UI animations like the ones in the Groove app aren't there to wow you, but to make the UI more coherent.
In Groove, once the user starts scrolling (obviously now more interested in the contents of the scroll area than in the contents of the description pane), the top part of the UI collapses so that the description goes away. The animation keeps it from being so jarring. Simultaneously, it ensures that the smallest scroll action only moves the content as far as expected (instead of suddenly having a different button under your mouse... something I've noticed that Google is screwing up in some of their UIs as of late).
So if a person finds it jarring, or annoying - they are wrong?
Looks like they are copying recent OSX features. Oddly enough, the ones I can do without. I was never too much into UI animation either. First time you might say ooohhhhh! Then it rapidly becomes boring.
Hahahahaha. Yes, sure. As long as you get a perfect signal, anyway.
Well, OP is kinda right. If you have a really good signal, the results will be a nice clear hiss free result.
If you don't, you won't hear anything at all. It's called the digital cliff. Less range, higher power requirements. A bold technological step backwards.
There are emergency communicators who want to switch from FM to digital, and its maddening to hear people who want to have nice static free voice versus knowing a signal is there at all.
We're moving into an age of pulling signals out from below the noise floor, and yayhoos are clamoring for pristine sound.
5. It's too late to do anything useful, so there's no point in doing anything.
6. Its the liberal's fault.
We had a Highway go througha local area where there were likely to be problems. Pyritic rocks, which make for pretty orange acidic water. Unfit to drink, kills all life in streams it flows into untill it gets buffered out by dilution. Well, those fucking tree huggers were taught a lesson.
They exempted the project from an environmental impact study.
So after they tore off the top of a mountain and built the highway, the water started running orange. At first they tried to claim that no one knew it was there. A local geology professor exposed that lie, as he showed that the pyritic rock exposure had already been cut through once before in that area - just a minor exposure.
Then it was found out they had plopped half of the shit they excavated in other areas as well. A hell of a mess, with the taxpayers funding a huge cleanup, running water lines to the houses that had their wells permanently destroyed, and possibly will lose a productive muni water well in the future. I sat at a meeting where one of these geniuses, blamed the whole thing on Liberal tree huggers. Because they had to oppose the tree huggers and eliminate the impact statement, and had to lie about it. So the tree huggers who wanted the highway to go in elsewhere were teh problem because well, you know you have to make certain that you don't listen to them.
The greenhouse effect that is in the realm of science fair projects, isn't the same as the unfortunately named Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere, and saying it is only make your ignorance obvious. The warming experienced in greenhouses is caused by the simple obstruction of convection of warm air.
Thank you for pointing out my ignorance. I guess that the carbon dioxide enrichment that is used in Greenhouses does not exist as outlined in this wikipedia Article to wit:
Carbon dioxide enrichment
The possibility of using carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouse cultivation to enhance plant growth has been known for nearly 100 years.[18][19][20] After the development of equipment for the controlled serial enrichment of carbon dioxide, the technique was established on a broad scale in the Netherlands.[21] Secondary metabolites, e.g., cardiac glycosides in Digitalis lanata, are produced in higher amounts by greenhouse cultivation at enhanced temperature and at enhanced carbon dioxide concentration.[22] Commercial greenhouses are now frequently located near appropriate industrial facilities for mutual benefit. For example, Cornerways Nursery in the UK is strategically placed near a major sugar refinery,[23] consuming both waste heat and CO2 from the refinery which would otherwise be vented to atmosphere. The refinery reduces its carbon emissions, whilst the nursery enjoys boosted tomato yields and does not need to provide its own greenhouse heating.
Deny that. Please do deny that.
Thanks for playing, and your time honored denialist insults are noted.
That was not the point. It's not about climate science not knowing everything. Everything is an unobtainable and unnecessary goal. I don't see much point in it except as a retorical distraction to make ignoring deniers acceptable.
Deniers need to come up with something other than simply denying. Or using apparent anomalies as disproof, especially years after the anomalies have been proven to no longer be anomalies, or calling Michael Mann an asshole.
I'll pay serious attention to the deniers when they can point to some research that independently disproves AGW.
And I won't hold my breath, just the same as I won't hold my breath for creationism science or tobacco industry lawyers.
Meantime, stand firm in your faith, and deny deny deny. Denial is your core value, the source of your strength, and your Raison d'être, I would never deny your denial. Carry on. Fund some research.
The greenhouse effect is correlation, not cause. Raise the temperature and CO2 will go up. Raise the CO2 and temperature will go up.
So what you are saying is that it is an instant positive feedback loop, ehhh, no.
If you truly believed in the greenhouse effect, you'd move out of the city and become a farmer- sucking Carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it in plant material.
Growing crops is a null, except for whatever Carbon is emitted in the planting, fertilizing, growing and harvesting of those crops.
That's right, CO2 which is 100-fold less important than water vapor is somehow determinant of Earth climate.... on a planet covered with 80% oceans...
Where on earth did you come up with a ridiculous statement like that? Yes, Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse "gas" out there. But that doesn't mean that CO2 has no effect Or methane. That coal you might be fond of? That is not sequestered water is it? It is the sequestered carbon from the appropriately namedCarbiniferous age. This was an interesting time, with Average global temperatures of around 68 degrees - much warmer than today.
Oxygen levels were a lot higher than today composing over 32 percent by volume. This is why the insects of th eage were so large. CO2 was around 800 ppm.
Now here's where it gets interesting. Trees had developed Lignin which allowed them to grow very large, and a waxy substance developed that delayed decomposition. These trees were armed for bear Forests covered much of the land. These forests pulled a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere, which over time cooled the planet. Finally by the end of the Pennsylvanian age, the earth had cooled enoughh that these tropical forests could no longer sustain themselves.
But in the meantime, as the trees went through their life cycle, the dead trees would drop, and when the conditions were correct, they would be covered, compressed, and turned into coal. Sequestered Carbon it was. Millions of years worth, and finally ended when the planet had cooled to the etent that the tropical climate couldn't be continued.
So fast forward to today. At the beginning of the industrial Revolution - generally attributed to 1750, we started digging up and using this sequestered material. And we've gone through a lot of it. In less than 300 years, we've re-introduced 800 terawatts worth of radiative forcing worth of Carbon that was sequestered over millions of years.
That's a lot, in a very short time.
So yeah Water vapor acts as a greenhouse "gas" that's really a very good thing. We need the Greenhouse effect to exist, as the Earth would be Arctic without it.
Once you accept that the greenhouse effect is real - and grade school children have been showing this at science fairs, and greenhouse owners have proven it for years, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that taking the Carbon that was removed from the atmosphere and putting it back in the atmosphere is going to have some effect."
Why is it hard to understand? Just look at this simple example.
Science fairs show that extra Co2 can increase the retention of sunlight and backyard Greenhouses show that retaining sunlight makes things hot.
These are simple examples in relatively closed, somewhat understood and quantified systems.
'Greenhouse Effect' is a label for the application of the above two principles in a world wide climate system.
Removing the simplicity constraints of closed and quantified are why I'm having a problem with accepting that anybody has an understanding.
Things on the yet to quantify interactions list include ocean circulations, chemical and organic reactions, stored energy, thermal reservoirs, chemical reservoirs, and human interactions. This thread is about scientists literally beginning to scratch the surface of quantifying ocean circulations.
Climate science has a long way to go before it has the data to form more than a superficial understanding of how the climate system works.
So, for these measurements, don't ships still have engine intake temp? Seems like they could continue to plot temperature the old way and then plot the new buoy data separately. This would separate the question of measurement adjustments from measurement.
Removing the simplicity constraints of closed and quantified are why I'm having a problem with accepting that anybody has an understanding.
Will we ever have a complete and total understanding of the effect on a global scale? Probably not. But the "it fails" team is behind pretty badly, and will need about 25 "Hail Mary" passes in quick succession to catch up.
Things on the yet to quantify interactions list include ocean circulations, chemical and organic reactions, stored energy, thermal reservoirs, chemical reservoirs, and human interactions. This thread is about scientists literally beginning to scratch the surface of quantifying ocean circulations.
And the surface we are scratching won't ever actually get smaller. You are making perfect the enemy of good. Ocean circulations -very interesting and might even produce cooling in some areas. Cae in point - The British Isles. Around the Latitude of Montana in the US. Much warmer than Montana due to the Gulf Stream. Palm trees even grow in Ireland. But Greenland Ice melt might distrupt the Gulf stream or re-direct it, and The British Isles become a much colder place.
