Co2 is heavier then air. So if the cracks are present and there isn't some other source of higher presure gases, then where is the Co2 going to leak to? Further under ground?
Are you serious? Have you never noticed how fizzy drinks lose there fizz?
The high pressure of the captured CO2 will force it out if there is any leak.
Anyway the real problem is not of potential leaks but the cost and practicability.
It's very expensive to separate out the CO2 and then pump it miles underground into a convenient hole.
It's not practical in most places at all as there will be no where to pump the CO2 for 100s of miles.
I don't think the reviewer really understands what's happening here. Recommended amount of hard drive space is not installed space (although I'm aware that Vista is a beast). And the reviewer has apparently compared RAM to HD space.
Well on my Vista desktop just the windows folder is 14.6 GB. Which is one fifth the size of the hard drive:(
Vista truly is a dog.
So to get this straight, some knowledge with no practical application has a practical application?
A way, used today, is to consider citations, implications of the work, whether it advances understanding of the whole, etc.
You only know this things after the work is done. Before you have done it you don't know what you will find because no one has done it before. So these criteria are useless to answer the question could the work have practical value or not. Until you have done it!
To claim that you can't "evaluate" this work is grossly anti-scientific.
A wise person understands that sometimes no one knows and we have a lot to learn.
A) the mutation that causes males to have big tails.
B) the mutation that causes females to like males with big tails.
Yes, sexual selection explains mutation A perfectly, by taking B for granted. It's hard to argue why A happened when you see their mating rituals. I'm not arguing that.
_My_ problem however is: why did mutation _B_ happen and get selected by natural selection? And _if_ it causes a harmful trait, why didn't natural selection eliminate it yet?
What if mutation B was not selected by natural selection? What if it just happened and peahens just preferred big tails for no good reason. Once the mutation is in the population it is very hard to remove unless it is fairly disadvantageous. There is little advantage to brown hair, yet it exists. Once mutation B is prevalent than mutation A would becomes advantageous, eventually you get peahens with big tails.
Evolution is often a random walk in the realm of possibilities, some of those possibilities don't make much sense, see the mammal eye for further evidence. As long as the species can survive and breed, that is ALL that matters.
Good luck ESA with sending Herschel and Planck in space.
Seconded. Not only will Herschel's findings be very interesting, but Planck is also one to watch.
Planck's mission is to look at the cosmic microwave background in even more detail then WMAP. By mapping the lumpiness of the CMB and its polarisation many potential theories regarding the early Universe can be discounted or strengthened. Even the shape of the (visible) Universe may be deduced.
You could view Planck as a telescope which can look at the furthest distance/time that is thought possible.
It is disturbing that the so-called "upper house" was, until recently, a group of people who hold office only because a distant ancestor was rich or because they hold a high office in a particular religion (yes, really).
What's even more disturbing is I trust the upper house more than I do the commons. The commons will trample over any right it seems in the name of security. At least the house of Lords will say no.
I fear that when the upper house is changed we either get a commons light where they vote exactly the same way as the commons, along party lines and because they both want to be voted in again. Or they are appointed and they will vote for whoever appointed them or who has the most money.
It goes against much of my ideology but at least heritable titles means they are not beholden to grandstanding in the name of votes. Or they vote a certain way only because a party whip told them so. Of course they will more likely vote for their interest, which is likely to align with the rich but the MPs are just as bad, or worse.
Symantec produces software that slows down your computer, makes your other software stop working, and makes itself difficult to uninstall. Pretty much the same as a virus.
As a long term victim of Symantec software you are absolutely right. Though their anti virus software does work, it out competes any malware completely leaving no room for them to run, or anything else.
Symantec Endpoint Protection sucks, just view the Symantec forums for ample evidence.
This gives me a great idea!
Fix small wave powered generators to Whiskey drinkers and the resulting swaying motion from the inebriated could power Scotland.
Which is why it is insane on planning on new tech coming
Well, at least you got some terminally stupid people to mod you up. Good job.
Hmm, so because technology has progressed means you can predict future technology? If you do not know the future technology, then you cannot plan for it can you?
So even though it's ALWAYS WORKED BEFORE it would be INSANE TO THINK IT WOULD HAPPEN?
What? We never had people die because we lack the technology? Of course it has not always worked before. Many civilisations have been brought to their knees through depletion of resources or changes in climate. It HAS happened before and it will happen again.
What has not happened is the extinction of the human race, luckily for us. But because everyone has not died, does not mean that things will always progress and become better.
