Slashdot Mirror

There's more than the simple direct-heating designs. Proper designs for cold areas heat a intermediate fluid (usually a glycol solution, same as automotive antifreeze), which then is used to heat the water.

Popular Mechanics did an article on this awhile ago. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/energy_digital/2723176.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4235579.html?nav=RSS20

I'm sure I've seen other info on that concept that's far more recent - that was just about the first thing that google barfed up when I looked.

There are other options, like kites, that are being investigated too.

As fuel prices increase, and modern wind power methods improve and become cost-effective again (with reduced crews and improved crew safety, compared with sailing ships of a century ago that couldn't compete with the steamers in speed, overall service price, labour costs or labour safety), we're likely to see people start to take advantage of whatever "free" energy they can get because it won't cost them as much to harvest it as the oil they'd need to burn in its place.

Maybe there are bootleg Cisco routers in the Capitol office building.

Why the hell would they link to PC World, anyway? Popular Mechanics has a video, The Register has a entertaining writeup, and SRI's site has pictures, a diagram and some specs. All PC World has is tons of ads.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4264594.html

Nice new expert comparo btw Obama, McCain (and Hillary) on space policies here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4260504.html?series=46

The article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html

They don't say anything about the hard disks used in each machine, so it is at least possible to speculate that the Mac has a faster disk in it.

Actually, most small (sub compact) size electric cars have similar ranges to gas powered cars

Do you have figures on that? I've always figured that the range for a gasoline car is ~300 miles. All the EV sites I've seen touting economical EVs(excludes the Telsa) is around 100 miles.

As for recharge time, it's all dependant on two factors. Well, one usually ends up being the limiter. The first is battery chemistry. You can only charge a lead-acid battery so fast. NiMH is a bit faster, and you have a better 'fast charge' ability. LiIon is better yet, though it gets really slow near the end. The second is the wattage capacity of your charging system.

If all you have is a 120V outlet, you're only going to be able to push about 1.5KWh into the batteries in an hour. 2KWh for a 'heavy duty' 20Amp dedicated circuit. Switch to a dryer type outlet at 240V@30A, and you're up to 6KWh. Which would fill most EV batteries in about 3 hours. The Tesla, sportscar that it is, has a 53KWh battery. That dryer outlet would take 9 hours to charge it from empty. There's nothing except the pain of handling 000 gauge* wires and running most of a modern house's capacity to it to keep you from charging it in just over an hour. Well, assuming the charging system can keep up. Of course, at that point a transformer and kicking the voltage up to levels only line workers normally see**.

However, electric cars are so much more efficient that california would end up with GOBS more power if they simply redirected the gas for cars into powerplants.

Better yet, just burn the crude oil, better still, build nuclear plants, wind farms, etc... Leave the gasoline for other areas.

Over the last 10 years electric cars have been a niche market.

They've been a niche market for the last 100+. Look up Jay Leno's antique electric car.

However the current technology actually allows for wide spread use and the price tag (especially when you include power/fuel expenses) are actually comperable.

Not yet. You can obtain a ~35 mpg gasoline car for around $15k. Zap wants $14k for a truck with a max speed of 25mph, a payload capacity of 770 pounds, and a range of 30 miles. Great for zipping around a warehouse, not so great for commuting in most areas. The Zap-X, which looks like a car has a ESRP of $60k. The Tesla is $100k.

Conversion kits seem to run around $10k, excluding the batteries.

Even if you assume power is free, in many cases battery aging and replacement needs exceed the cost of the gasoline in and of itself.

It is getting better, but slowly.

With near term developments in super capcitors and batteries, the range of applications will increase, the fueling times will decrease and the cost will drop.

Fueling times, at this point, are generally limited by infrastructure. There's not magic bullet out there to make batteries cheap enough to make them the right choice anytime in the near future, I'm afraid.

*IE bloody huge
**lethal very quickly if not done right. I'm thinking 600-1000V. A thousand volts could handle the charge using 'only' 4 or 5 gauge wire. Still going to look and handle worse than a garden hose full of water.

