A leaf may not be as efficient as some solar panels when directly compared, but a leaf actually builds itself. So the leaf might be more analogous to quantum tech "solar panels" plus factories building the panels, converting the raw materials, etc.
BTW if there ever was "free energy" and lots of users there would be another limit - the earth might start glowing (when seen from space) from all the waste heat (including those from cooling systems ).;)
The laws of thermodynamics would like to have a word with you.;)
Earth based solar energy will never be that cheap, so it should be obvious that I was not talking about that:).
Sure, ultimately the energy from sunlight will be some sort of limiting factor, but take America as an example: our electrical usage is about 1 Tw, the average power of sunlight hitting america (including night, clouds, etc) is about 2000 Tw. We're no where near any kind of limit.
That seems to assume humans are the only creatures on the planet, and other stuff like weather and climate don't need significant amounts of that wattage to run normally (e.g. in ways that we like).
Then add the losses of converting the sunlight to electricity. If it's 20% efficiency you need 5TW (and 5/2000 of the area in USA) .
So how far are you from that limit really?
BTW if there ever was "free energy" and lots of users there would be another limit - the earth might start glowing (when seen from space) from all the waste heat (including those from cooling systems ).;)
When the government takes money from other people to supply my healthcare, I get the same feeling. It's like shoplifting. It's in my interest, but it is wrong.
Get a clue. It's in their interest too.
Because the Government is ALREADY taking money from other people to supply your healthcare, it is just being done very inefficiently.
When you are very sick/injured and have no money you go to ER (either yourself or via an ambulance/"good samaritan") at a state hospital and they will treat you using OTHER PEOPLE'S money.
They don't just ignore you and let you suffer/die, because your country is still a _civilized_ society (it may not be true in the future but it still is, built up from the work and sacrifice of past generations). And not that morally corrupt yet[1].
If those other people want to continue living in a civilized society this part of the membership fee. It is in their interest that their membership fees are used wisely. Sending poor people home from ER and only treating them when they are sick enough is a bad and inefficient way to do healthcare. Having insurance companies and HMOs profit from people's ignorance and stupidity is also an inefficient way of providing healthcare.
Currently the USA has one of the most expensive (if not the most expensive) healthcare per capita, and by most statistics it's not serving most people as well. The billionaires of course have access to bleeding edge treatment unavailable in most other countries.
[1] Ezekiel 16:49-50 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
When you eat it, it's "hot", but cold at the same time. When you stop, the "heat" lingers. The more you eat the more the "heat" builds up, so you could eat more ice cream to numb the pain temporarily;).
I think one of the issues with black leaves is photosynthesis stops being so efficient at higher temperatures. So the leaves actually aren't supposed to absorb everything. There are plants with darker leaves but they are often those that grow in shade (under other plants).
The advantage of plants is they can do much of the construction, self repair, and even some self-cleaning themselves. They don't need a energy consuming pollution spewing factory in China to make them.
The other advantage is if you plant the right sort of plants, you can eat the end product without needing that much more processing.
Whereas even if you had a 30% efficient solar panel, I figure by the time you convert the electricity and raw materials to food, it'll probably not be that much more efficient. And the end result might not be as tasty or nutritious.
If you wanted a more efficient way of generating electricity (and not for creating food for humans) might be better to just go for solar thermal.
Actually if there isn't a high chance of thick fresh snow or a suitable amount of water I might actually pick a landing area and landing orientation that would kill me very very fast;).
FWIW, many skydivers have survived failed chutes - but most had the failed chute slowing them down.
From the first account water may not be such a bad option - it sure is better than concrete;).
This is nuts though:
Fort Bragg, NC: In the summer of 1977, Michael Cox was a Radio-Teletype operator in the 82nd Airborne division. Jumping with a heavy equipment bag from 1,200 feet out of a C-130, Cox hit the side of the plane and spun as he fell, which prevented his parachute from opening properly. With his parachute streaming uselessly above him, he hit the ground in a sandy area. He was knocked out for about 45 minutes, but recovered well enough to hike back to the mustering point where the company commander ordered him to do fifty push-ups for arriving late. Cox collapsed and was taken to the emergency room where he was found to have a neck fracture. He recovered and jumped again about six weeks later.
