And what makes you think ANYTHING will be checked and doublechecked? After all, nobody ever makes mistakes, the system will never be cracked, and it will only be used for legitimate purposes...
So, I guess the real question is, after reading the pdf, how much of the stuff could we realistically make?
Using current technology with current yields, it is energy neutral (positive when you add in the coproducts). It will likely improve. One of the main benefits seems to be replacing (imported) oil with domestic energy sources (coal, NG, hydro). Farmland is limited. Corn is also used as feed (and food). Other products such as waste straw and wood could be used, but they also have other uses.... Some oil and gas is still needed to make it. Lots of other energy is required (electricity = coal, hydro, nuclear). Would be curious to know how much imported oil we could replace. Probably more than I think (insignificant) but a lot less than many people hope (energy independence).
I understand why you would want to encrypt email. But in most cases is there really much of a point?
When it is encrypted no one can read it, so it is reasonably safe from prying eyes but it is also useless to the intended recipient.
Once it isn't encrypted the recipient can now read it. They can also print it out, tell everybody about it, publish it in the paper, and/or forward it to a million of their closest friends, heck their email program could even do it for them:)
If you are worried about a stranger reading your email I suspect the greatest threat is once the email reaches its destination and no encryption is going to help there..... Yes, it would help when the data is on someone elses computer, but if you don't physically control the data, is the data really yours anymore, no matter how well encrypted it is?
Just one question. If the Supreme Court of the United States of America says it does not violate the Constition then how can it be illegal?
It could still be considered by some to be immoral, unjust, unfair, etc., but by definition it cannot be illegal.
Bush was legally elected. Period. You are free not to like it and it is even possible that at a later date the Supreme Court may even rule differently in a similar case. But at the present time, what happened in Florida (and in the rest of the U.S. as a result) was legal.
Currently manufacturers are starting to do life cycle assessments for their products. Basically a cradle to grave analyis of environmental 'performance'. Kind of interesting to read actually.
Found these studies for a geology course (impact of SUV's - mainly how big a hole do you have to dig to produce one). They try to quantify a lot of stuff-energy during different phases, materials production, manufacturing, use, end of life, materials used, outputs (pollutants), and so on.
In one study, based on a real car (actually an average of three cars-1995 Intrepid/Lumina/Taurus), 84% of the energy consumed (974 Gigajoules total) was during use. Use generated 87% of the CO2, 94% of the CO, 90% of the NOx, 62% of the SOx. Assumed a life of 120,000 miles. Manufacturing and materials production was 14% of the energy. 65% of the particulates, 34% of the SOx. These numbers come from the USCAR AMP Project, more specifically a SAE paper #982160.
They account for a lot of the processes that go in to making fuel, raw materials, etc. Impressive work. Probably significant potential error.
Unfortunately, you really can't compare it to a old car without some numbers:(
I seem to have a paper right here in front of me with some useful information. A bit redundant since I have posted it elsewhere but oh well...
To summarize. Car use accounts for approx. 84% of the energy expended in the life cycle of a car. Recycling itself (crushing) is insignificant. Material production and manufacturing is about 14%.
Oh, and btw, 1990-spec emissions are now 14 years out of date. So meeting them isn't too impressive.
Yep, you read that correctly. The amount of fuel that powers the car is the primary energy expenditure. I didnt realize that until I looked at some of the literature.
Some numbers from a Life Cycle Inventory (USCAR AMP Project) noted Paper 982160 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Operational Phase: 84% of the energy Material Production and Manufacturing: 14% The rest would include mining and disposal.
Granted, one can argue about environmental impacts of the various activities, but the LCI does not deal with this.
This is based on a "life" of 120,000 years of a 1995 sedan (average of Intrepid/Lumina/Taurus). But your Volvo isn't going to be much different.
Oh, and cars running on catalytic converters with unleaded gas tend to have fewer emissions than those running on leaded fuel without cat. converters.:) This has been demonstrated. Not sure what carcinogens you are referring to (perhaps additives such as MTBE? - but I belive gasoline or some of the substances in gasoline such as benzene are).
You are of course aware of the massive amounts of lead released into the environment by the use of leaded fuels? They are found in lake sediments anywhere powered boats where/are used. Lead released by motor vehicles also had a habit of accumulating in people who lived near roadways...causing lead poisoning
That's interesting. Because in my experience, most small stores have bad atmosphere, useless salespeople, bad demos, etc and much higher prices. In other words, the big chain stores are actually a step up! (and they wonder why they go out of business when Walmart comes to town-it isn't purely because of price....)
If I find a store like yours locally, I wouldn't waste my time ordering online to save a few percent. Of course, my general rule is that if I find the store helpful, I buy there. It's a pity that many people aren't like that (clueless or are jerks-take your pick).
The thing is, with the internet, you are competing with a much larger group of people. If only a few stores get it "right" (or in my experience merely better) they can easily bury many local stores that have been on autopilot to oblivion for years.
I have always wondered why on a driving test (which in theory tests your ability to both drive a car and obey traffic laws...) they ask you to back up around a corner?!?
I suspect if I did that anywhere near a police officer at any time other than during a driving test, I would receive a very nice ticket....
I realize this is probably to test your ability to back up, but geez, could we do something that wouldn't get me a ticket in real life?
"since the numerous pedestrians are forced to run for their lives in the absence of crosswalks and signals"
I think the term is jaywalking. Unless there is an implied crosswalk this means that the pedestrians are also "self-absorbed assholes" to use your terminology.
Unfortunately, crossing such a road would be dangerous if the cars were going 60, 40, or if there was a crosswalk or a light.
I have heard of someone who used a fake (foam) brick. Apparently worked like a charm....
You believe incorrectly. There have been multiple ice ages in Earth's geologic history. During the Permian and late Proterozoic for instance. Less extensive or more poorly constrained events happened at other times (Carboniferous, Ordivician and Silurian, and earlier in the Proterozoic, etc.)
Uh huh. And how many days do you think we would still have this mythical flat tax?
Congresscritter 1: "Well, let's see, I think we should allow a deduction for 'foo'"
Congresscritter 2: "Excellent idea. How about a deduction for 'bar'"
And on it goes...
The tax code didn't get this way because the IRS wanted it this way. It got this way because various people (presidents, the congress, the public, etc.) wanted certain things encouraged (or discouraged).
That's funny, not every optically scanned test I have taken has required a pencil. Some scanners can read ink.
Such as the one used at the polling site....
Near as I can tell it was a combination of a number of things: 1. poor calibration by the site worker (noted in article)
2. poor documentation by the manufacturer and election office- If for some reason you can't just turn it on and use it there had better be directions and in this case extremely complete (which obviously weren't)
3. poor design-yes poor design- Look it's an optical reader, yes?no? it reads marks on paper made in circles (I assume), in theory it should read marks in any color of any composition of the proper orientation that are placed in those circles. As the person using the machine or setting it up I don't really care what type of pen is used and probably wouldn't give it a second thought. Heck, make it calibrate automatically for all supported ink types, with an election site supervisor checking with a supplied card...
Requiring a specific pen/pencil just adds another failure point. Make the machine idiot proof. It's for an election. Money really isn't an object here folks. This problem may be hard but it isn't rocket science...
But even without a verification system the fiasco in Florida could have been avoided.
How?
If the law had been clear about what was a vote. IIRC, an official in Ohio (where I live) noted if a at least two corners are punched it is a vote, if not it isn't. Granted not all votes will be counted, but at least you have a clear procedure.
Florida had (has?) no such clearly written law.
We (politicians, public) seem to be missing the fact that most problems are procedural and not technological.
Shiny new machines are just going to give us shiny new problems if we don't think long and hard about all the potential problems....
Problem is, according to the article at least, the iPod which you state has
"a relatively healthly profit margin."
seem to be depressing Apple's overall profit margin. I suspect that the low end unit has a rather low profit margin, much less than their computers. Certainly higher than iTunes of course.
If it doesn't drive the adoption of other Apple hardware (higher margin), I suspect it would be considered less than a total success. The iPod is a low margin mass produced consumer electronics device in the end - others can make similar products cheaper.
In the end, Apple isn't going anywhere. They have a lot of money. But I think the analyst is correct in stating that they make nice stuff but they are a poor investment.
However, based on the following that might not make any difference...
"Add to that the obscurity bit - "No, we're not going to publish the parameters, so that bad guys cannot predict how to beat the system""
In theory, if the system works, it doesn't matter if you know the parameters...
