AidenShaw
Sep 23, 04:33 PM
I am not sure how far along Apple is on 802.11n but it seems to me if they are going to require it they better start putting it in computers soon.
I know I would be pissed if I bought a computer and then had the iTv come out a month or two later and I owned an out of date computer already.
The long-awaited next-generation Wi-Fi standard has been delayed again and won't likely be ratified until sometime in 2008. (http://news.com.com/New+Wi-Fi+standard+delayed+again/2100-7351_3-6105494.html)
Craig Mathias, an analyst at Farpoint Group, said it's unlikely that these draft 802.11n products will comply with the eventual standard once it's completed.
He doesn't believe that these products will be able to be upgraded to the standard either.
http://news.com.com/Group+to+certify+prestandard+Wi-Fi+gear/2100-7351_3-6110366.html
I know I would be pissed if I bought a computer and then had the iTv come out a month or two later and I owned an out of date computer already.
The long-awaited next-generation Wi-Fi standard has been delayed again and won't likely be ratified until sometime in 2008. (http://news.com.com/New+Wi-Fi+standard+delayed+again/2100-7351_3-6105494.html)
Craig Mathias, an analyst at Farpoint Group, said it's unlikely that these draft 802.11n products will comply with the eventual standard once it's completed.
He doesn't believe that these products will be able to be upgraded to the standard either.
http://news.com.com/Group+to+certify+prestandard+Wi-Fi+gear/2100-7351_3-6110366.html
bigcat318
May 2, 08:52 AM
I have noticed pop-ups about this appearing recently. It's usually the type where your only option is to click OK on a small window and then it opens a full window about 'MACDefender' and tries to get you to download it.
jonnyb
Apr 15, 09:10 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
mostman
Sep 20, 03:42 PM
The iTV makes the elgato eyetv hybrid even more appealing. :)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
Well.... not quite.
You see the ElGato stuff does not decode digital channels. Not only that, they can't even control your Comcast cable box to tell it to change the channel. So any channel that is digital (>125) you are going to have to manually change before recording.
Sound appealing? No, of course not.
This is the reason solutions like ElGato have not really caught on yet. Add a cable card system and its game over.
-Mike
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
Well.... not quite.
You see the ElGato stuff does not decode digital channels. Not only that, they can't even control your Comcast cable box to tell it to change the channel. So any channel that is digital (>125) you are going to have to manually change before recording.
Sound appealing? No, of course not.
This is the reason solutions like ElGato have not really caught on yet. Add a cable card system and its game over.
-Mike
paradox00
Oct 7, 05:26 PM
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:17 AM
You don't get it.
Please elaborate LTD.
Please elaborate LTD.
Photics
Apr 9, 11:39 AM
Heh, we were having a great discussion, but it seems that the thread exploded. :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
iMikeT
Aug 29, 11:10 AM
?tree-huggers? ?interfere with business? !we don't want to start that discussion!
Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:50 PM
Thank you!
Finally. Most people are not getting it.
The only thing keeps me from screaming of excitement is IF the wireless stream will be perfect. If Apple can make it work, I'll do exactly what you have described above. Elgato will be my next purchase at the same time I'll buy ITV.
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
Finally. Most people are not getting it.
The only thing keeps me from screaming of excitement is IF the wireless stream will be perfect. If Apple can make it work, I'll do exactly what you have described above. Elgato will be my next purchase at the same time I'll buy ITV.
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
arkitect
Apr 15, 12:01 PM
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
Really? ;)
So I can have same-sex sex and it is just as OK (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) for me and my partner as it is for a straight couple to have sex?
Kewl.
I don't think so… But nice try anyway.
Ah, semantics.
Of course most people (and I am sure good Catholics) equate it with sexual abstinance.
Really? ;)
So I can have same-sex sex and it is just as OK (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) for me and my partner as it is for a straight couple to have sex?
Kewl.
I don't think so… But nice try anyway.
Ah, semantics.
Of course most people (and I am sure good Catholics) equate it with sexual abstinance.
celo48
May 5, 10:43 PM
I am not a big fan of AT&T either but how come T-Mobile does better than AT&T , I do not know.
AT&T is not THAT bad. I know it is better than T-Mobile at least.
AT&T is not THAT bad. I know it is better than T-Mobile at least.
dgree03
Apr 28, 01:47 PM
The same thing happened when PCs first hit the work place. Then it was all about minicomputers and mainframes, not these toy devices. But hey, put a 3270 card into the PC, hook it up to the big iron, and now you had a real computer device! People simply couldn't imagine that these little PCs would ever surpass the big iron in both power and popularity. But eventually they did.
Tablets are the same way. People are blindly assuming that the tablet of today is what we will be using in 2020. It isn't, any more than the iPod touch is the same as the 2001 original iPod. Things change, devices get vastly more powerful and full of features that people simply could not imagine when they began.
The post-PC era is going to steamroller the naysayers.
