Mostly, I agree with you. However, there are a few things to consider.
SUV Costs: Insurance costs are not necessarily better, depending on what you have, and there is more to it than the cost of the SUV. In my case, moving to a Suburban as opposed to a Durango decreased my insurance by over 150 bucks/year. A bigger vehicle. Why did I do it? Safety. My yougest of three was born last Christmas morning. The car seat we bought was the safest we could. It is fricking enormous. It was too big for the car (a family sedan), and turned out to be too big for the Durango. The depth of the seat pushed the fornt seats far enough forward to keep my wife and I hovering dangerously close to the dash/wheel and the airbags. Our other kids are in booster seats as well, and there is five years in between *each* child. One person's response to the situation was "most people just buy a lesser seat.". Exactly. people will scrimp on the important stuff and splurge on the non-important stuff. Lack of sound economics education in schools leads directly to this. Insurance-wise, my Suburban is nearly the same insurance as the sedan we had. Since neither one reaches 1000/year (even my Vette doesn't cost that -- though it was cheaper to insure than the Durango) your claim of a thousand dollars ayear in savings is not holding water. Maintenance on my Durango (and the sedan) are/were more than my Suburban.
Oh, and I get *better* gas mileage in the Suburban than I did with the Durango. And one last thing, in more families than not (where I am) the SUV is replacing more than one vehicle. Those are costs to consider.
2. Kids out of daycare. Absolutely. My kids have enver been there, even when we were making 8.50/hour. We worked opposite shifts to do it, but it was worth it.
3 and 4. Absolutely. There are a few other things as well. Food. Proper shopping can save up to a grand or so a year depending on family size. Other thigns most people don't realize is that in many cases it *is* worth it to buy a more expensive but higher quality item. For example, vacuum cleaner. Go for the Electrolux you pay off over 12-18 months and keep for 10+ years, as opposed to a new 250 dollar one every year.
When you get kids, use cloth diapering. It's better for them and when done right is cheaper. Cloth for the wife too saves a lot of money.
When getting married, buy simple bands. Ignore the 3X your monthly salary crap. have abasic simple, and cheap wedding. Take the money you would have paid on the wedding and increase your house downpayment or decrease your unsecured debt load.
When starting out buy small cheap cars, keep them maintained, and then go for the house. Don't buy a 2 bedroom house. Starting families should start with a 3 bedroom starter home. Keep the payments low. During the early days, cash flow is extremely important.
Analyze your credit card debt (assuming you have some). Go for the quickest gains in cash flow first, not necessarily the ones with highest rate. Use that increased cash flow to hit the next one, not spend more.
A side note on this here. If you have loans at very low rates, you may not want to pay them off. Student loan at 4-5%? leave it. You can invest that extra you would pay on it to either reduce other debt load or straight out invest it. Do the math, you'll see it is the smart way.
5) sort of agree. IMO one should first aim at having 3 months of your income in liquid form. Then go for another 6 months in 3 month increments of liquidity. For example, 3 months in a money market or other liquid account, and sets of CDs or other semi-liquid investments, and 3 more in an even less liquid. Once you have that, start investing for retirement.
Why the stratification? Less liquid tends to be higher yield. If you have 6-12 months of your income available to you over the course of a year your job is less volitile. If you are less concerned about losing your job, you'll tend to work better. You'll also enjoy not-work time better as well. Not to mention this prod
Actually very little if you look at the biological construction aspect as well as the filed of Emergent Physics.
At lthat level we are talking about manipulating things base don their fundamental (and eventually quantum) characteristics such as positive/negative charge attraction/repulsion, chemical links, etc... No "processing power" is needed to do this, thus no CPU.
Emergent physics tells us that a small specific set of rules can build "complex" results.This is how it is done. err I mean will be done.
"If our interpretation is correct, it could demonstrate the presence of frame dragging near spinning black holes," said Cui."
Not this is an observation, not a TEST. So the two statements are not in conflict. We an observe a thing, but to test for it is to demonstrate a higher order of understanding.
The point was not whether xxx, CIO was used. The point was that Microsofts response to the problem illustrated here has been "it isn't a problem download and use our tools", while they themselves do not.