Doing push-ups with a neck fracture...
Tough/lucky/blessed lady:
Kuala Lumpur: In February of 2001 Tang Lee Ping of Malaysia fell 1,500 meters after her main and back-up parachutes failed to open. She woke up three hours later in a nearby hospital. Her injuries were minor (only bruises). She attributed her survival to God and a soft landing area.
49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
So if any arrogant, overfed and selfish person thinks he's doing OK just because he's not doing "detestable things", he should think again.
That Lot was considered righteous compared to the rest of those in Sodom might be an indication how bad things were. From what I read, Lot doesn't seem to be an extremely righteous person.
Sure but I still think you'd hit the ground before you die of any decompression issues.
The pressure difference between 6000-8000 feet (cabin pressure) and 30000 feet is not big enough to explode you - unlike some rapid decompression accidents (the squeamish probably shouldn't look those up).
Step 2: start marketing parts instead of finished products only so it isn't an entire industry of iMacs. Let people build their own.
Uh how many tablet users actually want to build their own?
Some desktop/tower PC users may want to build their own - that's why they buy those sort of computers.
Judging from the article summary: tablet owners want to buy something and be able to play games on it near immediately.
They don't want to do some DIY assembly.
The real next form of computing would be wearables or even prosthetics. Then we would have virtual telepathy, telekinesis and eidetic memory. We are already seeing a similar form when people send each other videos, buy stuff with their phones, or when they go shopping, post a photo on FB/etc and ask "Should I buy this?" and within a few minutes friends from around the world chip in.
Restrictive copyright laws would be a bigger issue when that happens.
Thing is women aren't very good at killing people (when compared to men). They're getting better at bashing people up, but still not so good at killing.
They're not even good at killing themselves. In the western world[1] women make more suicide attempts but have a poorer success rate.
If she made a threatening video with her waving an actual weapon and saying she's going to kill him with that, then she's past the "dangerous loony" to the "potentially lethal loony" point. Because it starts to show she's got a coherent enough plan to kill.
[1] I suspect in many parts of the non-western world, men actually help women make very successful "suicide attempts".
If someone takes the trouble to make a similar video threatening to kill some nonpolitician he knows personally, I'd take that seriously too, because it might actually be personal and a real threat. Plus the video is good enough evidence in court to justify taking action, whereas "hearsay", "your word vs mine" or just one post in some forum or twitter is not enough.
If he's just spouting hate messages against "immigrants" or some other group, I wouldn't bother giving him extra publicity.
On the other hand if it was a politician or a person with some degree of fame, you have to take it seriously too:
One has also to wonder whether the 5 billion is the absolute cost or a _relative_ cost increase compared to nonsmokers.
For example it's like saying dinner X costs 5 billion. But if you must have dinner anyway and the alternatives cost 2 billion, then the actual difference is 3 billion, despite dinner X indeed costing 5 billion.
Because nonsmokers also get sick, eventually die and thus also cost the NHS money:).
For example if a nonsmoker picked a lifestyle and diet which was super healthy (say steamed fish and vegetables) but as a result ended up surviving cancers a few times (they won't die from chemo, surgery, heart disease or stroke, because they're fit and healthy) and eventually dying at 95 after lingering in a nursing home (paid for by NHS[1]) with age onset dementia or Alzheimers (because they won't die of heart disease or strokes). So a lot of people picking a long walks, steamed fish and vegetables lifestyle might actually cost the NHS more billions than smoking does;).
I've seen some pretty bullshit cost estimates too - one actually said that potential lost earnings from a smoker dying earlier = cost to society. Given that smokers tend to die near retirement or soon after, even if they are earning a lot it doesn't mean that them dying at that point would be such a great loss to the rest of society.