Well of could Desktop PC of today are faster than Mainframes of yesteryear. Heck a PS2(or 3) is a more capable computer than what was on early sats and rockets.
You see to be forgetting there is ALWAYS something more powerful than a standard desktop... there is always something more powerful than a laptop.. and so on. So while in 10 years there will be octocore tablets... the software out in the real world will need Decacore desktop processor to run effeciently.
Tablets are the same way. People are blindly assuming that the tablet of today is what we will be using in 2020. It isn't, any more than the iPod touch is the same as the 2001 original iPod. Things change, devices get vastly more powerful and full of features that people simply could not imagine when they began.
The post-PC era is going to steamroller the naysayers.
Well of could Desktop PC of today are faster than Mainframes of yesteryear. Heck a PS2(or 3) is a more capable computer than what was on early sats and rockets.
You see to be forgetting there is ALWAYS something more powerful than a standard desktop... there is always something more powerful than a laptop.. and so on. So while in 10 years there will be octocore tablets... the software out in the real world will need Decacore desktop processor to run effeciently.
Macsavvytech
May 4, 01:50 AM
People sure get emotionally invested about the dumbest things....
Anyone who deliberately uses more than one question mark in English is not properly literate, so let's hope our friend the von Magnum's keyboard is to blame.
Indeed ????
Anyone who deliberately uses more than one question mark in English is not properly literate, so let's hope our friend the von Magnum's keyboard is to blame.
Indeed ????
AlBDamned
Aug 30, 11:38 AM
From Cult of Mac's blog (http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/) on the issue:
I have now had the chance to read through Greenpeace's "Guide to Greener Electronics," and there are a few things that should be clarified about where Apple ranks.
First of all, the article I linked this morning claimed that Apple and Lenovo were at the bottom of the charts. Well, that's not true. Lenovo scored an appalling 1.3 out of 10 while Apple pulled a marginally more successful 2.7 out of 10. In between were Motorola and Acer.
The criticisms of Apple are fair, I would say, though I think there's some nuance to what HP is doing with recycling that tends to make it look unfavorably better than others. Why? Ink cartridges and printers. HP has a lot more to take back than any other company, so their commitment to percentage of sales taken back is actually a possibility.
Given that Apple actually offers free computer recycling with the purchase of a computer, something that Dell does but HP does not, it's odd to say they're doing less to keep computers out of the waste stream. On the other hand, Apple has no takeback goals, so it really does balance out.
The other criticisms of Apple are on target, however. The company is secretive, and that meets they tend to be secretive about their environmental planning as well. They have a regulated substances list, but it isn't public. They're committed to eliminating PVCs, but won't say when. Ditto for BFRs.
It's not necessarily that Apple's environmental record is legitimately bad, but they do a very poor job of informing their customers about their environmental efforts. Silence is suspicious here, folks.
I have now had the chance to read through Greenpeace's "Guide to Greener Electronics," and there are a few things that should be clarified about where Apple ranks.
First of all, the article I linked this morning claimed that Apple and Lenovo were at the bottom of the charts. Well, that's not true. Lenovo scored an appalling 1.3 out of 10 while Apple pulled a marginally more successful 2.7 out of 10. In between were Motorola and Acer.
The criticisms of Apple are fair, I would say, though I think there's some nuance to what HP is doing with recycling that tends to make it look unfavorably better than others. Why? Ink cartridges and printers. HP has a lot more to take back than any other company, so their commitment to percentage of sales taken back is actually a possibility.
Given that Apple actually offers free computer recycling with the purchase of a computer, something that Dell does but HP does not, it's odd to say they're doing less to keep computers out of the waste stream. On the other hand, Apple has no takeback goals, so it really does balance out.
The other criticisms of Apple are on target, however. The company is secretive, and that meets they tend to be secretive about their environmental planning as well. They have a regulated substances list, but it isn't public. They're committed to eliminating PVCs, but won't say when. Ditto for BFRs.
It's not necessarily that Apple's environmental record is legitimately bad, but they do a very poor job of informing their customers about their environmental efforts. Silence is suspicious here, folks.
robbieduncan
Mar 14, 12:12 PM
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
G58
Feb 17, 05:45 AM
That is pretty delusional talk right there. The iPhone is superior...how? I can tell you that I like the iPhone UI better but that is where it ends. The droid marketplace is better or will become better (mostly because it is open source). I have already seen some apps that do a better job than their counterpart on the iPhone. Now don't get me wrong, the App Store has SO MANY more choice but it wouldn't surprise me if this quickly changes. The Android Marketplace is still relatively new....
It's a bit rich calling people delusional and then coming out with with wish list statements as if they're bound in volumes of 'The Future History of Smartphones vol ll'
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
It's a bit rich calling people delusional and then coming out with with wish list statements as if they're bound in volumes of 'The Future History of Smartphones vol ll'
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
Cheerwino
Apr 9, 08:47 PM
Guys, they hired PR people. I'm a PR person. We promote things that other people create. They are not developers, programmers, designers or even marketers -- they are press and industry promoters. You want folks with contacts in an industry, good at getting press and related placements, who are also good at running a PR department. It's important and useful for companies, part of the marketing mix but not the whole show.
