Well I covered that with "I think its important to keep a manned space program simply to keep the knowledge. People need an industry to work or most the knowledge gets lost."
Although the ISS is an expensive way to do that. What would be interesting is if we could put the ISS into orbit around another planet. Though without some serious upgrades to ion drive technology it would be impractical.
Thats the problem with most manned space missions.
I think its important to keep a manned space program simply to keep the knowledge. People need an industry to work or most the knowledge gets lost.
NASA should concentrate more on science though. While I think the ISS is ubercool, I dont really see what the point of it is. Its cost over 100bn and doesnt do anything. Things like Hubble that cost a few billion have changed our view of the universe. WMAP, Kepler, Cassini, Voyager numerous Mars missions, they all have trumped the ISS but cost less than the ISS combined.
Future missions to Europa, sample return mission to Mars, James Webb.. just amazing science there. We have already had to can some great things like the terrestrial planet finder telescopes.
Radio telescopes on the far side of the moon also proposed liquid lense telescopes (ive read about spinning mercury to do this) are interesting but the cost would be absolutely insane. So many real things we could be doing.
You can only shoot down satalites that you have a line of sight on quickly. And really only ones right above you.
If you want to knock out satalites from the other site of the globe you need to get something into orbit which will take time. More than enough time to repond.
Its not just that, they want this university to have good teachers from around the world. If you start locking up people who you hire you are going to have a huge problem getting people to come work for you.
The lack of manufacturing jobs isnt about GDP, Americas GDP is not lower now but unemployment is. Its the lack of low paying jobs that has caused the increase in unemployment.
I doubt they will ever be very common. Unless trucks or vans that make constant long range routes use EV's.
Its not a common requirement for people and the people who need to travel long distances wont buy EV's so I doubt that market will ever arrise.
EV makers will probably try to create some stations on high traffic routes to help sell them, but I dont think a natural market will evolve for them any time soon.
Being from Australia, this is what I was thinking while reading all of this.
There are cheaper cars.. very low end 15k cars however this isn't the same type of car. 30k - 45k is a very typical family car price. Moving towards 65k+ is above average.
Just reading part of this is bad enough. We dont need more stupid news to feed climate change skeptics.
The maunder minimum was a local effect, not global. Also removing CO2 at that level is hardly likely to create such dramatic and localized effects. Why dont we have dozens of these drops with mass forest burning now?
They flew in a jet, so they dont care about climate change...hasty generalization. You cannot judge someone based off one action. You have to tally everything they do compared to your "ideal" person".
Re: Google, you are comparing totally watts per unit to total units, its not a valid comparison.
Google is one of the largest companies in the world (by market cap). Market cap by watt, its tiny.
Thats not even the important comparison. If, on average, volcanos emit 65-319 million tonnes of CO2 per year, that is baseline. The current carbon cycle is already pushed because of it, every percent over that which we are contributing is NOT part of the baseline.
You can pick dozens of stupid arguments about climage change denial.. but I love the "96-97% of CO2 emisson is not from humans" argument. It sounds so interesting superficially, but its completely irrelevant.
If your house warms by 20f per year and cools by 20f per year.. but then changes by 3-4% less cooling per year... then its pretty clear its not a house you want to live in for a long time.
There is no way that would change anything. If the overwhelming evidence that already exists isn’t enough then nothing can convince you.
Once you buy into the conspiracy nothing can get you out of it. Evidence that is shown is part of the cover up and a lack of disconfirming proof is just evidence there is a cover up in place.
Why is apologizing for how underwhelming the US rail system a good point?
On another point.. there is a huge problem with high speed rail in developed countries. There is a market for moving people from A to B. Creating highspeed trains will displace planes from that market. Maybe thats a good thing, maybe not. Trains make much more sense if they are time competitive (emissions wise). Although the real issue is you end up with plane routes that are cannabilized and underused rail networks.
So its very possible to end up with two uneconomic transport links. And if the goverement is subsidizing the cost of the construction of the rail network, it makes even less sense. You could just be paying to drive airlines on that route out and have an uneconomic rail link.
With a socialist / communist goverement central planning lets you make a choice to remove planes from a route and replace it with rail (if that is a better choice). Especially in china which has almost no domestic air travel compared to the USA.
I think we should definately invest in high speed rail, just pointing out how it probably will not be sucessful:) Goverment competing with private industry is a bad idea. But private industry will never invest in large public works. We wouldnt even have a real road network if it was left to market forces.
This is a complete straw man. Few credible climatologists would say something like this. You can't point to events like this as evidence of climate change. There is not enough data. Even if no snow fell there for all recorded human history, it's not proof or really evidence of anything.
You need far more common events to tease out a change from the background. Once off events are the worst possible examples to use for climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I covered that with "I think its important to keep a manned space program simply to keep the knowledge. People need an industry to work or most the knowledge gets lost."
Although the ISS is an expensive way to do that. What would be interesting is if we could put the ISS into orbit around another planet. Though without some serious upgrades to ion drive technology it would be impractical.
Thats the problem with most manned space missions.
I think its important to keep a manned space program simply to keep the knowledge. People need an industry to work or most the knowledge gets lost.
NASA should concentrate more on science though. While I think the ISS is ubercool, I dont really see what the point of it is. Its cost over 100bn and doesnt do anything. Things like Hubble that cost a few billion have changed our view of the universe. WMAP, Kepler, Cassini, Voyager numerous Mars missions, they all have trumped the ISS but cost less than the ISS combined.