This illustrates the underlying problem. Features such as this that require seperate tools to sanitize them will tend to not produced sanitized documents.
The author of the article said that the result of this "exposure" demonstrates a likely need for inline filtering in mail and web publishing systems to correct this MS oversight and stubbornness.
Had many of you read the... oh wait I'm on slashdot nevermind.
[Post version 2.0]
Re:Why do you need scientists to have a lab?
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
To do the same job? None.
Scientists with a lab can alter their experiment based upon results obtianed. Reobots can only do a limited subset. Once you start even approaching getting close to robotic capability to do the same job, you have far exceeded cost and practicality of human interaction.
Personally, I'm hoping that life is found on every hunk of rock we come across. It will destroy those notions that we are alone in the universe, and more importantly, remove the arrogance on humans towards the rest of the planet and maybe we'll treat it better.
On the flip side, if we never find life then maybe it will still shock us enough that we take care of this little niche of ours.
Neither case is likely given history. Finding new territory has never led to "better care" of the homeland. Discovering or colonizing new land leads to the belief that there is more avilable. It is usually true.
We currently have the technology and know how to colonize the whole of Mars. This progress will cement the capability/knowhow/tech to colonize bare space and/or the asteroid belt. The leassons and tech gained in these processes will lead to more clean tech here on Earth out of necessity and economic value.
What has been shown to lead to better care of environmental concerns is for the given area to grow economically into a more prosperous society. As people are more prosperous they are more interested in non-survival things.
Re:Can somebody explain something?
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Wel we do have temperature measurements of Mars. If there is volcanic activity, we would see at a minimum the needed temperatures to power it. With a lack of requisite resulting temps, and no visible volcanic activity we could safely conclude it is tectonically/volcanicly not active.
Most of the evidence supports the idea that Sun, AOL/Netscape, and other hi-techs with *vast* lobbying efforts in Washington DC consistently lobbied for a harsh line against MS.
So provide this evidence. I keep hearing this claim, but do not see it. Take a trip to opensecrets.org for one, and do some research. Warning: it will take effort.
Yes, of course. The entire Silicon Valley was in large part a result of the Cold War. That's a Straw Man.
Yes it is, so why did you post it? You posted that the fact that the technology is very similar to other military aspects makes you "dubious about the whole concept". I pointed out that many other dual use technologies have been handled better than not in more than not cases.
The concept is irrelevant to alternate uses. In fact, there is a reason the similarities are there: the laws of physics as we currently know them. An asteroid hurtling toward Earth is little different than an ICBM or anything else hurtling through space to reach a destination. Therefore the mechanics involved in stopping either one will be very similar. Politics is simply not a part of it.
It is one thing to be concerned abotu the use of the techniology, it is anotehr to say that since it could be used fo rotehr purposes or is similar to proposals that serve these other purposes, the whole concept is of dubious nature.
Indeed, dual use is economically a very valid and useful lever. I would be very dubious of proposals to stop, or even track and predict paths of space objects that could be on a collision course with the Earth that proclaimed to NOT have a military aspect, or could not be used for such purposes.
Anything good for tracking an asteroid or comet at range is useful in tracking smaller objects such as satellites, shuttles, space stations, ICBMs, etc.. Anything good for removing the threat of such objects are likely good for doing that to any of those objects (less likely for ICBMs in some cases).
It would be a fallacy to say that since the technologies offered are similar to other technologies that can be used militarily, the whole concept is of dubious or questionable nature. It would be a fallacy similar, if not identical to the logical fallacy known as "Guilt By Association".
The same technology that gave governments air power, gives the rest of us air travel. Air has been militarized. The oceans were militarized, and land was militarized.
Yet somehow, we are expected to believe that the militarization of space is somehow different. No, the militarization of space would be no different than land, sea, or air.
The same military technology for launching nukes is responsible for advanced leading to the medium we are carrying this discussion out on, as well as satllites to carry news etc. over the air and space, or the cell phone, etc..
Technology is neutral.
If we look at the history of "militarization" of land, air, and sea, we will see that it has always followed with much increased civilian explroation and use of the "medium". Therefore, we should not fear the concept of "militarizing space" to be bad. Indeed we should welcome it, given what follows.
Besides, whether you realize it or not, the US military already has domination of space.
There is a big difference between limiting liability like you speak of, and making somone immune to prosecution over illegal acts by the "virtue" of them having filed for protection by the government.
Actually, more energy is provided to crops by the sun than we produce. From there your argument begins to fall down.
Adding to that, Pimental's report (referenced in your link) is severely flawed on several accounts. These include using 1979 data; data that is 20+ years old. Current industry averages are showing a +38% energy balance, and technology in development is showing a potential of 162% net balance.
Pimental also refuses to consider the effects of coupling the produciton of ethanol with other technologies and products, such as feed for livestock, cogeneration of electricity from the steam produced, etc.. Further, he makes baseless assumptions (like treating all production as if it were irrigated the way that only 16% of US corn crops are).
We don't need a way to funnel money to corn belt farmers, they already get it through government subsidies. When you call for the elimnation of subsidies for the pil industry, and start complaining of the inefficiencey of oil for energy storage, I'll take your arguments with more than a half-grain of salt. I've seen some estimates of oil based nergy costs being under 50% negative net.
It takes about 30% more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol that one gets out of burning that same gallon of ethanol. Therefore, each gallon of ethanol pumpled into a car and burnt for energy represents a net energy loss.
Note that this is not in TFA. This is also very outdated information. When you remove the energy "contributed" by the sun in the process of growing the biomass (assuming you use biomass of course), and count the energy cost we humans expend creating ethanol in today's processes, it is a net *gain*. What you said was true two decades ago. But it is no longer true.
You may be basing your "data" off the Pimental study. However, there are sever flaws with that "study". First of all, Pimentel used a 1979 estimate for the energy used to manufacture ethanol of 70,000 BTU/gal.
While it is true that first generation ethanol plants used up to 120,000 BTU/gal of ethanol. A far back as 2000, a state of the art dry mill requires about 38,000 BTU thermal and 1 kw-h (3,413 BTU) electric per gallon. That is approximately 34% less BTU in this one aspect alone.
When you soncsider that corn production (what Pimental focused on) has had a net yield increase of a little more than 50% while the energy inputs required to get that yield have decreased, it becomes very clear that the facts have changed since 1979.
As if that wasn't enough, Pimentel noted that 16% of US corn is irrigated but includes an irrigation energy cost as if it applies to *all* corn. He also refused to acknowledge the possibilty and use of co-generation and co-products.
Specifically, for every 100 BTUs we expend in the production of corn ethanol, 135 BTUs are produced. A net gain of 38 BTUs on average.
This change is due to three primary factors:
* We have become more efficient in farming's enegy consumption
* We have learned more about the process of conversion to ethanol, and have gotten more efficient at it
* The production of corn ethanol has co-products (things we can sell other than ethanol), thus distributing the energy load
However, as many have said it is a waste to convert A to B to C to burn C or use it in a fuel cell. Converting ethanol to Hydrogen wil take more energy, thus resulting in a loss if the energy for the conversion is greater than the net gain in the production of ethanol.
On the other hand, let us assume a 15% energy cost of ethanol. How does that compare to the net energy cost of fossil fuels? Very favorably.
Indeed, Cellulosic Crop-Based Ethanol shows a potential +162% increase in energy balance. How does that compare? Damned well, IMO. Even compared to the current industry average of a +38% balance.
(and yes this accounts for irrigation, fuel, transport, heating etc.).
Other techniques that have helped increase the energy efficiency of ethanol is co-generation. The steam produced during the process can be used to power steam turbines, thus producing additional power to be added to the grid. This increases net energy gain.
Below is an example of cogeneration: "The Russell Municipal power plant uses two Solar(TM) Taurus 70 single-cycle gas turbines, rated at a total 15 Mwe (Augustine, 2001, personal communication). The turbines' waste heat passes through a heat recovery boiler that generates steam used to heat the mash at the adjacent United States Energy Partners Ethanol plant. The waste heat from the heat recovery boiler is also used by the USEP ethanol plant for the purpose of drying the Distillers' Dried Grains."
Co-products tend to be cattle feed supplement (from the dried distillate). Others include CO2. Other potential industry links is an increase in efficiency in extracting oil from existing wells by coupling the facilities.
