NikolasStow
May 2, 12:10 PM
I got this and immediately figured out it was a virus or some ****
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:06 AM
Naah. That's not it. Try again.
Um... it is actually.
Hardcore is defined as the "the most active member of a group or sub-class of individuals" used an an adjective as it is in hardcore gamer that means "the most active gamer".
Hardcore means the gamers that game the most. If you have a Mac there is a great dictionary app built in.
Um... it is actually.
Hardcore is defined as the "the most active member of a group or sub-class of individuals" used an an adjective as it is in hardcore gamer that means "the most active gamer".
Hardcore means the gamers that game the most. If you have a Mac there is a great dictionary app built in.
SongtotheKing
Mar 23, 05:01 PM
im not a phone genius but i am pretty sure the Android is cross-carrier. If it surpasses the iPhone any time soon, it will be because of that. But i guarantee that if the iPhone went cross-carrier as well, we would see a HUGE jump in sales in which Android will plummet. Think about it. a REALLY BIG reason a lot of people go with the Android is because the iPhone isnt available on their carrier.
IMHO
IMHO
cocky jeremy
May 16, 02:53 PM
I used to never get dropped calls on AT&T and lastnight alone i had 2-4. To top that off, i called my GF and it was ringing (at least on my end) and her phone never even rang. Called both of my parents, same thing. They were 5 feet away from me at the time. WTF. :eek:
citizenzen
Apr 24, 11:14 AM
What's the deal with religious people?
It's just tribalism, upon tribalism, upon tribalism.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
XBOX - wallpaper for 3
XBOX Live iPhone 4 Wallpaper
Create Postcard From Xbox Ball
BOX 360 Wallpapers \\\\ Xbox
It's just tribalism, upon tribalism, upon tribalism.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
skunk
Mar 28, 12:10 PM
Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.Your arguments are becoming more bizarre by the minute. I have no idea what you are on about. What is this "essence" of which you speak? :confused:
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.Your arguments are becoming more bizarre by the minute. I have no idea what you are on about. What is this "essence" of which you speak? :confused:
IgnatiusTheKing
Aug 23, 02:09 PM
I almost never drop calls anymore.
takao
Mar 14, 12:21 PM
At the risk of bumping this up to PRSI, let me just say that I thought 'saving face' was a thing of the past.
in japan though it's a little bit different. thats why there also isn't much open panic: simply for the fact that the majority of japanese don't want to be seen 'losing it'
off topic side note: for other nuclear plant designs this events could have been massivle more dramatic: like for certain swiss/german/european power plants where if one reactors cooling fails, the emergency generators are actually to be powered by the _other_ nuclear reactors on site ...
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
in japan though it's a little bit different. thats why there also isn't much open panic: simply for the fact that the majority of japanese don't want to be seen 'losing it'
off topic side note: for other nuclear plant designs this events could have been massivle more dramatic: like for certain swiss/german/european power plants where if one reactors cooling fails, the emergency generators are actually to be powered by the _other_ nuclear reactors on site ...
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
You must be joking. Reference after reference has been provided and you simply break from the thread, only to re-emerge in another thread later. This has happened at least twice now that I can remember.
The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely.
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs.
For the - what is this, fifth? - time now: AltiVec is incapable of double precision, and is capable of accelerating only that code which is written specifically to take advantage of it. Which is some of it. Which means any high "gigaflops" performance quotes deserve large asterisks next to them.
If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations.
Exactly, this is the whole problem - if a developer wants good performance and can't get it, they have to jump through hoops and waste time and money that they shouldn't have to waste.
Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
Way to encourage Mac development, huh? "Hey guys, come develop for our platform! We've got a 3.5% national desktop market share and a 2% world desktop market share, and we have an uncertain future! We want YOU to spend time and money porting your software to OUR platform, and on top of that, we want YOU to go the extra mile to waste time and money that you shouldn't have to waste just to ensure that your code doesn't run like a dog on our ancient wack-job hack of a processor!"
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp.
"PC biased spec like SPECfp?" Yes, the reason PPC does so poorly in SPEC is because SPECfp is biased towards Intel, AMD, Sun, MIPS, HP/Compaq, and IBM (all of whose chips blow the G4 out of the water, and not only the x86 chips - the workstation and server chips too, literally ALL of them), and Apple's miserable performance is a conspiracy engineered by The Man, right?
Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Why? FLOPS is as dumb a benchmark as MIPS. That's the reason cross-platform benchmarks exist.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
An Athlon 1700+ scores about what, 575 in SPECfp2000 (depending on the system)? Results for the 1.25GHz G4 are unavailable (because Apple is ashamed to publish them), but the 1GHz does about 175. Let's be very gracious and assume the new GCC has got the 1.25GHz G4 up to 300. That's STILL terrible. So how about an accurate summary of the G4's floating point performance:
On the whole, poor.******
* Very strong on applications well-suited to AltiVec and optimized to take advantage of it.
new xbox 360 250gb
Top 10 Games HD Wallpapers,
Games Wallpaper Xbox 360
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
You must be joking. Reference after reference has been provided and you simply break from the thread, only to re-emerge in another thread later. This has happened at least twice now that I can remember.
The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely.
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs.
For the - what is this, fifth? - time now: AltiVec is incapable of double precision, and is capable of accelerating only that code which is written specifically to take advantage of it. Which is some of it. Which means any high "gigaflops" performance quotes deserve large asterisks next to them.
If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations.
Exactly, this is the whole problem - if a developer wants good performance and can't get it, they have to jump through hoops and waste time and money that they shouldn't have to waste.
Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
Way to encourage Mac development, huh? "Hey guys, come develop for our platform! We've got a 3.5% national desktop market share and a 2% world desktop market share, and we have an uncertain future! We want YOU to spend time and money porting your software to OUR platform, and on top of that, we want YOU to go the extra mile to waste time and money that you shouldn't have to waste just to ensure that your code doesn't run like a dog on our ancient wack-job hack of a processor!"
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp.
"PC biased spec like SPECfp?" Yes, the reason PPC does so poorly in SPEC is because SPECfp is biased towards Intel, AMD, Sun, MIPS, HP/Compaq, and IBM (all of whose chips blow the G4 out of the water, and not only the x86 chips - the workstation and server chips too, literally ALL of them), and Apple's miserable performance is a conspiracy engineered by The Man, right?
Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Why? FLOPS is as dumb a benchmark as MIPS. That's the reason cross-platform benchmarks exist.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
An Athlon 1700+ scores about what, 575 in SPECfp2000 (depending on the system)? Results for the 1.25GHz G4 are unavailable (because Apple is ashamed to publish them), but the 1GHz does about 175. Let's be very gracious and assume the new GCC has got the 1.25GHz G4 up to 300. That's STILL terrible. So how about an accurate summary of the G4's floating point performance:
On the whole, poor.******
* Very strong on applications well-suited to AltiVec and optimized to take advantage of it.
sbarton
Jul 13, 09:03 AM
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.
Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.
Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?
topicolo
Jul 11, 10:27 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
You must be joking. Reference after reference has been provided and you simply break from the thread, only to re-emerge in another thread later. This has happened at least twice now that I can remember.
The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely.
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs.
For the - what is this, fifth? - time now: AltiVec is incapable of double precision, and is capable of accelerating only that code which is written specifically to take advantage of it. Which is some of it. Which means any high "gigaflops" performance quotes deserve large asterisks next to them.
If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations.
Exactly, this is the whole problem - if a developer wants good performance and can't get it, they have to jump through hoops and waste time and money that they shouldn't have to waste.
Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
Way to encourage Mac development, huh? "Hey guys, come develop for our platform! We've got a 3.5% national desktop market share and a 2% world desktop market share, and we have an uncertain future! We want YOU to spend time and money porting your software to OUR platform, and on top of that, we want YOU to go the extra mile to waste time and money that you shouldn't have to waste just to ensure that your code doesn't run like a dog on our ancient wack-job hack of a processor!"
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp.
"PC biased spec like SPECfp?" Yes, the reason PPC does so poorly in SPEC is because SPECfp is biased towards Intel, AMD, Sun, MIPS, HP/Compaq, and IBM (all of whose chips blow the G4 out of the water, and not only the x86 chips - the workstation and server chips too, literally ALL of them), and Apple's miserable performance is a conspiracy engineered by The Man, right?
Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Why? FLOPS is as dumb a benchmark as MIPS. That's the reason cross-platform benchmarks exist.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
An Athlon 1700+ scores about what, 575 in SPECfp2000 (depending on the system)? Results for the 1.25GHz G4 are unavailable (because Apple is ashamed to publish them), but the 1GHz does about 175. Let's be very gracious and assume the new GCC has got the 1.25GHz G4 up to 300. That's STILL terrible. So how about an accurate summary of the G4's floating point performance:
On the whole, poor.******
* Very strong on applications well-suited to AltiVec and optimized to take advantage of it.
Xbox 360 slim
The official site for the XBox
Xbox 360 - Green Wallpaper by
Xbox 360 Slim PSP Wallpaper
Mortal Kombat Wallpaper
Xbox 360 Wallpapers 4
360 Wallpapers \\\\ XBOX 360
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
You must be joking. Reference after reference has been provided and you simply break from the thread, only to re-emerge in another thread later. This has happened at least twice now that I can remember.
The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely.
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs.
For the - what is this, fifth? - time now: AltiVec is incapable of double precision, and is capable of accelerating only that code which is written specifically to take advantage of it. Which is some of it. Which means any high "gigaflops" performance quotes deserve large asterisks next to them.
If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations.
Exactly, this is the whole problem - if a developer wants good performance and can't get it, they have to jump through hoops and waste time and money that they shouldn't have to waste.
Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
Way to encourage Mac development, huh? "Hey guys, come develop for our platform! We've got a 3.5% national desktop market share and a 2% world desktop market share, and we have an uncertain future! We want YOU to spend time and money porting your software to OUR platform, and on top of that, we want YOU to go the extra mile to waste time and money that you shouldn't have to waste just to ensure that your code doesn't run like a dog on our ancient wack-job hack of a processor!"
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp.
"PC biased spec like SPECfp?" Yes, the reason PPC does so poorly in SPEC is because SPECfp is biased towards Intel, AMD, Sun, MIPS, HP/Compaq, and IBM (all of whose chips blow the G4 out of the water, and not only the x86 chips - the workstation and server chips too, literally ALL of them), and Apple's miserable performance is a conspiracy engineered by The Man, right?
Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Why? FLOPS is as dumb a benchmark as MIPS. That's the reason cross-platform benchmarks exist.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
An Athlon 1700+ scores about what, 575 in SPECfp2000 (depending on the system)? Results for the 1.25GHz G4 are unavailable (because Apple is ashamed to publish them), but the 1GHz does about 175. Let's be very gracious and assume the new GCC has got the 1.25GHz G4 up to 300. That's STILL terrible. So how about an accurate summary of the G4's floating point performance:
On the whole, poor.******
* Very strong on applications well-suited to AltiVec and optimized to take advantage of it.
skunk
Apr 23, 04:22 PM
The Old and New Testaments make up the Bible :confused:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.Sorry, I misread your post... :o
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.Sorry, I misread your post... :o
Small White Car
May 5, 10:23 AM
AT&T's plan worked brilliantly.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:38 PM
Cutting a deal with a hacker, if we can get one who's up high enough ...
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
megfilmworks
Oct 8, 11:02 AM
When pigs fly.
JackAxe
Apr 9, 03:15 AM
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
Not for most games.
Beside, you can touch buttons. :)
Not for most games.
Beside, you can touch buttons. :)
Gelfin
Mar 24, 09:56 PM
Could you cite examples of mainline Catholicism lynching homosexuals, burning cross on their lawns, bombing their houses etc?
Aside from what Iscariot just wrote, you are ignoring the point.
The problem is believing that certain people are inferior and offensive just by virtue of their existence.
The problem is demonizing people who are living living their lives in ways that cause no harm to the person condemning them, nor to any other identifiable person.
The problem is condemning people for that which they did not choose and cannot change about themselves.
But most importantly, the problem is feeling so entitled as to believe that prejudice entails the right to subjugate another person, to deny him the right to live according to his own conscience and best interests and to instead force him to live according to those of someone who despises him.
It is at this last point that that the bigot crosses the line no one is morally obliged to tolerate. It is the firing of the first shot, the first act of antagonism taken against someone who did not initiate a confrontation.
The fact that the Catholic Church does not need the same tactics to pursue such an agenda against homosexuals as the KKK used against black people is not strictly relevant. The immorality of the doctrine of subjugation is the same.
Aside from what Iscariot just wrote, you are ignoring the point.
The problem is believing that certain people are inferior and offensive just by virtue of their existence.
The problem is demonizing people who are living living their lives in ways that cause no harm to the person condemning them, nor to any other identifiable person.
