rhett7660
Feb 21, 04:31 PM
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
I don't agree with this at all. There phone when it came out was a lot more expensive then a good majority of the phones out at the time. They were not subsidized at all. They had something that was different and new to the game. The App store wasn't even around for the consumer at that time. There were web apps but not applications like we know it now. Very limited ones at that.
They were going against the likes of Nokia and Black Berry. Heck at that point the iPhone wasn't even considered a smart phone was it? It didn't have really any tools to compete against Black Berry. All it had was a new user interface.
Sure there were going to sell some units but I don't think any of this guaranteed a winner. Especially in a market that was saturated with phones that cost 50 or less and or free if you sign up.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
I don't agree with this at all. There phone when it came out was a lot more expensive then a good majority of the phones out at the time. They were not subsidized at all. They had something that was different and new to the game. The App store wasn't even around for the consumer at that time. There were web apps but not applications like we know it now. Very limited ones at that.
They were going against the likes of Nokia and Black Berry. Heck at that point the iPhone wasn't even considered a smart phone was it? It didn't have really any tools to compete against Black Berry. All it had was a new user interface.
Sure there were going to sell some units but I don't think any of this guaranteed a winner. Especially in a market that was saturated with phones that cost 50 or less and or free if you sign up.
dmelgar
Jul 8, 12:01 AM
I'm still on the iPhone 3G. I was seriously considering ditching AT&T and the iPhone 4 for Sprint/EVO 4G or Verizon/Droid X because I was dropping call every single call in my house (no joke, every single call) and multiple calls per day around town a few weeks ago, BUT...
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I've had poor AT&T coverage as well. Could never reliably make a call at home. After suffering for 2 years I ditched and went with the HTC Incredible on Verizon. Couldn't be happier. 3G coverage EVERYWHERE. I forgot what it was like to have coverage. Its like day and night. Over the last month, I've grown to really like Android as well.
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I've had poor AT&T coverage as well. Could never reliably make a call at home. After suffering for 2 years I ditched and went with the HTC Incredible on Verizon. Couldn't be happier. 3G coverage EVERYWHERE. I forgot what it was like to have coverage. Its like day and night. Over the last month, I've grown to really like Android as well.
OllyW
Mar 12, 04:27 AM
Nuclear experts are speculating that the explosion was caused by hydrogen gas released from water that's come into contact with the overheating fuel rods.
"If nuclear fuel rods overheat and then come into contact with water, this produces a large amount of highly-flammable hydrogen gas which can then ignite,"
BBC live update (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
"If nuclear fuel rods overheat and then come into contact with water, this produces a large amount of highly-flammable hydrogen gas which can then ignite,"
BBC live update (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
Multimedia
Oct 24, 11:53 PM
Damn multimedia, you are making me want that Dell! I just went to the Apple store to check out the 30" (pulled a stool up to the machine from the genius bar and tried to see if I could handle all that real estate). I am usually a sucker for Apple stuff and having matching componentry...but that dell is so CHEAP!
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?Mine are up against the wall at the back of 3 foot deep tables. I have an L table setup with a 6x3 and 8x3 for a total of 9x8 so I'm usually about 3-4 feet away.
Yes the Dells are low priced (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs) but they do not look nor feel cheap in any way. I really prefer the black or dark brown frames Dell uses. In the dark the screens float in the dark and the frames do not reflect anything from the screens like the Apple Aluminum frames must. Plus they all have 4-port USB 2 hubs in them and 9-type memory card readers. And they all have elevators so you can adjust the height which Apple's do not. I love the new x07 model Dell Stands which differ from the x05 model stands. And they are all VESA mount compatible as well. I'm gonna get another Dell 30" next Spring or as soon as they hit $999 which ever comes first - watch out Black Friday - November 24. :p
The popularity of 30" monitors has got to be going through the roof right now with these ever rapidly lowering prices happening. I can really see the end of all CRTs now.
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?Mine are up against the wall at the back of 3 foot deep tables. I have an L table setup with a 6x3 and 8x3 for a total of 9x8 so I'm usually about 3-4 feet away.
Yes the Dells are low priced (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs) but they do not look nor feel cheap in any way. I really prefer the black or dark brown frames Dell uses. In the dark the screens float in the dark and the frames do not reflect anything from the screens like the Apple Aluminum frames must. Plus they all have 4-port USB 2 hubs in them and 9-type memory card readers. And they all have elevators so you can adjust the height which Apple's do not. I love the new x07 model Dell Stands which differ from the x05 model stands. And they are all VESA mount compatible as well. I'm gonna get another Dell 30" next Spring or as soon as they hit $999 which ever comes first - watch out Black Friday - November 24. :p
The popularity of 30" monitors has got to be going through the roof right now with these ever rapidly lowering prices happening. I can really see the end of all CRTs now.
G4er?
Apr 29, 08:23 AM
I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
There are thousands maybe millions of people out there that had there first computer experience on an Apple computer that now are sitting in the business world using Windows.
Who are they?
All those kids from all those schools that used to use Apple.
My wife is a teacher. She personally taught lots of them. Schools are now using Windows machines. After that my wife switched to Windows. I've been using Macs for 18 years. But I'm getting so sick of waiting for Apple to make a mid sized mid range Mac without a built in screen I'm close to switching to Windows too.
And there are people running Windows on Macs in order to use Autocad that has all the features. Some of the features are not on the new Mac version of Autocad.
There are thousands maybe millions of people out there that had there first computer experience on an Apple computer that now are sitting in the business world using Windows.
Who are they?
All those kids from all those schools that used to use Apple.
My wife is a teacher. She personally taught lots of them. Schools are now using Windows machines. After that my wife switched to Windows. I've been using Macs for 18 years. But I'm getting so sick of waiting for Apple to make a mid sized mid range Mac without a built in screen I'm close to switching to Windows too.
And there are people running Windows on Macs in order to use Autocad that has all the features. Some of the features are not on the new Mac version of Autocad.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 10:18 AM
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
It doesn't do the same job. Not even close. If all you need to do is surf the web or check your email, you can get away with cheap PCs. If you want to do anything that requires some power - big difference. Intelligent people doing real work buy Macs, or PCs spec'ed out similarly (which costs about the same).
It doesn't do the same job. Not even close. If all you need to do is surf the web or check your email, you can get away with cheap PCs. If you want to do anything that requires some power - big difference. Intelligent people doing real work buy Macs, or PCs spec'ed out similarly (which costs about the same).
.jpg "miley cyrus")
res1233
May 2, 04:21 PM
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
A smart hacker will simply feed Safari the data it looks for when verifying a file is an installer. Once that's done, do what you want with the person's computer. It isn't rocket science, it just takes time and effort, something many hackers would rather spend on windows-based PCs.
EDIT: Because trolls will feed on anything, what i meant is that's what you'd have to do to run code without user permission. The code couldn't do much other than delete everything in your home folder but... Well, it can delete everything in your home folder. To be perfectly honest though, whoever doesn't back that stuff up is asking for trouble considering it doesn't even take malware to lose your data.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
A smart hacker will simply feed Safari the data it looks for when verifying a file is an installer. Once that's done, do what you want with the person's computer. It isn't rocket science, it just takes time and effort, something many hackers would rather spend on windows-based PCs.
EDIT: Because trolls will feed on anything, what i meant is that's what you'd have to do to run code without user permission. The code couldn't do much other than delete everything in your home folder but... Well, it can delete everything in your home folder. To be perfectly honest though, whoever doesn't back that stuff up is asking for trouble considering it doesn't even take malware to lose your data.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:50 PM
In another forum that I left recently (because of the poor quality of discussion) someone used this same type of argument to "prove" the existence of aliens visiting the Earth.
And this invalidates what I said how? I'm not even trying to "prove" anything. Of course it doesn't prove something. But statistics are annoying. Maybe moreso to me because of my math/science background.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
edit, iphone3gs16gb, yeah you really do ;)
And this invalidates what I said how? I'm not even trying to "prove" anything. Of course it doesn't prove something. But statistics are annoying. Maybe moreso to me because of my math/science background.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
edit, iphone3gs16gb, yeah you really do ;)
bushido
Mar 18, 06:46 AM
i'm surprised its not against some law tbh
i'm in europe so i can use tethering without any additional costs bc its just a rip off anyway. the provider enables a feature for u that is there in the first place and they give u the same data.
its as if t-online would ask me to pay extra for every additional laptop connected to my wifi
i'm in europe so i can use tethering without any additional costs bc its just a rip off anyway. the provider enables a feature for u that is there in the first place and they give u the same data.
its as if t-online would ask me to pay extra for every additional laptop connected to my wifi
leekohler
Mar 26, 02:41 AM
I just love the :cool: expression on this :rolleyes: guy's sarcastic face. Thanks. :D
Care to elaborate?
Care to elaborate?
Shivetya
Apr 6, 05:15 AM
Things you might find odd.
