Unless you are intercepting the entire beam of a directional antenna (only likely if this is an antenna communicating with another mast or base station, rather than the more likely scenario of one designed to talk to handsets) then inverse square is the correct formula, surely.
Every time you do you are holding the antenna of that right next to your head. Yes it's lower power, but there's an inverse square distance law at work to, so the intensity is massively greater than that from the one 20 feet away. So either buy the apartment, or stop using cell phones. They are the only two logical choices.
Not entirely the case in the UK. The proposed law that is going through parliament gives the relevant minister the right to change the scope and penalties in the future without coming back to parliament. So no, we (and more to the point, our representatives, when the vote for it) won't know what the law will be in the future.
Avoids the flex problem, is always charged up, is a lot cheaper to buy and free to run, and as a bonus I get exercise when I cut the lawn! (OK, OK, my *girlfriend* gets exercise when *she* cuts the lawn because I can't be bothered, but the principle's the same!)
If building a *true* plant costs a trillion dollars or euros, fine, but it'd better produce enough power that 2-3 of them can power the entire United States or Europe.
There are big problems with this approach though, both from the additional costs of power grid systems to move all that electricity about, and the problems (terrorism, maintenance, malfunctions, etc) of relying on a single, or even a reduced number, of points of failure.
We all could, and should (I gave up my car a couple of years ago, and saved carbon AND money; I haven't flown for about 5 years). But that's in the developed world - the rest of the world wants (not unreasonably) to have some of the things we've been enjoying for decades. There's a lot of them, and it will more than offset the savings you and I make.
As I said, the real solution will be complex, and will involve lots if not all the changes and new technologies mentioned. There is no "do this one thing" solution (except for doing nothing, and letting our kids deal with it).
Wind, tide, photovoltaic and solar thermal power work right now.
Wind power only works when it's windy, and where it's windy, and not as efficiently as generally advertised. NIMBYs object to serious scale windfarms on land, and they kill migrating birds and cock up radar. There will also need to be a hugely expensive and unsightly ( or buried, and even more expensive) expansion of power grid systems.
Tidal systems are hideously expensive - estimates of UKL 23 billion for the Severn Barrage for example. And they have massive negative effects on wildlife too. NIMBYS are not fans of these either.
Photovolatic systems are unproven, but on a serious scale would probably involve enormous quantities of highly toxic chemicals. Like wind power, solar power is not available where the power is needed all the time, or even any of the time in many populated regions.
Barring a massive program of depopulation, there are no quick answers to power production vs climate change. Some or all of the three methods above will probably be part of the solution, as will be fusion power, fission power, carbon sequestration and other technologies, plus a lot of money. Anyone who says otherwise is probably selling snake oil.
But every person has the right to exercise their OWN mouth and offer-up their opinions, no matter how offensive.
No such right exists generally outside the USA, and many "opinions", such as holocaust denial, are specific crimes in much of Europe. On the other hand, many Europeans are surprised at how upset Americans get over the burning of flags, and so on.
In this case, seems possible that an offence under UK law was committed, and the police would be required to take efforts to track down the perpetrator, and not simply take at face value the statement that there was no audit trail on the server.
From the details available, it appears this may relate to information that could be used to threaten the judge in the SHAC trial, the trial of some pretty unpleasant and violent people http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7837064.stm.
I'm not saying Airbus is better than Boeing, but if you protect your industries from competition like this, you will end up with inferior products and services, and failing domestic industries.
Not only is it true, but meteorites often land with ice on them! Yes it could break a gas line or knock over something flammable, but it's not very likely is it?
It's going to be REALLY hard to justify Spotlight (or anything from Quest) for a 10 server environment! I love their stuff but it's very pricey, especially for small installs.
Err.. The idea being then that at those depths, bacteria wouldn't get to them? Or that with no oxygen available, decomposition would be infeasible? I have to say, it sounds like an awful lot of work - first to do the digging, and secondly to actually place the cut-down trees in these deposits.
One of the extensions to this idea was to bake the wood into charcoal first*, to make it less reactive. But yes, by burying it deep, decomposition is inhibited. The figures for labour were (from memory; I think it was in New Scientist a few months ago) either 100,000 or 1 million, for a project big enough to actually reduce CO2 levels at current production. Which is a lot, but not as many as you might think.
* which also gives you better-than-carbon-neutral petroleum substitutes!
Yes, but when the trees eventually die they are decomposed and release the CO2 into the air again
There are proposed schemes to bury (fairly deeply; on the order of tens of metres IIRC) trees when they die as a method of carbon sequestration. Of course, that uses machinery that in turn produces CO2, so even that has some energy input, like this scheme, and may well need a lot more labour. AND look pretty ugly (think large, VERY large, scale open cast mining in reverse).
