Basically, at the point where you might consider it on a large scale, it's generally just easier to use fresh or drinking quality recycled water.
Easier is not the issue here, sustainability is. There's no question that if you continually pump more from aquifers than goes in you will have problems.
Yes, but my point was that you end up needing to use a lot of energy to treat the water anyway. Leaving yourself with a product which has to be carefully handled by farmers (marginal sewage) is not necessarily a great improvement.
It's not like water is hard to purify - but it is energy intensive, which is what this all boils down to.
The problem is most water on the planet is full of salt. You can't use salt-laden "grey water" to grow things.
You also want to take some care to ensure it's not full of heavy metals. Then there's the problem of whether other contaminants would be ignored or absorbed by plants.
Basically, at the point where you might consider it on a large scale, it's generally just easier to use fresh or drinking quality recycled water.
Any game which has to be R18+ is presently completely illegal in Australia.
Ones which don't have to be are shoehorned inappropriately into the M15+ classification.
This is a whole section of obviously good legal reform which has been held up by special interest groups for over a decade because the general public just doesn't care (changing now since the average gamer age is approaching 30, to bad those in power tend to be 50-60).
Of course if I had my way, it would be illegal to "ban" anything that didn't take actual illegal activity to produce, and replaced with guidelines on distribution and public display.
These days NASA probably shouldn't be in the chemical rocketry business at all. We need some fundamentally new, and potentially cheaper ways of accessing low Earth orbit.
Ion engines, launch loops, space fountains or space elevators - whatever. NASA needs a general mandate to discover the next technology we should be moving to, not to refine something which we've got plenty of commercial interest in already doing.
There's a big problem in the US and around the world in an overemphasis on applied, rather then fundamental science, and the problems that NASA has with its current space vehicle program would seem to reflect that (whereas the deep space observatories and unmanned probes have been wildly successful - in each case, setting out to do something brand new).
your floor-heater (the single most inefficient way imaginable to heat a space)
I'm going with burning $100 bills as being even less efficient (and more toxic). But yes they are inefficient if you are using them improperly. Used to heat a single occupied room, while allowing the rest of the structure to be much cooler is more efficient than heating the whole house just to keep that one room comfortable. -nB
The general point is that the original example which referred to "things which use electricity" as the proper metric demonstrated woeful inconsideration of the power consumption of modern technology and efficiency improvements - with the space-heater being a really good example of that. That one appliance would've used more power the just about everything else he listed put together.
Long-half life radioactive elements aren't much danger since they're actually far less radioactive. It's all about the total volume of emitters present.
It's about time we did something to address our growing energy needs.
Now if we can get politicians to quit treating building more oil refining capacity as a political football, we might take another meaningful step toward energy independence.
How about if we use less energy? Sound familiar?
I remember when I didn't have seven items in the same room needing an outlet - there was a TV, a lamp and maybe a small floor heater. Now I have a computer, with a monitor, a sound system and a laser printer, each with its own cord. The item in the room consuming the most power is the computer. Further, I have various wall-wart powered devices, which are on less frequently. I don't think my electric needs are unique, either. With 100 million people on computers, whether at home or work, we're chewing through the watts like crazy, even with energy saving lamps.
Do you know that the refrigerator you buy today, holds 3 times as much, and uses 3 times less electricity, then one you could buy in the 1970s?
Also: if your computer is consuming more power then your floor-heater (the single most inefficient way imaginable to heat a space) then you've got real problems.
As to fusion, we need to stop shooting for the "ideal purist" approach of fusion-only energy, and look into subcritical fission reactors using fusion as a neutron source as a stepping stone. Pure fusion is the ideal final goal, but we'll never get there without a more short-term realizable intermediary step of some sort.
This is silly. There's been enormous progress on fusion over the decades. ITER may be the first time we actually achieve long term self-sustaining reactions.
But there's practically no cross-over between fusion neutron sources, and fusion energy sources. If you want a neutron source, build a Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor and save yourself a lot of time and trouble - but those things will never be self-sustaining (unless Polywell's work out, but it seems more like those were a badly monitored experiment then real progress).
No, we can dramatically reduce the energy consumption of certain tasks. But the net effect of most energy efficiency measures is simply an increase in productivity - not a reduction in aggregate demand.
Energy efficiency has close to no point to it if it is not met with the possibility of reducing energy consumption below some key number where it still pollutes the environment.
Even if you dump cash into fusion, you still end up with a nuclear waste issue. Fusion kicks out a lot of neutrons, so activated radioactivity is a real problem when you decommission reactors.
So you know, other then the discoveries which led to the entirety of the modern age - oh, and you know, also the internet - this is all a real waste huh?
It's still a problem though. You would expect if you revoked a certificate to be able to give a timeframe in which the revocation should be applied (i.e. how long ago do I think it became compromised?)
I don't know what point you think you're making here.
In the digital age, being a MitM for [i]every[/i] conversation of interest is very easy - if you can do it once, you can do it pretty much ad nauseum. The whole point of encryption is the fundamental recognition that modern communications let's just about anybody listen in, at any time, without too much trouble.
ZFSonLinux's speed isn't really up there yet on Linux.
It might only be a home system, but that to my mind makes it more important: I'd like to spend as little time maintaining as possible and that means I want to saturate my gigabit NIC when I need to.
This is more the issue that corporations are legally structured like this. Like, a CEO is legally obliged to maximize shareholder profit. Notionally, of course, we're supposed to have a government and judiciary that act in direct opposition to this, and thus eek out the appropriate compromise. In practice this seems to have been lost on the government side (the US Supreme Court still seems to do an alright job of things within their mandate).
CNC is the answer to this really (though don't take my word for it, since I have a small CNC currently non-functional while I try to rig up a better spindle for exactly this type of task).
I don't know about that. You couldn't go to 45 nm, but 1 um is a pretty accessible feature size by UV light based processes, and more then enough to produce basic microcontrollers. The real problem is finding sufficiently pure semiconductor material - but on the other hand, at 1um you're far less susceptible to having your chip wiped out by an imperfection.
I've always wondered this too - and I suspect your conclusion is in fact the reality, judging from the number of scientific processes which depend on exactly this idea (or are absurdly reproducible by it - such as how STM tips for atomic resolution can be made with wire cutters and platinum-iridium wire - because one atom will always be slightly closer then the others).
This is where I exist on my current desire for one of these. Having just spent a few hours hacksawing a plastic gizmo apart then trying to figure out how to mount some more securely fitted batteries to it, I'm struck by the notion that it would've been really nice to just 3D print a slightly more snug battery compartment.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, at the point where you might consider it on a large scale, it's generally just easier to use fresh or drinking quality recycled water.
Easier is not the issue here, sustainability is. There's no question that if you continually pump more from aquifers than goes in you will have problems.
Yes, but my point was that you end up needing to use a lot of energy to treat the water anyway. Leaving yourself with a product which has to be carefully handled by farmers (marginal sewage) is not necessarily a great improvement.
It's not like water is hard to purify - but it is energy intensive, which is what this all boils down to.
The problem is most water on the planet is full of salt. You can't use salt-laden "grey water" to grow things.
You also want to take some care to ensure it's not full of heavy metals. Then there's the problem of whether other contaminants would be ignored or absorbed by plants.
Basically, at the point where you might consider it on a large scale, it's generally just easier to use fresh or drinking quality recycled water.
Or, as the guy above you said, just typing:
Any game which has to be R18+ is presently completely illegal in Australia.
Ones which don't have to be are shoehorned inappropriately into the M15+ classification.
This is a whole section of obviously good legal reform which has been held up by special interest groups for over a decade because the general public just doesn't care (changing now since the average gamer age is approaching 30, to bad those in power tend to be 50-60).
Of course if I had my way, it would be illegal to "ban" anything that didn't take actual illegal activity to produce, and replaced with guidelines on distribution and public display.
These days NASA probably shouldn't be in the chemical rocketry business at all. We need some fundamentally new, and potentially cheaper ways of accessing low Earth orbit.
Ion engines, launch loops, space fountains or space elevators - whatever. NASA needs a general mandate to discover the next technology we should be moving to, not to refine something which we've got plenty of commercial interest in already doing.
There's a big problem in the US and around the world in an overemphasis on applied, rather then fundamental science, and the problems that NASA has with its current space vehicle program would seem to reflect that (whereas the deep space observatories and unmanned probes have been wildly successful - in each case, setting out to do something brand new).
The stupidity of donkey voting aside, leaving the ballot slip blank is an invitation for someone to vote on your behalf.
As for scaling up the device, one need only look here to see its tremendous potential.
"Tremendous potential"? It needs 40-70 kV to lift its massive weight of 6 grams - what does its power source weigh?
"Volts" is not a measure of energy.
Uh, that's exactly the sort of timeframe cancer takes.
You don't get melanoma shortly after you get sunburn.
your floor-heater (the single most inefficient way imaginable to heat a space)
I'm going with burning $100 bills as being even less efficient (and more toxic). But yes they are inefficient if you are using them improperly. Used to heat a single occupied room, while allowing the rest of the structure to be much cooler is more efficient than heating the whole house just to keep that one room comfortable.
-nB
It would still be more efficient to get a reverse cycle air-conditioner or a heat pump. And, if your house was insulated properly, then heating the whole thing can be substantially cheaper too.