The problem is condemning people for that which they did not choose and cannot change about themselves.
But most importantly, the problem is feeling so entitled as to believe that prejudice entails the right to subjugate another person, to deny him the right to live according to his own conscience and best interests and to instead force him to live according to those of someone who despises him.
It is at this last point that that the bigot crosses the line no one is morally obliged to tolerate. It is the firing of the first shot, the first act of antagonism taken against someone who did not initiate a confrontation.
The fact that the Catholic Church does not need the same tactics to pursue such an agenda against homosexuals as the KKK used against black people is not strictly relevant. The immorality of the doctrine of subjugation is the same.
paul4339
Apr 28, 01:07 PM
Well it doesn't matter what you think either then! :p
And that's a stupid argument, I'm pretty sure 99% of people on this forum understood what I meant when I said, a computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable. :rolleyes:
I could be wrong, but I don't think that was his point... I think he meant it doesn't matter if you think it should be part of the shipment market share report or not.
That is, I think his point is even if it's not considered a computer, the report is just showing what people are buying (where the market is heading)
And that's a stupid argument, I'm pretty sure 99% of people on this forum understood what I meant when I said, a computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable. :rolleyes:
I could be wrong, but I don't think that was his point... I think he meant it doesn't matter if you think it should be part of the shipment market share report or not.
That is, I think his point is even if it's not considered a computer, the report is just showing what people are buying (where the market is heading)
zap2
Apr 11, 10:51 AM
I'm getting the 2010 mac mini Monday (and switching to OSX) but kinda worried what my dad will say about me getting one... I guess he can't do anything about it since it's my money
I think you'll love your Mac mini, I'm a big fan of the form factor.
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
I think you'll love your Mac mini, I'm a big fan of the form factor.
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
javajedi
Oct 9, 10:33 PM
Absolutely. That's why I felt it was so important to comment. The Apple hardware has been standstill. I don't like this anymore than the other guy, but unfortunately it's an inescapable fact. A select few of the people here have become complacent over status-quo, old technology and don't even realize it. These people are doing both themselves and Apple a disservice.
I also think it's very important in this day in age to keep an open mind. If we look back at history, the m68k machines lagged behind x86. Then along came the 601/604, that turned the tables. Today Mac users are once again behind the times in hardware. Don�t worry though, it won�t always be like this. By the time you are ready to buy a new desktop I�m optimistic that Apple will have a solution to the G4 problem. Also keep in mind that within that 1 year Mac OS X will continue to evolve, it�s only going to get better.
But also keep in mind, (and I don�t think this will be the case) but if that does not happen, and in a year from now you see the Mac platform stuck in the same boat as it is today, it would be incredibly foolish to invest thousands of your hard earned dollars on one.
Good luck!
I also think it's very important in this day in age to keep an open mind. If we look back at history, the m68k machines lagged behind x86. Then along came the 601/604, that turned the tables. Today Mac users are once again behind the times in hardware. Don�t worry though, it won�t always be like this. By the time you are ready to buy a new desktop I�m optimistic that Apple will have a solution to the G4 problem. Also keep in mind that within that 1 year Mac OS X will continue to evolve, it�s only going to get better.
But also keep in mind, (and I don�t think this will be the case) but if that does not happen, and in a year from now you see the Mac platform stuck in the same boat as it is today, it would be incredibly foolish to invest thousands of your hard earned dollars on one.
Good luck!
R.Perez
Mar 16, 01:35 PM
Apparently five-point has never heard of Hubbert's Peak.
The more you drill for oil, the faster you drill for oil, the sooner you begin to run out of it. Talk about economic catastrophe.
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. �
The more you drill for oil, the faster you drill for oil, the sooner you begin to run out of it. Talk about economic catastrophe.
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. �
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:48 PM
Thanks for that ... I also find the "Federal Reserve" a little mysterious
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
I'm not sure if our system is any clearer. We have the Bank of England and the Royal Mint, who are responsible for the same areas (the first is like the reserve, the second produces the money). These are also private companies!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
I'm not sure if our system is any clearer. We have the Bank of England and the Royal Mint, who are responsible for the same areas (the first is like the reserve, the second produces the money). These are also private companies!
takao
Mar 13, 05:18 PM
To quote one of your articles:
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
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
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)
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
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
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
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
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)
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
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
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere