SRSound
Sep 26, 12:00 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary �re-wire� applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
100Teraflops
Apr 21, 05:09 PM
CMD+Q does the same thing, either from within the app, or when it's highlighted when using CMD+TAB to cycle between open apps.
Thanks for the shorthand! :cool:
Thanks for the shorthand! :cool:
Apple OC
Mar 12, 08:55 AM
Before everyone jumps to conclusions and spreads fear mongering ... as I said this will not be like Chernobyl.
While we are all on the same page and wish for the best news possible for the region ... we need to look at this with proper perspective.
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and happened in a country known at the time to reject outside help.
What is unfolding in Japan will be dealt with by the very best experts the World has to offer.
I have complete confidence no matter how this turns ... The Japanese Government will do what is right for the people who live there.
IMO ... this will be under control quite soon. Watching it on the news and the Internet is almost pathetic ... the Media seems to want this to get bigger.
We all wish the best for everyone affected by this tragedy.
While we are all on the same page and wish for the best news possible for the region ... we need to look at this with proper perspective.
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and happened in a country known at the time to reject outside help.
What is unfolding in Japan will be dealt with by the very best experts the World has to offer.
I have complete confidence no matter how this turns ... The Japanese Government will do what is right for the people who live there.
IMO ... this will be under control quite soon. Watching it on the news and the Internet is almost pathetic ... the Media seems to want this to get bigger.
We all wish the best for everyone affected by this tragedy.
peharri
Sep 23, 10:25 AM
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
ryme4reson
Oct 9, 12:56 PM
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
I am in a critical thinking class, and we spend 3 hrs a day, 2 times a week talking about people who rationalize like BackToTheMac. "No one will ever change my mind"
That is complete suppression of all the facts that are given to you. I think its a shame that you logically in your mind come to these conclusions. I bet you think Friday the 13th is dangerous, and you have lucky numbers huh :)
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
I am in a critical thinking class, and we spend 3 hrs a day, 2 times a week talking about people who rationalize like BackToTheMac. "No one will ever change my mind"
That is complete suppression of all the facts that are given to you. I think its a shame that you logically in your mind come to these conclusions. I bet you think Friday the 13th is dangerous, and you have lucky numbers huh :)
linuxcooldude
Apr 13, 02:09 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
It seems you don't have faith in your own ability as if your trying to compete with an average 16 year old. Don't blame the tools alone.
The same thing was said when local garage bands were recording music from an average PC in the 80's. Most record labels won't go to a teenager to record a well known bands music.
It seems you don't have faith in your own ability as if your trying to compete with an average 16 year old. Don't blame the tools alone.
The same thing was said when local garage bands were recording music from an average PC in the 80's. Most record labels won't go to a teenager to record a well known bands music.
munkery
May 2, 08:18 PM
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
EDIT:
If malware doesn't need to use some method to achieve privilege escalation or actively phish users for their credit card number to be profitable enough to warrant their creation, then why did the specific example of malware that started this thread rely on these methods to be profitable?
Why did it not use the methods presented by KnightWRX? Why do you not see malware that only uses user level access to upload a user's data files to achieve some effect that is profitable? I can't recall any malware that uses this method.
Is it because most users do not have valuable info stored in insecure data files? I keep that type of info in encrypted secured notes in Keychain Access or in encrypted sparse bundle disk images.
Is it because it would require too much time to data mine the files for valuable info in relation to the amount of profit gained? How many GBs of data are on your system? Even the data I keep in encrypted sparse bundle disk images wouldn't be very useful for identity theft even if it was not encrypted.
Is it because given all the variables it is more cost effective to go after achieving system level access to keystroke log passwords protected by user space security mechanisms or simply to use basic phishing scams on unknowledgeable users? Makes sense to me but maybe I am wrong.
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
EDIT:
If malware doesn't need to use some method to achieve privilege escalation or actively phish users for their credit card number to be profitable enough to warrant their creation, then why did the specific example of malware that started this thread rely on these methods to be profitable?
Why did it not use the methods presented by KnightWRX? Why do you not see malware that only uses user level access to upload a user's data files to achieve some effect that is profitable? I can't recall any malware that uses this method.
Is it because most users do not have valuable info stored in insecure data files? I keep that type of info in encrypted secured notes in Keychain Access or in encrypted sparse bundle disk images.
Is it because it would require too much time to data mine the files for valuable info in relation to the amount of profit gained? How many GBs of data are on your system? Even the data I keep in encrypted sparse bundle disk images wouldn't be very useful for identity theft even if it was not encrypted.
Is it because given all the variables it is more cost effective to go after achieving system level access to keystroke log passwords protected by user space security mechanisms or simply to use basic phishing scams on unknowledgeable users? Makes sense to me but maybe I am wrong.
ATD
Sep 26, 05:41 PM
Yep. :( I know of a peep on the OS X Maya forum that ended up buying the full version. I don't have the money for that sort of thing, so I'm not going to buy until the RenderMan Plug-in supports whatever 64-bit version of Maya is released in the future. Then I'll also be upgrading Maya. :)
***
You can download the eval copy to try it out.
<]=)
Glad I didn't shell out the money thinking it was. 64 bit Maya is going to be nice, I'm think its coming when OSX 10.5 hits. I got Maya 8 but have not loaded it yet.
