you forget that before the Taliban were the Soviets and at the time you had women going to univesities and miniskirts. The Taliban were in fact installed by US. This is all but (blowback) a big cleanup
Funny that, they think the same for the US. Not that they are not in their own bubble. They see a highly consumerist country that weilds their power and lays countries to waist. Much like the many a muslim fundamentalists think of the US.
Imagine walking the streets of NY, and seeing people spending their resource buying crap. Thinking they need crap, using practicaly naked bodies to sell crap...
under ground next to naturaly radioactive deposits ? There are areas on the planet that a naturaly highyly radioactive. Even on the surface and we are OK with that.
We don't create radioactivity. You end up with less than you started, so thin it out and shove it under ground
I don't think you fathom how much CO2 is produced. We are talking trillions of tonnes, enough to raise the acidity of the oceans.
>> Uh, no. We have had catalytic converters installed on all cars made since '86 which eliminate 90% or so of actual pollutants... CO2 isn't "dirty", by the way, it is just related to global warming.
The problem is that when coal is liquefied, what you are left with behind are massive amounts of pollutants. The moment you pull it out of the ground you have a hot potato. The leftover crap is highly toxic. A helova lot more bad the radioactivity for the equivalent amount of energy in Uranium. And I mean hundreds. We have nowhere to put it. Coal liquification has always been known, but the proponents just pretend the bad stuff does not exist.
A backpack of Uranium is a supertanker of oil or the equivalent of coal. If you use liquification and you use coal as an energy source to do so, double it. Now shove the leftovers in the ground. At the beginning your costs add 20-30%. In 5 years the cheap dumps will be used up. The you just add 5%-10% every decade or so. (PS: Shoving under ground has no proven safe by the way)
You need to invest the same amount of infrastructure as we currently have for oil, to shove CO2 under the ground. Massive investment for less efficient return !!!
So your solution is about 2.5 times worse than the current solution which is burning the damn stuff.
You are much much better off running cars with coal powder which you can also do. It is just less stupid
>> Which I talked about. There's actually a demand for high percentage CO2 air.
Oh... well then we may as well make CO2 factories then !!
That is the most ridiculous comment I have seen in a while.
Closed loop CO2 don't exist except for the fact that they are used to stop real solutions.
We are so used to noisy dirty cars and filthy means of making energy that we just accept it.
Electric cars, are quiet and don't pollute.
CO2 is only part of the problem. When you burn coal you generate fly ash a toxic, radioactive compound that has to be dumped somewhere. Don't say underground. That's crap. It will double the price of energy production if they ever figure out how to do it. You think we are running out of oil. Places to shove the CO2 will run out sooner making it more expensive to dump it.
?! Amm... well... that is kinda stupid. It is well known. We will not run out of fuel for a while. Don't worry about the tabloids. You can also get oil from tar sands by running steam through. The problem with both solutions is that heaps of energy is needed. The Germans got a two for one deal. 2 liters of coal dust give you one liter of fuel. Problem is that the other liter goes up on smoke.. I mean CO2. Now CO2 is a three for one deal. For every KG of coal you burn, you end up with 3 kg of CO2... kind of a bummer. (Oh there is fly ash, but hey that's toxic now but we can shove that in your back yard... cool ?)
As for the tar sands, the steam needs energy. The energy will come from... probably nuclear.
The energy solution you want is nuclear. No emissions. Creates no real pollution.You are pretty much left with less than you started. (If you don't count the irradiated walls and bits)
Soooo... we are asking people to trust that the software will do the right thing. The wrong thing will have to do with our privacy, our identity, our money... very dangerous I would say
Slashdot Mirror
you forget that before the Taliban were the Soviets and at the time you had women going to univesities and miniskirts. The Taliban were in fact installed by US. This is all but (blowback) a big cleanup
Funny that, they think the same for the US. Not that they are not in their own bubble.
...
They see a highly consumerist country that weilds their power and lays countries to waist.
Much like the many a muslim fundamentalists think of the US.
Imagine walking the streets of NY, and seeing people spending their resource buying crap.
Thinking they need crap, using practicaly naked bodies to sell crap
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151
I guess they think there is an expiration date to the US way of thinking
So its a point of perspective
G
Hey ... STOP making fun of "clean" coal
G
Sure ... but I may not get my way
Maybe we should start calling them "tinkerer".
You can't ask language to do as you say
G
Amm ... look up Byzantium. It never saw a dark ages but continued to creat and inovate.
The Renaissance was in part as a result of the sacking of Kostantinopole were phylosophers and scientists had to flee to Italy.
The Bible and espcialy the new tesament was written in Greek the language of teh Byzantium as opposed to Latin.
G
What's with the graphics.
They are never that shape !?
G
This comment is not worth the characters used ... wait for the video
G
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary prof"
...
All he has is his stature. Not bad, but gets you nowhere. Other than that we can may as well phylosophise intixicated
G
Check the back of your fridge, it's hot.
So by cooling by this method you may cool the cpu surface, butyou will produce alot more heat out of the laptop.
Fried laps ?
G
Monoculture ... ?
own me once, own me everywhere
G
I think the point of this rifle is to make it legal to use for croud control.
So we aim at you, you don't know what comes out it's other end
G
Even better did you read my comment before you answered with your infinite intelligence ?
... get this ... to the comment above mine.
Did you notice it was a reply ?
A reply to
'ava nice day
G
Why baloons ? What would the humans do. Sit in a box while the instruments ... instrument ?
Why not stay in orbit, a little higher than baloons. Why not stay on earth ?
under ground next to naturaly radioactive deposits ?
There are areas on the planet that a naturaly highyly radioactive. Even on the surface and we are OK with that.
We don't create radioactivity. You end up with less than you started, so thin it out and shove it under ground
G
I don't think you fathom how much CO2 is produced. We are talking trillions of tonnes, enough to raise the acidity of the oceans.
>> Uh, no. We have had catalytic converters installed on all cars made since '86 which eliminate 90% or so of actual pollutants... CO2 isn't "dirty", by the way, it is just related to global warming.
The problem is that when coal is liquefied, what you are left with behind are massive amounts of pollutants. The moment you pull it out of the ground you have a hot potato. The leftover crap is highly toxic. A helova lot more bad the radioactivity for the equivalent amount of energy in Uranium. And I mean hundreds. We have nowhere to put it. Coal liquification has always been known, but the proponents just pretend the bad stuff does not exist.
A backpack of Uranium is a supertanker of oil or the equivalent of coal. If you use liquification and you use coal as an energy source to do so, double it. Now shove the leftovers in the ground. At the beginning your costs add 20-30%. In 5 years the cheap dumps will be used up. The you just add 5%-10% every decade or so. (PS: Shoving under ground has no proven safe by the way)
You need to invest the same amount of infrastructure as we currently have for oil, to
shove CO2 under the ground. Massive investment for less efficient return !!!
So your solution is about 2.5 times worse than the current solution which is burning the damn stuff.
You are much much better off running cars with coal powder which you can also do. It is just less stupid
When can I get an iphone with it ?
G
>> Which I talked about. There's actually a demand for high percentage CO2 air.
... well then we may as well make CO2 factories then !!
Oh
That is the most ridiculous comment I have seen in a while.
Closed loop CO2 don't exist except for the fact that they are used to stop real solutions.
We are so used to noisy dirty cars and filthy means of making energy that we just accept it.
Electric cars, are quiet and don't pollute.
CO2 is only part of the problem. When you burn coal you generate fly ash a toxic, radioactive compound that has to be dumped somewhere. Don't say underground. That's crap. It will double the price of energy production if they ever figure out how to do it. You think we are running out of oil. Places to shove the CO2 will run out sooner making it more expensive to dump it.
They are becoming cheap, and are being put everywhere.
I think it's worth imagining amazing things with these toys
G
?! Amm ... well ... that is kinda stupid. It is well known. We will not run out of fuel for a while. Don't worry about the tabloids. You can also get oil from tar sands by running steam through. The problem with both solutions is that heaps of energy is needed. The Germans got a two for one deal. 2 liters of coal dust give you one liter of fuel. Problem is that the other liter goes up on smoke .. I mean CO2. Now CO2 is a three for one deal. For every KG of coal you burn, you end up with 3 kg of CO2 ... kind of a bummer. (Oh there is fly ash, but hey that's toxic now but we can shove that in your back yard ... cool ?)
... probably nuclear.
As for the tar sands, the steam needs energy. The energy will come from
The energy solution you want is nuclear. No emissions. Creates no real pollution.You are pretty much left with less than you started. (If you don't count the irradiated walls and bits)
G
I don't think enybody ever called it "Rodinia" more likley ounga bounga
It was "named Rodinia"
G
That's a great idea. I am picking my masters in mechatronics thesis. Does anybody have any similar ideas.
G
Soooo ... we are asking people to trust that the software will do the right thing. The wrong thing will have to do with our privacy, our identity, our money ... very dangerous I would say
Can I ask the powers that be ...
... if so, we have a problem
Could I run a program that can make calls the world over and charge to my account ?
G
Don't get me wrong I engadge in the odd pirating ... well ... anyway
This is great news, as they stop piracy, the free software/free content movement will explode.
This is the worse thing RIAA and it's likes wants to happen, but they can't see it
G