Very closed environment, limited games unless you bootcamp Windows. By closed I mean, really its not like you can bop down to any store and find software for your Mac (and no, the App store does not cut it).
No Mac product offers true customization like a PC. You get whats in the box and your stuck with it, unless of course you spend the money on a Mac Pro but even then it has many restrictions in what will work and won't. Think Linux with even less choice but at least when your given the choice that item will work.
Apps do not have a menu bar as part of their window. It always is at the top of the screen. This can be annoying at times for those used to positioning applications windows in specific parts of the screen because if need access to that apps menu and don't need the short cut you have to move the mouse to the top of the screen again. Probably the #1 interface dislike I have with OS X.
Apple mice, I know its not an OS thing, but the first thing any self respecting person does is buy a real mouse with the correct number of buttons.
The beach ball.
Very closed environment, limited games unless you bootcamp Windows. By closed I mean, really its not like you can bop down to any store and find software for your Mac (and no, the App store does not cut it).
No Mac product offers true customization like a PC. You get whats in the box and your stuck with it, unless of course you spend the money on a Mac Pro but even then it has many restrictions in what will work and won't. Think Linux with even less choice but at least when your given the choice that item will work.
Apps do not have a menu bar as part of their window. It always is at the top of the screen. This can be annoying at times for those used to positioning applications windows in specific parts of the screen because if need access to that apps menu and don't need the short cut you have to move the mouse to the top of the screen again. Probably the #1 interface dislike I have with OS X.
Apple mice, I know its not an OS thing, but the first thing any self respecting person does is buy a real mouse with the correct number of buttons.
The beach ball.
MrNomNoms
Apr 21, 05:24 AM
It's interesting how Apple seem to put the customer (and the customer's experience) first and profit big time in the process.
Note to self - note the above.
It is the old story, focus on the product and the profits will follow. The problem is far too many focus on the profit and ignore the product resulting in a crap product no person wants to buy.
Note to self - note the above.
It is the old story, focus on the product and the profits will follow. The problem is far too many focus on the profit and ignore the product resulting in a crap product no person wants to buy.
vincenz
Mar 13, 05:26 PM
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
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.
munkery
May 2, 04:14 PM
I'm curious how it auto-executes the installer because that can have potential damaging results for a user account, without privilege escalation. My data is all in my user account, I don't care about a few system files so much as I care about my data.
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
TuckBodi
Sep 12, 01:11 AM
I have not read the whole thread here but I must say coming from an iPhone 3g to the iPhone 4 is a night and day difference. I love my iPhone 4. I think since I have had it I have had about 5 total dropped calls. I have had it since late July. I had that many dropped calls in a day with my 3g. I just had to add this in cause I see people complain about the same thing all the time. Dropped call this and dropped call that. Frankly I don't see it. Maybe I just have the super iPhone. LOL! Just my .02 worth!
-Dave
Yeah, I gotta sorta agree. You know my iPhone has gotten about 100% better in the past month or so. Instead of 0-1 bars I now get 1-2 bars (except the times I really have an important call and then of course it drops). But drop calls are now only about 2 a day, instead of 3 or 4, so that's nice. Oh yeah, thinking about it, my voice mail is better too....instead of getting it the next day it's now about 12 hours, so that's cool. And my text messages go through most of the time now..whereas I used to have about every fourth one fail, so yeah gotta like that! And retrieving my mail is better as I only get that "can't connect to server" message only 3 times a day now instead of 6 or 7. You know..overall, I they're getting closer to when I first bought the phone several years ago. Wait a second..nope..they gotta ways to go. Just sayin'.
-Dave
Yeah, I gotta sorta agree. You know my iPhone has gotten about 100% better in the past month or so. Instead of 0-1 bars I now get 1-2 bars (except the times I really have an important call and then of course it drops). But drop calls are now only about 2 a day, instead of 3 or 4, so that's nice. Oh yeah, thinking about it, my voice mail is better too....instead of getting it the next day it's now about 12 hours, so that's cool. And my text messages go through most of the time now..whereas I used to have about every fourth one fail, so yeah gotta like that! And retrieving my mail is better as I only get that "can't connect to server" message only 3 times a day now instead of 6 or 7. You know..overall, I they're getting closer to when I first bought the phone several years ago. Wait a second..nope..they gotta ways to go. Just sayin'.
ekwipt
Apr 12, 11:31 PM
Final Cut X looks amazing
I think everyone's got the one click colour correcting thing wrong, it will be great for documentaries or reality TV when you have different format cameras shot by cameramen and producers who may not be exceptional camera operators. You'll be able to cut everything on the timeline and roughly colour correct the shots so they look good for your first edit. It will basically do away with the "Color Corrector 3-way" tool and I'm guessing you'll be able to fine adjust the correction with an interface similar to it.
This event was for Final Cut X, I'm hoping they'll be updating the other apps in the suite and release them on the app store.
I'm thinking FCX will turn into another plugin revenue stream for Apple, something they didn't talk about it in the conference. So you may log on to an Apple Pro store and download plugins from different manufacturers an Apple will take a 10% or so cut on everything. So there will be Logic X and when you download an AU component they'll take a cut, when you download a new FX plugin they'll take a cut.
so maybe Color will be integrated into final Cut X but you'll buy it as a plugin of sorts that will be hosted in Final Cut X.
I think Soundtrack Pro will be turfed and Logic X will have it's features built into it.
Blackmagic Design and AJA might come up with a new Log and Capture tool for their capture cards and you won't be sitting waiting for thing to capture you'll be able to edit as they are capturing.
I don't use DVD Studio Pro and believe it will o away, everything is streamed over the net now anyway. Vimeo, Youtube etc
Have you checked out Sendoid? Studios will be using this more and more to send each other files, no more uploading with YouSendIt or DropBox.
I think everyone's got the one click colour correcting thing wrong, it will be great for documentaries or reality TV when you have different format cameras shot by cameramen and producers who may not be exceptional camera operators. You'll be able to cut everything on the timeline and roughly colour correct the shots so they look good for your first edit. It will basically do away with the "Color Corrector 3-way" tool and I'm guessing you'll be able to fine adjust the correction with an interface similar to it.
This event was for Final Cut X, I'm hoping they'll be updating the other apps in the suite and release them on the app store.
I'm thinking FCX will turn into another plugin revenue stream for Apple, something they didn't talk about it in the conference. So you may log on to an Apple Pro store and download plugins from different manufacturers an Apple will take a 10% or so cut on everything. So there will be Logic X and when you download an AU component they'll take a cut, when you download a new FX plugin they'll take a cut.
so maybe Color will be integrated into final Cut X but you'll buy it as a plugin of sorts that will be hosted in Final Cut X.
I think Soundtrack Pro will be turfed and Logic X will have it's features built into it.
Blackmagic Design and AJA might come up with a new Log and Capture tool for their capture cards and you won't be sitting waiting for thing to capture you'll be able to edit as they are capturing.
I don't use DVD Studio Pro and believe it will o away, everything is streamed over the net now anyway. Vimeo, Youtube etc
Have you checked out Sendoid? Studios will be using this more and more to send each other files, no more uploading with YouSendIt or DropBox.
MonkeyClaw
Sep 21, 08:49 AM
I think this thing is perfect, especially for a person like myself who does not watch a ton of TV. In the end it will be cheaper for me just running one of these on my TV and subscribing to a couple of shows as opposed to spending money on cable or satellite. The built in HDD is an interesting development, I'm curious to see what that might bring about. But as it stands, I'm sold, lol.
gohanmzt
Apr 20, 06:47 PM
Once you use Windows, you are doing something stupid :D
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
(facepalm)
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
(facepalm)
tveric
Mar 18, 11:53 PM
So, basically if you use PyMusique you are in violation of the TOS and because you need an iTunes account to even make use of PyMusique, Apple will know who is trying to violate the TOS.
Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.
Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.
As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.
Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.
Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.
As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.
GGJstudios
May 2, 09:15 PM
Just another reason for people to use Firefox.
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:10 PM
It isn't fallacious when the source is known to be unreliable and non representative of the field which they purport to be a part of.
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
During this thread, I've just read an emotionally charged post that doesn't prove anything that the poster says about Nicolosi. I try to feel plenty of empathy. But if others keep attacking someone who disagrees with them, the attackers don't evoke my empathy. They decrease their credibility.
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
During this thread, I've just read an emotionally charged post that doesn't prove anything that the poster says about Nicolosi. I try to feel plenty of empathy. But if others keep attacking someone who disagrees with them, the attackers don't evoke my empathy. They decrease their credibility.
shawnce
Oct 29, 10:23 AM
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
We can't answer that question without knowing what you want to do with the system... it fully depends on the work loads you plan to throw at it. In some cases fewer faster cores makes sense in others more, even if slower (lower clocked), cores makes sense.
We can't answer that question without knowing what you want to do with the system... it fully depends on the work loads you plan to throw at it. In some cases fewer faster cores makes sense in others more, even if slower (lower clocked), cores makes sense.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:23 PM
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment