Slashdot Mirror

Actually recycling does reduce CO2 emissions depending what's being recycled. It takes more energy, and water, to produce something from virgin stock than recycling does. Recycled glass only uses 25% of the energy that virgin glass does. And most of that energy comes from coal fired power plants in the US. What I don't like is how many places that require recycling charge people to recycle. When I was young I used to go out and clean litter from roads and what not. I'd then separate different recyclables and turn them into a recycling center and get paid. Now property owners have to pay curbside pickup.

So who paid Blender more Money than Rolling Stone?

And Disney does not make use of this meaningless marketing machine?

Come on slashdot, don't be twee, what Operating System does this 'computer virus' need to run on .. Systems Affected: Windows 2000, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP ..

Not sure where you got the 50~60k battery replacement, because it's simply not true

The state of charge of the battery in a prius is carefully kept between 45% and 75% in order to give the battery pack a long life. And by long I mean that the prius taxis used up in Vancouver with 200k+ miles on the clock still haven't failed a pack.

The only packs that have failed in service are those that have been damaged in accidents or those that have been tampered with by "tuners".

Communism in its true form is more like the Amish. Start reading your Marx and Engels - the roots of Anarchism and Communism: http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm
early Communists and Anarchists sought to preserve the communal lands and communal lifestyle, but also sought to overthrow the feudal aristocracy to establish democracy, this made them both progressive and conservative. more on the Amish see: http://people.howstuffworks.com/amish.htm

Many of these groups opposed progress, and some participated in riots, the destruction of industrial machines, and the sabotage of factories. This was done because the new industrial forms of production were undermining rural life and were putting millions of craftsmen out of work by making their skills no longer valuable. Then Karl Marx came along in the mid 1800s and Marx denounced the "utopian socialism" and anti-progress communism of his day. Marx pointed out that capitalism was progressive because it represented an improvement in production. Marx hailed capitalism's triumph as a victory over feudalism. Marx said that industrialization was a good thing and that it should be embraced, that instead of opposing the progress of industrialization the goal should be to end wage-labor, and that the new industrial systems should be converted to communal property, much like the lands had been communal property just some 50 or 100 years prior. This changed the communist movement from being anti-technology to pro-technology, and led to the development of what most people recognize today as "Communist ideology". The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, and can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm It is important to distinguish the difference between Communism and Marxism. Marxism is basically a system of analysis, and a way to view the world. Communism, on the other hand, is basically a political movement, a form of government, a condition of society. It is also important to understand the difference between "communism" and the Communist Party. No country has ever had a communist system of government. The countries that we call "Communist" are countries where the dominant political party was/is the Communist Party. Communist Parties are generally political parties who have working towards achieving "communism" as part of their party platform. However, we all know the maxims on power and its corrupting allure.

I also have been using these electric toothbrushes for a very long time. The toothbrush use electromagnetic induction, correct?

I thought that most household AC Power Transformers also use induction. There are two unconnected wire windings-- primary winding creates electomagnetic induction on the secondary winding.

In a standard power supply, the two windings are unconnected, but are also contained within the same housing-- the "power brick".

With the electric toothbrushes, one winding is sealed inside the base, and connects to wall power. The second is sealed inside the toothbrush, so the toothbrush remains waterproof. Other then that, the toothbrushes function the same as a common, household power supply. The toothbrush probably uses an AC-to-DC transformer,

And correct me if I'm wrong. I'm re-learning these things, and my Forrest Mims books are under a pile on the workbench.

That 60Hz is also a good B-flat in case you need to tune a musical instrument.

Really? I thought it was a high F#. Or at least that is what it sounded like when my retarded half brother stuck a fork in the light socket.

How Acoustic Guitars Work shows that 120 Hz is in-between B and A#, and 60 Hz is exactly one octave lower than 120 Hz.

The submitter wrote:

Oberg goes on to quote 'There is a widespread notion that meteorites falling to Earth arrive red hot.' He is correct here. In fact, meteorites falling through the atmosphere typically explode, shattering into dozens or hundreds of pieces; something that occurs at the point when the dynamic pressure on the leading face exceeds the yield stress of the material. This occurs for meteoroids of all compositions, including nickle-iron meteorites that are far more robust than hydrazine tanks. If the atmospheric entry of meteorites is relevant, it hardly bolsters the case that a tank will enter intact (and if it's not relevent, why did Oberg bring it up?)

I'm not sure why the submitter seems to have only partially quoted Oberg here (apparently out of context), and ignored the point Oberg was trying to make. Although meteorites entering the atmosphere generate a fireball, there seems to be ample evidence that the objects themselves remain cold even upon impact.

I'll cite a few articles here:
From this NASA page titled "Hot Meteors and Cold Meteorites," under the section titled "Meteorites Don't Pop Corn," we have this salient paragraph:

Objects from space that enter Earth's atmosphere are -- like space itself -- very cold and they remain so even as they blaze a hot-looking trail toward the ground. "The outer layers are warmed by atmospheric friction, and little bits flake away as they descend," explains Yeomans. This is called ablation and it's a wonderful way to remove heat. (Some commercial heat shields use ablation to keep spacecraft cool when they re- enter Earth's atmosphere.) "Rocky asteroids are poor conductors of heat," Yeomans continued. "Their central regions remain cool even as the hot outer layers are ablated away."

A slightly less assertive article on Howstuffworks is a little more reserved in its claims:

Some commentators have claimed that meteorites, especially those of moderate size like scientists believe this one was, are cold when they hit the ground -- not hot. However, there's no conclusive proof about whether meteorites are hot or cold upon impact. Available evidence indicates that just after landing, meteorites are cold or only slightly warm [source: Cornell University Astronomy Department]. Meteorite impacts aren't known to cause major fires or to scorch large areas.

A more nuanced perspective is provided by this amateur astronomer who specializes in the study of meteors (specifically meteor spectroscopy). It's a short read, but a little too long to block quote here. Suffice it to say, there are numerous factors, including the composition and albedo (reflectivity) of the object, whether it was camping out in the Earth's shadow prior to impact (and for how long), the trajectory and velocity upon entering the atmosphere, etc.

Seems to me that the submitter is conflating two separate thoughts. Oberg brings up meteorites because they can and do impact the Earth while still cold, or only moderately warm. That's as far as the analogy goes -- he apparently wants to make the case that an object can remain cold enough that hydrazine fuel inside the container in question might not vaporize prior to impact. Whether we want to extend the analogy to the question of whether the container will shatter during re-entry is a question best asked of metallurgists or material scientists, and that I suspect depends entirely on the composition and manufacture of the fuel tank. (For that matter, whether a meteorite shatters upon re-entry would seem to be a function of the composition of the object, as well as the stresses it encounters -- and those stresses would be a function of speed and trajectory, as well as shape, would they not?)

...if there's any kind of transparent film, it will likely impede electrical current. I think you know not of what you speak. Isopropyl alcohol, especially if you get 90% or so, is about all that is in electrical contact cleaner.

Well, I do know of what I speak. Been working in electronics for a long time.
Funny that "howstuffworks" link doesn't provide any references to back up their "facts".
It may be true that the cheap products that call them selves contact cleaner are nothing more than isopropyl. The real commercial grade contact cleaner is much more than that.

The WHOLE POINT is to remove any films or dirt that prevent connection.

That's a little short sighted. If you want the device to last it is important to clean AND protect the contacts. Even if you don't care about the cart you can damage the mating connector inside the unit (gold plating is measured in microns).

Here are a few examples of contact cleaner with lubricant;
http://www.cpcares.com/TAE/puretronics/TAE-5000.html
http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/404b.html
http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/801b.html

...if there's any kind of transparent film, it will likely impede electrical current. I think you know not of what you speak. Isopropyl alcohol, especially if you get 90% or so, is about all that is in electrical contact cleaner.

The WHOLE POINT is to remove any films or dirt that prevent connection.

How, exactly, is removing the catalytic converter (which acts on the engine's exhaust just before it is expelled to the atmosphere) supposed to help improve engine efficiency?

The same way removing your muffler does - both the muffler and the catalytic converter restrict the flow of exhaust in the car (thereby restricting the intake, and subsequently reducing the amount of power the car can generate). NASCAR teams remove the mufflers and catalytic converters from cars - adding about 50HP to the car in the process.

Last time I checked 100.8/130=0.775 or enough to get a 1989 Geo Metro about 38 miles

Now lets be completly fair..
While we are throwing percentages all over the places lets balance the playing field..

Yes Gas has 132x10^6 joules
Diesel has 155x10^6 joules
Current solar tech is 19% efficent so you 7 m array makes 10.4KW or 37.4x10^6 on 8 hours.. Most of us eat lunch and stay 8.5-9 hours but I'll wave that.

We'll loosse another 12% or so to charging/recovery of batteries or storing hydrogen so we have 32.9x10^6j left. (big assumption here.. I don't have a clue what we'll lose to hydrogen storage but I did find articles claiming 90% for Phosphoric acid fuel cells in the lab.)

Now.. about that ICE engine in you car.. it's 15-20% efficent at best I'm sorry to say.
So lets pick a good one.. VW TDI diesel.. 48mpg.. I'll bet that hits the 20% mark.
So it is using 31X10^6j of the 155X10^6j avaliable from it's gallon of diesel.. the rest goes as wasted heat and sound.

So in the end.. the Solar/Electric has a slight advantage on paper.. 32.9x10^6j for solar vs 31x10^6j for one of the best turbo deisels using todays technology..

Even if we give the solar/hydrogen/fuelcell car a 40% hit for losses using a conventional fuel cell I still get 19.7x10^6j
That should get me 30miles in a car with comparable performance.

Now some will argue that the electric will have some loss in the drive train and electronic speed controls..
Yes it will but not having a clutch or 5 speed transmision will save some power. I call it a wash..

I'll give the ICE 1 big plus.. In the winter heating the car takes no power.
We could use waste heat from the fuel cell to heat the solar car though..

Better hope you have a place to plug in on Rainy days though.

Sources
http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml
http://www.howstuffworks.com/diesel3.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphoric_acid_fuel_cell

Is your plug/home properly grounded? If your not grounded at all or the grounds resistance is too high (25 Ohms is the standard for new housing) your UPS (and surge protector) is worthless as it has no where to dump the surge to and will fault (reset) to protect itself. It sounds like you may already have some wiring issues. http://www.howstuffworks.com/surge-protector.htm is always a good read.

A good summary for the crushed cars is here. Basically they throw them into a big grinder and separate the steel, plastic, and glass.

Usually those tire dumps are illegal. They grind up the rubber and use it in various products, and they melt down the radial belts for the steel.

So we see in this example the difference - when you're a monopoly, you sell crap and people have no choice. Jaguar on the other hand had trouble unloading their stock, and I'm sure people with half-a-million bucks to blow on car simply went and got Porche's, Ferrari's etc instead...

So to simply state that you can't buy an old model car is missing part of the point. I'm going to suggest that had the car sold well, it could well still be available today. Porsche has been making the 911 for many years and will make it for many more since it sells very well. Ford (for reasons beyond me) tried to replace the Mustang with the Probe and the outcry from the public resulted in the return of the Mustang - now you can't buy the Probe. Coke tried New Coke, today we pretty much have Coke.

There's plenty of examples in industry where successful companies respond to customer demand and sell them what they want, and when the company goes off the path they actually listen to their customers. This is because they have to compete with other companies offering customers an alternative.

Lucky for Microsoft they don't have such baggage to worry about. ...and this goes for most of the other examples I'm reading here like cell-phone and internet service providers. The lack of competition leaves a lot of power in the hands of the company to do what it wants instead of providing what the customer is demanding.

If you can not accept for that moment that miracles can/could have happened, then you are no different than I, because I don't believe carbon dating actually works because I wasn't around 4 illion years ago watching the solar system form so that I can verify that is actually works that far back.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable

I don't believe that things were around "4 illion years ago"
I concede the point because science has established it to my satisfaction.
If you can upend the science behind carbon dating, I'm more than willing to reconsider what I 'know'

Learn yourself some science.

Here, at $4.00/gallon and 30 MPG, $10 will take you about 75 miles. An average banana will give you about 105 calories. For most people, biking burns about 34 calories/mile. So, one extra banana will take you about 3 miles (far short of the 75 miles driving). Of course if you're eating comfort food or taking in more calories than you need even when you're not burning them, biking makes great sense - Although, however practical, I'm not sure it's fair to factor in those excess calories into a theoretical price-per-mile analysis. But if you can bike that far on one extra banana, you must either be an exceptionally efficient biker or be losing a lot of weight.

Maybe things are different in your area - US$10 to drive 25 miles round trip seems obscene by my standards. I commute a very hilly ~20 miles round trip for about US$2.35. But, as always, YMMV.

While I see your numbers, they bear no resemblance to the car that I drive, so your mileage number is quite high.

If you want to drive a gas-guzzler, that's your right, but don't buy an SUV and then pretend to help the planet by biking instead of driving it. 30 MPG isn't that big a stretch - Even very inexpensive cars can manage that. My car cost me ~$15k new back in Jan-2001 and gets me to and from work at about 34 MPG.

Also, my behavior changes when I drive. I am much more likely to "swing by" the Home Depot to get a new hose or something.

If you don't have the self control to resist driving all over the place randomly every time you start up your car, maybe driving isn't for you. Good call - stick to your bike.

And if you do that to include food, then you must also include maintenance costs...

Definitely. As I've pointed out in previous posts, if you can eliminate a car from your budget by using a bike - It's a no brainer. But, most people just keep the car in their garage rather than driving it. The main maintenance costs involved with a car are from ownership/insurance/etc, not from per-mile usage.

...as well as the secondary benefits to biking (ie, no gym membership, commuting = exercising) etc.

Agreed. I bike avidly. In fact - I drive to work and then bike recreationally. So, for me, the bike is pure expense. I do it for enjoyment and exercise. But, I stand by my statement that biking purely as a per-mile transport costs more than driving a car that would otherwise be sitting in your garage.

I'm interested still to see your math, but suspect you to be a troll.

Fine. I figure ~$10/day for food. I ate on a lot less than that back in college, but my diet now is much better for me (fruit/veggies/lean meat/etc). And I prefer to buy local goods which typically costs more, but makes me feel better because they're not mass produced and then transported all over the place. For an average person biking at 15 mph, biking burns ~34 calories/mile. People, on average, eat about 2,000 calories per day. So, biking for an average guy like me costs ~$0.17/mile.

Now, assuming that your car gets 30 MPG and gas costs $4.00/gallon, driving costs ~$0.13/gallon - Noticeably cheaper. Like I said, if you don't eat well, if you can eliminate a car from your life, or if you take into account the many other benefits of biking, it's a great thing to do. I bike all the time. But, assuming that you're keeping your car and eat reasonably (i.e. you don't just pound down spaghetti and ramen noodles 3 time a day), it doesn't save on a per-mile basis. Not trying to troll, just trying to point out what I consider an interesting statistic. Of course, if you can bike 75 miles a day like you claimed in your previous post while spending only $8/day on nutrition, my hat goes off to you - You're truly a much better human specimen than me.

Not trying to be an ass, but I blew off several other posts that were twisting my words around, so I kind of unloaded here. And, I hate being called a troll - Sorry if I came off brutish.

Now more than ever, YMMV.

While I see your numbers, they bear no resemblance to the car that I drive, so your mileage number is quite high.

If you want to drive a gas-guzzler, that's your right, but don't buy an SUV and then pretend to help the planet by biking instead of driving it. 30 MPG isn't that big a stretch - Even very inexpensive cars can manage that. My car cost me ~$15k new back in Jan-2001 and gets me to and from work at about 34 MPG.

Also, my behavior changes when I drive. I am much more likely to "swing by" the Home Depot to get a new hose or something.

If you don't have the self control to resist driving all over the place randomly every time you start up your car, maybe driving isn't for you. Good call - stick to your bike.

And if you do that to include food, then you must also include maintenance costs...

Definitely. As I've pointed out in previous posts, if you can eliminate a car from your budget by using a bike - It's a no brainer. But, most people just keep the car in their garage rather than driving it. The main maintenance costs involved with a car are from ownership/insurance/etc, not from per-mile usage.

...as well as the secondary benefits to biking (ie, no gym membership, commuting = exercising) etc.

Agreed. I bike avidly. In fact - I drive to work and then bike recreationally. So, for me, the bike is pure expense. I do it for enjoyment and exercise. But, I stand by my statement that biking purely as a per-mile transport costs more than driving a car that would otherwise be sitting in your garage.

I'm interested still to see your math, but suspect you to be a troll.

Fine. I figure ~$10/day for food. I ate on a lot less than that back in college, but my diet now is much better for me (fruit/veggies/lean meat/etc). And I prefer to buy local goods which typically costs more, but makes me feel better because they're not mass produced and then transported all over the place. For an average person biking at 15 mph, biking burns ~34 calories/mile. People, on average, eat about 2,000 calories per day. So, biking for an average guy like me costs ~$0.17/mile.

Now, assuming that your car gets 30 MPG and gas costs $4.00/gallon, driving costs ~$0.13/gallon - Noticeably cheaper. Like I said, if you don't eat well, if you can eliminate a car from your life, or if you take into account the many other benefits of biking, it's a great thing to do. I bike all the time. But, assuming that you're keeping your car and eat reasonably (i.e. you don't just pound down spaghetti and ramen noodles 3 time a day), it doesn't save on a per-mile basis. Not trying to troll, just trying to point out what I consider an interesting statistic. Of course, if you can bike 75 miles a day like you claimed in your previous post while spending only $8/day on nutrition, my hat goes off to you - You're truly a much better human specimen than me.

Not trying to be an ass, but I blew off several other posts that were twisting my words around, so I kind of unloaded here. And, I hate being called a troll - Sorry if I came off brutish.

Now more than ever, YMMV.

Who buys stuff they don't need?

You mean like a singing rubber fish to hand on the wall?

http://www.howstuffworks.com/singing-fish.htm

Wrong on several levels.

First, the math:

491 kilowatt-hours = 0.491 megawatt-hours.

0.491 MWh over 5 minutes = 5.892 MWs of energy.

Second, you are ignoring efficiency:

5.8 MWs of energy is far more than it takes to move a car. Gasoline engines are remarkably ineffecient at converting all that energy into actual power.

Third, and most importantly:

"If it were possible for human beings to digest gasoline, a gallon would contain about 31,000 food calories -- the energy in a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to the energy in about 110 McDonalds hamburgers!"

Soure: http://science.howstuffworks.com/gasoline1.htm

(Okay, so maybe not most importantly, but it's the coolest.)

Also, show me a product that DOES not use electricity to spin up the compressor. It does not exist, and a car does not count. We are talking about products for the home.

You have to have electricity one way or the other. Even thermoelectric, a solid state technology, requires electricity.

Gas refrigerators (could be powered by gasoline, diesel, propane, kerosene, etc.) don't have compressors and don't use electricity to operate.

But what about the thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions (since I can't be bothered to look up any statistic made up by anyone else) sq ft of building roof space available? Plants and critters don't respond well to having their habitat bulldozed to make way for the next bypass, but it's not like anyone actually raises protest, least of all, congress.

I can't think of once that, other than some specific federal nature reserve, the US Gov has called a full scale halt on building of homes/office buildings/etc.

It makes sense to me that we could at least offset *some* of the BFF(ootprint) by reclaiming energy that would normally just bounce off the roof of your house or office building.

Now that I'm into the swing of it... I found a claim that a 1 square meter solar panel would offer 1kWh per day in AZ. According to http://science.howstuffworks.com/question481.htm, that would require 2 square meters to power a single 100 watt lightbulb, continuously, for one year. Of course, this figure would be much more favorable in conjunction with CFLs. My guess is that the average building could at the very least produce enough electricity to power their lighting for most of the day. If other energy saving techniques were used (i.e. skylights), even with the loss transfer to batteries (or even feeding power back into the grid, or supplying power to other devices, such as PCs), solar panels would be helpful in a variety of ways.

Just my $0.02 USD.

Beating the dead horse that is Fox News aside...

I've thought for a long time that we should be using detonation rather than combustion for power generation. Detonation produces way more power, and it's not hard to find volatile chemicals lying around to use as fuel. Hell, you can make high explosives out of piss. Imagine generating your domestic power and fuel for transportation out of your septic tank... now that's renewable energy. :)

The Quasiturbine seems like a promising approach.

Anyone know of any other engine designs that harness detonation to generate torque instead of simple thrust?

Bitch of it is, people DON'T look for their own information.

This is one of the key differences that we have trouble understanding (as I assume most of us on this type of site take the time to research).

Most people literally do not look into their options. They devour sound clips and single lines as gospel, making their choices and standing with them as though changing their minds would prove them less a man/woman. This is why the red states stay red, and blue states stay blue.

Any /. reader knows more then most of the voting public, and has seen more of each side of the fight. You want scary some time? Stop using the internet, try to gather your facts from Fox, ABC, or any other news network. Try to get a real look at the situation using that only.

Look at the standard, masses voting for their normal color, with a handfull of states that are naturally even enough that the few who actually vote differently can matter. I have never lived in a state where my vote counted, and that's a sobering thought.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/swing-state2.htm

Provided you don't have any defects, copy protection, on average, saves you money (in theory).

How does copy prot4ction save consumers money?

More copy protection -> less piracy -> more viewership -> more money per ad screened -> less ads needed to be screened -> less chance the average viewer will spend money on advertised item -> more money in average viewer's pocket (not to mention less advertising being its own reward)

That doesn't explain how copy protection saves money, it may explain how content creators make more money though.

More copy protection -> less piracy -> more viewership -> more money per ad screened

Actually "Wal-Mart hopes to gain market share by losing DRM".

less ads needed to be screened -> less chance the average viewer will spend money on advertised item

Anyone who lets ads influence them I have a bridge to sale.

more money in average viewer's pocket (not to mention less advertising being its own reward)

Except we now have more advertising. We now have more product placements in movies and tv shows. It's come a long way from when Reese's Pieces were placed in the movie "ET".

Agreed. Show what REAL comp-sci is about:

Photos of the Apollo AGS / LEM Guidance Control control panel.
http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/LM-Panel-Sept1968.jpg
Maybe with a snippet of the source code (Luminary 131 and Colossus 249) which were written in assembly, inset in the image?? http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/hrst/archive/1701b.pdf

2,000 15-bit words of erasable core memory and 36,000 words of read-only ("rope") memory, yet this software helped land men on the moon and got them back to earth!!

How 'bout a shot of the Mars rover, the one that was nearly lost due to a bug, then the VxWorks OS was upgraded from 65 million miles away @ the rate of 2K/sec for three days. "interplanetary roadside assistance!"
http://science.howstuffworks.com/mars-rover1.htm
Designed to run for 3 months, they've run for YEARS!

That is what Computer Science is all about!!

SomeFYI: NFM (NoFyckingMagic)

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/wild-charge-hands+on-really-does-charge-wirelessly-227215.php
http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/07/08/wildcharger-charges-wirelessly/
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/university-of-florida/3792-wireless-charging-station-video.htm

All electronic products I know of use DC operationally, AC is just for power distribution over distances and throughout the house/biz.

So, yes, presently all electronics (radio/tv ... phone/ipod) or their chargers have transformers and/or rectifiers the adjust AC-voltage levels and/or convert AC to DC electricity.

Anyway, home/biz with WCS could buy products in the future that weigh less, are smaller, cheaper, and use have far less wires/plugs in a mess.

You are so wrong.

One man on the Internet (youtube) has discovered how to make seawater burn by applying high frequency radio waves to it. Now that is a solution.

Solution? I think not... "Could salt water fuel cars?. The most important part is on the second page, but I'll spoil it for you: energy input is greater than energy output. Thermodynamics is a bitch.

Wait, does the PS3 have two main processing cores? Or are you counting the same core twice: once inside the VM, and once outside?

According to this the Playstation 3 has 1 3.2Ghz power pc core that manages 8 of the vector processors. Apparently only 7 of the vector processors are used, the 8th is redundant in case one fails?

Free Playstation 3, XBox 360 and Nintendo Wii

The billion dollar figure refers to the last mile myth, the COPPER infrastructure we already have provides more than 10x our current use ( Vdsl )

They can rent or buy existing fiber to provide bandwidth from the dlsams to the backbone.

Backbone infrastructure IS expensive, laying oceanic fibre in particular... it's also getting cheaper by orders of magnitude... basically every 15-20 years the telecos need to lay 3-4 Billion in underwater cables... these costs (since they have been keeping up on this part of it) are spread across all ISPS commerical and residential from both ends of the pipe, these pipes are shared by all the tier 1 isps.

So where is the problem? Once installed these things require very little maintenance, you wouldn't accept not having enough power or water for your house and those are MUCH more expensive to provide, and while yes they are metered the rate (at least here in Canada) is negligible (people use water and electricity whenever they feel a need) and there is no shortage (disclaimer: Situation may not apply in corrupt first world nations o_o).

And ALL of this assumes that they don't bother using moore's law and ever cheaper transistors to invest in revolutionary technologies like: caching (Gasp!), multi-casting, local p2p, wireless internet distribution or IPv6 (teh horror!).

Basically teleco's have forgotten how to license technology and infrastructure because they've been monopolies for so long... they've forgotten how to play: "lower costs", "provide better service", "examine new technologies", spend money on R & D instead of marketing, sales and support (no quotes because this is a debatable business practice) and "have better products."

In other words they're terrible, any examination of their practices and the available technologies makes you realize how out of hand the situation has become. At some point regulators will decouple the various pipes, force sane line rental charges on bandwidth ( these numbers are obviously high for cost and low for bandwidth but... meh).

Rant over.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/elumens.htm

Not *quite* the same thing but pretty darn close. It never caught on (was expensive as hell though) and they sold their IP.

This is similar to the Elumens Vision Station from years ago, only the vision station has a front-projection projector with a fish-eye lens. They also claim a 180 degree FOV.

How come they didn't count this http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/elumens1.htm/ as prior art?

It is much cheaper to get the equivalent energy at average US electric rates per mile driven then using either gasoline or diesel. It is something ludicrously cheaper like a few cents a mile. couple of quick googlized refs here http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2006/08/04/electric-car-cost-per-mile/
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/electric-car1.htm

Granted, eventually you'll have to treplace the batts, but if they last ten years and the R&D goes on for ten years, I imagine tomorrow's prices will be considerable less for better quality batteries. And like gas cars, they will depreciate as you drive them off the lot, probably unless you get a collector car, like these first run Teslas will be. I don't see anyone actually losing money on them if they can afford the upfront costs. And for that matter, anyone who can afford one of these cars could also afford a solar rig setup to keep them charged, eventually that is paid off and it is more or less free driving.

The government will most likely go to odometer readings to charge taxes though, that will screw with your cost per mile again.

No free lunch, but you can get a cheaper lunch, and going all electric with personal production means eventually at least the cost of the fuel will be free, just leaving minimal maintenance and taxes.

I am not sure, but I bet the cheapest way right now for joe sixpack to get a functional all electric car that isn't exotic or supremely cobjobbed would be to get a well used prius, rip out the gas engine and tank (save them for later, see next), add additional batteries, now you have a full electric with some legs and it weighs less most likely. I don't know if anyone has done this yet, I know they made plugins that mean you lose most cargo space for the additional batts, but carrying around two engines, the ICE and the electric, plus the gas tank, plus the batteries, is just lame, it works but it is stoopid, twice as much weight as you want or need. The hybrid idea is OK- but not in the same frame, it is ridiculous really. The ICE and fuel tank need to be in a small trailer for trips, most of the time around town and commuting you can leave it unattached and just run pure electric. I could even see people not even buying the ICE trailer part if they only needed it a few times a year and just renting it on the odd weekends they need one.

The premise of the E-Fuel 100 MicroFueler is you pay 10K to have a pre-made still (for lack of a better word) to make ethanol. Then you take your home-brew and put it into your car. I'll let others poke holes in this approach.

For $10,000 you can convert your gas powered car to be powered by electricity. "A typical conversion, if it is using all new parts, costs between $5,000 and $10,000 (not counting the cost of the donor vehicle or labor). The costs break down like this:

• Batteries - $1,000 to $2,000
• Motor - $1,000 to $2,000
• Controller - $1,000 to $2,000
• Adapter plate - $500 to $1,000
• Other (motors, wiring, switches, etc.) - $500 to $1,000"

References

1. 1)http://auto.howstuffworks.com/electric-car7.htm
2. 2)http://www.electroauto.com/info/cost.shtml
3. 3)http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/~jarrett/EV/cost.php

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/flying-car-m400.jpg Moller Skycar. Old news.

I would hope that 20 years from now, the higher end portable computers would have a direct retinal link or contact lens screen, and use sub-vocals for input. Why look at a screen when you could look at augmented reality? As you said, we are at least half way to the mobile computer you describe with the next generation of the iPhone, I expect that tech to arrive in the next five to ten years. I expect twenty years from now for computer interfaces to be integrated in an almost cyborg like fashion.

As the technology developed, engineers learned to make better cars until the 1950s when a family car might have 400-500 horsepower.

Family cars had that kind of power in the fifties??? I'm just asking, I wasn't born. It does sound extremely strange a since highest end Porsche 356 only has 130HP. We're talking sportscar produced from 1948 to 1964: the timespan you describe.

Not being all that informed about American cars, I headed over to wikipedia "Ford" (American right?), took a "full-sized" category car from the fifties: the Ford Fairlane (Hey, I know that car from GTA!) and it's only mentioned power in the article says rated 225HP. Not bad, far from the 500HP you claim. I also clicked on the link to the "Chevrolet Bel Air" (which according to the article "overshadowed" the Fairlane) goes up to 195HP. (In the sixties there is a 409HP model which is a collectors vehicle now)

So, either you're looking at the fifties in roze coloured glasses, or I'm looking at the wrong category of "family cars".

As a final note: the engineers behind the Bugatti Veyron had to overcome quite a lot of obstacles to reach those 1001HP the car is rated at. How theBugatti Veyron works.

The difference is supposedly real. BUT... as digital media improves with higher sample rates, this gap should close. Here is a which should tell you that digital media 'samples' audio data so many times a second. Because it is not a continuous stream of the source audio - but periodic samples of the original source - quality is lost. I'm sure you'd need a damn good vinyl player to enjoy it, but on paper, vinyl is potentially better than CDs. Of course, I'm perfectly content with my MP3s though...

Well, excuse me. Maybe I should have included a link to an analysis of bicycle fuel efficiency in order to catch the average Slashdot reader's attention.

"Anyplace is walking distance, if you have the time."

Any reactor is disposable, if you have the place.

As for arguments that the design precludes abuse and proliferation, never underestimate those of persistence, regardless of intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_boy_scout). They tend to take explanations of supposedly difficult things (like http://science.howstuffworks.com/uranium-centrifuge.htm) and hack an easier method, such as using the "centrifuge" part but not the "gaseous diffusion" part. I thought up one just writing this. Any uranium enrichment process might work, if you have the time.

"...all of which continue to "fly" at 25,000 miles per hour."

Whether it is one piece or thousands, the satellite is already at a sub-orbital velocity (ie ,less than about 17,000 mph) and is constantly slowing due to drag. It will be entering the atmosphere within a few days/weeks no matter what. It's sort of a very slow death-spiral.

BTW, 25,000 mph is the escape velocity for the Earth.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm

I hate to tell you this, but you're totally wrong. Space isn't cold. Temperature itself is derived from molecular vibrations and if you have no atoms, no temperature. Also, the lack of atoms completely removes conduction and convection. This is why a vacuum glass thermos works. Or, here is the answer from the U.S. Department of Energy ask a scientist.

The picture frame is a device like this:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-picture-frame.htm

If I do a days work I get paid a days wage, I don't see why it should be that much different for Musicians.

