While I agree that energy absorbed must eventually be emitted, the emissions can be extremely faint.
Dark matter is supposed to be the majority of the matter in the universe. So, even if it does absorb and emit radiation, it will be extremely cold.
We did find a cosmic background radiation of just a few degrees above absolute zero. It's supposed to originate from the early days of the universe... which makes sense (since we can also see very old stars).
But couldn't that also be radiation with an origin much closer to home, emitted by dark (but ordinary) matter?
-- I should keep stressing that I am no expert... and that this is just speculation, not an actual theory.
So, now we found yet another material that absorbs light. So that could mean that the stars we see actually burn brighter (and are more massive?) than we thought. And in addition, there is a material previously unknown to exist in space.
Could is be possible that dark matter is just ordinary matter, made up of atoms and such, and that we just haven't found it yet because it absorbs the radiation we scan for?
-- I admit that I'm no expert, so don't mod me down for stupidity. Just correct me instead, please.
- What if they develop a car-based AI system that can refuel independently... free gasoline or diesel?
- What if they develop a drone that can feed off sugars, and empty's your kitchen every day? No worries?
Not that I really care - I'm just curious where you draw the line:-)
-- It's useless for any offensive purposes because the first infrastructure that gets bombed is the electricity grid. Must be only for spying at home then.
Since when do governments or attorneys general side with the general public rather than with Big Business?
Doesn't Google have a little lobby organisation to prevent this kind of embarrassment? All other large companies would have been able to bribe a few people and lobby against a country-wide investigation. This is bad publicity for Google! How could that happen? Why aren't those attorneys general encouraged to stop writing letters and asking questions after their 1st letter?
Yes, but only from law suits. It will not protect you from actual bombers or bullets. --This is not really a joke because it is way to accurate.
You're exaggerating. As far as I know not a single shot has been fired anywhere on earth because of a picture. There was even a draw-prophet-Mohammed-day a while ago to show those fools that us Western people like to sometimes insult others... so loads of pictures were drawn and posted online and not one bomb went off anywhere.
You're way too scared of those Muslim fundamentalists... in fact, you are SO scared that I'd say that the terrorists have won without ever attacking anyone. For the large part they are only scary if you are in their country, where they are in power (like in countries with the Sharia as their actual law where you will simply go to jail or perhaps can even be put to death for something like that)...
This is just an attempt to get more hits on that shitty blog. These images are just filler material for purely aesthetic purposes, it's not like BP submitted these in court to prove that they were trying their bestest to stem the leak.
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.
In fact, commercials too are all about aesthetics.
The point is that BP have done an awful lot of things for "aesthetic purposes" lately. Like changing a few numbers (flow of oil) in the media. Like predicting when it'd all be solved. Like saying that oil isn't dangerous.
It's easy to do "aesthetics" if you have billions of profit to keep the logo looking green.
The real question is: can it be remotely hacked/cracked or whatever you call it when someone takes control over your car from a basement in their mom's house?
Will a car with mallware drive you only to a mall to convince you to buy things you don't need?
I thought due to the sporadic nature of renewables that few of them are plugged directly into the power grid and instead the energy is used to, for example, pump water from a lower storage tank/lake into a higher one? That way they know exactly how much power will be generated by the release of the water and it is entirely predictable.
One thing that you won't be able to predict is when the tank/lake will be so full you can't pump in it any more.
I guess I'm trying to say that: what is unpredictable will stay unpredictable (no matter how many buffers you use to cushion against values you cannot handle).
Of course you can see the level of a lake. It's not exactly rocket science... I know people are caught by surprise when they can see the bottom of a beer glass... but a lake is not the same.
Worst case scenario you can pump the water up, and then dump it. You waste energy, but save the grid. Same happens when hydroelectric dams get too much water (for example in spring when snow melts).
As far as I know, wind isn't even too unpredictable. But you need more stations (places in the right places) to measure the weather. Then you can make very accurate very-short-term predictions for the next minutes. Spain so far once managed to obtain 53% of its total electricity production from wind.
If you can't handle surges, what happens when the superbowl starts? A large surge on the demand side would then be catastrophic, causing at least a blackout in some parts.
Anyway, I tihnk that there are plenty of places in the world where they have more wind power than in Oregon... so all they have to do is copy someone else's idea.
Also, Oregon is in the Rockies, isn't it? The must be some hydroelectric dams there?
You mean, the attack on Saddam's regime, following his invasion of a neighboring country and his unwillingness to ever adhere to the terms of his surrender as his forces were pushed back into his own country? That attack?