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you are intercepting the entire beam of a directional antenna (only likely if this is an antenna communicating with another mast or base station, rather than the more likely scenario of one designed to talk to handsets) then inverse square is the correct formula, surely.
Every time you do you are holding the antenna of that right next to your head. Yes it's lower power, but there's an inverse square distance law at work to, so the intensity is massively greater than that from the one 20 feet away. So either buy the apartment, or stop using cell phones. They are the only two logical choices.
Mod me troll if you please, but you may think of it as struggling, I prefer to think of it as consulting. If it was easy, who'd pay me for it?
Do we need a new version of the Blue Screen of Death for PCs?
Not entirely the case in the UK. The proposed law that is going through parliament gives the relevant minister the right to change the scope and penalties in the future without coming back to parliament. So no, we (and more to the point, our representatives, when the vote for it) won't know what the law will be in the future.
"sTealing".
See, *hey've already s*olen my "*" key!
...and Sony are the pirates, "sealing" from people legitimately buy the game second-hand.
Half of the laptops used for posting here are already ;-)
Avoids the flex problem, is always charged up, is a lot cheaper to buy and free to run, and as a bonus I get exercise when I cut the lawn! (OK, OK, my *girlfriend* gets exercise when *she* cuts the lawn because I can't be bothered, but the principle's the same!)
There are big problems with this approach though, both from the additional costs of power grid systems to move all that electricity about, and the problems (terrorism, maintenance, malfunctions, etc) of relying on a single, or even a reduced number, of points of failure.
Imagine if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm blacked out all of North America, and not just Quebec for instance.
We all could, and should (I gave up my car a couple of years ago, and saved carbon AND money; I haven't flown for about 5 years). But that's in the developed world - the rest of the world wants (not unreasonably) to have some of the things we've been enjoying for decades. There's a lot of them, and it will more than offset the savings you and I make.
As I said, the real solution will be complex, and will involve lots if not all the changes and new technologies mentioned. There is no "do this one thing" solution (except for doing nothing, and letting our kids deal with it).
Wind power only works when it's windy, and where it's windy, and not as efficiently as generally advertised. NIMBYs object to serious scale windfarms on land, and they kill migrating birds and cock up radar. There will also need to be a hugely expensive and unsightly ( or buried, and even more expensive) expansion of power grid systems.
Tidal systems are hideously expensive - estimates of UKL 23 billion for the Severn Barrage for example. And they have massive negative effects on wildlife too. NIMBYS are not fans of these either.
Photovolatic systems are unproven, but on a serious scale would probably involve enormous quantities of highly toxic chemicals. Like wind power, solar power is not available where the power is needed all the time, or even any of the time in many populated regions.
Barring a massive program of depopulation, there are no quick answers to power production vs climate change. Some or all of the three methods above will probably be part of the solution, as will be fusion power, fission power, carbon sequestration and other technologies, plus a lot of money. Anyone who says otherwise is probably selling snake oil.
...etc
No such right exists generally outside the USA, and many "opinions", such as holocaust denial, are specific crimes in much of Europe. On the other hand, many Europeans are surprised at how upset Americans get over the burning of flags, and so on. In this case, seems possible that an offence under UK law was committed, and the police would be required to take efforts to track down the perpetrator, and not simply take at face value the statement that there was no audit trail on the server.
From the details available, it appears this may relate to information that could be used to threaten the judge in the SHAC trial, the trial of some pretty unpleasant and violent people http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7837064.stm.
I'm not saying Airbus is better than Boeing, but if you protect your industries from competition like this, you will end up with inferior products and services, and failing domestic industries.
...Skynet specified *nix, of course!
Not only is it true, but meteorites often land with ice on them! Yes it could break a gas line or knock over something flammable, but it's not very likely is it?
Indeed, but the reason is often justifying the jobs and budget of the department doing the upgrading, sadly.
...to 4 inches, apparently!
Spotlight on Windows appears to be freeware, according to http://www.quest-software.co.uk/spotlight-on-windows/
One of the extensions to this idea was to bake the wood into charcoal first*, to make it less reactive. But yes, by burying it deep, decomposition is inhibited. The figures for labour were (from memory; I think it was in New Scientist a few months ago) either 100,000 or 1 million, for a project big enough to actually reduce CO2 levels at current production. Which is a lot, but not as many as you might think.
* which also gives you better-than-carbon-neutral petroleum substitutes!
There are proposed schemes to bury (fairly deeply; on the order of tens of metres IIRC) trees when they die as a method of carbon sequestration. Of course, that uses machinery that in turn produces CO2, so even that has some energy input, like this scheme, and may well need a lot more labour. AND look pretty ugly (think large, VERY large, scale open cast mining in reverse).
That's 18.52 haads - http://www.erblist.com/abg/weightsmeasures.html