SandynJosh
May 2, 04:06 PM
You're not quite understanding what I'm saying or the situation here. Safari auto-downloads a zip file, runs it through Archive Utility which extracts something and then runs it.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
CylonGlitch
Mar 18, 09:55 AM
Those of you who are so upset over this, please, get a lawyer, and start a class action lawsuit. Let's get this matter settled, should we, or should we not be allowed to use our data any way we want?
I'm not a lawyer, but I do think we should be allowed to use our data how we want. If you're on the 2GB plan, who cares if you use 2GB tethering or 2GB of emails, you should be allowed to use it any way you want.
With an unlimited plan, yeah, there needs to be something in place because truly unlimited just bring out a few a-holes who abuse it and makes life miserable for everyone.
Still; let a judge decide, get this going and see who finally wins. Best case, AT&T loses and we get tethering for our data plans. Worst case, AT&T offers no unlimited plans anymore and at the end of every contract EVERYONE has to get off, and you still have to pay for tethering. I'm guessing we'll see something in the middle. You can stay on unlimited, but are not allowed to tether, or you can move to a capped plan (2gb, 4gb, etc..) but can use it any way you want.
Go for it, make it happen, let's get it settled!
I'm not a lawyer, but I do think we should be allowed to use our data how we want. If you're on the 2GB plan, who cares if you use 2GB tethering or 2GB of emails, you should be allowed to use it any way you want.
With an unlimited plan, yeah, there needs to be something in place because truly unlimited just bring out a few a-holes who abuse it and makes life miserable for everyone.
Still; let a judge decide, get this going and see who finally wins. Best case, AT&T loses and we get tethering for our data plans. Worst case, AT&T offers no unlimited plans anymore and at the end of every contract EVERYONE has to get off, and you still have to pay for tethering. I'm guessing we'll see something in the middle. You can stay on unlimited, but are not allowed to tether, or you can move to a capped plan (2gb, 4gb, etc..) but can use it any way you want.
Go for it, make it happen, let's get it settled!
IgnatiusTheKing
Jul 7, 09:13 AM
I'm still on the iPhone 3G. I was seriously considering ditching AT&T and the iPhone 4 for Sprint/EVO 4G or Verizon/Droid X because I was dropping call every single call in my house (no joke, every single call) and multiple calls per day around town a few weeks ago, BUT...
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
I think it was Back2TheMac who posted earlier in this thread "x86 plain sucks". The reason why he belives the x86 ISA and CISC are inferior is because Apple put out a bunch of marketing in the early days of the PowerPC touting RISC as superior new technology. In today's world, RISC processos really aren't RISC, and CISC processors really are CISC.
I recommend anyone who still believes in this spin to read this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
It's most informative.
Enjoy
it's really most fascinating...thank you
some of us hardware side IT people often make fun of the software IT people and it is often because of the introverted way most of them act or their lack of knowledge of the hardware side of things
but what's interesting is that the hardware side techies like network engineers and desktop techs would not have anything to implement and maintain if it wasn't for those coders who make it all possible
i always hear a lot about the hardware side of apple's products and the praise they get when things are done right, but i rarely hear about the heroes in the background, the developers who make it all run smoothly
of all the products apple has ever made, the mac operating systems is what really makes a mac a mac:D
I think it was Back2TheMac who posted earlier in this thread "x86 plain sucks". The reason why he belives the x86 ISA and CISC are inferior is because Apple put out a bunch of marketing in the early days of the PowerPC touting RISC as superior new technology. In today's world, RISC processos really aren't RISC, and CISC processors really are CISC.
I recommend anyone who still believes in this spin to read this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
It's most informative.
Enjoy
it's really most fascinating...thank you
some of us hardware side IT people often make fun of the software IT people and it is often because of the introverted way most of them act or their lack of knowledge of the hardware side of things
but what's interesting is that the hardware side techies like network engineers and desktop techs would not have anything to implement and maintain if it wasn't for those coders who make it all possible
i always hear a lot about the hardware side of apple's products and the praise they get when things are done right, but i rarely hear about the heroes in the background, the developers who make it all run smoothly
of all the products apple has ever made, the mac operating systems is what really makes a mac a mac:D
snoopy07
May 5, 02:22 PM
The perfect solution would be for apple to give all US carriers the Iphone. Then we can go and pick the network that works best. People that like At&t stay with At&t, if you want Verizon or t-mobile then go, that way we all live happy. It�s your call Apple :apple: we customers deserve to choose our carrier for our iphone.