No, not the 1st attack. I mean the 2nd one. The one that all the Western world protested against. The actual invasion, not the liberation. The unnecessary attack that has caused many, many more dead people in Iraq than Saddam ever could have done himself. The attack where we went for the Weapons of Mass Destruction, not the liberation of Kuwait.
And are you by any chance referring to the attack on the Taliban, who had murderously overtaken Afghanistan - to the considerable misery of the locals - and who were aggressively harboring the group that planned and executed attacks on embaassies and facilities in places all around the world, including the 9/11 events? That Taliban? Ask most Afghanis if they were really pleased, or not, to have their school teachers dragged into the town square (now peacefully free of heretic activities like kite flying and music playing) and shot in the head by the guys who want to see not just the middle east, but the entire world tuned up to their medieval specs.
Yup, that one as well. The one where other countries got a simple choice: either to be with or against the strongest country in the world. The attack where European countries had to choose between joining a war which wasn't their problem (many other countries have stupid regimes, check out Africa for your next invasions) or face economic sanctions. The attack that has successfully removed a stupid regime from a capital, but not from the country. The attack that uses all the wrong weapons to achieve nothing at all. Bombs against caves. Helicopter gunships against peasants.
If the US wanted to "attack Afghanistan," the whole place would be a glass parking lot right now. Instead, our troops get killed because of way-crazy ROEs, in the interests of protecting the very people that the Taliban have no problem slaughtering just to make a point.
Agreed. America aims to help the people of Afghanistan now - although in the beginning I really think it was an emotional attack which came from a feeling of revenge for the 9/11 attack rather than helping the Afghan people.
branding Iran as a terrorist state
So, you have no problem with them being a repressive, terrorist-sponsoring state, you just don't want anyone to call them on it?
I accept that they have a regime that doesn't cooperate with us. A religious regime, put there by US interference. I'd rather see them developing some sense all by themselves. If we keep bullying that country, all we do is assist their regime to stay in power. The Iranian people are, on average, quite educated. They know damn well what's going on in the rest of the world. In addition, Iran stops 2/3rd of all the heroine that's transported from Afghanistan into Europe. They don't get any credit for this silent war on drugs. None of the coalition armies on the Afghan side assist them. I am not so sure if they actually are the biggest sponsor of terrorism. Never seen any proof for that. But anyway, if coalition troops would just patrol the border, then they could stop both heroine and weapons.
They (Iran) are said to hate us (the Western world)... but I often wonder whose hatred is bigger: ours or theirs. You see, we always blamed the religious nuts for 'hating the Western world, and all its freedom', but we've changed and we now hate others just as much.
I've come to realize that there are, unfortunately, a lot of people on earth who lead poor and luckless lives. It's not only a few countries where we went to war. That was just an excuse. Mugabe in Zimbabwe is still in power. Chavez is going a little crazy in Venez
Funny that in Europe many people think its the redneck militaristic Americans who are the douchebags.
At least we respect freedom of religion in this country and aren't busy passinglegislation to infringe upon the practice of that freedom. Maybe you should take a look at your own backyard before you start throwing stones into mine?
That's one of the problems we got thanks to the stupid attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan and branding Iran as a terrorist state. In North-America, there aren't too many Muslims. So, it's the perfect enemy for America. We have about 5% Muslims in Western Europe. And since about 10 years, people start to generalize that all Muslims are the same, and the right wing parties are gaining in popularity. It did not help that we were bullied into joining the Coalition of the Unwilling in Afghanistan where our solidiers were killed by some fundamentalist religious freaks.
Although I admit that the ban on Burqas (face-covering thing for women) seems a ban on religion, the facial expression is a vital part in conversation. About 75% of the conversation is body language, and 25% is spoken. While some people ban the burqa out of a hate against Islam (that's a problem we got in Europe, yes), it was so popular because many people think that it's a right to simply know who you're talking to. Normal headscarves are still allowed, and will be allowed forever. All other proposed laws against Islam also failed in European countries.
Yes, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there were good security measures. The only thing missing at that time was a decent enemy.
Luckily, we found a good enemy. We take it very serious. And by the looks of it, we cannot even defeat this one. It's the perfect excuse to continue spending tons of money on useless weapons and other security measures.
Let's see: There have been successful terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11. These attacks imply that terrorists are still active. Terrorists groups have re-asserted their ongoing desire to conduct similar attacks with in the US. Moreover, some such attempts have been made in the US but largely prevented. I'd say those might imply causation, douchebag.
Funny that in Europe many people think its the redneck militaristic Americans who are the douchebags.
There haven't been any successful terrorist attacks on Finland, Slovakia or Portugal either... and those countries can even be reached on foot from the terrorist hotspots. And they haven't severely reduced civil rights or increased their military expenses to a level that is unsustainable on the long term (although Portugal seems to have found ways to go bankrupt even without wasting money on an army).
I bet it works really well against cameras and communications equipment carried by journalists. Possibly better than it would work against actual people.
And a protest that wasn't recorded never happened...
Well... scientists and engineers are able to filter micro-organisms (which are microscopic, and almost the same density as water - similar to our problem here)out of water , also when it's quite diluted. I am sure there's a way to get the tiny bits out.
The basic question is what the concentrated waste is worth per metric ton. If it's worth 1000 euro / ton, then quite a lot is possible... but it's gonna be an expensive island. If it's only 10 euro/ton, then the island is cheap, but only the crude bits will be used.
But hey, who said that the slashdot discussions have to be objective?
(Although I (rhetorically?) asked for examples, I have no time to actually search for examples myself. I see that your laser-vision can see through my false argumentation - so this is my completely worthless comeback to save my ass).
-- in Soviet Russia, nuclear reactors decommission you!
... that the throttle and brake position logging was recording correct data. If there's a fault in the ECU or software, how can you guarantee the data logging is correct?
I would hope that enough independent data is recorded from the vehicle to avoid this kind of mistakes.
Ok... that remark was based not on the lack of insight with the engineers. It's based on the fact that it's impossible to predict the costs of decommissioning a nuclear power plant 50 years into the future. The shut down is in fact often more than 50 years after it was started up. Costs are often higher than expected (due to increased safety regulations). And I think it's not uncommon that governments have to financially assist companies when reactors are decommissioned.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that energy absorbed must eventually be emitted, the emissions can be extremely faint.
Dark matter is supposed to be the majority of the matter in the universe. So, even if it does absorb and emit radiation, it will be extremely cold.
We did find a cosmic background radiation of just a few degrees above absolute zero. It's supposed to originate from the early days of the universe... which makes sense (since we can also see very old stars).
But couldn't that also be radiation with an origin much closer to home, emitted by dark (but ordinary) matter?
-- I should keep stressing that I am no expert... and that this is just speculation, not an actual theory.
We're still searching for dark matter, right?
So, now we found yet another material that absorbs light. So that could mean that the stars we see actually burn brighter (and are more massive?) than we thought. And in addition, there is a material previously unknown to exist in space.
Could is be possible that dark matter is just ordinary matter, made up of atoms and such, and that we just haven't found it yet because it absorbs the radiation we scan for?
-- I admit that I'm no expert, so don't mod me down for stupidity. Just correct me instead, please.
Your military gets free electricity?
- What if they develop a car-based AI system that can refuel independently... free gasoline or diesel?
- What if they develop a drone that can feed off sugars, and empty's your kitchen every day? No worries?
Not that I really care - I'm just curious where you draw the line :-)
-- It's useless for any offensive purposes because the first infrastructure that gets bombed is the electricity grid. Must be only for spying at home then.
Fuck! Computers start to fucking resemble a Vulcan on Valium!
-- which will undoubtedly be replaced by: "All computers are working fine."
Since when do governments or attorneys general side with the general public rather than with Big Business?
Doesn't Google have a little lobby organisation to prevent this kind of embarrassment? All other large companies would have been able to bribe a few people and lobby against a country-wide investigation. This is bad publicity for Google! How could that happen? Why aren't those attorneys general encouraged to stop writing letters and asking questions after their 1st letter?
Yes, but only from law suits. It will not protect you from actual bombers or bullets. --This is not really a joke because it is way to accurate.
You're exaggerating. As far as I know not a single shot has been fired anywhere on earth because of a picture. There was even a draw-prophet-Mohammed-day a while ago to show those fools that us Western people like to sometimes insult others... so loads of pictures were drawn and posted online and not one bomb went off anywhere.
You're way too scared of those Muslim fundamentalists... in fact, you are SO scared that I'd say that the terrorists have won without ever attacking anyone.
For the large part they are only scary if you are in their country, where they are in power (like in countries with the Sharia as their actual law where you will simply go to jail or perhaps can even be put to death for something like that)...
This is just an attempt to get more hits on that shitty blog. These images are just filler material for purely aesthetic purposes, it's not like BP submitted these in court to prove that they were trying their bestest to stem the leak.
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.
In fact, commercials too are all about aesthetics.
The point is that BP have done an awful lot of things for "aesthetic purposes" lately. Like changing a few numbers (flow of oil) in the media. Like predicting when it'd all be solved. Like saying that oil isn't dangerous.
It's easy to do "aesthetics" if you have billions of profit to keep the logo looking green.
Almost every point you wrote down increases the amount of traffic on the roads and the amount of fuel used.
The real question is: can it be remotely hacked/cracked or whatever you call it when someone takes control over your car from a basement in their mom's house?
Will a car with mallware drive you only to a mall to convince you to buy things you don't need?
Why to develop unreliable complex AI? Why not just put a camera and get it remotely driven by a human i.e. driver outsourcing.
Because human drivers tend to be quite unreliable as well. Just look up the amount of traffic accidents and traffic related deaths in your country.
I thought due to the sporadic nature of renewables that few of them are plugged directly into the power grid and instead the energy is used to, for example, pump water from a lower storage tank/lake into a higher one? That way they know exactly how much power will be generated by the release of the water and it is entirely predictable.
One thing that you won't be able to predict is when the tank/lake will be so full you can't pump in it any more.
I guess I'm trying to say that: what is unpredictable will stay unpredictable (no matter how many buffers you use to cushion against values you cannot handle).
Of course you can see the level of a lake. It's not exactly rocket science... I know people are caught by surprise when they can see the bottom of a beer glass... but a lake is not the same.
Worst case scenario you can pump the water up, and then dump it. You waste energy, but save the grid. Same happens when hydroelectric dams get too much water (for example in spring when snow melts).
As far as I know, wind isn't even too unpredictable. But you need more stations (places in the right places) to measure the weather. Then you can make very accurate very-short-term predictions for the next minutes. Spain so far once managed to obtain 53% of its total electricity production from wind.
If you can't handle surges, what happens when the superbowl starts? A large surge on the demand side would then be catastrophic, causing at least a blackout in some parts.
Anyway, I tihnk that there are plenty of places in the world where they have more wind power than in Oregon... so all they have to do is copy someone else's idea.
Also, Oregon is in the Rockies, isn't it? The must be some hydroelectric dams there?
the stupid attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan
You mean, the attack on Saddam's regime, following his invasion of a neighboring country and his unwillingness to ever adhere to the terms of his surrender as his forces were pushed back into his own country? That attack?
No, not the 1st attack. I mean the 2nd one. The one that all the Western world protested against. The actual invasion, not the liberation. The unnecessary attack that has caused many, many more dead people in Iraq than Saddam ever could have done himself.
The attack where we went for the Weapons of Mass Destruction, not the liberation of Kuwait.
And are you by any chance referring to the attack on the Taliban, who had murderously overtaken Afghanistan - to the considerable misery of the locals - and who were aggressively harboring the group that planned and executed attacks on embaassies and facilities in places all around the world, including the 9/11 events? That Taliban? Ask most Afghanis if they were really pleased, or not, to have their school teachers dragged into the town square (now peacefully free of heretic activities like kite flying and music playing) and shot in the head by the guys who want to see not just the middle east, but the entire world tuned up to their medieval specs.
Yup, that one as well. The one where other countries got a simple choice: either to be with or against the strongest country in the world. The attack where European countries had to choose between joining a war which wasn't their problem (many other countries have stupid regimes, check out Africa for your next invasions) or face economic sanctions. The attack that has successfully removed a stupid regime from a capital, but not from the country. The attack that uses all the wrong weapons to achieve nothing at all. Bombs against caves. Helicopter gunships against peasants.
If the US wanted to "attack Afghanistan," the whole place would be a glass parking lot right now. Instead, our troops get killed because of way-crazy ROEs, in the interests of protecting the very people that the Taliban have no problem slaughtering just to make a point.
Agreed. America aims to help the people of Afghanistan now - although in the beginning I really think it was an emotional attack which came from a feeling of revenge for the 9/11 attack rather than helping the Afghan people.
branding Iran as a terrorist state
So, you have no problem with them being a repressive, terrorist-sponsoring state, you just don't want anyone to call them on it?
I accept that they have a regime that doesn't cooperate with us. A religious regime, put there by US interference. I'd rather see them developing some sense all by themselves. If we keep bullying that country, all we do is assist their regime to stay in power. The Iranian people are, on average, quite educated. They know damn well what's going on in the rest of the world.
In addition, Iran stops 2/3rd of all the heroine that's transported from Afghanistan into Europe. They don't get any credit for this silent war on drugs. None of the coalition armies on the Afghan side assist them.
I am not so sure if they actually are the biggest sponsor of terrorism. Never seen any proof for that. But anyway, if coalition troops would just patrol the border, then they could stop both heroine and weapons.
They (Iran) are said to hate us (the Western world)... but I often wonder whose hatred is bigger: ours or theirs. You see, we always blamed the religious nuts for 'hating the Western world, and all its freedom', but we've changed and we now hate others just as much.
I've come to realize that there are, unfortunately, a lot of people on earth who lead poor and luckless lives. It's not only a few countries where we went to war. That was just an excuse. Mugabe in Zimbabwe is still in power. Chavez is going a little crazy in Venez
Funny that in Europe many people think its the redneck militaristic Americans who are the douchebags.
At least we respect freedom of religion in this country and aren't busy passing legislation to infringe upon the practice of that freedom. Maybe you should take a look at your own backyard before you start throwing stones into mine?
That's one of the problems we got thanks to the stupid attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan and branding Iran as a terrorist state. In North-America, there aren't too many Muslims. So, it's the perfect enemy for America. We have about 5% Muslims in Western Europe. And since about 10 years, people start to generalize that all Muslims are the same, and the right wing parties are gaining in popularity. It did not help that we were bullied into joining the Coalition of the Unwilling in Afghanistan where our solidiers were killed by some fundamentalist religious freaks.
Although I admit that the ban on Burqas (face-covering thing for women) seems a ban on religion, the facial expression is a vital part in conversation. About 75% of the conversation is body language, and 25% is spoken. While some people ban the burqa out of a hate against Islam (that's a problem we got in Europe, yes), it was so popular because many people think that it's a right to simply know who you're talking to. Normal headscarves are still allowed, and will be allowed forever. All other proposed laws against Islam also failed in European countries.
Yes, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there were good security measures. The only thing missing at that time was a decent enemy.
Luckily, we found a good enemy. We take it very serious. And by the looks of it, we cannot even defeat this one. It's the perfect excuse to continue spending tons of money on useless weapons and other security measures.
Let's see: There have been successful terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11. These attacks imply that terrorists are still active. Terrorists groups have re-asserted their ongoing desire to conduct similar attacks with in the US. Moreover, some such attempts have been made in the US but largely prevented. I'd say those might imply causation, douchebag.
Funny that in Europe many people think its the redneck militaristic Americans who are the douchebags.
There haven't been any successful terrorist attacks on Finland, Slovakia or Portugal either... and those countries can even be reached on foot from the terrorist hotspots. And they haven't severely reduced civil rights or increased their military expenses to a level that is unsustainable on the long term (although Portugal seems to have found ways to go bankrupt even without wasting money on an army).
I bet it works really well against cameras and communications equipment carried by journalists. Possibly better than it would work against actual people.
And a protest that wasn't recorded never happened...
Agreed. It's more scary to know there is something out there that can finish us all than to know exactly what it is out there that can finish us all.
Monsters that you cannot see are more scary than the scariest monster that you can see.
There is definitely road tax in MY country...
Might as well increase road tax if there are more people speeding.
Well... scientists and engineers are able to filter micro-organisms (which are microscopic, and almost the same density as water - similar to our problem here)out of water , also when it's quite diluted. I am sure there's a way to get the tiny bits out.
The basic question is what the concentrated waste is worth per metric ton. If it's worth 1000 euro / ton, then quite a lot is possible... but it's gonna be an expensive island. If it's only 10 euro/ton, then the island is cheap, but only the crude bits will be used.
Los Angeles is not so well known for its great recycling scheme... can you tell me more about it?
To be honest, to a naive European, America as a whole is known as the most wasteful society in the world - but perhaps we're wrong?
Umm... true.
But hey, who said that the slashdot discussions have to be objective?
(Although I (rhetorically?) asked for examples, I have no time to actually search for examples myself. I see that your laser-vision can see through my false argumentation - so this is my completely worthless comeback to save my ass).
-- in Soviet Russia, nuclear reactors decommission you!
... that the throttle and brake position logging was recording correct data. If there's a fault in the ECU or software, how can you guarantee the data logging is correct?
I would hope that enough independent data is recorded from the vehicle to avoid this kind of mistakes.
Ok... that remark was based not on the lack of insight with the engineers. It's based on the fact that it's impossible to predict the costs of decommissioning a nuclear power plant 50 years into the future. The shut down is in fact often more than 50 years after it was started up. Costs are often higher than expected (due to increased safety regulations). And I think it's not uncommon that governments have to financially assist companies when reactors are decommissioned.