Now if the system doesn't work, doesn't have a chance in hell of working, and those in charge know this, well then yes, hiding the parameters is good (especially from the public-we don't want to be embarrassed after all)
>"Well, yes, if the book has been written by people. But if it's been written by God, that's different"
Of course the bible was written by people.:) Who said it was the word of God. Problems, problems, problems.:) As near as I can tell most (all?) morals are based on an appeal to authority. In other words, don't do it because we said it was bad.
>..."Observing conventional proprities in speech, behavior, or dress".
Sounds about right. Of course what's conventional depends upon the location or say if you are a nudist.... More importantly, was a breast really bared? Most of it was covered. Heck, I've seen students in class at OSU that bared as much. Oops, wouldn't that be considered conventional dress.:)
I was wondering if someone would mention this.. Unfortunately music amplification is not limited to musicals.
The reason that I don't go to "live" music - for instance orchestras - is that virtually all of the performances that I have attended have been amplified. That is a microphone is used to amplify the sound and play them over speakers that are probably crappier than what I have in my home stereo system. One of the purposes of going to live performances is to hear the instruments unamplified. Otherwise I might as well buy a CD of a better performance and listen to it at home!
"One technical question, how do rubrics factor in 'effort' or 'heart'? How do they rate perhaps non-exceptional students who push themselves to the best of their abilities against the more gifted slackers."
Why should they factor in "effort" or "heart"? A 'C' is supposed to be average work, an 'A' superior, etc. If the "non-exceptional" student does 'C' work then he/she should get a 'C'! That's why they are a non-exceptional student.
Grades indirectly measure intelligence. Intelligence is not distributed equally. While motivation can make up for a lot, it may not be enough. It may not be fair that a "gifted slacker" does better on an essay than someone who works their behind off. Tough. That's life.
Slashdot Mirror
And what makes you think ANYTHING will be checked and doublechecked?
After all, nobody ever makes mistakes, the system will never be cracked, and it will only be used for legitimate purposes...
So, I guess the real question is, after reading the pdf, how much of the stuff could we realistically make?
Using current technology with current yields, it is energy neutral (positive when you add in the coproducts). It will likely improve. One of the main benefits seems to be replacing (imported) oil with domestic energy sources (coal, NG, hydro).
Farmland is limited. Corn is also used as feed (and food). Other products such as waste straw and wood could be used, but they also have other uses.... Some oil and gas is still needed to make it. Lots of other energy is required (electricity = coal, hydro, nuclear).
Would be curious to know how much imported oil we could replace. Probably more than I think (insignificant) but a lot less than many people hope (energy independence).
Thanks for the link. Didn't realize there were updated figures. Actually learned something today :)
I understand why you would want to encrypt email. But in most cases is there really much of a point?
:)
When it is encrypted no one can read it, so it is reasonably safe from prying eyes but it is also useless to the intended recipient.
Once it isn't encrypted the recipient can now read it. They can also print it out, tell everybody about it, publish it in the paper, and/or forward it to a million of their closest friends, heck their email program could even do it for them
If you are worried about a stranger reading your email I suspect the greatest threat is once the email reaches its destination and no encryption is going to help there..... Yes, it would help when the data is on someone elses computer, but if you don't physically control the data, is the data really yours anymore, no matter how well encrypted it is?
Just one question. If the Supreme Court of the United States of America says it does not violate the Constition then how can it be illegal?
It could still be considered by some to be immoral, unjust, unfair, etc., but by definition it cannot be illegal.
Bush was legally elected. Period. You are free not to like it and it is even possible that at a later date the Supreme Court may even rule differently in a similar case. But at the present time, what happened in Florida (and in the rest of the U.S. as a result) was legal.
Currently manufacturers are starting to do life cycle assessments for their products. Basically a cradle to grave analyis of environmental 'performance'. Kind of interesting to read actually.
:(
Found these studies for a geology course (impact of SUV's - mainly how big a hole do you have to dig to produce one). They try to quantify a lot of stuff-energy during different phases, materials production, manufacturing, use, end of life, materials used, outputs (pollutants), and so on.
In one study, based on a real car (actually an average of three cars-1995 Intrepid/Lumina/Taurus), 84% of the energy consumed (974 Gigajoules total) was during use. Use generated 87% of the CO2, 94% of the CO, 90% of the NOx, 62% of the SOx. Assumed a life of 120,000 miles.
Manufacturing and materials production was 14% of the energy. 65% of the particulates, 34% of the SOx. These numbers come from the USCAR AMP Project, more specifically a SAE paper #982160.
They account for a lot of the processes that go in to making fuel, raw materials, etc. Impressive work. Probably significant potential error.
Unfortunately, you really can't compare it to a old car without some numbers
Obviously someone hasn't looked up the figures?
I seem to have a paper right here in front of me with some useful information. A bit redundant since I have posted it elsewhere but oh well...
To summarize. Car use accounts for approx. 84% of the energy expended in the life cycle of a car. Recycling itself (crushing) is insignificant. Material production and manufacturing is about 14%.
Oh, and btw, 1990-spec emissions are now 14 years out of date. So meeting them isn't too impressive.
than it takes to make it.
:) This has been demonstrated. Not sure what carcinogens you are referring to (perhaps additives such as MTBE? - but I belive gasoline or some of the substances in gasoline such as benzene are).
Yep, you read that correctly. The amount of fuel that powers the car is the primary energy expenditure. I didnt realize that until I looked at some of the literature.
Some numbers from a Life Cycle Inventory (USCAR AMP Project) noted Paper 982160 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Operational Phase: 84% of the energy
Material Production and Manufacturing: 14%
The rest would include mining and disposal.
Granted, one can argue about environmental impacts of the various activities, but the LCI does not deal with this.
This is based on a "life" of 120,000 years of a 1995 sedan (average of Intrepid/Lumina/Taurus). But your Volvo isn't going to be much different.
Oh, and cars running on catalytic converters with unleaded gas tend to have fewer emissions than those running on leaded fuel without cat. converters.
You are of course aware of the massive amounts of lead released into the environment by the use of leaded fuels? They are found in lake sediments anywhere powered boats where/are used. Lead released by motor vehicles also had a habit of accumulating in people who lived near roadways...causing lead poisoning
That's interesting. Because in my experience, most small stores have bad atmosphere, useless salespeople, bad demos, etc and much higher prices. In other words, the big chain stores are actually a step up! (and they wonder why they go out of business when Walmart comes to town-it isn't purely because of price....)
If I find a store like yours locally, I wouldn't waste my time ordering online to save a few percent. Of course, my general rule is that if I find the store helpful, I buy there. It's a pity that many people aren't like that (clueless or are jerks-take your pick).
The thing is, with the internet, you are competing with a much larger group of people. If only a few stores get it "right" (or in my experience merely better) they can easily bury many local stores that have been on autopilot to oblivion for years.
I have always wondered why on a driving test (which in theory tests your ability to both drive a car and obey traffic laws...) they ask you to back up around a corner?!?
I suspect if I did that anywhere near a police officer at any time other than during a driving test, I would receive a very nice ticket....
I realize this is probably to test your ability to back up, but geez, could we do something that wouldn't get me a ticket in real life?
"since the numerous pedestrians are forced to run for their lives in the absence of crosswalks and signals"
I think the term is jaywalking. Unless there is an implied crosswalk this means that the pedestrians are also "self-absorbed assholes" to use your terminology.
Unfortunately, crossing such a road would be dangerous if the cars were going 60, 40, or if there was a crosswalk or a light.
I have heard of someone who used a fake (foam) brick. Apparently worked like a charm....
You believe incorrectly. There have been multiple ice ages in Earth's geologic history. During the Permian and late Proterozoic for instance. Less extensive or more poorly constrained events happened at other times (Carboniferous, Ordivician and Silurian, and earlier in the Proterozoic, etc.)
Uh huh. And how many days do you think we would still have this mythical flat tax?
Congresscritter 1: "Well, let's see, I think we should allow a deduction for 'foo'"
Congresscritter 2: "Excellent idea. How about a deduction for 'bar'"
And on it goes...
The tax code didn't get this way because the IRS wanted it this way. It got this way because various people (presidents, the congress, the public, etc.) wanted certain things encouraged (or discouraged).
but does it have the proverbial kitchen sink?
:)
Or is the heat sink merely that heavy?
Juuussst kidding.
That's funny, not every optically scanned test I have taken has required a pencil. Some scanners can read ink.
Such as the one used at the polling site....
Near as I can tell it was a combination of a number of things:
1. poor calibration by the site worker (noted in article)
2. poor documentation by the manufacturer and election office-
If for some reason you can't just turn it on and use it there had better be directions and in this case extremely complete (which obviously weren't)
3. poor design-yes poor design-
Look it's an optical reader, yes?no? it reads marks on paper made in circles (I assume), in theory it should read marks in any color of any composition of the proper orientation that are placed in those circles.