Full of Win
May 6, 08:15 PM
How much of this is from the GSM technology used? Can't CDMA pass through walls and other obsticals better than gsm ones? One would think this would make for less dropped calls.
UnixMac
Oct 9, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read. I still love my Mac, but since reading these message boards over the past year or so I have became more and more negative about Macs. Mac has lost the MHz war and are becoming slower and slower computers and has also lost out to XP for the best operating system, acording to so many people.
I am a consumer user, email, internet, MP3's, MS Word, digital camera photos, etc. I do like the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie programs for what I do, but it sounds like with XP there is no longer any problems doing these things and they come loaded with programs that are just as easy to use. The sad thing as Apple was working on their switching campaign to switch people to Macs I am now considering switching to my first PC, because they have so much more megahertz and XP sounds so easy to use and stable.
Well I am broke right now so it will be next spring or summer until I buy a new computer, but as Mac has been going backwards on speed and their software is good, but not any better then Microsoft anymore I really should test out a new PC and see how it works for how I use a computer.
Or I have a better Idea: Call / Write Apple and complain about what you get for your hard earned $$$.......if enough people do, they will listen.
I for one am not ready to move on to PC....as I would have to learn Linux and find Linux versions of all my software....Windows XP never!
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read. I still love my Mac, but since reading these message boards over the past year or so I have became more and more negative about Macs. Mac has lost the MHz war and are becoming slower and slower computers and has also lost out to XP for the best operating system, acording to so many people.
I am a consumer user, email, internet, MP3's, MS Word, digital camera photos, etc. I do like the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie programs for what I do, but it sounds like with XP there is no longer any problems doing these things and they come loaded with programs that are just as easy to use. The sad thing as Apple was working on their switching campaign to switch people to Macs I am now considering switching to my first PC, because they have so much more megahertz and XP sounds so easy to use and stable.
Well I am broke right now so it will be next spring or summer until I buy a new computer, but as Mac has been going backwards on speed and their software is good, but not any better then Microsoft anymore I really should test out a new PC and see how it works for how I use a computer.
Or I have a better Idea: Call / Write Apple and complain about what you get for your hard earned $$$.......if enough people do, they will listen.
I for one am not ready to move on to PC....as I would have to learn Linux and find Linux versions of all my software....Windows XP never!
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:22 PM
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
�algiris
May 2, 08:58 AM
About as huge as most windows ones!
"Bigger".
"Bigger".
WilliamG
May 30, 09:59 PM
I drop so many calls on AT&T 3G that it's a joke. I drop basically no calls on AT&T EDGE. Seattle, here.
notabadname
Apr 20, 05:40 PM
Largest App store . . .
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
wnurse
Mar 19, 10:41 PM
That when you do things like this, it hurts apple. Apple has a market to protect. If people keep doing this enough until the RIAA gets pissed and won't let apple sell music any more. It's just like complaining that apple hass had to change their DRM policies. It's not apple that is doing it, it's pressure from the Recording Industry. Apple has to walk an extremely fine line, and they do a goo djob of it, so those folks need to lighten up.
I know this comes as a shock to you but not a lot of people care whether Apple is hurt or not. While apple fans are loyal to apple, pc fans are loyal to no one and a lot of people who would use this app are pc fans. Also not everyone who uses a mac cares about apple. After all, what do they care if apple survives?. They still get the same paycheck. It's not like if apple gets richer, we get richer. It's the same with every company. Customer loyalty is fleeting.
I know this comes as a shock to you but not a lot of people care whether Apple is hurt or not. While apple fans are loyal to apple, pc fans are loyal to no one and a lot of people who would use this app are pc fans. Also not everyone who uses a mac cares about apple. After all, what do they care if apple survives?. They still get the same paycheck. It's not like if apple gets richer, we get richer. It's the same with every company. Customer loyalty is fleeting.
DelisleBA.info
Apr 12, 10:38 PM
And so is this new version $299 which is a deal compared to the $999 for FCS. Heck MSRP on FCE is $199 so with a student discount this new version is very reasonably priced. Which leads me to think this is probably a stand alone app and it does not include all the goodies of FCS like DVD Studio Pro, Compressor, etc..
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
toxic
Apr 5, 10:44 PM
forgot to add that the "+" (maximize) button is wildly inconsistent in its function.
maximizing to full screen in general isn't the way OS X "works", which is why most programs don't do that...but it seems Apple never really decided what the maximize button is supposed to do.
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
that's what the dock is for... you put your most common applications in the dock, everything else is in the Applications folder, accessible from the dock.
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
cmd + delete
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
cmd + up
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
all necessary files are contained in the application package, any files that go somewhere else are just saves or preferences. the exception is for certain programs, like Adobe ones, where the developer is too lazy to rewrite their code so that all the necessary components are in one place.
maximizing to full screen in general isn't the way OS X "works", which is why most programs don't do that...but it seems Apple never really decided what the maximize button is supposed to do.
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
that's what the dock is for... you put your most common applications in the dock, everything else is in the Applications folder, accessible from the dock.
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
cmd + delete
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
cmd + up
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
all necessary files are contained in the application package, any files that go somewhere else are just saves or preferences. the exception is for certain programs, like Adobe ones, where the developer is too lazy to rewrite their code so that all the necessary components are in one place.
djfern
Sep 12, 03:51 PM
Well, i see it like this. iTV is just the beginning of something quite new and quite big for apple. Compare it to the release of the original iPod - black and white, audio only, expensive, small capacity. The killer thing about the iPod was less about it's features than it's interface and operability with itunes. It made something - portable music player - easier and more elegant.
And that's what iTV is. Today, if you want to play movies you've downloaded, you need a multi-media DVD player (with divx and mpeg support) and you need to burn discs. Play a CD on the stereo? Hook up your ipod or laptop to a cable. Etc.. This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple. It's not trying to be everybody's everything. Like i said, the original iPod only played audio. That was enough for a start.
Will they add a hard drive? Probably. Will you be able to download HD quality movies from the internet with this thing? Eventually. But Apple's gonna do it one step at a time. They'll introduce a basic device at first, see what people think and how it does, and add features carefully and slowly over time. This recipe worked wonders with the iPod. I think it will work here too.
And that's what iTV is. Today, if you want to play movies you've downloaded, you need a multi-media DVD player (with divx and mpeg support) and you need to burn discs. Play a CD on the stereo? Hook up your ipod or laptop to a cable. Etc.. This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple. It's not trying to be everybody's everything. Like i said, the original iPod only played audio. That was enough for a start.
Will they add a hard drive? Probably. Will you be able to download HD quality movies from the internet with this thing? Eventually. But Apple's gonna do it one step at a time. They'll introduce a basic device at first, see what people think and how it does, and add features carefully and slowly over time. This recipe worked wonders with the iPod. I think it will work here too.
albinogoldfish
Mar 18, 03:10 PM
Echoing a comment I saw elsewhere, why doesn't someone just hire this guy. It probably costs more for Apple to sue each person than it would be to hire them and keep them busy fixing these problems internally.
yg17
Mar 11, 08:53 AM
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
elbirth
Oct 13, 07:29 PM
Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
Just a quick comment about this:
I completely agree that you can get some great deals from Fatwallet forumers. My only problem with quite a number of their deals is that they require you to jump through so many loops to get them- i.e, buy at one store with a coupon via Fatwallet to get some money back via FatCash, then take it to a store to price match, send in 4 rebates, sacrifice a goat, and pray to the deal gods that it all goes through in 6-8 weeks.
dealmac focuses on finding straight-forward deals that don't require a lot of hassle and has at *least* 1 writer and 1 editor investigate any given deal before it gets posted on the front page to ensure that it's valid. Of course mistakes take place and prices change... But I'm not the type to want to try reaching out on a limb to get a good deal and risk breaking my neck (read: my finances). For the people that are willing to do it, more power to you.
