from kooks".[30]
July 6, 1999 - U.S. Army Pfc. Barry Winchell was murdered in Fort Campbell, Kentucky by fellow soldier Calvin Glover. Winchell was beaten to death with a baseball bat after rumors spread on base of his relationship with transgendered author Calpernia Addams. Glover was sentenced to life in prison.[31]
September 1999 - Steen Fenrich was murdered, apparently by his stepfather, John D. Fenrich, in Queens, New York. His dismembered remains were found in March with the phrase "gay ****** number one" scrawled on his skull along with his social security number. His stepfather fled from police while being interviewed, then committed suicide.[32]
October 15, 1999 - Sissy "Charles" Bolden was found shot to death in Savannah, Georgia. Police arrested Charles E. Wilkins, Jr., in July 2003; he admitted the killing, and was charged in two other homicides, according to the Savannah Police Department.
[edit]2000�2009
On the 29 April The U.S. House of Representatives voted to extend federal laws to classify as "hate crimes" attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation or gender identity (as well as mental or physical disability).[33]
July 3, 2000 - Arthur "J.R." Warren was punched and kicked to death in Grant Town, West Virginia by two teenage boys who reportedly believed Warren had spread a rumor that he and one of the boys, David Allen Parker, had a sexual relationship. Warren's killers ran over his body to disguise the murder as a hit-and-run. Parker pleaded guilty and was sentenced to "life in prison with mercy", making him eligible for parole after 15 years.[34] His accomplice, Jared Wilson, was sentenced to 20 years.[35]
September 22, 2000 - Ronald Gay entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia and opened fire on the patrons, killing Danny Overstreet, 43 years old, and severely injuring six others. Ronald said he was angry over what his name now meant, and deeply upset that three of his sons had changed their surname. He claimed that he had been told by God to find and kill lesbians and gay men, describing himself as a "Christian Soldier working for my Lord;" Gay testified in court that "he wished he could have killed more fags," before several of the shooting victims as well as Danny Overstreet's family and friends.[36]
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 08:51 AM
If AT&T were to allow tethering with unlimited, they know that ASAP people would start dropping their home internet en masse. Not saying everyone would, but plenty would for the same reason they dropped their home landline telephone. Will this happen eventualy anyway - yes. But AT&T, as the provider has the right to do as they see fit for their business and their shareholders.
While you might not use more data via tethering, if it were allowed with no extra charges, and on unlimited plans, AT&T would see a huge spike in usage that would not go down - and they would be doing so without any increase in their revenues (in fact, they'd see a decrease as noted above).
While you might not use more data via tethering, if it were allowed with no extra charges, and on unlimited plans, AT&T would see a huge spike in usage that would not go down - and they would be doing so without any increase in their revenues (in fact, they'd see a decrease as noted above).
KingYaba
Aug 29, 05:30 PM
GreenPeace's new agenda: Save the iPods :rolleyes:
OllyW
Apr 28, 11:33 AM
Ahh, good catch! But that's before the iPad was even released... not sure what Al meant by his comment...
The launch of the iPad won't affect Apple's market share without the iPad included, which brings us back to Al's comment. ;)
The launch of the iPad won't affect Apple's market share without the iPad included, which brings us back to Al's comment. ;)
michaellinehan
Oct 7, 02:40 PM
"it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market"
Simplistic example --- If one company has 95% of the market with a free phone and another company has 5% of the market with a $500 phone, who's better off?
Other articles go on and on about Microsoft's massively greater "market share". But with maybe tens times more market share than Apple, MS's market capitalization (worth) is only about 1.4 times as much as Apple.
Market share, as a bare number, is meaningless.
Simplistic example --- If one company has 95% of the market with a free phone and another company has 5% of the market with a $500 phone, who's better off?
Other articles go on and on about Microsoft's massively greater "market share". But with maybe tens times more market share than Apple, MS's market capitalization (worth) is only about 1.4 times as much as Apple.
Market share, as a bare number, is meaningless.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 03:31 PM
Just like Mac OS X would gain market share if you could install it on any PC.
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
