Another problem that could be solved if we started an emergency nuclear power plant building program, on the scale of the mobilization for WW2 plenty of electricity available for desalinization.
Does your "back of the envelope" calculation take into account that the human race has basically denuded HUGE swaths of the globe of their natural tree cover?
Before Columbus a squirrel could go from what was Savannah GA to what would be Chicago (or go back another couple thousand years, from Paris to Moscow if you prefer European Geography) and never touch the ground.. Think about how that affects wind currents as they move across the globe...
If anything, windmills bring things closer to an natural state, not farther.
and again it doesn't magically turn itself into gasoline. So yes you are forgetting something, the staggering amount of electricity it takes to extract and refine crude oil. In 1997 1.5 percent of CA electricity use was spent just extracting crude oil, not even counting refining, which runs between 5-12KWH per gallon depending on who you ask. The gasoline fairies don't do it, electricity does.
And that's still just gasoline sitting in a tank in a refinery, it still has to get pumped into a pipeline, offloaded onto a tanker trunk, shipped, and retailes. It also requires a good bit of water, if that means anything. That, good sir, is not trivial.
Some things you conveniently forgot gasoline doesn't get magically placed in your tank by the gasoline fairies it takes a massive amount of energy to get it out of the ground, ship it to a refinery, refine it (which takes TONS of electricity), ship it to a gas station, store and sell it..
The percentage of coal going into the power grid is going down, not up.
and even it that weren't true, we don't have to stage the 5th fleet in Bahrain to keep coal flowing through the Straight of Hormuz, and West Virginians have a perfect record of not flying airplanes into the world trade center.
A lot of radar installations have transmitters that radiate with over a megawatt of power. Not ERP, actual power at the transmitter, ERP would be even higher. It's all a question of your RF shielding and your attenuators An anti-radiation missile isn't a bunch of hams out on a foxhunt, they are designed for such things
If you were doing it would you go after the Crap $800 dell running windows or the juicy $1600 Macbook Pro.
Considering the cash prize in the competition is several thousand dollars, enough to buy the nicest computer of my choosing, (or a used car or whatever), I'd go after the one that could be hacked the quickest..
If people are having a hard time grasping this, think about it this way. In an outage, a 20HP 12000 watt surge 10kw constant generator would power a moderate, or even somewhat large house quite comfortably (as long the user didn't get too crazy with high load items could you imagine the performance of a even a small 4 cylinder sedan with only 20 HP?
VHF and low band UHF blast through ground clutter a whole lot better than microwaves In all likelihood a similar link at a similar distance wouldn't need a 50 foot pole.
The only place where I'd see antenna size being a problem is the old VHF-LOW (54-87MHZ). 200-700MHZ or there abouts, which encompases, the old VHF-HI and UHF TV bands (well most of them anyway) represent a great mix of transmission properties, good penetration, with antennas that aren't too big..
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
debt isn't bad, well not necessarily bad, as long as you grow your way out of it..
Analogy..
Year 1: You are running a buisness, it gives you an income of 50k
To grow business you take a loan of 20k (40% of your income)
Year 2: your business grows, and now gives you an income of 80k
you take another loan of 32k (again 40% of your income)
Year 3: Your buisness grows, and now gives you an income of 120k
you take another loan of 48k (AGAIN, 40% of your income), and again your business grows
ZOMG DERP DERP, your debt is out of control, it's DOUBLED in 3 years..
Yes that is simplistic, but that is more or less what happened after WW2, when our debt was 120% of GDP (far higher than now), we grew our way out of it, we undertook massive infrastructure spending (on the interstate highway system, power grids, and other things), and we educated a generation through the GI bill, we also kept in place protective trade barriers, and the economy responded.
We didn't ruin the faith and credit of the United States, or any other kind of "solve your hangnail problems with amputation" kind of solutions..
beware of "facts" coming from thenewamerican.com GM hasn't sold many volts, because it doesn't have many volts to sell, and its only selling them in a few places (same with the nissan leaf which the article similarly trashes) Both vehicles are in short supply, and both have large waiting lists, the logistics pipelines for both cars will take time to ramp up...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-27/gm-volt-supply-poised-to-surge-in-race-with-nissan-s-leaf-cars.html
The real way to tackle this problem is with gas taxes. Raise the cost of gas up to 6 dollars a gallon, and the fleet average will go up, from consumer demand.
Probably not nearly as much as a difference, Cape Canaveral Florida is a lot closer to the equator than the Russians' facility. although there would be some difference
You admitted that you would not actually use the arguments conservatives actually use because to YOU they are "incredibly lame".
that is 100% correct, that however doesn't mean how I chose to characterize them is incorrect, or even misleading
So in other words you knowingly used arguments that YOU came up with on behalf of conservatives in your arguments instead of using actual arguments a conservative would use
wrong, these aren't "arguments" I came up with, this is reality. The abortion issue for example, democrats largely believe in a woman's right to choose, republicans do not, and a significant number of republicans are anti-choice even in the case of rape and incest..
Yes, they have "rationale" for this viewpoint (usually involving invisible sky wizards), but I am in no way compelled to repeat them. The ultimate reality is JUST as I explained it.. Again, me choosing not to carry water for a viewpoint which I find irrational and wrong, is NOT being dishonest. It's not a hard point to understand, unless you are actively willing yourself not to understand it.
Intentionally misrepresenting a group or persons arguments by stating they are something they are not, is dishonest. It is called lying no matter how you want to justify it.
yes, that is dishonest, good thing I haven't done that... I haven't misrepresented a thing. Have I characterized the republicans positions in an unflattering light? Youbetcha, but it's kind of hard to NOT to do that without lying, and/or presenting "rationale" so convoluted that it is basically worthless...
I think we're mixing up dishonesty and bias, my characterization was biased (as was yours), I freely admit that. IMHO neither was dishonest
Having said that, I still stand by what I said, exactly the way I said it. Republicans(by and large) openly state their desire to use the policing power of government, i.e. regulations/police/judges/prisons, to force, via the power of law, women to have children they don't want to have. Democrats (by and large) do not. You can certainly try to frame the debate differently if you so desire, but that is how I see it...
It is a straw man because you paint your oppositions argument to be simplistic and evil
sorry, but even if I'm "painting" the argument, that's not a "straw man" argument. And the republican's arguments, vis-a-vis' torture, abortion rights, gay rights are simplistic and evil, no "painting" required. Until you take the time in your incredibly busy schedule to explain why what I said was wrong, I'm not apologizing for reality's widespread liberal bias...
The points you labeled as "Republican" were your thinly veiled arguments AGAINST republicans.
There's no thin veiling about it..., my arguments are precisely why I vote Democrat, and why I think others should too...
Which I also might add you skipped over the actual arguments Conservatives have for most of those topics in favor of just making them look bad.
sorry, but I feel absolutely no compulsion to repeat the republican's incredible lame arguments against gay rights, abortion rights, and healthcare reform, IMHO repeating tea-party "reasoning" just makes them look worse. Again, is that partisan? Absolutely, but it's not "dishonest", and it's definitely not a "straw man" argument...
How is anything I posted "academically dishonest"? I'll accept being called a partisan, even a liberal. I'm definitely both of those things, but I do mind being called a liar in a hit-and-run attack. If you have "neither the time nor the attention span" to explain yourself, you should think about refraining from making such accusations..
Slashdot Mirror
None of the GM divisions have been tops for initial quality, with Cadillac and Pontiac being particularly ba
wrong
Cadilac and Buick have both ranked high in recent surveys
Another problem that could be solved if we started an emergency nuclear power plant building program, on the scale of the mobilization for WW2
plenty of electricity available for desalinization.
100 watts? When the ionosphere is going good you don't even need that much..
I've talked NY to Arizona on a crappy 20w ssb rig on antenna that was just a mag mount CB antenna that I didn't even bother to retune for 10 meters.
The guys doing modes like PSK31 and CW can talk around the world on a couple D cell batteries.
6.4Mb ought to be good enough for anybody
Thanks, I'll be here all week!
Does your "back of the envelope" calculation take into account that the human race has basically denuded HUGE swaths of the globe of their natural tree cover?
Before Columbus a squirrel could go from what was Savannah GA to what would be Chicago (or go back another couple thousand years, from Paris to Moscow if you prefer European Geography) and never touch the ground..
Think about how that affects wind currents as they move across the globe...
If anything, windmills bring things closer to an natural state, not farther.
Except gas doesn't come on a tanker, crude does
and again it doesn't magically turn itself into gasoline. So yes you are forgetting something, the staggering amount of electricity it takes to extract and refine crude oil.
In 1997 1.5 percent of CA electricity use was spent just extracting crude oil, not even counting refining, which runs between 5-12KWH per gallon depending on who you ask. The gasoline fairies don't do it, electricity does.
And that's still just gasoline sitting in a tank in a refinery, it still has to get pumped into a pipeline, offloaded onto a tanker trunk, shipped, and retailes.
It also requires a good bit of water, if that means anything.
That, good sir, is not trivial.
Some things you conveniently forgot
gasoline doesn't get magically placed in your tank by the gasoline fairies
it takes a massive amount of energy to get it out of the ground, ship it to a refinery, refine it (which takes TONS of electricity), ship it to a gas station, store and sell it..
The percentage of coal going into the power grid is going down, not up.
and even it that weren't true, we don't have to stage the 5th fleet in Bahrain to keep coal flowing through the Straight of Hormuz, and West Virginians have a perfect record of not flying airplanes into the world trade center.
Solar?..., which cost a ton of money BTW, are looking at more fossil fuels to make them than you get back out in energy
simply a lie...
I was going to post something similar
A lot of radar installations have transmitters that radiate with over a megawatt of power. Not ERP, actual power at the transmitter, ERP would be even higher.
It's all a question of your RF shielding and your attenuators
An anti-radiation missile isn't a bunch of hams out on a foxhunt, they are designed for such things
Unless you've had the audacity to actually have gotten sick from something or have a family
I'm in my late 30's and on BP meds (and no, I'm not fat, 6'2" 175).
private health insurance isn't an option at ANY price..
Having some devices import controlled is one thing - having every device import controlled is quite another, and nobody I know would stand for it.
You have to be wary of the line of reasoning given by Gore Vidal (or was it Andy Warhol can't remember) after Nixon's huge landslide over McGovern
"Nixon won? How could that be? Nobody I knew voted for him"
Unless you are in a Earthquake, then wood as damn awesome
If you were doing it would you go after the Crap $800 dell running windows or the juicy $1600 Macbook Pro.
Considering the cash prize in the competition is several thousand dollars, enough to buy the nicest computer of my choosing, (or a used car or whatever), I'd go after the one that could be hacked the quickest..
Thaaank you
If people are having a hard time grasping this, think about it this way. In an outage, a 20HP 12000 watt surge 10kw constant generator would power a moderate, or even somewhat large house quite comfortably (as long the user didn't get too crazy with high load items
could you imagine the performance of a even a small 4 cylinder sedan with only 20 HP?
Pro Tip
save the paint-the-house-with-the-AC-on party until after the power comes back on..
VHF and low band UHF blast through ground clutter a whole lot better than microwaves
In all likelihood a similar link at a similar distance wouldn't need a 50 foot pole.
The only place where I'd see antenna size being a problem is the old VHF-LOW (54-87MHZ).
200-700MHZ or there abouts, which encompases, the old VHF-HI and UHF TV bands (well most of them anyway) represent a great mix of transmission properties, good penetration, with antennas that aren't too big..
debt isn't bad, well not necessarily bad, as long as you grow your way out of it..
Analogy.. Year 1: You are running a buisness, it gives you an income of 50k
To grow business you take a loan of 20k (40% of your income)
Year 2: your business grows, and now gives you an income of 80k you take another loan of 32k (again 40% of your income)
Year 3: Your buisness grows, and now gives you an income of 120k
you take another loan of 48k (AGAIN, 40% of your income), and again your business grows
ZOMG DERP DERP, your debt is out of control, it's DOUBLED in 3 years..
Yes that is simplistic, but that is more or less what happened after WW2, when our debt was 120% of GDP (far higher than now), we grew our way out of it, we undertook massive infrastructure spending (on the interstate highway system, power grids, and other things), and we educated a generation through the GI bill, we also kept in place protective trade barriers, and the economy responded.
We didn't ruin the faith and credit of the United States, or any other kind of "solve your hangnail problems with amputation" kind of solutions..
beware of "facts" coming from thenewamerican.com
GM hasn't sold many volts, because it doesn't have many volts to sell, and its only selling them in a few places (same with the nissan leaf which the article similarly trashes)
Both vehicles are in short supply, and both have large waiting lists, the logistics pipelines for both cars will take time to ramp up... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-27/gm-volt-supply-poised-to-surge-in-race-with-nissan-s-leaf-cars.html
The real way to tackle this problem is with gas taxes. Raise the cost of gas up to 6 dollars a gallon, and the fleet average will go up, from consumer demand.
Probably not nearly as much as a difference, Cape Canaveral Florida is a lot closer to the equator than the Russians' facility.
although there would be some difference
You admitted that you would not actually use the arguments conservatives actually use because to YOU they are "incredibly lame".
that is 100% correct, that however doesn't mean how I chose to characterize them is incorrect, or even misleading
So in other words you knowingly used arguments that YOU came up with on behalf of conservatives in your arguments instead of using actual arguments a conservative would use
wrong, these aren't "arguments" I came up with, this is reality.
The abortion issue for example, democrats largely believe in a woman's right to choose, republicans do not, and a significant number of republicans are anti-choice even in the case of rape and incest..
Yes, they have "rationale" for this viewpoint (usually involving invisible sky wizards), but I am in no way compelled to repeat them. The ultimate reality is JUST as I explained it.. Again, me choosing not to carry water for a viewpoint which I find irrational and wrong, is NOT being dishonest. It's not a hard point to understand, unless you are actively willing yourself not to understand it.
Intentionally misrepresenting a group or persons arguments by stating they are something they are not, is dishonest. It is called lying no matter how you want to justify it.
yes, that is dishonest, good thing I haven't done that...
I haven't misrepresented a thing. Have I characterized the republicans positions in an unflattering light? Youbetcha, but it's kind of hard to NOT to do that without lying, and/or presenting "rationale" so convoluted that it is basically worthless...
I think we're mixing up dishonesty and bias, my characterization was biased (as was yours), I freely admit that.
IMHO neither was dishonest
Having said that, I still stand by what I said, exactly the way I said it.
Republicans(by and large) openly state their desire to use the policing power of government, i.e. regulations/police/judges/prisons, to force, via the power of law, women to have children they don't want to have. Democrats (by and large) do not.
You can certainly try to frame the debate differently if you so desire, but that is how I see it...
It is a straw man because you paint your oppositions argument to be simplistic and evil
sorry, but even if I'm "painting" the argument, that's not a "straw man" argument. And the republican's arguments, vis-a-vis' torture, abortion rights, gay rights are simplistic and evil, no "painting" required. Until you take the time in your incredibly busy schedule to explain why what I said was wrong, I'm not apologizing for reality's widespread liberal bias...
The points you labeled as "Republican" were your thinly veiled arguments AGAINST republicans.
There's no thin veiling about it..., my arguments are precisely why I vote Democrat, and why I think others should too...
Which I also might add you skipped over the actual arguments Conservatives have for most of those topics in favor of just making them look bad.
sorry, but I feel absolutely no compulsion to repeat the republican's incredible lame arguments against gay rights, abortion rights, and healthcare reform, IMHO repeating tea-party "reasoning" just makes them look worse.
Again, is that partisan? Absolutely, but it's not "dishonest", and it's definitely not a "straw man" argument...
How is anything I posted a "straw man" argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man?
How is anything I posted "academically dishonest"?
I'll accept being called a partisan, even a liberal. I'm definitely both of those things, but I do mind being called a liar in a hit-and-run attack. If you have "neither the time nor the attention span" to explain yourself, you should think about refraining from making such accusations..