As the person using the machine or setting it up I don't really care what type of pen is used and probably wouldn't give it a second thought. Heck, make it calibrate automatically for all supported ink types, with an election site supervisor checking with a supplied card...
Requiring a specific pen/pencil just adds another failure point. Make the machine idiot proof. It's for an election. Money really isn't an object here folks.
This problem may be hard but it isn't rocket science...
True. Verification after the fact is good.
But even without a verification system the fiasco in Florida could have been avoided.
How?
If the law had been clear about what was a vote. IIRC, an official in Ohio (where I live) noted if a at least two corners are punched it is a vote, if not it isn't. Granted not all votes will be counted, but at least you have a clear procedure.
Florida had (has?) no such clearly written law.
We (politicians, public) seem to be missing the fact that most problems are procedural and not technological.
Shiny new machines are just going to give us shiny new problems if we don't think long and hard about all the potential problems....
Problem is, according to the article at least, the iPod which you state has
"a relatively healthly profit margin."
seem to be depressing Apple's overall profit margin. I suspect that the low end unit has a rather low profit margin, much less than their computers. Certainly higher than iTunes of course.
If it doesn't drive the adoption of other Apple hardware (higher margin), I suspect it would be considered less than a total success. The iPod is a low margin mass produced consumer electronics device in the end - others can make similar products cheaper.
In the end, Apple isn't going anywhere. They have a lot of money. But I think the analyst is correct in stating that they make nice stuff but they are a poor investment.
Agree with your first point :)
However, based on the following that might not make any difference...
"Add to that the obscurity bit - "No, we're not going to publish the parameters, so that bad guys cannot predict how to beat the system""
In theory, if the system works, it doesn't matter if you know the parameters...
Now if the system doesn't work, doesn't have a chance in hell of working, and those in charge know this, well then yes, hiding the parameters is good (especially from the public-we don't want to be embarrassed after all)
>"Well, yes, if the book has been written by people. But if it's been written by God, that's different"
:) Who said it was the word of God. Problems, problems, problems. :)
:)
Of course the bible was written by people.
As near as I can tell most (all?) morals are based on an appeal to authority. In other words, don't do it because we said it was bad.
>..."Observing conventional proprities in speech, behavior, or dress".
Sounds about right. Of course what's conventional depends upon the location or say if you are a nudist....
More importantly, was a breast really bared? Most of it was covered. Heck, I've seen students in class at OSU that bared as much. Oops, wouldn't that be considered conventional dress.
"Hm. I'm not sure. How would an atheist arrive at a moral standard? And when he arrived at one, wouldn't it be a bit arbitrary?"
No more arbitrary than basing morals on a book...
"Sure, 1st Timothy 2:9 - "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel..."."
Doesn't say that baring a breast is wrong. What is modest apparel anyway?
Well, if you had actually read the article, you would know that it was mentioned on page 5.
So, what you are saying is that God is somewhat akin to the typical manager/CEO/leader?
Hmm, that much be the smell of burning karma...
I was wondering if someone would mention this.. Unfortunately music amplification is not limited to musicals.
The reason that I don't go to "live" music - for instance orchestras - is that virtually all of the performances that I have attended have been amplified. That is a microphone is used to amplify the sound and play them over speakers that are probably crappier than what I have in my home stereo system.
One of the purposes of going to live performances is to hear the instruments unamplified. Otherwise I might as well buy a CD of a better performance and listen to it at home!
"One technical question, how do rubrics factor in 'effort' or 'heart'? How do they rate perhaps non-exceptional students who push themselves to the best of their abilities against the more gifted slackers."
Why should they factor in "effort" or "heart"? A 'C' is supposed to be average work, an 'A' superior, etc. If the "non-exceptional" student does 'C' work then he/she should get a 'C'! That's why they are a non-exceptional student.
Grades indirectly measure intelligence. Intelligence is not distributed equally. While motivation can make up for a lot, it may not be enough. It may not be fair that a "gifted slacker" does better on an essay than someone who works their behind off. Tough. That's life.
"And if I run out of flash cards when I'm on vacation, I'm SOL."
Gee, I don't know, maybe you could buy more?
Mark Vinciguerra