The parent to your post was saying you cannot predict future technology, therefore to say that future technology will solve all our problems is unfounded. Therefore you can only plan for the technology you do have. Obvious really, no need to put words in his mouth and say,
But if you mean that new technology shouldn't be sought out as the solution to our problem
I read an interesting book which predicted the "climate" in the next 10-20 could be different over the world than we are used to.
The idea is that there are a number of different oscillations in the world's oceans which affect rainfall patterns, winds and air temperature. The book made a number of predictions, most of which I forget, they did say that Asia could be quite a bit dryer leading to problems in food production. The other prediction I remember was that northern Europe would cool slightly.
There was also a
recent study which predicted a slowing in the measured warming of the Earth. Presumably as some of the heat is dumped deep into the ocean.
Windfarms are only profitable with government subsidy; wind mills cost more energy than they make in there serviceable lifetime (Hence the need for subsidy). Bad for bat populations, which are already in decline.
What? The ERoEI for wind power is pretty high, maybe as high as 20
If wind turbines used more energy to manufacture than they produced in their lifetime they would be useless.
Wind power is profitable, less so than gas or coal currently are, but still profitable.
Here
they calculate the cost in dollars as $53.1 per mega watt hour for coal, $52.5 for gas, $55.8 for wind and $59.3 for nuclear.They do suffer from high capital costs though.
Solar panels are fantastically bad environmentally. They require the production of green house gasses far worse than CO2, lifetimes are limited and exponentially decay. They require toxic batteries to work, and are unreliable due to weather. 14% efficiency. Also, bad for ground-level wildlife.
I have tried to find out how toxic and inefficient the production of photovoltaic panels are but came up blank.
This paper says the opposite, at least compared to coal, but really is that a surprise? In 3-5 years they have created more energy then was used to make them, with 300+ times less heavy metal pollution than coal.
Your post seems more biased against renewables with each sentence. Isn't exponential decay good compared to the alternative functions of decay? 20% loss in efficiency after 20 years does not sound too bad. However photovoltaic cells are fantastically expensive.
Nuclear (low risk, high output, radioactive half-lives are down to 200 years)
You forgot to mention expensive and 200 years half-life only if you are re-processing the fuel.
Wind power and nuclear are fairly favourable now, while photovoltaic have potential but are too expensive. Of course little will change until the inevitable finally happens and fossil fuels start to raise in price faster than other forms of energy generation. Until then coal and gas will meet most of our electricity needs unless the government looks ahead.
Hey, I can tell you haven't read any science papers!
Look at most papers and they end in, "As I have shown this field is ripe for research, unfortunately we still do not know X, Y or Z.
PS. Please renew my grant."
Ever heard, "The more you know, the more you realise you don't know"?
There is NOTHING from that KB link that says ANYTHING about "ram fragmentation".
How about this from the linked KB, "It is still possible to experience a hibernation problem after you install this fix if the memory becomes highly fragmented."
Not to mention that even IF ram could be fragmented, it has effectively zero access time, so hopping from fragment to fragment won't hurt anything.
To be pedantic the normal body temperature varies so that 37 degrees C is more an average core body temperature.
The outside environment's temperature, recent physical activity, your circadian rhythm , menstrual cycle or if you are pregnant can influence you body temperature by up to 1 degree C.
A paper,
The Mathematical Universe" that got a lot of coverage recently is worth a read (it is actually understandable). It describes how if the Universe was a mathematical structure what we/he would expect.
While it exists in maths with the commonly used axioms. It does not follow that in all useful axiomatic systems 1 + 1 = 2.
Euclidean space is probably simpler than the other spaces anyway (in more than one way).
Euclidean space is easy for us to understand because that is what we are used to. However to say euclidean space is the simplest is not so easy to show. For instance planet orbits trace an ellipse which are natural part of hyperbolic space.
This is why hyperbolic space comes up in physics because it is easier to do the calculations "there" then elsewhere. It's not because they are crazy. You could try to enumerate all the possible "spacey" type operations to try to show which is simpler. But it comes down to what problems you are wanting to solve.
[Philosophical physics warning. Take your drug of choice]
Going back to 1 + 1 = 2, I've heard it argued that this is really only a concept and not true in reality.
1 cat + 1 mouse != 2
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. Except that each of the apples are different and therefore some 2 apples are bigger than other 2 apples.
1 electron + 1 electron = 2 electrons which are influencing each other. So are they both now different from the original electrons?
Or is there only one electron going forward and back in time?
Really?
How come I can say lots of bad things about you and not be put in jail? Yet if I hit you I could.
Why do some European countries ban smacking and not shouting at children?
As I am scientifically minded I think an experiment with a baseball bat and the Oxford English dictionary is in order. Any volunteers?
Speaking of squirrels, do the English hunt and eat squirrels?
No, not in general. Though I'm sure a few farmers would. Otherwise the tradition of hunting is pretty rare in the UK.
It's a highly populated island.
Gun ownership is highly regulated.
Killing cute animals like squirrels would be seen with distaste by the majority. Strangely people don't seem to mind the idea of eating game birds, pigeons and other birds.
Yes, we have lots of acorns - acorns are on a two-year cycle. It takes two years for an acorn to mature; so one year there are lots and the next year there are not very many. Our trees are not synchronized with each other, so we have pretty many acorns every year.
The same seems to be true for plants which bear a lot of fruit. The theory being that because the plant uses so much energy in a good year, the next year is poor in comparison. Hey they deserve a rest after being so promiscuous they year before!
Of course the weather has a huge affect on the productivity of fruit. Strong winds can blow blossom off the tree and frost kills them.
However oaks are pretty hardy so I doubt the wind or frost is to blame. Neither would bees influence the number of acorns as oaks are wind pollinated. Therefore my best guess would be a natural cycle of the oak tree or disease. Bad weather would obviously make a difference but people would have noticed.
An example which is more understandable would be the property of wetness. A single molecule of water is not wet, nor 100. Only once there is sufficient water molecules is the environment created to form the properties of matter we call water.
For instance there needs to be sufficient intermolecular bonding between the water molecules to create the properties we associate with water.
Wetness is not made up of a single feature - part of it is due to the high heat capacity of water, partly the evaporation of water carrying away heat. The electrical conductivity of water gives the problems mixing water and electronics. So wetness is an emergent property that is not displayed by a lone entity and not necessarily predictable from the constituent parts. Of course I have not shown emergence explains consciousness, but emergence is a specific term and not magic.
Are "the dregs of society" born that way, or made? Putting it another way, if you were born in one of those areas with the same quality of life they had, would you be just like them?
I think the latter is most likely. Therefore you should try to prevent the situation from arising in the first place. Best for everyone.
I do think the ribbon is a good idea, if they had done one thing. Made the damn thing customisable. You can not add a button to the the ribbon, this is a massive step backwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Co2 is heavier then air. So if the cracks are present and there isn't some other source of higher presure gases, then where is the Co2 going to leak to? Further under ground?
Are you serious? Have you never noticed how fizzy drinks lose there fizz? The high pressure of the captured CO2 will force it out if there is any leak.
Anyway the real problem is not of potential leaks but the cost and practicability. It's very expensive to separate out the CO2 and then pump it miles underground into a convenient hole.
It's not practical in most places at all as there will be no where to pump the CO2 for 100s of miles.
I don't think the reviewer really understands what's happening here. Recommended amount of hard drive space is not installed space (although I'm aware that Vista is a beast). And the reviewer has apparently compared RAM to HD space.
Well on my Vista desktop just the windows folder is 14.6 GB. Which is one fifth the size of the hard drive :(
Vista truly is a dog.
Then it has practical application.
So to get this straight, some knowledge with no practical application has a practical application?
A way, used today, is to consider citations, implications of the work, whether it advances understanding of the whole, etc.
You only know this things after the work is done. Before you have done it you don't know what you will find because no one has done it before. So these criteria are useless to answer the question could the work have practical value or not. Until you have done it!
To claim that you can't "evaluate" this work is grossly anti-scientific.
A wise person understands that sometimes no one knows and we have a lot to learn.
Well it is a shame there is absolutely no data on polar ice extent before 2002 :(
A) the mutation that causes males to have big tails. B) the mutation that causes females to like males with big tails. Yes, sexual selection explains mutation A perfectly, by taking B for granted. It's hard to argue why A happened when you see their mating rituals. I'm not arguing that. _My_ problem however is: why did mutation _B_ happen and get selected by natural selection? And _if_ it causes a harmful trait, why didn't natural selection eliminate it yet?
What if mutation B was not selected by natural selection? What if it just happened and peahens just preferred big tails for no good reason. Once the mutation is in the population it is very hard to remove unless it is fairly disadvantageous. There is little advantage to brown hair, yet it exists.
Once mutation B is prevalent than mutation A would becomes advantageous, eventually you get peahens with big tails. Evolution is often a random walk in the realm of possibilities, some of those possibilities don't make much sense, see the mammal eye for further evidence. As long as the species can survive and breed, that is ALL that matters.
Good luck ESA with sending Herschel and Planck in space.
Seconded. Not only will Herschel's findings be very interesting, but Planck is also one to watch.
Planck's mission is to look at the cosmic microwave background in even more detail then WMAP. By mapping the lumpiness of the CMB and its polarisation many potential theories regarding the early Universe can be discounted or strengthened. Even the shape of the (visible) Universe may be deduced. You could view Planck as a telescope which can look at the furthest distance/time that is thought possible.
It is disturbing that the so-called "upper house" was, until recently, a group of people who hold office only because a distant ancestor was rich or because they hold a high office in a particular religion (yes, really).
What's even more disturbing is I trust the upper house more than I do the commons. The commons will trample over any right it seems in the name of security. At least the house of Lords will say no.
I fear that when the upper house is changed we either get a commons light where they vote exactly the same way as the commons, along party lines and because they both want to be voted in again. Or they are appointed and they will vote for whoever appointed them or who has the most money.
It goes against much of my ideology but at least heritable titles means they are not beholden to grandstanding in the name of votes. Or they vote a certain way only because a party whip told them so. Of course they will more likely vote for their interest, which is likely to align with the rich but the MPs are just as bad, or worse.
Symantec produces software that slows down your computer, makes your other software stop working, and makes itself difficult to uninstall. Pretty much the same as a virus.
As a long term victim of Symantec software you are absolutely right.
Though their anti virus software does work, it out competes any malware completely leaving no room for them to run, or anything else.
Symantec Endpoint Protection sucks, just view the Symantec forums for ample evidence.
This gives me a great idea!
Fix small wave powered generators to Whiskey drinkers and the resulting swaying motion from the inebriated could power Scotland.
Which is why it is insane on planning on new tech coming
Well, at least you got some terminally stupid people to mod you up. Good job.
Hmm, so because technology has progressed means you can predict future technology? If you do not know the future technology, then you cannot plan for it can you?
So even though it's ALWAYS WORKED BEFORE it would be INSANE TO THINK IT WOULD HAPPEN?
What? We never had people die because we lack the technology? Of course it has not always worked before. Many civilisations have been brought to their knees through depletion of resources or changes in climate. It HAS happened before and it will happen again.
What has not happened is the extinction of the human race, luckily for us. But because everyone has not died, does not mean that things will always progress and become better.
The parent to your post was saying you cannot predict future technology, therefore to say that future technology will solve all our problems is unfounded. Therefore you can only plan for the technology you do have. Obvious really, no need to put words in his mouth and say,
But if you mean that new technology shouldn't be sought out as the solution to our problem
I read an interesting book which predicted the "climate" in the next 10-20 could be different over the world than we are used to. The idea is that there are a number of different oscillations in the world's oceans which affect rainfall patterns, winds and air temperature. The book made a number of predictions, most of which I forget, they did say that Asia could be quite a bit dryer leading to problems in food production. The other prediction I remember was that northern Europe would cool slightly.
There was also a recent study which predicted a slowing in the measured warming of the Earth. Presumably as some of the heat is dumped deep into the ocean.
Windfarms are only profitable with government subsidy; wind mills cost more energy than they make in there serviceable lifetime (Hence the need for subsidy). Bad for bat populations, which are already in decline.
What? The ERoEI for wind power is pretty high, maybe as high as 20 If wind turbines used more energy to manufacture than they produced in their lifetime they would be useless. Wind power is profitable, less so than gas or coal currently are, but still profitable. Here they calculate the cost in dollars as $53.1 per mega watt hour for coal, $52.5 for gas, $55.8 for wind and $59.3 for nuclear.They do suffer from high capital costs though.
Solar panels are fantastically bad environmentally. They require the production of green house gasses far worse than CO2, lifetimes are limited and exponentially decay. They require toxic batteries to work, and are unreliable due to weather. 14% efficiency. Also, bad for ground-level wildlife.
I have tried to find out how toxic and inefficient the production of photovoltaic panels are but came up blank. This paper says the opposite, at least compared to coal, but really is that a surprise? In 3-5 years they have created more energy then was used to make them, with 300+ times less heavy metal pollution than coal.
Your post seems more biased against renewables with each sentence. Isn't exponential decay good compared to the alternative functions of decay? 20% loss in efficiency after 20 years does not sound too bad. However photovoltaic cells are fantastically expensive.
Nuclear (low risk, high output, radioactive half-lives are down to 200 years)
You forgot to mention expensive and 200 years half-life only if you are re-processing the fuel.
Wind power and nuclear are fairly favourable now, while photovoltaic have potential but are too expensive. Of course little will change until the inevitable finally happens and fossil fuels start to raise in price faster than other forms of energy generation. Until then coal and gas will meet most of our electricity needs unless the government looks ahead.
Hey, I can tell you haven't read any science papers! Look at most papers and they end in, "As I have shown this field is ripe for research, unfortunately we still do not know X, Y or Z.
PS. Please renew my grant."
Ever heard, "The more you know, the more you realise you don't know"?
There is NOTHING from that KB link that says ANYTHING about "ram fragmentation".
How about this from the linked KB, "It is still possible to experience a hibernation problem after you install this fix if the memory becomes highly fragmented."
Not to mention that even IF ram could be fragmented, it has effectively zero access time, so hopping from fragment to fragment won't hurt anything.
Maybe hard disk and ram (heap) fragmentation are different things.
Chill man, it's almost the weekend.
To be pedantic the normal body temperature varies so that 37 degrees C is more an average core body temperature. The outside environment's temperature, recent physical activity, your circadian rhythm , menstrual cycle or if you are pregnant can influence you body temperature by up to 1 degree C.
A paper, The Mathematical Universe" that got a lot of coverage recently is worth a read (it is actually understandable). It describes how if the Universe was a mathematical structure what we/he would expect.
But addition can't not exist.
While it exists in maths with the commonly used axioms. It does not follow that in all useful axiomatic systems 1 + 1 = 2.
Euclidean space is probably simpler than the other spaces anyway (in more than one way).
Euclidean space is easy for us to understand because that is what we are used to. However to say euclidean space is the simplest is not so easy to show. For instance planet orbits trace an ellipse which are natural part of hyperbolic space. This is why hyperbolic space comes up in physics because it is easier to do the calculations "there" then elsewhere. It's not because they are crazy. You could try to enumerate all the possible "spacey" type operations to try to show which is simpler. But it comes down to what problems you are wanting to solve.
[Philosophical physics warning. Take your drug of choice]
Going back to 1 + 1 = 2, I've heard it argued that this is really only a concept and not true in reality.
1 cat + 1 mouse != 2
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. Except that each of the apples are different and therefore some 2 apples are bigger than other 2 apples.
1 electron + 1 electron = 2 electrons which are influencing each other. So are they both now different from the original electrons? Or is there only one electron going forward and back in time?
Really? How come I can say lots of bad things about you and not be put in jail? Yet if I hit you I could. Why do some European countries ban smacking and not shouting at children?
As I am scientifically minded I think an experiment with a baseball bat and the Oxford English dictionary is in order. Any volunteers?
Speaking of squirrels, do the English hunt and eat squirrels?
No, not in general. Though I'm sure a few farmers would. Otherwise the tradition of hunting is pretty rare in the UK.
It's a highly populated island.
Gun ownership is highly regulated.
Killing cute animals like squirrels would be seen with distaste by the majority. Strangely people don't seem to mind the idea of eating game birds, pigeons and other birds.
Yes, we have lots of acorns - acorns are on a two-year cycle. It takes two years for an acorn to mature; so one year there are lots and the next year there are not very many. Our trees are not synchronized with each other, so we have pretty many acorns every year.
The same seems to be true for plants which bear a lot of fruit. The theory being that because the plant uses so much energy in a good year, the next year is poor in comparison. Hey they deserve a rest after being so promiscuous they year before!
Of course the weather has a huge affect on the productivity of fruit. Strong winds can blow blossom off the tree and frost kills them.
However oaks are pretty hardy so I doubt the wind or frost is to blame. Neither would bees influence the number of acorns as oaks are wind pollinated. Therefore my best guess would be a natural cycle of the oak tree or disease. Bad weather would obviously make a difference but people would have noticed.
An example which is more understandable would be the property of wetness. A single molecule of water is not wet, nor 100. Only once there is sufficient water molecules is the environment created to form the properties of matter we call water. For instance there needs to be sufficient intermolecular bonding between the water molecules to create the properties we associate with water. Wetness is not made up of a single feature - part of it is due to the high heat capacity of water, partly the evaporation of water carrying away heat. The electrical conductivity of water gives the problems mixing water and electronics. So wetness is an emergent property that is not displayed by a lone entity and not necessarily predictable from the constituent parts. Of course I have not shown emergence explains consciousness, but emergence is a specific term and not magic.
The RIAA should not be trying to bankrupt their customers, that's the bank's job!
Are "the dregs of society" born that way, or made? Putting it another way, if you were born in one of those areas with the same quality of life they had, would you be just like them? I think the latter is most likely. Therefore you should try to prevent the situation from arising in the first place. Best for everyone.
I do think the ribbon is a good idea, if they had done one thing. Made the damn thing customisable. You can not add a button to the the ribbon, this is a massive step backwards.