Just a quick comment about this:
I completely agree that you can get some great deals from Fatwallet forumers. My only problem with quite a number of their deals is that they require you to jump through so many loops to get them- i.e, buy at one store with a coupon via Fatwallet to get some money back via FatCash, then take it to a store to price match, send in 4 rebates, sacrifice a goat, and pray to the deal gods that it all goes through in 6-8 weeks.
dealmac focuses on finding straight-forward deals that don't require a lot of hassle and has at *least* 1 writer and 1 editor investigate any given deal before it gets posted on the front page to ensure that it's valid. Of course mistakes take place and prices change... But I'm not the type to want to try reaching out on a limb to get a good deal and risk breaking my neck (read: my finances). For the people that are willing to do it, more power to you.
latergator116
Mar 20, 09:21 PM
I do not want to enter the "debate" about whether or not DRM and copyright laws are "good" or "bad." But for everyone who believes that the creation of this software was a good thing I would like to suggest that you put your efforts into more productive things, like starting a legal defense fund for that poor individual(s) who helped create the PyMusique software.
I'd just about be willing to bet that federal law enforcement agents will be knocking on his/her door within the next few weeks. No doubt, if Apple wants to press this issue those individuals could be charged with some violation of the DMCA or laws covering internet commerce . I suppose that they could even be charged in a civil suit for violation of the iTunes Terms Of Service agreement.
Seriously, if it is true that some of these people live in the U.S. and they've used their true identities then they could be headed for real trouble. Get their legal team ready (and, of course, I know you'll all be contributing money for their defense). :)
I doubt Apple would waste their time and go after and sue the people who used this program and broke the iTunes contract. It seems like a relatively trivial matter. (But after looking at their thinksecret lawsuit, I don't know).
I'd just about be willing to bet that federal law enforcement agents will be knocking on his/her door within the next few weeks. No doubt, if Apple wants to press this issue those individuals could be charged with some violation of the DMCA or laws covering internet commerce . I suppose that they could even be charged in a civil suit for violation of the iTunes Terms Of Service agreement.
Seriously, if it is true that some of these people live in the U.S. and they've used their true identities then they could be headed for real trouble. Get their legal team ready (and, of course, I know you'll all be contributing money for their defense). :)
I doubt Apple would waste their time and go after and sue the people who used this program and broke the iTunes contract. It seems like a relatively trivial matter. (But after looking at their thinksecret lawsuit, I don't know).
firestarter
Mar 13, 01:21 PM
...but if a coal plant blows it's over soon, if a nuke plant blows it's over in 250 thousand years.
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
Where did you get that figure from? Cs-137 (one of the main long-lived dangerous compounds) has a half life of 30.1 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137).
Oh yes, and coal contains radioactive material too... which a power station handily sends up it's chimney for distribution in the environment!
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements)
iphonedev11
Feb 15, 03:05 PM
I can believe this, but only since the Android OS is open source. This means companies are making phones with their OS, not because its better. The iPhone is the superior phone, but Google is doing a great job at making the Android available to the masses.
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:53 AM
You had said "it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded" and mac jones seemed concerned that the whole reactor had blown up. I was just adding some updates to the thread which seemed to make more sense of the situation based on the limited information available.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
How do you know what is was?. I don't have a clue. If you really know post it. I'd LOVE to get this sorted out as i'm a bit worried now.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
How do you know what is was?. I don't have a clue. If you really know post it. I'd LOVE to get this sorted out as i'm a bit worried now.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 03:29 PM
No I didn't... I provided an explanation as supplementary evidence to the rebuttal made by myself. You didn't explain what Sharia Law is at all.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
yes, I did explain what sharia law is.
I'll now ask you to provide examples of where it is stated that a father must kill their child for disobeying them.
Cultural is extending to the entire region, which it is. There is no source in Islam telling fathers to perform honour killings on the basis.
Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:
Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”
Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”
Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.”
Now some sahih hadiths:
Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."
Al-Bukhari:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise”.
Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others:
Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, “No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!” In another version, it is stated, “When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”.
Al-Bayhaqi:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one’s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire.”
EDIT: it seems a lot of muslims are misinterpreting islam somehow.
http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
EDIT part 2:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
yes, I did explain what sharia law is.
I'll now ask you to provide examples of where it is stated that a father must kill their child for disobeying them.
Cultural is extending to the entire region, which it is. There is no source in Islam telling fathers to perform honour killings on the basis.
Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:
Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”
Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”
Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.”
Now some sahih hadiths:
Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."
Al-Bukhari:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise”.
Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others:
Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, “No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!” In another version, it is stated, “When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”.
Al-Bayhaqi:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one’s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire.”
EDIT: it seems a lot of muslims are misinterpreting islam somehow.
http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
EDIT part 2:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu