I'm talking about the merit of your argument. Whether you have a valid point or not, name calling makes your position look weak. It is the last refuge of the person who has nothing of value to say. You might as well append "and you have stupid hair and you're a stupid head!" to the end of every post; it makes you look like you're 5.
Not everyone needs root access on their phone - I treat it much like an appliance.
I don;t think the Nexus One and other phones are rubbish - but at the time I bought my 3G that wasn't an option, and the iPhone offered what I needed. In the time that I have been using it, I have not run across anything that makes me say "I will switch when something better comes along (even the 3GS).
The walled garden approach is not the almighty hinderance to a lot of people that people on/. seem to think it is. You buy and use products that work for you.
Release date Original: June 29, 2007[1] 3G: July 11, 2008[2] 3GS: June 19, 2009[3]
So, that would be every 12 months, not 6 months.
Also, you don't physically need the phone to test your app - you can do it on the virtual phone while you collect together the cash if you really need an updated handset.
My iPhone isn't a status symbol. It's a tool. I don't own any status symbols - I drive a beaten up car, have no branded clothes, wear a non-brand watch. You get the idea.
The primary function of the iPhone is most certainly not a status symbol to the vast majority of people who use it.
The practice has been going on in the cell phone market for *years* - long, long, long before the iPhone was released. It's not a new phenomenon, and it can be entirely attributed to "new is better than old" for whatever phone it is. It's one of the reasons the guy in the O2 shop thought it was unusual that I had a phone that was over 5 years old before I bought an iPhone, since most people upgrade the *second* their contract allows them to, or they resort to damaging the phone on purpose and claim on the warranty.
They may actually use the heat off the pond with heat exchangers - it will depend on the plant design. I'm sure that waste heat from the cooling process has been considered, if only to provide heating for the building.
The main point being that the bulk of the heat you're going to get out of the stuff is lone gone by the time it ends up in glass form.
Stealing what is in those cans to make a weapon is just... silly.
It would be *infinitely* more easy to just dig up some uranium from the ground and enrich it.
If you have the technology to make a viable weapon from the waste, you are more than capable of doing it the much easier way.
They also likely are treated for water hardness, since they are made of stainless steel and carefully manufactured.
The glass is not a strong heat producer by the time it goes into the cans - the bulk of the heat is removed as the really short lived stuff decays while it is in the cooling ponds on the reactor site. While I'm sure it will continue to produce heat gradually, actually extracting it would be more hassle than it is worth, especially if we pull out the useful stuff to be used again as fuel.
Yes, indeed, and by the time the waste makes it into the glass form, it contains isotopes with very long half lives and well known decay chains.
The most potent of the high energy stuff, by nature of it being highly radioactive is very useful to us as fuel, but it it really must be disposed of, the bulk of it decays over a relatively short timespan. It's not like it just comes out of the reactor and goes right into the ground.
Radon, which is in the decay chain of uranium, has several isotopes, most of which are very short lived (hours to days), one of which is extremely long lived (half life of 4 billion-ish years, so less radioactive than the carbon in your own body), Radium is another of the highly radioactive gasses (there are not many) that have relatively short half lives (although the longest lived isotope is about 1500 years, with 5 years being the next longest) A ton of natural uranium ore gives off approximately 0.15 grams of Rn. The natural release of Radon and Radium from the ground is a far greater concern than anything from a storage facility, especially in the low amounts.
And what is going to melt the glass exactly? Natural decay? While spontaneous fission and radioactive decay do create heat, the cans and the environment have been designed with this in mind. Not to mention that the really heavy heat and decay occurs in the cooling ponds before the stuff is shipped off for processing.
These issues have all been in careful consideration for a long time. It's not like they just came up with something on the back of an envelope.
Either way, I'll take the extensive study I have done on this topic from numerous sources over some AC on/. saying "wrong", if you don't mind.
The RBMK, as well as having a positive void coefficient, was also *giant* and was just too big to build a full containment structure around, at least practically.
And he's not actually advocating eating the waste. We are talking about storing it underground miles away from anyone, in former mines or in custom-dug caverns.
The calculations of the energy and radioactivity involved are just to illustrate the point that it's not "CSI nuclear waste" - bright green glowing liquids that make your skin melt off and cause Horatio Kane to make a bad pun after pausing just a little too long to take his shades off.
Waste storage is well handled. The eventual end point for the small amounts of HE waste is as a glass, which is stored in columns inside cylindrical steel cans. This glass can not "leak" (certainly not "will eventually leak"). They are stored underground in caverns and monitored. Even if one were to be submerged in water, the glass would not dissolve, although the storage sites are picked to avoid water tables anyway. Some of these cans are also set into concrete.
It's not like on "The Simpsons" or on CSI where nuclear waste is a bright green glowing liquid that is shoved into a rusty steel oil drum with a badly fitting cap and excess spilling down the sides where it was carelessly topped up.
We do not want coal fired plants. They release high amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere, and don't just produce CO2 - there are other wastes to get rid of, including a ton of ash and nasty sulphurous compounds, and carbon capture is not a long term solution. It would be better to simply compress it and use it rather than pump it back into the ground. Perhaps when fridges and AC units start using liquid CO2 as their refrigerant we'll see more of that.
1. Economies of scale matter, and we are developing cheaper and more efficient plants. A lot of expense is also in unnecessary red tape.
2. Where did you get that from? Greenpeace? While there is some long lived waste, it is relatively easy to store and process, especially with new techniques. With the right combination of reactor types we can actually use quite a lot of what would be waste as fuel. Even with the HE waste, the overall radioactivity release per plant is *much* less than a coal plant - burning coal releases a huge amount of radioactivity into the atmosphere.
3. While the act itself is problematic, it is a feature of the "red tape" I mentioned earlier. Groups like Greenpeace criticise if for "not doing enough" but this is the same group that run on a platform of "no more chernobyls" as a campaign (analogous to an anti-airline group running with "no more hindenburgs!" when protesting against modern aviation). While the government might be on the hook for insurance for the next 15 years, or however long is left on the renewal, I do not see that as a major issue. Nuclear power is not the highly unstable, likely to explode and make people glow green, demon that the protestors like to make out that it is. It is clean, mature and well understood technology with a very good safety record (minus things like Chernobyl, which for several reasons can't be used as a yardstick for nuclear safety in the same way that Dick Cheney is not the poster boy for why you shouldn't go hunting with your buddies because they *will* shoot you in the face because they think you are a tame bird).
4. What do you mean "fuel dependency" - reactors don't just run on Uranium, even though there is plenty of that around, in the ground and in weapons. They can also run on Thorium with is about 4 times more abundant than Uranium and also on various other elements. We can also use "supply chain" style reactors that use the spent waste fuel from other reactors. Sort of like triple expansion steam engines, just... less steam-punky.
Or it might not be policy at all - it could just be that someone has tried to brute-force their Apple IDs and got them temporarily suspended. So far this seems to only be related to two people, since it seems silly that a jailbroken phone could obtain content with no security barrier. Stranger things have happened though - iTunes only did relatively weak authentication to determine whether an iPod/iPhone was connected, hence the original kefuffle with the USB id and the Palm Pre.
Well, the point is that the iPhone didn't have "several years" head start, it only had 18 months head start at most, if we look solely at release dates.
There is no way that 18 months could possibly be described as a "several year" time duration. It is 1 year and 6 months.
Thus, the original poster's point, that the "several year" head start is the reason that the iPhone is selling far better than Droid is not really valid. There are doubtless some sales benefits from the 18 month earlier release, but the actual announcements about the two platforms were only 9/10 months apart in 2007 (January 9th and November 5th).
Google have said that they are shipping 60,000 Android phones per day, Apple sold approximately 6 million iPhones before they went to the 3G model in July 2008, so that's 11 months since release (June 29th 2007 was the original release), which is 18,181.8 phones per day. In this respect, if Google's numbers are accurate (and they say shipping, not sold - but they could be sales) then Android is actually doing better in its initial release, despite the "several year" [sic] head start of the iPhone.
That was my point.
(although, after the release of the 3G version, they sold 7 million alone in Q4 2008, which ends in September for Apple's fiscal year, which is about 77,000 per day - guess people really were waiting for the 3G model)
I think maybe you do need it interpreting - I thought it was pretty clear myself. He made assumptions, and then scaled them back when people in the industry (not Apple) called him on it.
While I am sure the iTMS makes money, it's not Apple's meat and potatoes.
My non-jailbroken iPhone is a very, very long way from a "useless brick" - just because you find it useless without SSH apps (which are available for non-jailbroken iPhones btw) does not make it useless.
You can turn off that "absurd" directory structure, which is simply Artist>Album>Track, in iTunes. The way the phone stores the music shouldn't really be an issue, unless you want to pull the files off onto another machine from the iPod, but it was never really designed to do that, just to sync to your main machine's music, which iTunes lets you manage as you wish.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably because you work under studio lights. Gold is a great way to stop it overheating.
I would have gone for Osmium myself though - closer to the colour of the phone itself ;)
I'm talking about the merit of your argument. Whether you have a valid point or not, name calling makes your position look weak. It is the last refuge of the person who has nothing of value to say. You might as well append "and you have stupid hair and you're a stupid head!" to the end of every post; it makes you look like you're 5.
Not everyone needs root access on their phone - I treat it much like an appliance.
I don;t think the Nexus One and other phones are rubbish - but at the time I bought my 3G that wasn't an option, and the iPhone offered what I needed. In the time that I have been using it, I have not run across anything that makes me say "I will switch when something better comes along (even the 3GS).
The walled garden approach is not the almighty hinderance to a lot of people that people on /. seem to think it is. You buy and use products that work for you.
Release date Original: June 29, 2007[1]
3G: July 11, 2008[2]
3GS: June 19, 2009[3]
So, that would be every 12 months, not 6 months.
Also, you don't physically need the phone to test your app - you can do it on the virtual phone while you collect together the cash if you really need an updated handset.
My iPhone isn't a status symbol. It's a tool. I don't own any status symbols - I drive a beaten up car, have no branded clothes, wear a non-brand watch. You get the idea.
The primary function of the iPhone is most certainly not a status symbol to the vast majority of people who use it.
The practice has been going on in the cell phone market for *years* - long, long, long before the iPhone was released. It's not a new phenomenon, and it can be entirely attributed to "new is better than old" for whatever phone it is. It's one of the reasons the guy in the O2 shop thought it was unusual that I had a phone that was over 5 years old before I bought an iPhone, since most people upgrade the *second* their contract allows them to, or they resort to damaging the phone on purpose and claim on the warranty.
They may actually use the heat off the pond with heat exchangers - it will depend on the plant design. I'm sure that waste heat from the cooling process has been considered, if only to provide heating for the building.
The main point being that the bulk of the heat you're going to get out of the stuff is lone gone by the time it ends up in glass form.
Stealing what is in those cans to make a weapon is just... silly.
It would be *infinitely* more easy to just dig up some uranium from the ground and enrich it.
If you have the technology to make a viable weapon from the waste, you are more than capable of doing it the much easier way.
They also likely are treated for water hardness, since they are made of stainless steel and carefully manufactured.
The glass is not a strong heat producer by the time it goes into the cans - the bulk of the heat is removed as the really short lived stuff decays while it is in the cooling ponds on the reactor site. While I'm sure it will continue to produce heat gradually, actually extracting it would be more hassle than it is worth, especially if we pull out the useful stuff to be used again as fuel.
Yes, I was talking chemical toxicity, ignoring radioactive decay effects.
Pure elemental potassium is pretty toxic (and reactive!) without it needing to be radioactive. So is elemental iodine.
Cobalt and Strontium are both pretty typical transition metals in terms of toxicity.
Yes, indeed, and by the time the waste makes it into the glass form, it contains isotopes with very long half lives and well known decay chains.
The most potent of the high energy stuff, by nature of it being highly radioactive is very useful to us as fuel, but it it really must be disposed of, the bulk of it decays over a relatively short timespan. It's not like it just comes out of the reactor and goes right into the ground.
Radon, which is in the decay chain of uranium, has several isotopes, most of which are very short lived (hours to days), one of which is extremely long lived (half life of 4 billion-ish years, so less radioactive than the carbon in your own body), Radium is another of the highly radioactive gasses (there are not many) that have relatively short half lives (although the longest lived isotope is about 1500 years, with 5 years being the next longest) A ton of natural uranium ore gives off approximately 0.15 grams of Rn. The natural release of Radon and Radium from the ground is a far greater concern than anything from a storage facility, especially in the low amounts.
And what is going to melt the glass exactly? Natural decay? While spontaneous fission and radioactive decay do create heat, the cans and the environment have been designed with this in mind. Not to mention that the really heavy heat and decay occurs in the cooling ponds before the stuff is shipped off for processing.
These issues have all been in careful consideration for a long time. It's not like they just came up with something on the back of an envelope.
Either way, I'll take the extensive study I have done on this topic from numerous sources over some AC on /. saying "wrong", if you don't mind.
The RBMK, as well as having a positive void coefficient, was also *giant* and was just too big to build a full containment structure around, at least practically.
When there are major airline disasters, it dwarfs anything else. Remember The Hindenberg?
I wouldn't want to trust a modern aircraft, not after what happened to The Hindenberg!
Seems decent enough to me.
And he's not actually advocating eating the waste. We are talking about storing it underground miles away from anyone, in former mines or in custom-dug caverns.
The calculations of the energy and radioactivity involved are just to illustrate the point that it's not "CSI nuclear waste" - bright green glowing liquids that make your skin melt off and cause Horatio Kane to make a bad pun after pausing just a little too long to take his shades off.
Only because it's a heavy metal - its no more toxic than copper or iron in terms of actual chemical toxicity.
So it's not pleasant, but it's not like Nickel tetra-carbonyl or anything.
Waste storage is well handled. The eventual end point for the small amounts of HE waste is as a glass, which is stored in columns inside cylindrical steel cans. This glass can not "leak" (certainly not "will eventually leak"). They are stored underground in caverns and monitored. Even if one were to be submerged in water, the glass would not dissolve, although the storage sites are picked to avoid water tables anyway. Some of these cans are also set into concrete.
