Seems unlikely that advanced aliens would need to resort to military conquest when economic conquest would be cheaper and more efficient. They could probably trade some of their minor technology, like nuclear fussion, light-weight alloys, or computers on the open market here and buy anything they needed from us. Instead of having to bomb us into oblivian and then do all the work of shifting through the debry, they could sell us a small nuclear fussion plant that could power a city, recieve in exchange enough materials to make a hundred more, trade a few of those for more material, and so on. The items they give us would cost them no more than the materials they would consume conquering us (bombs, etc.), and we would deliver whatever they want from us to their door instead having to dig through a radioactive rubble.
The gold standard for the country would probably be the Smithsonian group in the National Mall. You have the National Museum of Natural History and the National Air and Space Museum. A few blocks north is the Marian Koshland Museum. There is the National Zoological Park for a nice biology lesson. An hour drive away in Chantilly, VA you have a REALLY big air and space museum that is a branch of the National Air and Space Museum, only about 4 times as big, called the National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.
I can remember as a kid playing around randomly with my chemistry set. Is this how the world ends, not with a bang nor a whimper, but with some kid saying, "Gee, I wonder what happens if I cross flesh eating bacteria with dandelion pollen"?
Tesla is one of the companies poineering the way for low pollution cars. Once they pull out of the hole, they intend to start selling more affordable cars. This promotes electric car R&D, the infrastructure for electric charging stations, and other aspects of the growth of electric cars. They are one of the few car companies that did not drag their feet on auto mileage, and are hurting now only because of the economy. Helping them get back on track and into production will help solve our energy and environmental problems in the long run.
Could this device be modified to remove methane instead? Methane is many times as powerful a greenhosue gas, and you could then burn it to power the device, possibly with some power left over. That would reduce global warming and provide a profit.
A better plan would be to offer inventors a portion of income resulting from the patents. Your plan encourages the filing of multiple trivial patents or breaking the invention up into small components for patenting justs to get the flat fee, rather than large effective patents. Offering a percentage royalty on the proceeds of sales from the patent would encourage your employees to come up with useful, salable inventions, rather than lots of silly, trival ideas.
David Leithauser,
LeithauserResearch.com
Well, I am a freelance programmer, and I would be willing to hear your idea. If it is something very specific to your needs, or you want to retain the rights to it yourself, I can quote you a price to develop it for you and you would own it. If it is a project that might have commercial value and you only want it for your own use (no interest in selling product or owning the rights), I could develop it for free for you and make money selling it to others.
The most likely Republican candidate is McCain. Polls show that Clinton would lose to McCain in the general election, while Obama would win. Since I do not want four more years of Bush policies, I would rather see Obama be the Democratic candidate. Also, if Clinton did win, I think it could have such a galvinizing effect on the Republicans taht they woudl take back COngress in 2010.
Seems to me that this could solve the two biggest problems with electric cars. The first is range. Obviously, these batteries solve that problem. The second is cost, where the batteries are the biggest cost of electric cars. You could reduce the number of batteries in the car by using these new batteries. If these batteries can hold 10 times the charge, you could replace the older batteries with about 1/3 as many batteries. That would give you about 3 times the range at about 1/3 the battery cost. This is assuming that these batteries do not cost much more than regular LiIon batteries (say, no more than 10% to 20% more).
All I can say is that I loved science fiction when I was a child. Whenever some scientist (mad or otherwise) was in a movie or show, surrounded by all sorts of cool lightning bolts flashing aroudn the room and beakers of chemicals boiling away, I always said, "I want to be him." Whenever my parents asked what I wanted for birthday or Christmas, I always said "Scientific stuff." I eventually graduated from college in Electrical Engineering. Of course, the science in science fiction is, to put it mildly, not the most accurate source of information, but is can certainly spark the imagination and curiousity. Incidentally, another idea is to expose the children to toys that might spark a curiousity, such as chemistry sets, erector set (do they still have those?), microscopes, telescopes, "fun with science" type kits, etc.
I see no logic to this comment that "It's interesting that the models are proving to be conservative...Makes the case that the current warming trend is more closely related to a solar upswing (than greenhouse gas buildup) more persuasive." All the recent models account for both greenhouse gases and solar upswing, so any error could just as easily be caused by underestimating greenhouse warming as solar upswing. Models of greenhouse gas warming can be just as conservative as models of solar upswing. The most likely explanation for the underestimates of greenhouse warming is that they do not take into account all the positive feedback loops triggered by primary global warming.
More importantly, there is a key piece of evidence that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, rather than solar upswing. While ground level temperatures are increasing, upper atmosphere temperatures are decreasing. A solar upswing would heat both upper and lower atmosphere. However, greenhouse gases trap heat near the surface, preventing it from bouncing back into space. This warms the lower atmosphere while allowing the upper atmosphere to cool, just as we are observing. This puts the final nail in the coffin of the theory that increased solar radiation is responsible for the rise in Earth temperatures.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems unlikely that advanced aliens would need to resort to military conquest when economic conquest would be cheaper and more efficient. They could probably trade some of their minor technology, like nuclear fussion, light-weight alloys, or computers on the open market here and buy anything they needed from us. Instead of having to bomb us into oblivian and then do all the work of shifting through the debry, they could sell us a small nuclear fussion plant that could power a city, recieve in exchange enough materials to make a hundred more, trade a few of those for more material, and so on. The items they give us would cost them no more than the materials they would consume conquering us (bombs, etc.), and we would deliver whatever they want from us to their door instead having to dig through a radioactive rubble.
The gold standard for the country would probably be the Smithsonian group in the National Mall. You have the National Museum of Natural History and the National Air and Space Museum. A few blocks north is the Marian Koshland Museum. There is the National Zoological Park for a nice biology lesson. An hour drive away in Chantilly, VA you have a REALLY big air and space museum that is a branch of the National Air and Space Museum, only about 4 times as big, called the National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.
I can remember as a kid playing around randomly with my chemistry set. Is this how the world ends, not with a bang nor a whimper, but with some kid saying, "Gee, I wonder what happens if I cross flesh eating bacteria with dandelion pollen"?
Tesla is one of the companies poineering the way for low pollution cars. Once they pull out of the hole, they intend to start selling more affordable cars. This promotes electric car R&D, the infrastructure for electric charging stations, and other aspects of the growth of electric cars. They are one of the few car companies that did not drag their feet on auto mileage, and are hurting now only because of the economy. Helping them get back on track and into production will help solve our energy and environmental problems in the long run.
Could this device be modified to remove methane instead? Methane is many times as powerful a greenhosue gas, and you could then burn it to power the device, possibly with some power left over. That would reduce global warming and provide a profit.
A better plan would be to offer inventors a portion of income resulting from the patents. Your plan encourages the filing of multiple trivial patents or breaking the invention up into small components for patenting justs to get the flat fee, rather than large effective patents. Offering a percentage royalty on the proceeds of sales from the patent would encourage your employees to come up with useful, salable inventions, rather than lots of silly, trival ideas. David Leithauser, LeithauserResearch.com
Well, I am a freelance programmer, and I would be willing to hear your idea. If it is something very specific to your needs, or you want to retain the rights to it yourself, I can quote you a price to develop it for you and you would own it. If it is a project that might have commercial value and you only want it for your own use (no interest in selling product or owning the rights), I could develop it for free for you and make money selling it to others.
The most likely Republican candidate is McCain. Polls show that Clinton would lose to McCain in the general election, while Obama would win. Since I do not want four more years of Bush policies, I would rather see Obama be the Democratic candidate. Also, if Clinton did win, I think it could have such a galvinizing effect on the Republicans taht they woudl take back COngress in 2010.
Seems to me that this could solve the two biggest problems with electric cars. The first is range. Obviously, these batteries solve that problem. The second is cost, where the batteries are the biggest cost of electric cars. You could reduce the number of batteries in the car by using these new batteries. If these batteries can hold 10 times the charge, you could replace the older batteries with about 1/3 as many batteries. That would give you about 3 times the range at about 1/3 the battery cost. This is assuming that these batteries do not cost much more than regular LiIon batteries (say, no more than 10% to 20% more).
All I can say is that I loved science fiction when I was a child. Whenever some scientist (mad or otherwise) was in a movie or show, surrounded by all sorts of cool lightning bolts flashing aroudn the room and beakers of chemicals boiling away, I always said, "I want to be him." Whenever my parents asked what I wanted for birthday or Christmas, I always said "Scientific stuff." I eventually graduated from college in Electrical Engineering. Of course, the science in science fiction is, to put it mildly, not the most accurate source of information, but is can certainly spark the imagination and curiousity. Incidentally, another idea is to expose the children to toys that might spark a curiousity, such as chemistry sets, erector set (do they still have those?), microscopes, telescopes, "fun with science" type kits, etc.
I see no logic to this comment that "It's interesting that the models are proving to be conservative...Makes the case that the current warming trend is more closely related to a solar upswing (than greenhouse gas buildup) more persuasive." All the recent models account for both greenhouse gases and solar upswing, so any error could just as easily be caused by underestimating greenhouse warming as solar upswing. Models of greenhouse gas warming can be just as conservative as models of solar upswing. The most likely explanation for the underestimates of greenhouse warming is that they do not take into account all the positive feedback loops triggered by primary global warming. More importantly, there is a key piece of evidence that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, rather than solar upswing. While ground level temperatures are increasing, upper atmosphere temperatures are decreasing. A solar upswing would heat both upper and lower atmosphere. However, greenhouse gases trap heat near the surface, preventing it from bouncing back into space. This warms the lower atmosphere while allowing the upper atmosphere to cool, just as we are observing. This puts the final nail in the coffin of the theory that increased solar radiation is responsible for the rise in Earth temperatures.