Future missions to Europa, sample return mission to Mars, James Webb.. just amazing science there. We have already had to can some great things like the terrestrial planet finder telescopes.
Radio telescopes on the far side of the moon also proposed liquid lense telescopes (ive read about spinning mercury to do this) are interesting but the cost would be absolutely insane. So many real things we could be doing.
You can only shoot down satalites that you have a line of sight on quickly. And really only ones right above you.
If you want to knock out satalites from the other site of the globe you need to get something into orbit which will take time. More than enough time to repond.
The religious conservative movement in australian politics of late is very worrying. I can't remember it being like this in the past.
Its not just that, they want this university to have good teachers from around the world. If you start locking up people who you hire you are going to have a huge problem getting people to come work for you.
So staying away, saying nothing and passing judgement on /. is the way to go? Go it.
Because if you own the server it can never go down?
The lack of manufacturing jobs isnt about GDP, Americas GDP is not lower now but unemployment is. Its the lack of low paying jobs that has caused the increase in unemployment.
Profits don't help employees at all.
Well dump all oil subsidies and dump the EV subsidy and see how it works out.
Well the top battery capacity is 85kw/h. The monitor probably uses 30watts.. so for a full day of being on it is 30*24 720w/h or 0.72kw/h.
So its >1% of a full charge if it was on for 24 hours straight which it would never be.
I doubt they will ever be very common. Unless trucks or vans that make constant long range routes use EV's.
Its not a common requirement for people and the people who need to travel long distances wont buy EV's so I doubt that market will ever arrise.
EV makers will probably try to create some stations on high traffic routes to help sell them, but I dont think a natural market will evolve for them any time soon.
Then the car isn't right for you.
It's not a problem for most people however.
Then don't buy an EV. Seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to avoid it.
You could argue as to why you are stuck so far from home when the battery was never going to get you home anyhow, snow storm or not *shrugs*
Being from Australia, this is what I was thinking while reading all of this.
There are cheaper cars.. very low end 15k cars however this isn't the same type of car. 30k - 45k is a very typical family car price. Moving towards 65k+ is above average.
But want to leave it in the car.. why even bother with the backpack if you arent going to really go crazy and put it on your back.
Save the money for your next replacement.
Just reading part of this is bad enough. We dont need more stupid news to feed climate change skeptics.
The maunder minimum was a local effect, not global. Also removing CO2 at that level is hardly likely to create such dramatic and localized effects. Why dont we have dozens of these drops with mass forest burning now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp4dpeJVDxs
-Richard Feynman
Hands down the best response to "why" I have ever heard.
I think the bigger problem is that IT removes the need for jobs. Without them we have less tax income to do anything, such as mitigate co2 emissions.
They flew in a jet, so they dont care about climate change...hasty generalization. You cannot judge someone based off one action. You have to tally everything they do compared to your "ideal" person".
Re: Google, you are comparing totally watts per unit to total units, its not a valid comparison.
Google is one of the largest companies in the world (by market cap). Market cap by watt, its tiny.
Thats not even the important comparison. If, on average, volcanos emit 65-319 million tonnes of CO2 per year, that is baseline. The current carbon cycle is already pushed because of it, every percent over that which we are contributing is NOT part of the baseline.
You can pick dozens of stupid arguments about climage change denial.. but I love the "96-97% of CO2 emisson is not from humans" argument. It sounds so interesting superficially, but its completely irrelevant.
If your house warms by 20f per year and cools by 20f per year.. but then changes by 3-4% less cooling per year... then its pretty clear its not a house you want to live in for a long time.
There is no way that would change anything. If the overwhelming evidence that already exists isn’t enough then nothing can convince you.
Once you buy into the conspiracy nothing can get you out of it. Evidence that is shown is part of the cover up and a lack of disconfirming proof is just evidence there is a cover up in place.
Air tight logic!
Science has taught us only photons are "visible".
We can't see anything else.
Nothing more inappropriate than giving research grants investigate questions we don't know the answer to.
Why is apologizing for how underwhelming the US rail system a good point?
On another point.. there is a huge problem with high speed rail in developed countries. There is a market for moving people from A to B. Creating highspeed trains will displace planes from that market. Maybe thats a good thing, maybe not. Trains make much more sense if they are time competitive (emissions wise). Although the real issue is you end up with plane routes that are cannabilized and underused rail networks.
So its very possible to end up with two uneconomic transport links. And if the goverement is subsidizing the cost of the construction of the rail network, it makes even less sense. You could just be paying to drive airlines on that route out and have an uneconomic rail link.
With a socialist / communist goverement central planning lets you make a choice to remove planes from a route and replace it with rail (if that is a better choice). Especially in china which has almost no domestic air travel compared to the USA.
I think we should definately invest in high speed rail, just pointing out how it probably will not be sucessful :) Goverment competing with private industry is a bad idea. But private industry will never invest in large public works. We wouldnt even have a real road network if it was left to market forces.
This is a complete straw man. Few credible climatologists would say something like this. You can't point to events like this as evidence of climate change. There is not enough data. Even if no snow fell there for all recorded human history, it's not proof or really evidence of anything.
You need far more common events to tease out a change from the background. Once off events are the worst possible examples to use for climate change.