The real problem with using ethanol in automotive applicaitonsis the cold weather start issue. However, an 85%ethanol 15% gasoline mix resolves this issue quite well. It is called E85. Given the positive effects and efficiency
I teach System Admin. Had a class this week in fact. Used the man page on crontab to do it, and it included examples right there in the manpage.
EXAMPLE CRON FILE
# use/bin/sh to run commands, no matter what/etc/passwd says
SHELL=/bin/sh
# mail any output to `paul', no matter whose crontab this is
MAILTO=paul
#
# run five minutes after midnight, every day
5 0 * * * $HOME/bin/daily.job >> $HOME/tmp/out 2>&1
# run at 2:15pm on the first of every month -- output mailed to paul
15 14 1 * * $HOME/bin/monthly
# run at 10 pm on weekdays, annoy Joe
0 22 * * 1-5 mail -s "It's 10pm" joe%Joe,%%Where are your kids?%
23 0-23/2 * * * echo "run 23 minutes after midn, 2am, 4am..., everyday"
5 4 * * sun echo "run at 5 after 4 every sunday"
That is taken from the man page for crontab, section 5, from RH9/Fedora. I also contains a detailed description of each field.
Actually, they're trying to preserve the right to make money maintaining accurate databases of information.
A) There is no such right to preserve.
B) This act does not do what you say it does. A copyright provides you with the legal permission to force others to not do things w/o your permission.
After all, nothing stops you from making the same investment and opening it to the public (freedb, anyone?). This just stops you from riding the coattails of somebody else's hard work without their permission.
Sure, until they sue you claiming you copied their data since the data will be the same or subsets will. Then, the burden is on you to prove your innocence. That is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes /. where incorrect information is "Insightful". You don't rent RH software per month, but that doesn't stop the OP from making the claim.
/.
I see that "Insightful" is continuing to lose it's meaning on
SMBs tend away from Mac due to it's costs.
Mostly, I agree with you. However, there are a few things to consider.
SUV Costs:
Insurance costs are not necessarily better, depending on what you have, and there is more to it than the cost of the SUV. In my case, moving to a Suburban as opposed to a Durango decreased my insurance by over 150 bucks/year. A bigger vehicle. Why did I do it? Safety. My yougest of three was born last Christmas morning. The car seat we bought was the safest we could. It is fricking enormous. It was too big for the car (a family sedan), and turned out to be too big for the Durango. The depth of the seat pushed the fornt seats far enough forward to keep my wife and I hovering dangerously close to the dash/wheel and the airbags. Our other kids are in booster seats as well, and there is five years in between *each* child. One person's response to the situation was "most people just buy a lesser seat.". Exactly. people will scrimp on the important stuff and splurge on the non-important stuff. Lack of sound economics education in schools leads directly to this. Insurance-wise, my Suburban is nearly the same insurance as the sedan we had. Since neither one reaches 1000/year (even my Vette doesn't cost that -- though it was cheaper to insure than the Durango) your claim of a thousand dollars ayear in savings is not holding water. Maintenance on my Durango (and the sedan) are/were more than my Suburban.
Oh, and I get *better* gas mileage in the Suburban than I did with the Durango. And one last thing, in more families than not (where I am) the SUV is replacing more than one vehicle. Those are costs to consider.
2. Kids out of daycare. Absolutely. My kids have enver been there, even when we were making 8.50/hour. We worked opposite shifts to do it, but it was worth it.
3 and 4. Absolutely. There are a few other things as well. Food. Proper shopping can save up to a grand or so a year depending on family size. Other thigns most people don't realize is that in many cases it *is* worth it to buy a more expensive but higher quality item. For example, vacuum cleaner. Go for the Electrolux you pay off over 12-18 months and keep for 10+ years, as opposed to a new 250 dollar one every year.
When you get kids, use cloth diapering. It's better for them and when done right is cheaper. Cloth for the wife too saves a lot of money.
When getting married, buy simple bands. Ignore the 3X your monthly salary crap. have abasic simple, and cheap wedding. Take the money you would have paid on the wedding and increase your house downpayment or decrease your unsecured debt load.