BTW, I go to the OSX Maya forum once in while and have seen your name there. Is DD the one that got the full version?
***
You can download the eval copy to try it out.
<]=)
Glad I didn't shell out the money thinking it was. 64 bit Maya is going to be nice, I'm think its coming when OSX 10.5 hits. I got Maya 8 but have not loaded it yet.
BTW, I go to the OSX Maya forum once in while and have seen your name there. Is DD the one that got the full version?
Aduntu
Apr 23, 02:55 AM
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
Man4allsea
Feb 15, 04:24 PM
Erm.. you're being closed minded.
Picture of Nissan Micra C+C,
2002 NISSAN Micra Twister ***
2002 Nissan Micra C+c Concept.
2002 nissan micra
2002 Nissan Micra Low Mileage
2002 Nissan Micra 1.0
Sold-2002 Nissan Micra 1.0
2002 Nissan Micra Low Mileage
jchung
Mar 18, 11:25 AM
Two separate issues.
ATT can prove if you're tethering or not. This has nothing to do with how much data you are or are not using.
Even if you use 1KB via tether and you aren't on their plan - they have a leg to stand on.
Hardly, if people are complaining about theft from AT&T, by the customer, then the very same people should be complaining about theft from the customer by AT&T. That is what this incorrect data usage accounting amounts too. AT&T charging people for data usage that they did not use and that AT&T can not prove they used (based on the experience of customers calling AT&T and their usage of the AT&T management website).
The validity of an accusation, by a thief, that someone else is a thief is questionable.
ATT can prove if you're tethering or not. This has nothing to do with how much data you are or are not using.
Even if you use 1KB via tether and you aren't on their plan - they have a leg to stand on.
Hardly, if people are complaining about theft from AT&T, by the customer, then the very same people should be complaining about theft from the customer by AT&T. That is what this incorrect data usage accounting amounts too. AT&T charging people for data usage that they did not use and that AT&T can not prove they used (based on the experience of customers calling AT&T and their usage of the AT&T management website).
The validity of an accusation, by a thief, that someone else is a thief is questionable.
mac jones
Mar 12, 05:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Are they %100 up front, or are we going to have to wait for some potentially very bad news?
Certainly panic is not an option, ever. But I have little faith in government officials at the beginnings of crisis.
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Are they %100 up front, or are we going to have to wait for some potentially very bad news?
Certainly panic is not an option, ever. But I have little faith in government officials at the beginnings of crisis.
MadeTheSwitch
Apr 27, 08:37 AM
It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
It doesn't make sense for a supreme being to require the employ of man to begin with. There's the real fallacy.
It doesn't make sense for a supreme being to require the employ of man to begin with. There's the real fallacy.
Consultant
Apr 20, 05:31 PM
It will be interesting 10 years from now to compare the number of viruses that will have occurred on android vs. iOS.
There are already a score of malware and spyware on Android, including software that phish for bank customer information of Fandroids.
There are already a score of malware and spyware on Android, including software that phish for bank customer information of Fandroids.
QCassidy352
Mar 18, 11:41 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
No, that's just not true. You signed a contract saying you would only use the data on the phone. You paid for the data with the understanding that it comes with certain contractual restrictions. If you think those restrictions are unfair or arbitrary, you should have signed the contract. In no way shape or form does the contract you signed entitle you to do whatever you want with the data.
It's not a perfect analogy, but compare buying OS 10.6 and installing it on multiple machines with one license. You bought the disc, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. The purchase comes with terms regulating the allowed uses.
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
No, that's just not true. You signed a contract saying you would only use the data on the phone. You paid for the data with the understanding that it comes with certain contractual restrictions. If you think those restrictions are unfair or arbitrary, you should have signed the contract. In no way shape or form does the contract you signed entitle you to do whatever you want with the data.
It's not a perfect analogy, but compare buying OS 10.6 and installing it on multiple machines with one license. You bought the disc, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. The purchase comes with terms regulating the allowed uses.
hexonxonx
May 6, 05:11 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!
I too rarely have dropped calls. It's gotten much better since September. I can talk anywhere in the house now without the call dropping.
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!
I too rarely have dropped calls. It's gotten much better since September. I can talk anywhere in the house now without the call dropping.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:57 PM
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
Well here is a solution to your "problem" at least.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
The biggest limiting factor is cost, but when you factor in the cost of the environmental impact, it becomes cheap in comparison.
Well here is a solution to your "problem" at least.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
The biggest limiting factor is cost, but when you factor in the cost of the environmental impact, it becomes cheap in comparison.
looklost
Mar 18, 06:21 PM
I can't believe that people think this is a bad thing. Don't you like freedom? :eek:
2002 Nissan Micra 1.0
bedifferent
May 2, 04:51 PM
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Sure it can, but it's the percentage and the variables of these "bad" incidents that are key as you are generalizing without specifics.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Sure it can, but it's the percentage and the variables of these "bad" incidents that are key as you are generalizing without specifics.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Xapplimatic
Aug 29, 03:46 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 08:30 PM
ya guys lost me way back there, too ;)
hey, do they use aluminum bats in the majors sometimes;) :p
hey, do they use aluminum bats in the majors sometimes;) :p
iGary
Aug 29, 04:28 PM
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
NightFox
Apr 13, 03:48 AM
Just give me a way of directly importing/converting my Premiere projects and I'll be sold...
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment