Lau
Aug 29, 11:11 AM
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.
But come on, Dell more green than Apple? Something is not right here.
Hmm. Gut feeling's all very well, but Apple obviously do a great job of marketing themselves as a friendly green company and we may go round believing that without evidence, and it looks as if the figures don't back them up.
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs.
That's a good point, actually, it's much better to make a long-lasting product than a crappy one that's recycled when it breaks. It's a shame that iPods are effectively disposable though. To be able to replace the battery in particular, and possibly the hard drive, would make it a much more longer lasting product.
But come on, Dell more green than Apple? Something is not right here.
Hmm. Gut feeling's all very well, but Apple obviously do a great job of marketing themselves as a friendly green company and we may go round believing that without evidence, and it looks as if the figures don't back them up.
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs.
That's a good point, actually, it's much better to make a long-lasting product than a crappy one that's recycled when it breaks. It's a shame that iPods are effectively disposable though. To be able to replace the battery in particular, and possibly the hard drive, would make it a much more longer lasting product.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 03:46 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.
There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.
There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.
Voltes V
Sep 26, 12:53 AM
start savings and look for stuff to sell.
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
zwida
Oct 25, 10:26 PM
OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.
I'm hoping that the 8-core, 3.0 (or faster) GHz MacPro arrives the same day as Leopard and about the same time as CS3. I'd gladly swap my 2.66 GHz quad core...:)
I'm hoping that the 8-core, 3.0 (or faster) GHz MacPro arrives the same day as Leopard and about the same time as CS3. I'd gladly swap my 2.66 GHz quad core...:)
spencers
Oct 7, 11:01 AM
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, a cupcake is going to take down iPhone?
Demoman
Jul 12, 09:36 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.
ReanimationLP
Aug 29, 11:41 AM
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Seriously.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:20 AM
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
FAIL
6.2 What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service?
Print this section | Print this page
Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows. You may not send solicitations to AT&T's wireless subscribers without their consent. You may not use the Services other than as intended by AT&T and applicable law. Plans are for individual, non-commercial use only and are not for resale. AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T's terms, conditions, or policies.
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
FAIL
6.2 What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service?
Print this section | Print this page
Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows. You may not send solicitations to AT&T's wireless subscribers without their consent. You may not use the Services other than as intended by AT&T and applicable law. Plans are for individual, non-commercial use only and are not for resale. AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T's terms, conditions, or policies.
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
Sydde
Mar 14, 12:20 PM
This here page, fwiw (http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=8976200&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL), says the carrier RR was exposed to thirty days radiation in an hour. There are more than 700 hours in a month. You do the math.
Sounds Good
Apr 10, 09:24 PM
Not that this really matters much, but just for the record:
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:07 PM
don't thank me, thank ct2k7 for saying just why islam is a threat to democracy.
Again, I didn't say that. But I thank you for being ignorant to my comments to your quotations made, from incomplete sources, showing your complete lack in want to participate.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
Except this doesn't work, since a sane Muslim man would not revolt.
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
The law is only accountable for Muslims.
so right there, we've gotten rid of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
:rolleyes:
Again, I didn't say that. But I thank you for being ignorant to my comments to your quotations made, from incomplete sources, showing your complete lack in want to participate.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
Except this doesn't work, since a sane Muslim man would not revolt.
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
The law is only accountable for Muslims.
so right there, we've gotten rid of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
:rolleyes:
BRLawyer
May 2, 02:08 PM
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
NebulaClash
Apr 29, 07:54 AM
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:03 AM
Good. Perhaps we can depend on being kept up to date. The media does it's job, but is a loose cannon.
The problem for the west with a situation like this (or conversely the east when something happens in the west), is that the news in the other hemisphere is bound to be delayed, and at the mercy of translation; it goes with the territory.
I don't want to start a pissing match with anyone, because I think all of us want the same thing, and fear the same thing.
All I'm advocating is waiting on reliable information as things develop, and not to jump to any wild conclusions. If anyone's got vested interest in worrying, it's us here in Japan.
The problem for the west with a situation like this (or conversely the east when something happens in the west), is that the news in the other hemisphere is bound to be delayed, and at the mercy of translation; it goes with the territory.
I don't want to start a pissing match with anyone, because I think all of us want the same thing, and fear the same thing.
All I'm advocating is waiting on reliable information as things develop, and not to jump to any wild conclusions. If anyone's got vested interest in worrying, it's us here in Japan.
MacRumors
Aug 29, 10:47 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Late last week, environmental watchdog Greenpeace released their Guide to Greener Electronics (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-guide.pdf) (pdf) which rates how eco-friendly different tech companies are based on publicly available information. Apple scored 4th lowest, beating only Leveno, Motorola, and Acer. Among the top-scorers were Nokia and Dell.
For a company that claims to lead on product design, Apple scores badly on almost all criteria. The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle, withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling, with the exception of reporting on the amounts of its electronic waste recycled.
News.com has received a statement (http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-6110513.html) from Apple responding to the Greenpeace claims.
Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs. We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line.
Apple does note that their LCD monitors do contain small amounts of mercury, which they are working to find a suitable alternative for. Apple began an expanded computer recycling program (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060421114406.shtml) in April 2006. Apple has had an iPod recycling program (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/06/20050603152950.shtml) in the US since 2005.
Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups (2005 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/04/20050422090010.shtml), 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060427190638.shtml)).
Late last week, environmental watchdog Greenpeace released their Guide to Greener Electronics (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-guide.pdf) (pdf) which rates how eco-friendly different tech companies are based on publicly available information. Apple scored 4th lowest, beating only Leveno, Motorola, and Acer. Among the top-scorers were Nokia and Dell.
For a company that claims to lead on product design, Apple scores badly on almost all criteria. The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle, withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling, with the exception of reporting on the amounts of its electronic waste recycled.
News.com has received a statement (http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-6110513.html) from Apple responding to the Greenpeace claims.
Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs. We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line.
Apple does note that their LCD monitors do contain small amounts of mercury, which they are working to find a suitable alternative for. Apple began an expanded computer recycling program (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060421114406.shtml) in April 2006. Apple has had an iPod recycling program (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/06/20050603152950.shtml) in the US since 2005.
Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups (2005 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/04/20050422090010.shtml), 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060427190638.shtml)).
darkplanets
Mar 12, 02:14 PM
While I am not a nuclear engineer, I do have a fair amount of knowledge in the area, so with that in mind I can personally say that this will NOT become another Chernobyl situation. Again though as a disclaimer, this is not my career.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 05:50 AM
Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.I never made such a claim. You completely misunderstand my meaning. I wrote that whole scenario to refute your opinion Software is behind Hardware and show that the opposite is true.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
dernhelm
Sep 20, 04:39 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
Maybe they'll call it the Revolution. :D
Maybe they'll call it the Revolution. :D
ChrisA
Sep 12, 04:55 PM
As fas as wouldn't I rather pay for only the shows I watch? Sure! But Apple's current pricing is much to prohibitive. It's cheaper for me to pay $50 a month for DirecTV with the HD option than to pay $2 a pop
So you must watch more than 25 TV shows a month? Man what "time sink". At $2 a pop I'd be out maybe $6 per month. That's reasonable. What I would like to do is export from Final Cut to iTunes so I can watch it on the large screen. Currently I would have to burn a DVD and "sneaker net" the disc to the TV, watch it then re-cut, re-burn, re-sneakernet..... This should be usful to anyone who owns a video camera.
This should also help sell a lot of large RAID systems and then you will need another large storage system so "Time Machine" can automatically make those backup copies
So you must watch more than 25 TV shows a month? Man what "time sink". At $2 a pop I'd be out maybe $6 per month. That's reasonable. What I would like to do is export from Final Cut to iTunes so I can watch it on the large screen. Currently I would have to burn a DVD and "sneaker net" the disc to the TV, watch it then re-cut, re-burn, re-sneakernet..... This should be usful to anyone who owns a video camera.
This should also help sell a lot of large RAID systems and then you will need another large storage system so "Time Machine" can automatically make those backup copies
justflie
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
Ok, so my comment about what don't people understand about unlimited was super snarky. Sorry.
What I meant was, If I can use 6GB (for example, I don't use this much) on my iPhone, what's the difference between that and 3GB iPhone and 3GB iPad (tethered)? If I am "entitled" to those 6GB or 4 or whatever on an unlimited plan, why does it matter how that bandwidth is distributed among my devices?
What I meant was, If I can use 6GB (for example, I don't use this much) on my iPhone, what's the difference between that and 3GB iPhone and 3GB iPad (tethered)? If I am "entitled" to those 6GB or 4 or whatever on an unlimited plan, why does it matter how that bandwidth is distributed among my devices?
darkplanets
Mar 13, 10:17 AM
I too don't expect anything like Chernobyl. But, it doesn't help when a Government "Official" tells the media that there is nothing to worry about then another "Official" mentions that there could be a meltdown or something.
Government officials are government officials-- they will never outright tell you the truth, because 9 times out of 10 they're uninformed about it or were told to say something they may not necessarily believe. They usually try to cover their bases-- see this way the government is covered in case something does happen.
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
I'll definitely agree with you there; it's not ideal, but it will work. Remember that BWRs will continue to make heat post control rod insertion. Boric acid itself isn't that toxic... in fact it can be rather useful in many chemistry situations. Also, if we're talking blunt toxicity, remember you make boric acid through borax, something we use every day in detergents. The LD50 for Boric acid is actually higher than table salt, although there are some reproductive health concerns. I think the biggest problem we're seeing here was the lack of redundancy for external power supplies, and the potential lack of modern safety systems-- as per my previous post, there's supposed to be a wide range of safety measures to assure that this never happens, but due to it's age, who knows.[/quote]
As a consequence the German government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need. Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives. Despite these few instances (usually caused by human error) nuclear power is actually quite safe... but most people aren't educated enough to know whats actually the deal, and instead listen to the likes of Greenpeace and so on, who coincidentally also have no idea what they're talking about. If Germany is that concerned, they should be upgrading their safety systems, not abandoning it.
While the thread seems to be focused on the crisis at the nuclear power station, pictures are emerging showing the devastation left behind by the tsunami...
That is far more destruction than the power station could bring.
Government officials are government officials-- they will never outright tell you the truth, because 9 times out of 10 they're uninformed about it or were told to say something they may not necessarily believe. They usually try to cover their bases-- see this way the government is covered in case something does happen.
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
I'll definitely agree with you there; it's not ideal, but it will work. Remember that BWRs will continue to make heat post control rod insertion. Boric acid itself isn't that toxic... in fact it can be rather useful in many chemistry situations. Also, if we're talking blunt toxicity, remember you make boric acid through borax, something we use every day in detergents. The LD50 for Boric acid is actually higher than table salt, although there are some reproductive health concerns. I think the biggest problem we're seeing here was the lack of redundancy for external power supplies, and the potential lack of modern safety systems-- as per my previous post, there's supposed to be a wide range of safety measures to assure that this never happens, but due to it's age, who knows.[/quote]
As a consequence the German government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need. Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives. Despite these few instances (usually caused by human error) nuclear power is actually quite safe... but most people aren't educated enough to know whats actually the deal, and instead listen to the likes of Greenpeace and so on, who coincidentally also have no idea what they're talking about. If Germany is that concerned, they should be upgrading their safety systems, not abandoning it.
While the thread seems to be focused on the crisis at the nuclear power station, pictures are emerging showing the devastation left behind by the tsunami...
That is far more destruction than the power station could bring.
Bernard SG
Apr 28, 07:30 AM
Q2 figures will tell a different story, I would bet.
ctdonath
Apr 15, 09:52 AM
Focus should be on ending/surviving ALL bullying, not just victims choosing a hip counterculture.