The general point is that the original example which referred to "things which use electricity" as the proper metric demonstrated woeful inconsideration of the power consumption of modern technology and efficiency improvements - with the space-heater being a really good example of that. That one appliance would've used more power the just about everything else he listed put together.
Half-life doesn't work that way.
Long-half life radioactive elements aren't much danger since they're actually far less radioactive. It's all about the total volume of emitters present.
It's about time we did something to address our growing energy needs.
Now if we can get politicians to quit treating building more oil refining capacity as a political football, we might take another meaningful step toward energy independence.
How about if we use less energy? Sound familiar?
I remember when I didn't have seven items in the same room needing an outlet - there was a TV, a lamp and maybe a small floor heater. Now I have a computer, with a monitor, a sound system and a laser printer, each with its own cord. The item in the room consuming the most power is the computer. Further, I have various wall-wart powered devices, which are on less frequently. I don't think my electric needs are unique, either. With 100 million people on computers, whether at home or work, we're chewing through the watts like crazy, even with energy saving lamps.
Do you know that the refrigerator you buy today, holds 3 times as much, and uses 3 times less electricity, then one you could buy in the 1970s?
Also: if your computer is consuming more power then your floor-heater (the single most inefficient way imaginable to heat a space) then you've got real problems.
As to fusion, we need to stop shooting for the "ideal purist" approach of fusion-only energy, and look into subcritical fission reactors using fusion as a neutron source as a stepping stone. Pure fusion is the ideal final goal, but we'll never get there without a more short-term realizable intermediary step of some sort.
This is silly. There's been enormous progress on fusion over the decades. ITER may be the first time we actually achieve long term self-sustaining reactions.
But there's practically no cross-over between fusion neutron sources, and fusion energy sources. If you want a neutron source, build a Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor and save yourself a lot of time and trouble - but those things will never be self-sustaining (unless Polywell's work out, but it seems more like those were a badly monitored experiment then real progress).
No, we can dramatically reduce the energy consumption of certain tasks. But the net effect of most energy efficiency measures is simply an increase in productivity - not a reduction in aggregate demand.
Energy efficiency has close to no point to it if it is not met with the possibility of reducing energy consumption below some key number where it still pollutes the environment.
Even if you dump cash into fusion, you still end up with a nuclear waste issue. Fusion kicks out a lot of neutrons, so activated radioactivity is a real problem when you decommission reactors.
So you know, other then the discoveries which led to the entirety of the modern age - oh, and you know, also the internet - this is all a real waste huh?
It's still a problem though. You would expect if you revoked a certificate to be able to give a timeframe in which the revocation should be applied (i.e. how long ago do I think it became compromised?)
If you have Pidgin I believe you can at the very least use OTR messaging through Facebook chat directly.
OTR-Pidgin is pretty much perfectly implemented as far as cryptography and end-users go in my opinion, and I wish more people would pick it up.
Huh, there's been some improvements I guess. I should give it another look (since I'm running XFS on RAID6 at the moment).
I don't know what point you think you're making here.
In the digital age, being a MitM for [i]every[/i] conversation of interest is very easy - if you can do it once, you can do it pretty much ad nauseum. The whole point of encryption is the fundamental recognition that modern communications let's just about anybody listen in, at any time, without too much trouble.
ZFSonLinux's speed isn't really up there yet on Linux.
It might only be a home system, but that to my mind makes it more important: I'd like to spend as little time maintaining as possible and that means I want to saturate my gigabit NIC when I need to.
This is more the issue that corporations are legally structured like this. Like, a CEO is legally obliged to maximize shareholder profit. Notionally, of course, we're supposed to have a government and judiciary that act in direct opposition to this, and thus eek out the appropriate compromise. In practice this seems to have been lost on the government side (the US Supreme Court still seems to do an alright job of things within their mandate).
CNC is the answer to this really (though don't take my word for it, since I have a small CNC currently non-functional while I try to rig up a better spindle for exactly this type of task).
I don't know about that. You couldn't go to 45 nm, but 1 um is a pretty accessible feature size by UV light based processes, and more then enough to produce basic microcontrollers. The real problem is finding sufficiently pure semiconductor material - but on the other hand, at 1um you're far less susceptible to having your chip wiped out by an imperfection.
I've always wondered this too - and I suspect your conclusion is in fact the reality, judging from the number of scientific processes which depend on exactly this idea (or are absurdly reproducible by it - such as how STM tips for atomic resolution can be made with wire cutters and platinum-iridium wire - because one atom will always be slightly closer then the others).
This is where I exist on my current desire for one of these. Having just spent a few hours hacksawing a plastic gizmo apart then trying to figure out how to mount some more securely fitted batteries to it, I'm struck by the notion that it would've been really nice to just 3D print a slightly more snug battery compartment.