what amount of that cellulose could be practically processed into fuel?
I agree, and related to that is how much energy goes in compared to how much comes out. I don't know what that number is but it is crucial before any judgement can be made. Corn ethanol sucks and doesn't really produce energy. Sugar yields 4 units of energy out for every one in. Oil once yielded 100 our for every 1 in but now is between 10-20 out for every 1 in. If cellulose to butane yielded 10 out for every 1 in it could very well be a great source of energy, if it yields 2 out for every 1 it won't be as useful until oil diminishes more. 1 to 1 like corn, it wouldn't be worth bothering.
For what it's worth, I'm pro-energy. I support more drilling, more nuclear, more solar, more wind, more biomass. I can't think of much that doesn't depend on energy. The more we can get from anywhere, the better.
We (humans) are doing something about that. The rest of the world's usage is climbing in an attempt to match the U.S.:) I'm all for conservation and efficiency but in the end we just need more energy. When 2/3 of the world industrializes the transportation and electricity that come with it will require more energy.
Yes that's a big number (and only a 1/4 of the what the world uses as a whole) and would probably be even more if the global economy hadn't been sluggish the last few years but I don't think it's orders of magnitude more than the amount of cellulose on the planet. I'm not presuming that we turn all plants into fuel but 33% of all plant matter is cellulose. While it's hard to come up with accurate numbers the earth's biomass, on the low end it would appear that cellulose would comprise about 40 billion tons. Of course for any honest consideration we would have to look at how much we could potentially collect and how much usable fuel we would get out of it.
Besides, orders of magnitude are not as overwhelming as they seem. Oil production today is orders of magnitude more than it was 100 years ago, yet somehow we got to where we are. Help me understand the reasoning in disparaging a technology in its infancy because it is not instant solution. 10% here and 10% there can add up. Humans will continue to use more and more energy (if history is any indication). I don't think anything needs to instantly supplant petroleum, we just need to keep finding new ways to get energy wherever we can.
Why does everyone keep focusing on the newspapers? Usually things that start with 'such as' aren't exclusive. The summary also mentions grass clippings. So grass clippings and newspaper may not make a dent but since about 33% of all plant matter is made up of cellulose I don't think getting the cellulose would be a problem.
You really don't think all of Canada's paper goes to compost do you? Some quick google searches show that ~71% of paper produced in Canada comes from recycled paper and sawmill residue. I don't want to do the research to write a paper but it looks like over 50% is from recycled paper alone. Of course the real question is how the energy to grow a tree, cut it down and process it into paper compares to the energy needed to recycle paper. BTW Canada imports waste paper from the United States just to recycle it and sell it, so there must be some benefit to it.
I never cared for Windows file manager anyway. Q-dir and free-commander aren't perfect either but after downloading them to try something else I find myself using them more often than the Windows one. At any rate, 90% of people don't seem to use the file manager beyond opening My Documents or My Whatever and double clicking a file.
It's mobile and uses little power that is what makes it practical. Where it gets the energy from is really a separate issue that's been tied to it. Stating things like this implies that some things cannot run off of solar or wind. My microwave, tv, light bulbs and everything else in my house can run off of solar or wind. What would you think if manufacturers of TV's started marketing them as capable of running off of solar or wind. It wouldn't mean anything at all.
The inference is that it uses less power and could have been said explicitly without the need to green wash it. That it has a UPS is hardly new worthy. Renewable resource can supply power and that power can be stored to provide consistent power. I just would have preferred that it was presented as using low power without the need for 'green speak'. Of course, maybe I've been reading too much/.
I often think that people who advocate states rights aren't paying any attention to the actual state governments they want to give more power to...
It also violates the Missouri Constitution it seems and giving the states more power doesn't mean they could go against the U.S. Constitution. Homogenizing the states by making the Federal government more powerful hasn't really made anyone happy on the left, right or middle. Throughout history the choice of states has helped America through tough times. Populations moved around as an economic collapse in one area would lead people to other areas. Let some states be more liberal and let some be more conservative while protecting civil rights/liberty. People for the most part should be governed locally. The seesaw between the two sides at the Federal level have led to massive spending by both sides and a lowest common denominator approach to politics.
I'm unsure what the answer to all of our problems are but I tend to think people will always disagree about some things. We just don't need to turn every disagreement into action by the Federal government. So far in this particular instance, Missouri seems to be handling it completely on their own.
If half the country likes law A and dislikes law B and the other half likes law B and dislikes A there are two choices (in the context of federal vs state). At a federal level you get one law you like and one you don't. At a state level you get 25 states to choose from. I'd rather have the opportunity to move than be governed by laws I disagree with half the time.
Looking around I came across this. It at least used to happen, whether is still does, I can't say either way. From Wikipedia
"...However, these tactics may not be good, and the union spirit may be so strong that a big organization cannot be prevented. In this case our man turns extremely radical. He asks for unreasonable things and keeps the union embroiled in trouble. If a strike comes, he will be the loudest man in the bunch, and will counsel violence and get somebody in trouble. The result will be that the union will be broken up."
Even if we accept that the mechanics were miraculous, there is evidence that directly suggests that it did not happen on a global scale. Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese history run through the time in which the flood occurred. The idea that Noah's flood was even meant to be considered global may be due to translation errors, let alone the understanding of the world people even had 4300 years ago. It was only recently in a modern language that people even thought of the world as the planet. Consider the old world and the new world.
Finding evidence that floods have occurred all over the world is also not evidence of a world-wide flood. There are other reasons to infer that Noah's flood did not occur. A few are;
Where did the water come from? In order to rain worldwide and flood the continents the atmosphere would have to hold an incredible amount of water and be at an incredible temperature and pressure. Likewise, where did the water go when the water receded.
Fish. How did saltwater and freshwater fish survive this global ocean? What about PH levels?
Land animals. How did Noah hold and feed every species for 40 days (or a year depending on some interpretations)? Not to mention the waste created. What about insects? Was there a hornets nest on the Ark? Did he have polar bears and penguins on board?
Photosynthesis. How did all the 'land' plants survive this flood. Never mind the olive tree that survived, what about every other plant species?
Respiration. Did Noah take on fungi as well as land animals? Mushrooms like moisture but many have trouble being submersed in water.
Some believe that someone must look at Noah's flood as being true or false from the beginning. If, however, you start with the assumption that you do not know, the evidence will suggest that it did not happen on a global scale.
I like (assuming window is maximized and using Windows)
ALT+SPACE, r
ALT+SPACE, m
Mash arrow keys. Look at me moving the window around without a mouse. Really only useful when the window is maximized on a second screen that is not displaying, otherwise good for showing off.
Anyone know how to play Minesweeper without the mouse?
In the 2008 contest, a successful exploit of Safari caused Mac OS X to be the first OS to fall in a hacking competition. Participants competed to find a way to read the contents of a file located on the user's desktop, in one of three operating systems: Mac OS X Leopard, Windows Vista SP1, and Ubuntu 7.10. On the second day of the contest, when the rules were loosened and allowed attack surfaces expanded to include Web browsers, Charlie Miller compromised Mac OS X through an unpatched vulnerability of the PCRE library used by Safari.[4] Miller had been aware of the flaw prior to the beginning of the conference and worked to exploit it unannounced.[4] The exploited vulnerability was patched in Safari 3.1.1, among other flaws.[7] At the end of the contest, only the Ubuntu system remained unexploited.
But yeah, that's the only reference to Linux I saw. Emphasis mine.
Slashdot Mirror
what amount of that cellulose could be practically processed into fuel?
I agree, and related to that is how much energy goes in compared to how much comes out. I don't know what that number is but it is crucial before any judgement can be made. Corn ethanol sucks and doesn't really produce energy. Sugar yields 4 units of energy out for every one in. Oil once yielded 100 our for every 1 in but now is between 10-20 out for every 1 in. If cellulose to butane yielded 10 out for every 1 in it could very well be a great source of energy, if it yields 2 out for every 1 it won't be as useful until oil diminishes more. 1 to 1 like corn, it wouldn't be worth bothering.
For what it's worth, I'm pro-energy. I support more drilling, more nuclear, more solar, more wind, more biomass. I can't think of much that doesn't depend on energy. The more we can get from anywhere, the better.
We (humans) are doing something about that. The rest of the world's usage is climbing in an attempt to match the U.S. :) I'm all for conservation and efficiency but in the end we just need more energy. When 2/3 of the world industrializes the transportation and electricity that come with it will require more energy.
Yes that's a big number (and only a 1/4 of the what the world uses as a whole) and would probably be even more if the global economy hadn't been sluggish the last few years but I don't think it's orders of magnitude more than the amount of cellulose on the planet. I'm not presuming that we turn all plants into fuel but 33% of all plant matter is cellulose. While it's hard to come up with accurate numbers the earth's biomass, on the low end it would appear that cellulose would comprise about 40 billion tons. Of course for any honest consideration we would have to look at how much we could potentially collect and how much usable fuel we would get out of it.
Besides, orders of magnitude are not as overwhelming as they seem. Oil production today is orders of magnitude more than it was 100 years ago, yet somehow we got to where we are. Help me understand the reasoning in disparaging a technology in its infancy because it is not instant solution. 10% here and 10% there can add up. Humans will continue to use more and more energy (if history is any indication). I don't think anything needs to instantly supplant petroleum, we just need to keep finding new ways to get energy wherever we can.
Why does everyone keep focusing on the newspapers? Usually things that start with 'such as' aren't exclusive. The summary also mentions grass clippings. So grass clippings and newspaper may not make a dent but since about 33% of all plant matter is made up of cellulose I don't think getting the cellulose would be a problem.
You really don't think all of Canada's paper goes to compost do you? Some quick google searches show that ~71% of paper produced in Canada comes from recycled paper and sawmill residue. I don't want to do the research to write a paper but it looks like over 50% is from recycled paper alone. Of course the real question is how the energy to grow a tree, cut it down and process it into paper compares to the energy needed to recycle paper. BTW Canada imports waste paper from the United States just to recycle it and sell it, so there must be some benefit to it.
I never cared for Windows file manager anyway. Q-dir and free-commander aren't perfect either but after downloading them to try something else I find myself using them more often than the Windows one. At any rate, 90% of people don't seem to use the file manager beyond opening My Documents or My Whatever and double clicking a file.
Watch your language buddy.
It's mobile and uses little power that is what makes it practical. Where it gets the energy from is really a separate issue that's been tied to it. Stating things like this implies that some things cannot run off of solar or wind. My microwave, tv, light bulbs and everything else in my house can run off of solar or wind. What would you think if manufacturers of TV's started marketing them as capable of running off of solar or wind. It wouldn't mean anything at all.
It's mobile and it uses little power. Where you get the energy is a separate issue. Anything that uses electricity can use solar and wind power.
The inference is that it uses less power and could have been said explicitly without the need to green wash it. That it has a UPS is hardly new worthy. Renewable resource can supply power and that power can be stored to provide consistent power. I just would have preferred that it was presented as using low power without the need for 'green speak'. Of course, maybe I've been reading too much /.
I explicitly stated that the Federal government should protect civil rights. Try another argument.
with solar or wind power
In other words it uses electricity.
Anything that shows a woman's ankle or belly button should also be on the domain.
I often think that people who advocate states rights aren't paying any attention to the actual state governments they want to give more power to...
It also violates the Missouri Constitution it seems and giving the states more power doesn't mean they could go against the U.S. Constitution. Homogenizing the states by making the Federal government more powerful hasn't really made anyone happy on the left, right or middle. Throughout history the choice of states has helped America through tough times. Populations moved around as an economic collapse in one area would lead people to other areas. Let some states be more liberal and let some be more conservative while protecting civil rights/liberty. People for the most part should be governed locally. The seesaw between the two sides at the Federal level have led to massive spending by both sides and a lowest common denominator approach to politics.
I'm unsure what the answer to all of our problems are but I tend to think people will always disagree about some things. We just don't need to turn every disagreement into action by the Federal government. So far in this particular instance, Missouri seems to be handling it completely on their own.
If half the country likes law A and dislikes law B and the other half likes law B and dislikes A there are two choices (in the context of federal vs state). At a federal level you get one law you like and one you don't. At a state level you get 25 states to choose from. I'd rather have the opportunity to move than be governed by laws I disagree with half the time.
Why so upset?
"...However, these tactics may not be good, and the union spirit may be so strong that a big organization cannot be prevented. In this case our man turns extremely radical. He asks for unreasonable things and keeps the union embroiled in trouble. If a strike comes, he will be the loudest man in the bunch, and will counsel violence and get somebody in trouble. The result will be that the union will be broken up."
Even if we accept that the mechanics were miraculous, there is evidence that directly suggests that it did not happen on a global scale. Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese history run through the time in which the flood occurred. The idea that Noah's flood was even meant to be considered global may be due to translation errors, let alone the understanding of the world people even had 4300 years ago. It was only recently in a modern language that people even thought of the world as the planet. Consider the old world and the new world.
Finding evidence that floods have occurred all over the world is also not evidence of a world-wide flood. There are other reasons to infer that Noah's flood did not occur. A few are;
Where did the water come from? In order to rain worldwide and flood the continents the atmosphere would have to hold an incredible amount of water and be at an incredible temperature and pressure. Likewise, where did the water go when the water receded.
Fish. How did saltwater and freshwater fish survive this global ocean? What about PH levels?
Land animals. How did Noah hold and feed every species for 40 days (or a year depending on some interpretations)? Not to mention the waste created. What about insects? Was there a hornets nest on the Ark? Did he have polar bears and penguins on board?
Photosynthesis. How did all the 'land' plants survive this flood. Never mind the olive tree that survived, what about every other plant species?
Respiration. Did Noah take on fungi as well as land animals? Mushrooms like moisture but many have trouble being submersed in water.
Some believe that someone must look at Noah's flood as being true or false from the beginning. If, however, you start with the assumption that you do not know, the evidence will suggest that it did not happen on a global scale.
You do know evidence for a flood is not evidence for a worldwide flood right?
I like (assuming window is maximized and using Windows)
ALT+SPACE, r
ALT+SPACE, m
Mash arrow keys. Look at me moving the window around without a mouse. Really only useful when the window is maximized on a second screen that is not displaying, otherwise good for showing off.
Anyone know how to play Minesweeper without the mouse?
I like CTRL+F4 for closing tabs since it's similar to ALT+F4 for closing windows. Equally, CTRL+TAB will cycle through tabs, like ALT+TAB for windows.
At least I can wipe my ass with it after I take a big shit. I'm not even joking. Magazines and newspapers make great toilet paper substitutes.
I disagree. Glossy paper just smears the shit around and newspaper gets ink all over your ass. You're better off with a sock.
I don't think we have the technology to print crap yet. I'm sure someone is working on it though.
In the 2008 contest, a successful exploit of Safari caused Mac OS X to be the first OS to fall in a hacking competition. Participants competed to find a way to read the contents of a file located on the user's desktop, in one of three operating systems: Mac OS X Leopard, Windows Vista SP1, and Ubuntu 7.10 . On the second day of the contest, when the rules were loosened and allowed attack surfaces expanded to include Web browsers, Charlie Miller compromised Mac OS X through an unpatched vulnerability of the PCRE library used by Safari.[4] Miller had been aware of the flaw prior to the beginning of the conference and worked to exploit it unannounced.[4] The exploited vulnerability was patched in Safari 3.1.1, among other flaws.[7] At the end of the contest, only the Ubuntu system remained unexploited.
But yeah, that's the only reference to Linux I saw. Emphasis mine.
Interestingly sales at retailers on black Friday are okay.