It's not like on "The Simpsons" or on CSI where nuclear waste is a bright green glowing liquid that is shoved into a rusty steel oil drum with a badly fitting cap and excess spilling down the sides where it was carelessly topped up.
We do not want coal fired plants. They release high amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere, and don't just produce CO2 - there are other wastes to get rid of, including a ton of ash and nasty sulphurous compounds, and carbon capture is not a long term solution. It would be better to simply compress it and use it rather than pump it back into the ground. Perhaps when fridges and AC units start using liquid CO2 as their refrigerant we'll see more of that.
1. Economies of scale matter, and we are developing cheaper and more efficient plants. A lot of expense is also in unnecessary red tape.
2. Where did you get that from? Greenpeace? While there is some long lived waste, it is relatively easy to store and process, especially with new techniques. With the right combination of reactor types we can actually use quite a lot of what would be waste as fuel. Even with the HE waste, the overall radioactivity release per plant is *much* less than a coal plant - burning coal releases a huge amount of radioactivity into the atmosphere.
3. While the act itself is problematic, it is a feature of the "red tape" I mentioned earlier. Groups like Greenpeace criticise if for "not doing enough" but this is the same group that run on a platform of "no more chernobyls" as a campaign (analogous to an anti-airline group running with "no more hindenburgs!" when protesting against modern aviation). While the government might be on the hook for insurance for the next 15 years, or however long is left on the renewal, I do not see that as a major issue. Nuclear power is not the highly unstable, likely to explode and make people glow green, demon that the protestors like to make out that it is. It is clean, mature and well understood technology with a very good safety record (minus things like Chernobyl, which for several reasons can't be used as a yardstick for nuclear safety in the same way that Dick Cheney is not the poster boy for why you shouldn't go hunting with your buddies because they *will* shoot you in the face because they think you are a tame bird).
4. What do you mean "fuel dependency" - reactors don't just run on Uranium, even though there is plenty of that around, in the ground and in weapons. They can also run on Thorium with is about 4 times more abundant than Uranium and also on various other elements. We can also use "supply chain" style reactors that use the spent waste fuel from other reactors. Sort of like triple expansion steam engines, just... less steam-punky.
And name calling in lieu of actual argument is just so mature.
I will amend my statement:
So since no one really buys Linux, it can't be very popular.
Or it might not be policy at all - it could just be that someone has tried to brute-force their Apple IDs and got them temporarily suspended. So far this seems to only be related to two people, since it seems silly that a jailbroken phone could obtain content with no security barrier. Stranger things have happened though - iTunes only did relatively weak authentication to determine whether an iPod/iPhone was connected, hence the original kefuffle with the USB id and the Palm Pre.
Well, the point is that the iPhone didn't have "several years" head start, it only had 18 months head start at most, if we look solely at release dates.
There is no way that 18 months could possibly be described as a "several year" time duration. It is 1 year and 6 months.
Thus, the original poster's point, that the "several year" head start is the reason that the iPhone is selling far better than Droid is not really valid. There are doubtless some sales benefits from the 18 month earlier release, but the actual announcements about the two platforms were only 9/10 months apart in 2007 (January 9th and November 5th).
Google have said that they are shipping 60,000 Android phones per day, Apple sold approximately 6 million iPhones before they went to the 3G model in July 2008, so that's 11 months since release (June 29th 2007 was the original release), which is 18,181.8 phones per day. In this respect, if Google's numbers are accurate (and they say shipping, not sold - but they could be sales) then Android is actually doing better in its initial release, despite the "several year" [sic] head start of the iPhone.
That was my point.
(although, after the release of the 3G version, they sold 7 million alone in Q4 2008, which ends in September for Apple's fiscal year, which is about 77,000 per day - guess people really were waiting for the 3G model)
Incidentally, what's going to happen to "needing" a good UNIX with support for MS Office if you're going to run FreeBSD?
I think maybe you do need it interpreting - I thought it was pretty clear myself. He made assumptions, and then scaled them back when people in the industry (not Apple) called him on it.
While I am sure the iTMS makes money, it's not Apple's meat and potatoes.
My non-jailbroken iPhone is a very, very long way from a "useless brick" - just because you find it useless without SSH apps (which are available for non-jailbroken iPhones btw) does not make it useless.
You can turn off that "absurd" directory structure, which is simply Artist>Album>Track, in iTunes. The way the phone stores the music shouldn't really be an issue, unless you want to pull the files off onto another machine from the iPod, but it was never really designed to do that, just to sync to your main machine's music, which iTunes lets you manage as you wish.
My iPhone has tethering and it is not jailbroken, nor do I pay my carrier to enable it.
My iPhone has bluetooth tethering and it is not jailbroken, nor do I pay my carrier for the privilege.
Selective quoting and word twisting is second only to talking at the movie theatre.