When starting out buy small cheap cars, keep them maintained, and then go for the house. Don't buy a 2 bedroom house. Starting families should start with a 3 bedroom starter home. Keep the payments low. During the early days, cash flow is extremely important.
Analyze your credit card debt (assuming you have some). Go for the quickest gains in cash flow first, not necessarily the ones with highest rate. Use that increased cash flow to hit the next one, not spend more.
A side note on this here. If you have loans at very low rates, you may not want to pay them off. Student loan at 4-5%? leave it. You can invest that extra you would pay on it to either reduce other debt load or straight out invest it. Do the math, you'll see it is the smart way.
5) sort of agree. IMO one should first aim at having 3 months of your income in liquid form. Then go for another 6 months in 3 month increments of liquidity. For example, 3 months in a money market or other liquid account, and sets of CDs or other semi-liquid investments, and 3 more in an even less liquid. Once you have that, start investing for retirement.
Why the stratification? Less liquid tends to be higher yield. If you have 6-12 months of your income available to you over the course of a year your job is less volitile. If you are less concerned about losing your job, you'll tend to work better. You'll also enjoy not-work time better as well. Not to mention this prod
Actually very little if you look at the biological construction aspect as well as the filed of Emergent Physics.
At lthat level we are talking about manipulating things base don their fundamental (and eventually quantum) characteristics such as positive/negative charge attraction/repulsion, chemical links, etc... No "processing power" is needed to do this, thus no CPU.
Emergent physics tells us that a small specific set of rules can build "complex" results.This is how it is done. err I mean will be done.
"If our interpretation is correct, it could demonstrate the presence of frame dragging near spinning black holes," said Cui."
Not this is an observation, not a TEST. So the two statements are not in conflict. We an observe a thing, but to test for it is to demonstrate a higher order of understanding.
The point was not whether xxx, CIO was used. The point was that Microsofts response to the problem illustrated here has been "it isn't a problem download and use our tools", while they themselves do not.
... oh wait I'm on slashdot nevermind.
This illustrates the underlying problem. Features such as this that require seperate tools to sanitize them will tend to not produced sanitized documents.
The author of the article said that the result of this "exposure" demonstrates a likely need for inline filtering in mail and web publishing systems to correct this MS oversight and stubbornness.
Had many of you read the
[Post version 2.0]
To do the same job? None.
Scientists with a lab can alter their experiment based upon results obtianed. Reobots can only do a limited subset. Once you start even approaching getting close to robotic capability to do the same job, you have far exceeded cost and practicality of human interaction.
Personally, I'm hoping that life is found on every hunk of rock we come across. It will destroy those notions that we are alone in the universe, and more importantly, remove the arrogance on humans towards the rest of the planet and maybe we'll treat it better.
On the flip side, if we never find life then maybe it will still shock us enough that we take care of this little niche of ours.
Neither case is likely given history. Finding new territory has never led to "better care" of the homeland. Discovering or colonizing new land leads to the belief that there is more avilable. It is usually true.
We currently have the technology and know how to colonize the whole of Mars. This progress will cement the capability/knowhow/tech to colonize bare space and/or the asteroid belt. The leassons and tech gained in these processes will lead to more clean tech here on Earth out of necessity and economic value.
What has been shown to lead to better care of environmental concerns is for the given area to grow economically into a more prosperous society. As people are more prosperous they are more interested in non-survival things.
Wel we do have temperature measurements of Mars. If there is volcanic activity, we would see at a minimum the needed temperatures to power it. With a lack of requisite resulting temps, and no visible volcanic activity we could safely conclude it is tectonically/volcanicly not active.
Most of the evidence supports the idea that Sun, AOL/Netscape, and other hi-techs with *vast* lobbying efforts in Washington DC consistently lobbied for a harsh line against MS.
So provide this evidence. I keep hearing this claim, but do not see it. Take a trip to opensecrets.org for one, and do some research. Warning: it will take effort.
Yes, of course. The entire Silicon Valley was in large part a result of the Cold War. That's a Straw Man.
Yes it is, so why did you post it? You posted that the fact that the technology is very similar to other military aspects makes you "dubious about the whole concept". I pointed out that many other dual use technologies have been handled better than not in more than not cases.