NASA previously estimated the chance "Apophis" the asteroid would strike earth in 2027 was 1 in 45,000. But a german schoolboy, Nico Marquardt, pointed out that NASA overlooked the probability the asteroid would strike one of the 40,000 sattelites orbiting Earth and enter a new solar orbit intersecting Earth in 2036. A german newspaper reports that NASA now concurs the chance this will happen is about 1 in 450. If the 200 billion tonne ball of iridium and iron stikes the planet then it's literally light's out for earth: 800 foot tidal waves followed by an indefinite period of dust cloud covered darkness, not to mention metal vapor in the atmosphere. The original Slashdot discussion was in 2007 when the odds were better. At that time it was known that there was a small risk of a gravitational slingshot dropping it into the 2036 collisional orbit, however, to do so the asteroid had to pass through an improbable 400 meter wide strike zone to be properly deflected, as described in 2006 in Popular Science from 2006. Today's announcement of the new finding is here and here.

Don't you think we're missing the larger picture here?

HP Admits To Selling Infected Flash-Floppy Drives
Hybrid devices for ProLiant servers pre-infected with worms, HP says:

A security analyst with the SANS Institute's Internet Storm Center (ISC) suspects that the infection originated at the factory, and was meant to target ProLiant servers. "I think it's naive to assume that these are not targeted attacks," said John Bambenek, who is also a researcher at the University of Illinois.

"To be safe, yes, you should scan every piece of hardware," he said. "Certainly with devices distributed by corporations."

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;314715708

- How about THEY should scan every piece of hardware?

- COMMUNIST China sending infected hardware - who'd thunk?
- Can you just imagine their FIRMWARE?

- Sure you can.

Counterfeit Chips Raise Big Hacking, Terror Threats, Experts Say
Counterfeit Chinese Chips Raise Big Hacking and Terror Threats - The Manchurian Chip:

This past January, two brothers from Texas, Michael and Robert Edman, appeared in court to face federal charges of selling counterfeit computer equipment to, among others, the Air Force, Marine Corps, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Energy, numerous universities and defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4253628.html

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=482520&cid=22708174

U.S.
Farewell Dossier:

Counterintelligence Response:
Another result was that the United States and its NATO allies later "rolled up the entire Line X collection network, both in the U.S. and overseas." Weiss said "the heart of Soviet technology collection crumbled and would not recover."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Dossier

- So, Communist China produces computer components for the U.S. (world) inserting truncated, obsfucated microcode, when run with sister-cards that, upon boot, combine to executable, then retrieve from the WWW a logic bomb, which upon download, sits in your "bad boot blocks", hidden, until whatever event that it's needed, where it can do anything from start bon fires (burn your graphic cards) all over the country (world), or, possibly to provide easy access in the form of a "lockable "dutch door" to [insert nightmare here] knowing lazy U.S. companies will fail to even "batch check" hardware from the factories - relying on good ol stupid Americans who flinch at the mere mention of the word "conspiracy".

CLASSIC.

So, is this where I now get attacked for looking skyward?

A recent news report that armed robots had been pulled out of Iraq is mistaken, according to the company that makes the robot and the Army program manager.

So after reading the article and associated links, I gather that:

1. The U.S. Army commissioned Foster-Miller to modify their TALON remote-controlled vehicle to carry and operate various types of weapons. The modified vehicle is named SWORDS, and erroneously described as a "robot", although it is neither human-like in appearance nor autonomous in operation.

2. Some time later, the Army canceled the production order, citing an "unexpected movement" of a single test unit.

3. Simultaneously, the Army purchased, from the same company, a bigger, badder version of the same product.

Folks, this isn't a failed robotic uprising. It isn't even the over-reaction of a safety-conscious Army Executive. This is an excuse to kill a little project in order to start a bigger one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

pen & teller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

Debunking the 9/11 Myths
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

http://www.debunk911myths.org/

http://www.debunking911.com/

That should to keep the paranoids and nutters silent for a least a min or two.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkl7up.dHWO8ADoFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNmRvbGhpBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTEEY29sbwNzazEEdnRpZANGODIzXzg3/SIG=11gi164v7/EXP=1206450542/**http%3A//www.debunking911.com/

I'm glad you brought that up! There are a few different matrices already, and Barack Obama tops them all, in my biased opinion:

http://www.techpresident.com/
TechPresident grades on Internet policy:
Barack Obama: A-
Hillary Clinton: B-
John McCain: C+

http://www.popularmechanics.com/geekthevote08
No real grading system here, but just look at the thorough policy statements by Barack Obama. One easy chart to look at is the policies that each candidate DID NOT ADDRESS:
Barack Obama: -1 = Firearms
Hillary Clinton: -2 = Firearms, Environment
John McCain: -4 = Auto, Infrastructure, Science/Education, Space

http://election2008.aaas.org/comparisons/
No direct grading system here either, but they provide a nice breakdown of all the major Science and Technology policy areas.

Jay Wrote a column in Popular Mechanics about electric cars from the turn of the century mid last year:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4215940.html

Apparently in the mid to late 1910s there were a number of these on the market. Jay Leno owns a similarly balla-ass car, a 1915 Baker Electric with a drivetrain was designed by George Westinghouse himself.

NICE looking vehicle. Slow, but hey - it beats the fuck out of shlepping some gus guzzling death monster three blocks to pick ip a six pack and a pack of smokes... I'd drive what Leno's got. It looks like it could deal with some dodgey street conditions as well - and that'll be important because peak oil == peak asphalt. Sure: take your hydrogen powered Ferrari - it's not going to get very far when streets are dusty scrub-board horse tracks. Cars in 50 years will be lightweight with a high clearance, relatively narrow large wheels (think seriously heavy duty bike tires), and slow. And THAT'S if you actually own a car.

Most people won't - too expensive and not enough of a need.

RS

They might be busy:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4249332.html

(and I did hesitate to link to Popular Mechanics, as they are a bit rah rah patriotic for this here, but I doubt very much that they are outright lying)

The University of Washington is working on HUD contacts powered by Radio Frequency. Popular Mechanics has a brief article in their latest issue: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health_medicine/4252012.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.htmlCars are already getting ready to come out that are air powered and can hit 1000 miles per fill. That's 100 times further than the 10 miles you're offering.

!HAVEFUN!

http://www.aerosml.com/galleryML866.htm
http://www.dezeen.com/2007/12/11/aeroscraft-ml866/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4242974.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/haa.htm

They have done that. Back in the 50's to 70's they were worried about climate COOLING and considering dusting the icecaps with coal dust. More recently:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html

I have no argument against actual global warming. In fact, there is very good evidence that we are warming from a control source outside our ecosphere: Mars Ice Caps.

They have been observed and recorded longer than our own, since Newton. The trend is that the ice caps are melting, therefore the temperature must be rising.

No humans... and the ice is melting. The evidence suggests we have been in a warming cycle that effects at least the inner planets.

I prefer Popular Mechanics take on the situation over CNN. Note toward the end of the article, "The U.S. Navy strike should only leave debris that will burn up harmlessly during reentry." They also state the point is to break up the Hydrazine canisters before impact...and play with their weapons system. Live fire exercise it is!

These missiles don't even have explosives on board: the final stage of the rocket is basically an unmanned kamikaze kill vehicle that just slams into the target at high speed, hopefully enough to break it up.

Popular Mechanics explains:
Several successful anti-ballistic mile tests have been conducted from the cruisers, most frequently from the USS Shiloh, but no test has the urgency or high profile as the impending satellite shoot-down. The SM-3, when fired vertically, can target a satellite as high as 310 miles. After the third stage of the rocket is spent, the kill vehicle finds the target with forward-looking infrared sensors and steers itself into the satellite. "What we're talking about is a minor modification in software, from the Aegis system and the missile itself," Cartwright said.

Indeed, it appears this is just a first step toward missile defense buildup: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4249458.html

Here's a neat clip of the predecessor of the X-51 hypersonic missile's scramjet engine being test fired, too bad it doesn't have sound but it's still neat.

Not the first: 1998 article from Popular Mechanics on what you probably saw in Indiana. The article is about the Shell SmartPump station in Elk Grove, CA. Don't think it lasted very long.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1266746.html

Check these out for yourself, but I think Obama is the clear winner at both sites:

http://www.techpresident.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4237333.html

Based on these, I feel confident saying this: anyone who claims Hillary has more structured, sound, or reasoned policy is either an idiot, or just willfully ignorant. Being married to a former President doesn't count as experience, or Laura Bush might be on the Republican ticket. And experience has shown Clintons to be the best Republican lackeys, not anything else. Remember that Mr. Clinton sold us out to China first, long before W renewed it! His bad fiscal decisions were masked by the Internet bubble, which broke soon after he left office. Take off your damn rose-colored Clinton history specs people! If Clinton was that great, how the hell did W Bush ever get elected???

Obama earned my vote based on his Internet/Technology policies. All the other canidates (especially the other party) want to destroy freedom online to protect us from the evils of the Internet. Obamas plan is the only one that isn't lip service, and provides a basis for progress, not the regress we've been seeing in the latest series of bills for control of the internet.
Geek the Vote

Popular Mechanics' Geek The Vote '08 has a nice rundown of each candidate's tech policies.

Plus, consider that our military during times of peace consists of volunteers. They're citizens, and people just as you are. You really think most of the armed forces are going to unload their stuff on their own people, because they're ordered to do so?

I don't worry about a military dictatorship in this country. But a Police State is another thing.

Police officers have already demonstrated a willingness to kill civilians over trivial matters, and then rationalize it afterwards. The prosecutors that are supposed to oversee the police do not hold them accountable for their crimes.

Radley Balko has been doing a marvelous job of researching and reporting about this.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

http://www.theagitator.com/category/paramilitary-police-raids/

http://www.theagitator.com/category/police-professionalism/

http://www.reason.com/staff/hitandrun/143.html (scroll down)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193652,00.html

See also

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203345.html

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2006/11/post_685.php

http://justiceforsal.com/

http://joelrosenberg.livejournal.com/

I don't know if things have always been this bad and if a communication medium like the internet is making it easer to report and read about these atrocities, or if things are genuinely getting worse. Probably both.

But it's telling that those who believe we currently live under a fascist regime are also proponents of gun control ( http://www.reason.com/news/show/117833.html ). I'm sure it's not fascism they oppose, as long as their guy (or gal) is in power.

Popular Mechanics made mention of this about a year and a half ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html?page=2 Mention of cellulosic ethanol 11 months ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4237539.html?series=47 Biomass/switch grass over two years ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1633301.html?page=3 Biomass November 2006 in a discussion about alternative fuel hurdles: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4199381.html?page=3 There's a lot more. There is even this "Fuel of the future" PDF chart: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/Fuel_of_the_Future-e852.pdf I don't even subscribe...

Popular Mechanics made mention of this about a year and a half ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html?page=2 Mention of cellulosic ethanol 11 months ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4237539.html?series=47 Biomass/switch grass over two years ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1633301.html?page=3 Biomass November 2006 in a discussion about alternative fuel hurdles: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4199381.html?page=3 There's a lot more. There is even this "Fuel of the future" PDF chart: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/Fuel_of_the_Future-e852.pdf I don't even subscribe...

Popular Mechanics made mention of this about a year and a half ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html?page=2 Mention of cellulosic ethanol 11 months ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4237539.html?series=47 Biomass/switch grass over two years ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1633301.html?page=3 Biomass November 2006 in a discussion about alternative fuel hurdles: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4199381.html?page=3 There's a lot more. There is even this "Fuel of the future" PDF chart: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/Fuel_of_the_Future-e852.pdf I don't even subscribe...

Popular Mechanics made mention of this about a year and a half ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html?page=2 Mention of cellulosic ethanol 11 months ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4237539.html?series=47 Biomass/switch grass over two years ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1633301.html?page=3 Biomass November 2006 in a discussion about alternative fuel hurdles: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4199381.html?page=3 There's a lot more. There is even this "Fuel of the future" PDF chart: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/Fuel_of_the_Future-e852.pdf I don't even subscribe...

Popular Mechanics made mention of this about a year and a half ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html?page=2 Mention of cellulosic ethanol 11 months ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4237539.html?series=47 Biomass/switch grass over two years ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1633301.html?page=3 Biomass November 2006 in a discussion about alternative fuel hurdles: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4199381.html?page=3 There's a lot more. There is even this "Fuel of the future" PDF chart: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/Fuel_of_the_Future-e852.pdf I don't even subscribe...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4244056.html?series=43

That's no airship, it's Thunderbird 2!

On the other hand, the cyborg soldiers of the future will see Tux on the boot screen of the Land Warrior System currently under development.

Have you been on a modern motorcycle? In any case, I disagree with your assessment -- it sounds like you're ignoring real math here. Where do you get your average 0-60 figures? I'd estimate that most 500-1000cc bikes get to 60 in closer to 3.5-4 seconds. My 25-year-old 500cc Honda cruiser can scoot to 60 in less than 5 seconds. Even modern power cruisers (yes, more than 1000 cc) tend to get up to the sixty-mark in under 5 seconds (according to this article, HD V Rod hits 60 in 4.26 seconds, Honda VTX does it in 4.45, Suzuki Boulevard M109 does 60 in 3.89 -- I could go on) -- and these bikes are significantly heavier than 160 kg.

Regarding your perceived inefficiency of motorcycle engines, I have to disagree again...even on your torque jab. Let's look at the lowly Suzuki SV650, a commuter bike with an older 650cc v-twin motor (disclaimer: I ride one of these). According to Wikipedia, its 650cc motor outputs 47.2 lb-ft of torque. An econobox like the Suzuki Swift (again, according to wikipedia) has a 1300 cc motor and outputs 83 lb-ft of torque. SV650 outputs .073 Lb-ft per cc while econobox outputs .064 Lb-ft per cc. The torque figures on your LS1 motor don't fare any better against a motorcycle engine. Citing wikipedia (yet again) the 5.7L Camaro LS1 made 365 Lb-ft of torque in its final form - not too shabby. Similar to the Suzuki Swift, it makes .064 Lb-ft per cc. Motorcycles don't look so torque-free now, right? In a bhp/liter comparison, there is absolutely no comparison (mainly due to their ability to rev) - motorcycles even beat up on modern forced-induction bhp/liter numbers.

At speed, motorcycles lose some of their efficiency due to wind resistance caused by the exposed rider and mechanical parts. Surface area doesn't matter as much in that case. I'd wager if we looked at fuel economy per weight or economy per passenger (in a car with 4-passengers) most cars on the road would win. However, when comparing a single rider to a single occupant in a car, motorcycles win the MPG equation hands-down.

Don't get me wrong, I still love cars. In terms of performance, they tend to be able to out-corner and out-brake motorcycles. However, I'm under no illusion that most cars have an edge in acceleration or fuel economy over motorcycles. It just isn't so.

>>> Very few people talk about the dangers of CLFs.They contain mercury

"Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime."

4.65mg more = twice as much. Mind you, that's assuming coal-fired electricity. Only half of electricity in the US is coal-fired (link), making incandescent and trashed CFL bulbs turn out to be almost exactly equal in terms of mercury emissions. Many stores (such as Ikea) have free CFL recycling, though, so one would expect a substantial number of those CFL bulbs won't just be thrown in the trash, making CFL a net winner in terms of mercury emissions.

So your rant is simply ill-informed.

>>> I like the warmer light of light bulb.

Most people don't agree with you.

Admittedly, the study done by Popular Mechanics has too few participants to draw statistically significant conclusions; however, it's telling that all seven of the CFLs they tested were scored as providing higher quality light than a normal incandescent. For most people, then, "light quality" is not going to be a (rational) barrier to using CFLs.

If you don't believe me, check out this study that Popular Mechanics did earlier this year on the color temperature and subjective quality of light bulbs.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html

For their subjective part of the test, they put in 3 interior designers in color-neutral rooms and had them comment on what they thought about the light sources. Going into the test, the designers said they did not like the quality of color from CFL's, but by the end every single designer rated the CFL's higher than the incandescent bulb. To say the least, they were surprised and have changed their out-dated CFL hating ways.

Also, here's some tips I've learned from installing hundreds of CFL's:
-Don't buy the cheap ones, they frequently buzz. Go with name brands like Phillips or GE, I have yet to have a problem with them.
-Don't install bulbs on dimmer switches, unless they're specifically designed for dimmers - they'll last only a couple weeks.
-Some large CFL's can't be mounted upside down, beware.
-CFL's don't play well with motion sensor activation - they will burn out in months.
-IKEA recycles CFL's for free! (and batteries too)
-The vanity light shaped CFL's currently have a fairly long warm-up time, about 30 seconds. I hope they keep this, as I don't like blinding light first thing in the morning. The gradual warm-up is nice at 5am.

I agree. Especially given that we just had a slashdot article on a car that actually matters (the Aptera). Who cares about Knight Rider?

Of course you could get a Volkswagon Polo that gets in the neighborhood of 75MPG right now if it wasn't for the 'greens' in Cali and their environmental protection regulations.

(car + gas)

The cheapest transportation is a $500 junker you put gas and oil into, and nothing else. Few buy that, because cheap isn't the only criterion.

What's the cost of eight years' scheduled maintenance on those two models you're comparing?

$15,000 saved won't buy any 5,000 gallons of gas next year. It won't do that now, where I live. It sure as hell won't buy that in five.

You might not want to drive one, but TFA points out "Aptera's three-wheeler attracted more attention than anything we've ever driven--anything." — care to guess the size of the market for that at $30K, in California? It holds 15.9 cu ft cargo space: two plus sports gear, or three plus daytrip gear, or a whole lot of shopping.

They might not take over the world, but it looks to me like they've got a profitable niche.

So, why don't you look at the contents of the iframe directly?

"As poll numbers change, we will attempt to expand our selection of candidates to include any who rise into the leading ranks."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4237333.html?series=46