Actually it isn't much different. As a composer I get paid one of two ways: either as an employee creating a work on commission (which is exactly the same as a programmer being paid a wage) or as a freelance who doesn't get paid until (or rather, unless) the royalties start coming in. Not both.

As a performer it's a similar deal: I can charge an hourly rate for playing on a recording for someone else, or I can fund my own recordings and attempt to make that money back in other ways. Again, this isn't dissimilar to a programmer's options (and before anyone says "performance royalties", click and read).

To be honest, I have been paid royalties and a fee (for advertisements), but this is because I was being paid an hourly rate as a performer to record pieces I'd composed in my own time; I could just as easily have let someone else play those instruments or let someone else compose, but I don't see anything wrong with working two jobs (even if people outside the industry fail to see a distinction between the two roles. If it helps, think programmer vs sysadmin: related field, overlapping skill set, but not the same and being one doesn't prevent you being the other at other times). Besides, anyone not bleeding the corporate world dry at every opportunity is being negligent ;)

Bear in mind that unless I'm collecting a fee by working for someone else there is no guarantee that I'll make any money at all for my efforts, and merely posessing a copyright doesn't mean it's actually going to provide an income for it's entire duration. Royalties are directly related to sales and other uses; when people stop buying a recording is when the income stops, whether it's 6 months or 60 years later (though I have to admit 60 years is ridiculous).

If the time was reduced to 7-10 years this would surely promote creativity.

Not neccessarily: it well might encourage wave after wave of cover acts. What I could see happening is independents writing all the new music, the majors waiting until the rights expire to create new arrangements (which could be copyrightable derivative works), then re-releasing as safe, predicable and highly promoted acts without having to pay the original composers a cent. It could be giving the labels a free lunch, and I consider that the antithesis of promoting the arts.

The trade-off is making copyright duration short enough to encourage a musician to continue writing, but long enough to encourage other musicians to write instead of taking the easy way out for quick sales. Setting an exact time should not be done by pulling a random number out of a hat or by gut feeling, however, because basing a number on the highly visible 5% of chart-topping recordings would unduly affect the niche end of the market (which is the part of the industry that really deserves financial encouragement IMO). A statistics-based approach would be a better idea, since the point of limiting copyright duration isn't to prevent people getting rich* as some seem to think, it's to allow creative works to be freely accessable while they still retain social relevance.

However the artist should keep control if music was going to be used for other purpose other than listening (movie soundtrack or advert ) and be allowed to permit or deny such use.

Sounds reasonable, except I'd extend that to include derivative works for any commercial purpose so the scenario I described above is prevented. Non-commercial copying and derivative works are quite acceptable, possibly even desirable since a tune that becomes popular after the exclusive rights expire could still earn royalties from commercial uses it never would have seen when obscure...win/win as far as I can see.

BTW, I'm not trying to flame or lose karma (and let's face it, I'm going to moderation hell for this po

When the yeast first hits the wort, concentrations of glucose (C6H12O6) are very high, so through diffusion, glucose enters the yeast (in fact, it keeps entering the yeast as long as there is glucose in the solution). As each glucose molecule enters the yeast, it is broken down in a 10-step process called glycolysis. The product of glycolysis is two three-carbon sugars, called pyruvates, and some ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which supplies energy to the yeast and allows it to multiply. The two pyruvates are then converted by the yeast into carbon dioxide (CO2) and ethanol (CH3CH2OH, which is the alcohol in beer). The overall reaction is:

C6H12O6 => 2(CH3CH2OH) + 2(CO2)

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/beer4.htm

"Is the songwriter the only artist who is compensated for the download? Is the performing artist or band also compensated, and if so by how much? As much as I don't like the RIAA, I also want to understand the surrounding context. I guess the real question this begs is exactly where does all the money go?"

The composer, lyricist and performer each get royalties. The royalties for composers and lyricists are set by law (hence the news whenever the record labels want to change it), while the performer's royalties are contractual. I believe the law allows for lowering royalties for the composer/lyricist if they're also the performer. The royalties for the composer and lyricist typically don't go directly to the composer and lyricist, but to a publishing company, which keeps a cut in exchange for tracking payments. Often the publishing company is a one-person company set up by the composer or lyricist. In a few cases, the publishing company is actually owned by a record company.

This page is a bit out-dated, but it covers the basics of how royalties are paid for CD sales. Downloads, as we've seen, are a bit different.

What it boils down to is that the royalties are often the biggest slice of the pie. The rest of the money goes toward paying the salaries of various other people at the record company. The popular perception that the record company gets the rest (in the sense of hoarding it some Gringotts-style bank) isn't true too much nowadays with the prevailing health of the industry -- Warner Brothers lost money last year, so they're spending money faster than they're making it.