Folks need to realize there are multiple consumer segments in any product category with varying degrees of interest and values around any product. This is true for cereal, furniture, tires, games and just about any consumer product. Thanks to our somewhat free market capitalism we have a choice in products, so companies work hard to figure out the ideal formula to reach certain target groups. Those groups overlap and vary according to the brand and product. This stuff is complex and there aren't easy, clear answers.
I think these hires just show Apple is serious about the gaming market (an all it's variety) and trying to maximize what is possible within the context of their product capabilities. [gag, spoken like a true PR person, I see] :rolleyes:
Folks need to realize there are multiple consumer segments in any product category with varying degrees of interest and values around any product. This is true for cereal, furniture, tires, games and just about any consumer product. Thanks to our somewhat free market capitalism we have a choice in products, so companies work hard to figure out the ideal formula to reach certain target groups. Those groups overlap and vary according to the brand and product. This stuff is complex and there aren't easy, clear answers.
I think these hires just show Apple is serious about the gaming market (an all it's variety) and trying to maximize what is possible within the context of their product capabilities. [gag, spoken like a true PR person, I see] :rolleyes:
Multimedia
Sep 26, 06:09 PM
And the wait for 8 Core Mac Pros and Merom MacBook Pros/MaBook is on. Waiting for speed bumps means no one buys a dang thing.It's also not just speed bumps. I want a MBP redesign that includes a better cooling system and an easy access HD Bay like in the MB. Lots of good reasons to be waiting. It's the IN thing to do right now. We're the IN Crowd. :Dat least the educated do not.... Well... it's amazing that now every dual core computer is obsolete, and every single core computer is like an Apple II compared to this.Yes but that 2.7GHz DP G5 of yours is a keeper. The fastest last classic G5 DP on the planet. Kudos to you for hanging on to it. If I were you I would NEVER sell it. Should become a family heirloom. Wish I had one.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 10:03 AM
Intelligence has something to do with it.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 23, 03:08 PM
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
Liquorpuki
Mar 15, 11:38 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
If you want to get technical, the lack of cooling water was caused by the inability to activate the backup generators. The switchgear for the backup generators was flooded by the tsunami. I could come up with a ton of engineering design decisions that could've prevented this and none of them have to do with the reactor or nuclear technology
- Not putting critical switchgear in a basement that could get flooded
- Pre-installing pumps in the basement to remove the water in the case of a flood
- Having a redundant set of switchgear/BU generators with an additional switchover scheme in the event the primary switchgear malfunctions
- Having an additional distribution panel or tap point so I could use portable generators to power the cooling system
- Building a taller tsunami barrier
- Putting all critical components in a secure building, not just the reactor.
Even though the radiation leak is devastating because, well it's radiation, it's the electrical and structural engineers who failed here, not the nuclear engineers. Personally I think there needs be a design standards revision when it comes to nuclear stations, which is what I'm hoping other countries are referring to when they say they're watching and taking notes.
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
If you want to get technical, the lack of cooling water was caused by the inability to activate the backup generators. The switchgear for the backup generators was flooded by the tsunami. I could come up with a ton of engineering design decisions that could've prevented this and none of them have to do with the reactor or nuclear technology
- Not putting critical switchgear in a basement that could get flooded
- Pre-installing pumps in the basement to remove the water in the case of a flood
- Having a redundant set of switchgear/BU generators with an additional switchover scheme in the event the primary switchgear malfunctions
- Having an additional distribution panel or tap point so I could use portable generators to power the cooling system
- Building a taller tsunami barrier
- Putting all critical components in a secure building, not just the reactor.
Even though the radiation leak is devastating because, well it's radiation, it's the electrical and structural engineers who failed here, not the nuclear engineers. Personally I think there needs be a design standards revision when it comes to nuclear stations, which is what I'm hoping other countries are referring to when they say they're watching and taking notes.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 12:36 PM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return. ;)
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
Huntn
Mar 14, 02:16 PM
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
bokdol
Aug 29, 01:35 PM
i think alot of people care about the environment.. but alot of people dont care about greenpeace. in my eyes greenpeace has become a joke. i dont know mush about them but it does not seem like they do anything helpfull but to yell at the top of there lungs at people that can get them the most amount of publicity.
the way i see it is. apple is really popular in the public eye. so they become a natural target for anyone that wants their voice heard. well at least thats how i see it.
the last time i heard somethign from greenpeace was back in the 90's.
the way i see it is. apple is really popular in the public eye. so they become a natural target for anyone that wants their voice heard. well at least thats how i see it.
the last time i heard somethign from greenpeace was back in the 90's.