And all these other things - side effects, not negating factors.
Climate science has a long way to go before it has the data to form more than a superficial understanding of how the climate system works.
So, for these measurements, don't ships still have engine intake temp? Seems like they could continue to plot temperature the old way and then plot the new buoy data separately. This would separate the question of measurement adjustments from measurement.
Engine inlet temp is a measurement of just that. It isn't specifically a measurement of ambient air temps. A lot of stuff going on there, corners with compression and expansion, proximity to other heat sources. With each ship again a different setup, it would make any measurements taken that way of little use.
Scientists are not infallible. There is a non-zero chance that they are wrong, that human released Carbon Dioxide and methane for some reason act differently than naturally released versions of the same. But just because it is a non-zero chance doesn't mean it is not vanishingly small.
The possibility of using carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouse cultivation to enhance plant growth has been known for nearly 100 years.[18][19][20] After the development of equipment for the controlled serial enrichment of carbon dioxide, the technique was established on a broad scale in the Netherlands.[21] Secondary metabolites, e.g., cardiac glycosides in Digitalis lanata, are produced in higher amounts by greenhouse cultivation at enhanced temperature and at enhanced carbon dioxide concentration.[22] Commercial greenhouses are now frequently located near appropriate industrial facilities for mutual benefit. For example, Cornerways Nursery in the UK is strategically placed near a major sugar refinery,[23] consuming both waste heat and CO2 from the refinery which would otherwise be vented to atmosphere. The refinery reduces its carbon emissions, whilst the nursery enjoys boosted tomato yields and does not need to provide its own greenhouse heating.
Or to quote Neil De Grasse Tyson: "It's basic physics. If you keep adding energy to a system, but you slow down the rate at which the energy can leave the system then the system gets hotter".
Pretty basic indeed.
And presumably the denialists have learnd to go back to sticking their heads in the sand. This business of using facts and figures and measurements backfires on them every time. Time to get back to faith based physics.
Once you accept that the greenhouse effect is real - and grade school children have been showing this at science fairs, and greenhouse owners have proven it for years, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that taking the Carbon that was removed from the atmosphere and putting it back in the atmosphere is going to have some effect.
The greenhouse effect in greenhouses isn't caused by carbon dioxide so it's kinda hard to use that as proof for anthropomorphic climate change.
What reminds me of 5 years ago was all of the naysayers back then laughing at the concept that the Model S would be produced at all, let alone in quantities of nearly 100k per year. That they'd fail to produce them, that they'd fail to find customers, that the whole EV thing was a fad, and Tesla was imminently about to go bankrupt.
Or wind power, or solar PV for that matter. All failures, and will continue to be failures, no matter how successful.
You have to give the naysayers some credit - they have a Wile E. Coyote level of persistence despite being so wrong so consistently. So many of those damn teenagers running around that their lawns have no more grass on them.
You're not going to convince an idiot by providing evidence that he doesn't understand.
Due to climate science being too complicated to wrap up in one or two security blanket statements consisting of a pithy statement, we are all doomed to suffer the consequences. How many sheep carcasses, wolf tracks and turds do we need to find before people start actually doing something about the wolves, despite not seeing them personally?
But is it really that hard to understand?
Once you accept that the greenhouse effect is real - and grade school children have been showing this at science fairs, and greenhouse owners have proven it for years, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that taking the Carbon that was removed from the atmosphere and putting it back in the atmosphere is going to have some effect.
http://www.solarserver.com/sol...
Storage. A lot of traditional power stations even today do this. The paradigm is a little different, but for conventional turbine generated power, which has issues with widely varying power loads, they often use nighttime pumping of water to store in ponds, then release it during the day as a load leveler.
With solar, you would pump during the day, then release at night. This isn't a big deal, because solar can handle load levelling better than a turbine generator system.
No, AC's are always having that problem. Computers never work, the OS blue screens 20 times a day, their wife, GF and dog leave them. The CIA / NSA and the Mossad are all after them.
Sucks to be them, I suppose.
Bad luck Brian personified!
But I just have to repeat myself, I am annoyingly fussy about the quality of my computers. Once I get outside of the cheap Chromebook I take to breakfast, I like competent and pretty. And the Envy meets both just fine.
I guess I'd put it this way: I like my internal hardware Japanese but my connectors and casing Soviet.;)
Not a bad outlook, Funny how with the Russian stuff they can either be Fugly, like that awesome old radio ColdWetDog posted, or strikingly beautiful, like http://www.military-today.com/...
Plugs, not so easy, (see below though) but the jacks? Not so hard. They are weakend a little bit every time they get plugged in. Typical is that the springiness slowly goes away, or the contact eventually breaks at the base. Mostly just losing contact on the plug, though. Then the users jiggle it a bit, maybe get it to work, often making the problm worse. The mini 1/8" plug and jack are a scaling down of the old 1/4" plug and jack, which was a little meh as well. The smaller you make them, the weaker they get. The micro ones are almost useless.
I doubt they'd break if you hit them with a hammer. Okay, if you put the jack side in a vise, then hit the other with a heavy hammer blow, you'd probably bend the pin. But it'd probably still fit in and out bent and still work.
To test your conjecture, I took a good grade 1/8th inch plug, placed it on my workbench, and gave it a whack with an 8 oz claw hammer. After a bit of time removing the metal outer case due to it's no longer having a circular shape, the results were internal connections were bent and weakend but not broken, Flange at top of the pin was crushed, and the pin itself ws compressed, which turned it roughly ovoid, and made it impossible to fit into a jack.
Slashdot Mirror
UI animations like the ones in the Groove app aren't there to wow you, but to make the UI more coherent.
In Groove, once the user starts scrolling (obviously now more interested in the contents of the scroll area than in the contents of the description pane), the top part of the UI collapses so that the description goes away. The animation keeps it from being so jarring. Simultaneously, it ensures that the smallest scroll action only moves the content as far as expected (instead of suddenly having a different button under your mouse... something I've noticed that Google is screwing up in some of their UIs as of late).
So if a person finds it jarring, or annoying - they are wrong?
In the end, more features to turn off.
carries less hiss and clearer sound
Hahahahaha. Yes, sure. As long as you get a perfect signal, anyway.
Well, OP is kinda right. If you have a really good signal, the results will be a nice clear hiss free result.
If you don't, you won't hear anything at all. It's called the digital cliff. Less range, higher power requirements. A bold technological step backwards.
There are emergency communicators who want to switch from FM to digital, and its maddening to hear people who want to have nice static free voice versus knowing a signal is there at all.
We're moving into an age of pulling signals out from below the noise floor, and yayhoos are clamoring for pristine sound.
Ah, yes, the stages of denialism:
1. It's not happening.
2. It's not our fault.
3. Our contribution isn't significant.
4. It's not going to be that bad..
5. It's too late to do anything useful, so there's no point in doing anything.
6. Its the liberal's fault.
We had a Highway go througha local area where there were likely to be problems. Pyritic rocks, which make for pretty orange acidic water. Unfit to drink, kills all life in streams it flows into untill it gets buffered out by dilution. Well, those fucking tree huggers were taught a lesson.
They exempted the project from an environmental impact study.
So after they tore off the top of a mountain and built the highway, the water started running orange. At first they tried to claim that no one knew it was there. A local geology professor exposed that lie, as he showed that the pyritic rock exposure had already been cut through once before in that area - just a minor exposure.
Then it was found out they had plopped half of the shit they excavated in other areas as well. A hell of a mess, with the taxpayers funding a huge cleanup, running water lines to the houses that had their wells permanently destroyed, and possibly will lose a productive muni water well in the future. I sat at a meeting where one of these geniuses, blamed the whole thing on Liberal tree huggers. Because they had to oppose the tree huggers and eliminate the impact statement, and had to lie about it. So the tree huggers who wanted the highway to go in elsewhere were teh problem because well, you know you have to make certain that you don't listen to them.
The greenhouse effect that is in the realm of science fair projects, isn't the same as the unfortunately named Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere, and saying it is only make your ignorance obvious. The warming experienced in greenhouses is caused by the simple obstruction of convection of warm air.
Thank you for pointing out my ignorance. I guess that the carbon dioxide enrichment that is used in Greenhouses does not exist as outlined in this wikipedia Article to wit:
Carbon dioxide enrichment
The possibility of using carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouse cultivation to enhance plant growth has been known for nearly 100 years.[18][19][20] After the development of equipment for the controlled serial enrichment of carbon dioxide, the technique was established on a broad scale in the Netherlands.[21] Secondary metabolites, e.g., cardiac glycosides in Digitalis lanata, are produced in higher amounts by greenhouse cultivation at enhanced temperature and at enhanced carbon dioxide concentration.[22] Commercial greenhouses are now frequently located near appropriate industrial facilities for mutual benefit. For example, Cornerways Nursery in the UK is strategically placed near a major sugar refinery,[23] consuming both waste heat and CO2 from the refinery which would otherwise be vented to atmosphere. The refinery reduces its carbon emissions, whilst the nursery enjoys boosted tomato yields and does not need to provide its own greenhouse heating.
Deny that. Please do deny that.
Thanks for playing, and your time honored denialist insults are noted.
"Because while we don't know everything"
That was not the point. It's not about climate science not knowing everything. Everything is an unobtainable and unnecessary goal. I don't see much point in it except as a retorical distraction to make ignoring deniers acceptable.
Deniers need to come up with something other than simply denying. Or using apparent anomalies as disproof, especially years after the anomalies have been proven to no longer be anomalies, or calling Michael Mann an asshole.
I'll pay serious attention to the deniers when they can point to some research that independently disproves AGW.
And I won't hold my breath, just the same as I won't hold my breath for creationism science or tobacco industry lawyers.
Meantime, stand firm in your faith, and deny deny deny. Denial is your core value, the source of your strength, and your Raison d'être, I would never deny your denial. Carry on. Fund some research.
The greenhouse effect is correlation, not cause. Raise the temperature and CO2 will go up. Raise the CO2 and temperature will go up.
So what you are saying is that it is an instant positive feedback loop, ehhh, no.
If you truly believed in the greenhouse effect, you'd move out of the city and become a farmer- sucking Carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it in plant material.
Growing crops is a null, except for whatever Carbon is emitted in the planting, fertilizing, growing and harvesting of those crops.
That's right, CO2 which is 100-fold less important than water vapor is somehow determinant of Earth climate.... on a planet covered with 80% oceans...
Where on earth did you come up with a ridiculous statement like that? Yes, Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse "gas" out there. But that doesn't mean that CO2 has no effect Or methane. That coal you might be fond of? That is not sequestered water is it? It is the sequestered carbon from the appropriately namedCarbiniferous age. This was an interesting time, with Average global temperatures of around 68 degrees - much warmer than today.
Oxygen levels were a lot higher than today composing over 32 percent by volume. This is why the insects of th eage were so large. CO2 was around 800 ppm.
Now here's where it gets interesting. Trees had developed Lignin which allowed them to grow very large, and a waxy substance developed that delayed decomposition. These trees were armed for bear Forests covered much of the land. These forests pulled a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere, which over time cooled the planet. Finally by the end of the Pennsylvanian age, the earth had cooled enoughh that these tropical forests could no longer sustain themselves.
But in the meantime, as the trees went through their life cycle, the dead trees would drop, and when the conditions were correct, they would be covered, compressed, and turned into coal. Sequestered Carbon it was. Millions of years worth, and finally ended when the planet had cooled to the etent that the tropical climate couldn't be continued.
So fast forward to today. At the beginning of the industrial Revolution - generally attributed to 1750, we started digging up and using this sequestered material. And we've gone through a lot of it. In less than 300 years, we've re-introduced 800 terawatts worth of radiative forcing worth of Carbon that was sequestered over millions of years.
That's a lot, in a very short time.
So yeah Water vapor acts as a greenhouse "gas" that's really a very good thing. We need the Greenhouse effect to exist, as the Earth would be Arctic without it.
"But is it really that hard to understand?
Once you accept that the greenhouse effect is real - and grade school children have been showing this at science fairs, and greenhouse owners have proven it for years, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that taking the Carbon that was removed from the atmosphere and putting it back in the atmosphere is going to have some effect."
Why is it hard to understand? Just look at this simple example.
Science fairs show that extra Co2 can increase the retention of sunlight and backyard Greenhouses show that retaining sunlight makes things hot. These are simple examples in relatively closed, somewhat understood and quantified systems. 'Greenhouse Effect' is a label for the application of the above two principles in a world wide climate system. Removing the simplicity constraints of closed and quantified are why I'm having a problem with accepting that anybody has an understanding.
Things on the yet to quantify interactions list include ocean circulations, chemical and organic reactions, stored energy, thermal reservoirs, chemical reservoirs, and human interactions. This thread is about scientists literally beginning to scratch the surface of quantifying ocean circulations.
Climate science has a long way to go before it has the data to form more than a superficial understanding of how the climate system works.
So, for these measurements, don't ships still have engine intake temp? Seems like they could continue to plot temperature the old way and then plot the new buoy data separately. This would separate the question of measurement adjustments from measurement.
Removing the simplicity constraints of closed and quantified are why I'm having a problem with accepting that anybody has an understanding.
Will we ever have a complete and total understanding of the effect on a global scale? Probably not. But the "it fails" team is behind pretty badly, and will need about 25 "Hail Mary" passes in quick succession to catch up.
Things on the yet to quantify interactions list include ocean circulations, chemical and organic reactions, stored energy, thermal reservoirs, chemical reservoirs, and human interactions. This thread is about scientists literally beginning to scratch the surface of quantifying ocean circulations.
And the surface we are scratching won't ever actually get smaller. You are making perfect the enemy of good. Ocean circulations -very interesting and might even produce cooling in some areas. Cae in point - The British Isles. Around the Latitude of Montana in the US. Much warmer than Montana due to the Gulf Stream. Palm trees even grow in Ireland. But Greenland Ice melt might distrupt the Gulf stream or re-direct it, and The British Isles become a much colder place.
And all these other things - side effects, not negating factors.
Climate science has a long way to go before it has the data to form more than a superficial understanding of how the climate system works.
So, for these measurements, don't ships still have engine intake temp? Seems like they could continue to plot temperature the old way and then plot the new buoy data separately. This would separate the question of measurement adjustments from measurement.
Engine inlet temp is a measurement of just that. It isn't specifically a measurement of ambient air temps. A lot of stuff going on there, corners with compression and expansion, proximity to other heat sources. With each ship again a different setup, it would make any measurements taken that way of little use.
Scientists are not infallible. There is a non-zero chance that they are wrong, that human released Carbon Dioxide and methane for some reason act differently than naturally released versions of the same. But just because it is a non-zero chance doesn't mean it is not vanishingly small.
It is now time for the deniers to step up to th
There's no convection in a greenhouse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From the article:
The possibility of using carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouse cultivation to enhance plant growth has been known for nearly 100 years.[18][19][20] After the development of equipment for the controlled serial enrichment of carbon dioxide, the technique was established on a broad scale in the Netherlands.[21] Secondary metabolites, e.g., cardiac glycosides in Digitalis lanata, are produced in higher amounts by greenhouse cultivation at enhanced temperature and at enhanced carbon dioxide concentration.[22] Commercial greenhouses are now frequently located near appropriate industrial facilities for mutual benefit. For example, Cornerways Nursery in the UK is strategically placed near a major sugar refinery,[23] consuming both waste heat and CO2 from the refinery which would otherwise be vented to atmosphere. The refinery reduces its carbon emissions, whilst the nursery enjoys boosted tomato yields and does not need to provide its own greenhouse heating.
Go figure, eh?
Or to quote Neil De Grasse Tyson: "It's basic physics. If you keep adding energy to a system, but you slow down the rate at which the energy can leave the system then the system gets hotter".
Pretty basic indeed.
And presumably the denialists have learnd to go back to sticking their heads in the sand. This business of using facts and figures and measurements backfires on them every time. Time to get back to faith based physics.
Once you accept that the greenhouse effect is real - and grade school children have been showing this at science fairs, and greenhouse owners have proven it for years, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that taking the Carbon that was removed from the atmosphere and putting it back in the atmosphere is going to have some effect.
The greenhouse effect in greenhouses isn't caused by carbon dioxide so it's kinda hard to use that as proof for anthropomorphic climate change.
You need to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Battery storage only makes sense for households/installations that don't want/can feed surplus into the grid, or are off grid.
The electric power grid is an endangered species. Too many slashdotters are having a problem understanding that.
What reminds me of 5 years ago was all of the naysayers back then laughing at the concept that the Model S would be produced at all, let alone in quantities of nearly 100k per year. That they'd fail to produce them, that they'd fail to find customers, that the whole EV thing was a fad, and Tesla was imminently about to go bankrupt.
Or wind power, or solar PV for that matter. All failures, and will continue to be failures, no matter how successful.
You have to give the naysayers some credit - they have a Wile E. Coyote level of persistence despite being so wrong so consistently. So many of those damn teenagers running around that their lawns have no more grass on them.
You're not going to convince an idiot by providing evidence that he doesn't understand.
Due to climate science being too complicated to wrap up in one or two security blanket statements consisting of a pithy statement, we are all doomed to suffer the consequences. How many sheep carcasses, wolf tracks and turds do we need to find before people start actually doing something about the wolves, despite not seeing them personally?
But is it really that hard to understand?
Once you accept that the greenhouse effect is real - and grade school children have been showing this at science fairs, and greenhouse owners have proven it for years, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that taking the Carbon that was removed from the atmosphere and putting it back in the atmosphere is going to have some effect.
Jeebuz buring all of those dinosaur fossils in the ground and giving them suspiciously old radioisotope ratios was the best prank ever.
We laugh, but there have been some folks who actually believe that. Variation 1 is Satan putting them there.
Awp, someone marked this troll. Guess you can safely charge these things up in seconds if you use a car battery.
(Where did all of those fossil fuels get their energy from in the first place?)
The Koch Brothers and Jeebuz.
You had the time and interest but you repeated what I said.
Now please tell me you were joking, because no one has seriously tried to invoke 2LD since the strong 2LD concept leads to an almost immediate ending.
Is the cost of this method included in the $0.03/kwh?
Is the question asked as disproval of solar?
Given that storage is already used as load leveling for conventionalpower generation, its just part of providing electricity.
What about at night?
http://www.solarserver.com/sol... Storage. A lot of traditional power stations even today do this. The paradigm is a little different, but for conventional turbine generated power, which has issues with widely varying power loads, they often use nighttime pumping of water to store in ponds, then release it during the day as a load leveler.
With solar, you would pump during the day, then release at night. This isn't a big deal, because solar can handle load levelling better than a turbine generator system.
No, AC's are always having that problem. Computers never work, the OS blue screens 20 times a day, their wife, GF and dog leave them. The CIA / NSA and the Mossad are all after them.
Sucks to be them, I suppose.
Bad luck Brian personified!
But I just have to repeat myself, I am annoyingly fussy about the quality of my computers. Once I get outside of the cheap Chromebook I take to breakfast, I like competent and pretty. And the Envy meets both just fine.
I guess I'd put it this way: I like my internal hardware Japanese but my connectors and casing Soviet. ;)
Not a bad outlook, Funny how with the Russian stuff they can either be Fugly, like that awesome old radio ColdWetDog posted, or strikingly beautiful, like http://www.military-today.com/...
Unfortunately, your fantasy iPhone would look something like this. Hard to pocket. Even with cargo pants.
Oh man - I love the old military radios. First I laughed, now I'm studying the radio.
How do you break a headphone jack or plug?
Plugs, not so easy, (see below though) but the jacks? Not so hard. They are weakend a little bit every time they get plugged in. Typical is that the springiness slowly goes away, or the contact eventually breaks at the base. Mostly just losing contact on the plug, though. Then the users jiggle it a bit, maybe get it to work, often making the problm worse. The mini 1/8" plug and jack are a scaling down of the old 1/4" plug and jack, which was a little meh as well. The smaller you make them, the weaker they get. The micro ones are almost useless.
I doubt they'd break if you hit them with a hammer. Okay, if you put the jack side in a vise, then hit the other with a heavy hammer blow, you'd probably bend the pin. But it'd probably still fit in and out bent and still work.
To test your conjecture, I took a good grade 1/8th inch plug, placed it on my workbench, and gave it a whack with an 8 oz claw hammer. After a bit of time removing the metal outer case due to it's no longer having a circular shape, the results were internal connections were bent and weakend but not broken, Flange at top of the pin was crushed, and the pin itself ws compressed, which turned it roughly ovoid, and made it impossible to fit into a jack.