The concept is irrelevant to alternate uses. In fact, there is a reason the similarities are there: the laws of physics as we currently know them. An asteroid hurtling toward Earth is little different than an ICBM or anything else hurtling through space to reach a destination. Therefore the mechanics involved in stopping either one will be very similar. Politics is simply not a part of it.
It is one thing to be concerned abotu the use of the techniology, it is anotehr to say that since it could be used fo rotehr purposes or is similar to proposals that serve these other purposes, the whole concept is of dubious nature.
Indeed, dual use is economically a very valid and useful lever. I would be very dubious of proposals to stop, or even track and predict paths of space objects that could be on a collision course with the Earth that proclaimed to NOT have a military aspect, or could not be used for such purposes.
Anything good for tracking an asteroid or comet at range is useful in tracking smaller objects such as satellites, shuttles, space stations, ICBMs, etc.. Anything good for removing the threat of such objects are likely good for doing that to any of those objects (less likely for ICBMs in some cases).
It would be a fallacy to say that since the technologies offered are similar to other technologies that can be used militarily, the whole concept is of dubious or questionable nature. It would be a fallacy similar, if not identical to the logical fallacy known as "Guilt By Association".
The same technology that gave governments air power, gives the rest of us air travel. Air has been militarized. The oceans were militarized, and land was militarized.
Yet somehow, we are expected to believe that the militarization of space is somehow different. No, the militarization of space would be no different than land, sea, or air.
The same military technology for launching nukes is responsible for advanced leading to the medium we are carrying this discussion out on, as well as satllites to carry news etc. over the air and space, or the cell phone, etc..
Technology is neutral.
If we look at the history of "militarization" of land, air, and sea, we will see that it has always followed with much increased civilian explroation and use of the "medium". Therefore, we should not fear the concept of "militarizing space" to be bad. Indeed we should welcome it, given what follows.
Besides, whether you realize it or not, the US military already has domination of space.
I'll believe you if and when SCO's last appeal is dismissed.
...
Wow, someone who doesn't decide what to beleive on their own! Wait all too common
"And tell the men their wine ration is halved."
;) And besides, we have the source. :)
Bah, WINE has an open source license, so we'll be sharing it like crazy.
There is a big difference between limiting liability like you speak of, and making somone immune to prosecution over illegal acts by the "virtue" of them having filed for protection by the government.
Actually, more energy is provided to crops by the sun than we produce. From there your argument begins to fall down.
Adding to that, Pimental's report (referenced in your link) is severely flawed on several accounts. These include using 1979 data; data that is 20+ years old. Current industry averages are showing a +38% energy balance, and technology in development is showing a potential of 162% net balance.
Pimental also refuses to consider the effects of coupling the produciton of ethanol with other technologies and products, such as feed for livestock, cogeneration of electricity from the steam produced, etc.. Further, he makes baseless assumptions (like treating all production as if it were irrigated the way that only 16% of US corn crops are).
We don't need a way to funnel money to corn belt farmers, they already get it through government subsidies. When you call for the elimnation of subsidies for the pil industry, and start complaining of the inefficiencey of oil for energy storage, I'll take your arguments with more than a half-grain of salt. I've seen some estimates of oil based nergy costs being under 50% negative net.
Only 16% of US corn crops are irrigated.
and transport it to the ethanol plant
;)
Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. You put the plants together. duh.
Further, you can use biodiesel and ethanol powered (fuel cell or combusiton) on the farm/transport equipment, thus reducing the costs.
Fact is, the industry is averaging a +38% gain. Apparently some have figured it out.
insightful? Bah! The parent post is lacking any insight, just pessimism.
It takes about 30% more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol that one gets out of burning that same gallon of ethanol. Therefore, each gallon of ethanol pumpled into a car and burnt for energy represents a net energy loss.
Note that this is not in TFA. This is also very outdated information. When you remove the energy "contributed" by the sun in the process of growing the biomass (assuming you use biomass of course), and count the energy cost we humans expend creating ethanol in today's processes, it is a net *gain*. What you said was true two decades ago. But it is no longer true.
You may be basing your "data" off the Pimental study. However, there are sever flaws with that "study". First of all, Pimentel used a 1979 estimate for the energy used to manufacture ethanol of 70,000 BTU/gal.
While it is true that first generation ethanol plants used up to 120,000 BTU/gal of ethanol. A far back as 2000, a state of the art dry mill requires about 38,000 BTU thermal and 1 kw-h (3,413 BTU) electric per gallon. That is approximately 34% less BTU in this one aspect alone.
When you soncsider that corn production (what Pimental focused on) has had a net yield increase of a little more than 50% while the energy inputs required to get that yield have decreased, it becomes very clear that the facts have changed since 1979.
As if that wasn't enough, Pimentel noted that 16% of US corn is irrigated but includes an irrigation energy cost as if it applies to *all* corn. He also refused to acknowledge the possibilty and use of co-generation and co-products.
Specifically, for every 100 BTUs we expend in the production of corn ethanol, 135 BTUs are produced. A net gain of 38 BTUs on average.
This change is due to three primary factors:
* We have become more efficient in farming's enegy consumption
* We have learned more about the process of conversion to ethanol, and have gotten more efficient at it
* The production of corn ethanol has co-products (things we can sell other than ethanol), thus distributing the energy load
However, as many have said it is a waste to convert A to B to C to burn C or use it in a fuel cell. Converting ethanol to Hydrogen wil take more energy, thus resulting in a loss if the energy for the conversion is greater than the net gain in the production of ethanol.
On the other hand, let us assume a 15% energy cost of ethanol. How does that compare to the net energy cost of fossil fuels? Very favorably.
Indeed, Cellulosic Crop-Based Ethanol shows a potential +162% increase in energy balance. How does that compare? Damned well, IMO. Even compared to the current industry average of a +38% balance.
(and yes this accounts for irrigation, fuel, transport, heating etc.).
Other techniques that have helped increase the energy efficiency of ethanol is co-generation. The steam produced during the process can be used to power steam turbines, thus producing additional power to be added to the grid. This increases net energy gain.
Below is an example of cogeneration:
"The Russell Municipal power plant uses two Solar(TM) Taurus 70 single-cycle gas turbines, rated at a total 15 Mwe (Augustine, 2001, personal communication). The turbines' waste heat passes through a heat recovery boiler that generates steam used to heat the mash at the adjacent United States Energy Partners Ethanol plant. The waste heat from the heat recovery boiler is also used by the USEP ethanol plant for the purpose of drying the Distillers' Dried Grains."
Co-products tend to be cattle feed supplement (from the dried distillate). Others include CO2.
Other potential industry links is an increase in efficiency in extracting oil from existing wells by coupling the facilities.
The real problem with using ethanol in automotive applicaitonsis the cold weather start issue. However, an 85%ethanol 15% gasoline mix resolves this issue quite well. It is called E85. Given the positive effects and efficiency
Following on the heels of the recently formed MUDDA, is the Fantastic Association of Downloading Digital Artists (FADDA).
In an interesting move, the two associations will be headquartered in Camp Grenada, a small relatively unknown town in western Montana.
A joint press conference was scheduled, but cancelled due to rain, according to Director of Public Relations, Mr. A. Sherman.
Funny how the google.com cache page for orkut.com includes "Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.".
:)
Of course, the same thing happens when you see Google's cahce fo Google.com. They index themselves.
I teach System Admin. Had a class this week in fact. Used the man page on crontab to do it, and it included examples right there in the manpage.
That is taken from the man page for crontab, section 5, from RH9/Fedora. I also contains a detailed description of each field.
parent is modded too high; should be "misleading" but that category is slightly missing.
Campaign contributions have a limit before disclosure is required. Five bucks is below it.
Actually, they're trying to preserve the right to make money maintaining accurate databases of information.
A) There is no such right to preserve.
B) This act does not do what you say it does. A copyright provides you with the legal permission to force others to not do things w/o your permission.
After all, nothing stops you from making the same investment and opening it to the public (freedb, anyone?). This just stops you from riding the coattails of somebody else's hard work without their permission.
Sure, until they sue you claiming you copied their data since the data will be the same or subsets will. Then, the burden is on you to prove your innocence. That is wrong.
The database rights cover facts
No it covers the compilation itself.