We are making the assumption that cars etc. will use internal combustion engines.
I'd think it is far more likely that hydrogen powered cars will use (fuelCells | batteries | internalCombustionEngines)*.
Some combination of the above could be far more efficient than todays gas engines. The engines would be lighter and cheaper as well, because they may not need any anti-pollution controls.
And how do you "Correctly" find the answer to these things?
The algorithms maple and mathematica use to find anti-derivatives are based on fairly complex series approximations (Taylor series? Laplace Transforms?). These are complex and there is no way to understand them without first understandinf the simple stuff like integral calculus.
There are plenty of "calculus for CS majors" classes. Typically they are called things like numerical methods. But again you can't really understand these things without first understanding the theory they are based on (differential equations and linear algebra).
If you are happy with the solution Maple gives you great. Don't take any more math. Buy don't assume that you can just read somthing like Knuth and get as much out of it as you could w/o doing the pre-requisite 3+ years of college math.
Shhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone the reality. The job market is too good right now. If the general public finds out what most developers are REALLY like the market will get flooded!
Its interesting the choice of examples you use to refute climate change.
1) "well documented" increases in the sunspot cycle.
2) Increases in volcanism - "much less in the 19th and 18th Centuries"
3) Deep ocean currents - "not fully understood"
4) Polar precession - "still being debated"
As to 1) this may in fact be true. However to link changes is sun spot cycles to terrestrial temperatures is a stretch. Where is the linkage?
2) Increases in volcanism? I fail to see how you can make this claim. The VAST MAJORITY of volcanoes on this planet were not even discovered until the latter half of the 20th century. These are the mid ocean ridges which to this day remain almost entirely un explored but compromise most of the Earth's volcanic activity. Add to this the lesser known volcanoes in places like Antarctica and Alaska which had no monitoring until this century. Its hard to argue there has been more volcanism.
3) Deep ocean currents are interesting. Strong linkages between changes in the North Atlantic current and the end of the last ice age (~11K years ago) are just starting to be understood. However mechanisms explaining how these currents have been changed are still not well understood. To claim that a demonstrably important but poorly understood mechanism is the cause of climate change is not a strong argument! Indeed the argument seems to stem from the fact that we don't understand what is going on!
4) Finally polar precession. See above comments as they all apply.
As to the Greenland and Antarctica ice cores these are excellent data. Looking at Oxygen isotope data (16/18 i believe) and particulate concentrations we have good global climate data from the last 100K years or so. The picture is ugly. The Holocene (last 11K years) has had by far the least chaotic climate of the last 100K years. This is scary because it is the time in history when humans learned to farm and build civilizations. Moving us back to the Pleistocene and a chaotic climate is a scary proposition! Additionally this data points to massive climate changes occurring over VERY short periods of time (the entire change in temperature that ended the last ice age may have taken less than 20 years).
The jury really has rendered a verdict. At least the jury of informed scientists. We still don't fully understand all the mechanisms and their relative importance. Nor do we totally understand the full extent we have and continue to change the climate. However very few people working in the field disagree as to the direction of change.
Some people prefer to stick their head in the sand instead.
Bioremediation is typically used for cleaning up subsurface contamination, so Valdez is a bad example. For chlornated hydrocarbos (TCE, PCE etc. are typical) they work very well, several orders of magnitude faster compared to standard "pump and treat" systems. It won't work everywhere, but for cleaning up very low concentrations (ppb) in soil it is great. Unfortunately like many new things the EPA somtimes has a hard time with this stuff. They don't really like it when you put stuff into the soil (bugs, surfactants, steam) to clean other stuff up. These new radioactive bugs could be very useful for old cold war facilities (Hanford, Rocky Flats, etc.) for cleaning up chemical contamination in situ, thus limiting human exposure to radiation. They may also help bind the radiation in place. We spend billions every year keeping contaminants from moving in the sub-surface (Rocky Flats isa great example). If the bugs help retard the flow of radiation by sorbing it to soil, this could be much cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
We are making the assumption that cars etc. will use internal combustion engines.
I'd think it is far more likely that hydrogen powered cars will use (fuelCells | batteries | internalCombustionEngines)*.
Some combination of the above could be far more efficient than todays gas engines. The engines would be lighter and cheaper as well, because they may not need any anti-pollution controls.
What the heck is REAL math?
And how do you "Correctly" find the answer to these things?
The algorithms maple and mathematica use to find anti-derivatives are based on fairly complex series approximations (Taylor series? Laplace Transforms?). These are complex and there is no way to understand them without first understandinf the simple stuff like integral calculus.
There are plenty of "calculus for CS majors" classes. Typically they are called things like numerical methods. But again you can't really understand these things without first understanding the theory they are based on (differential equations and linear algebra).
If you are happy with the solution Maple gives you great. Don't take any more math. Buy don't assume that you can just read somthing like Knuth and get as much out of it as you could w/o doing the pre-requisite 3+ years of college math.
Utah
Shhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone the reality. The job market is too good right now. If the general public finds out what most developers are REALLY like the market will get flooded!
Its interesting the choice of examples you use to refute climate change.
1) "well documented" increases in the sunspot cycle.
2) Increases in volcanism - "much less in the 19th and 18th Centuries"
3) Deep ocean currents - "not fully understood" 4) Polar precession - "still being debated"
As to 1) this may in fact be true. However to link changes is sun spot cycles to terrestrial temperatures is a stretch. Where is the linkage? 2) Increases in volcanism? I fail to see how you can make this claim. The VAST MAJORITY of volcanoes on this planet were not even discovered until the latter half of the 20th century. These are the mid ocean ridges which to this day remain almost entirely un explored but compromise most of the Earth's volcanic activity. Add to this the lesser known volcanoes in places like Antarctica and Alaska which had no monitoring until this century. Its hard to argue there has been more volcanism.
3) Deep ocean currents are interesting. Strong linkages between changes in the North Atlantic current and the end of the last ice age (~11K years ago) are just starting to be understood. However mechanisms explaining how these currents have been changed are still not well understood. To claim that a demonstrably important but poorly understood mechanism is the cause of climate change is not a strong argument! Indeed the argument seems to stem from the fact that we don't understand what is going on!
4) Finally polar precession. See above comments as they all apply.
As to the Greenland and Antarctica ice cores these are excellent data. Looking at Oxygen isotope data (16/18 i believe) and particulate concentrations we have good global climate data from the last 100K years or so. The picture is ugly. The Holocene (last 11K years) has had by far the least chaotic climate of the last 100K years. This is scary because it is the time in history when humans learned to farm and build civilizations. Moving us back to the Pleistocene and a chaotic climate is a scary proposition! Additionally this data points to massive climate changes occurring over VERY short periods of time (the entire change in temperature that ended the last ice age may have taken less than 20 years).
The jury really has rendered a verdict. At least the jury of informed scientists. We still don't fully understand all the mechanisms and their relative importance. Nor do we totally understand the full extent we have and continue to change the climate. However very few people working in the field disagree as to the direction of change.
Some people prefer to stick their head in the sand instead.
Bioremediation is typically used for cleaning up subsurface contamination, so Valdez is a bad example. For chlornated hydrocarbos (TCE, PCE etc. are typical) they work very well, several orders of magnitude faster compared to standard "pump and treat" systems. It won't work everywhere, but for cleaning up very low concentrations (ppb) in soil it is great. Unfortunately like many new things the EPA somtimes has a hard time with this stuff. They don't really like it when you put stuff into the soil (bugs, surfactants, steam) to clean other stuff up. These new radioactive bugs could be very useful for old cold war facilities (Hanford, Rocky Flats, etc.) for cleaning up chemical contamination in situ, thus limiting human exposure to radiation. They may also help bind the radiation in place. We spend billions every year keeping contaminants from moving in the sub-surface (Rocky Flats isa great example). If the bugs help retard the flow of radiation by sorbing it to soil, this could be much cheaper.