Lastly I'm a nonsmoker and have never smoked in my life (except via second hand smoke ). I don't like cigarette smoke (pipe smoke actually doesn't smell that bad), but to me it seems ridiculous for governments to ban away such great sources of tax revenue while making stupid noises about "aging populations".
Slashdot Mirror
Some progress but we're still behind in many ways: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/quantum-photosynthesis/
A leaf may not be as efficient as some solar panels when directly compared, but a leaf actually builds itself. So the leaf might be more analogous to quantum tech "solar panels" plus factories building the panels, converting the raw materials, etc.
Some plants can even grow from a single leaf.
BTW if there ever was "free energy" and lots of users there would be another limit - the earth might start glowing (when seen from space) from all the waste heat (including those from cooling systems ). ;)
The laws of thermodynamics would like to have a word with you. ;)
Earth based solar energy will never be that cheap, so it should be obvious that I was not talking about that :).
Sure, ultimately the energy from sunlight will be some sort of limiting factor, but take America as an example: our electrical usage is about 1 Tw, the average power of sunlight hitting america (including night, clouds, etc) is about 2000 Tw. We're no where near any kind of limit.
That seems to assume humans are the only creatures on the planet, and other stuff like weather and climate don't need significant amounts of that wattage to run normally (e.g. in ways that we like).
Then add the losses of converting the sunlight to electricity. If it's 20% efficiency you need 5TW (and 5/2000 of the area in USA) .
So how far are you from that limit really?
BTW if there ever was "free energy" and lots of users there would be another limit - the earth might start glowing (when seen from space) from all the waste heat (including those from cooling systems ). ;)
But how expensive is it really?
AFAIK the USA has created at least 9 trillion dollars[1] and handed it to people who screwed up.
I'm sure that 9 trillion could have bought lots of cool and useful stuff for the USA.
[1] http://www.google.com/search?&q=us+trillions+federal+reserve
Those figures don't give the full picture.
1 kg of air takes up a lot more space than 1 kilogram of oil.
So the heat capacity of oil in a server is far more than twice the heat capacity of air in a server.
Yeah.
Taxpayers are already paying for other people's healthcare! They pay for the poor people who queue up in ER.
It's just being done in one of the most inefficient ways in the Western World.
And these fools don't want to fix it, and provide stupid reasons against fixing it.
When the government takes money from other people to supply my healthcare, I get the same feeling. It's like shoplifting. It's in my interest, but it is wrong.
Get a clue. It's in their interest too.
Because the Government is ALREADY taking money from other people to supply your healthcare, it is just being done very inefficiently.
When you are very sick/injured and have no money you go to ER (either yourself or via an ambulance/"good samaritan") at a state hospital and they will treat you using OTHER PEOPLE'S money.
They don't just ignore you and let you suffer/die, because your country is still a _civilized_ society (it may not be true in the future but it still is, built up from the work and sacrifice of past generations). And not that morally corrupt yet[1].
If those other people want to continue living in a civilized society this part of the membership fee. It is in their interest that their membership fees are used wisely. Sending poor people home from ER and only treating them when they are sick enough is a bad and inefficient way to do healthcare. Having insurance companies and HMOs profit from people's ignorance and stupidity is also an inefficient way of providing healthcare.
Currently the USA has one of the most expensive (if not the most expensive) healthcare per capita, and by most statistics it's not serving most people as well. The billionaires of course have access to bleeding edge treatment unavailable in most other countries.
[1] Ezekiel 16:49-50 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
How about chili pepper ice cream?
;).
When you eat it, it's "hot", but cold at the same time. When you stop, the "heat" lingers. The more you eat the more the "heat" builds up, so you could eat more ice cream to numb the pain temporarily
Maybe you could ask some people at Hillary Clinton's "internet freedom" speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My29YT1T4R4
I guess the guy who got dragged out should have done his protest on the Internet rather than at the speech ;).
I think one of the issues with black leaves is photosynthesis stops being so efficient at higher temperatures. So the leaves actually aren't supposed to absorb everything. There are plants with darker leaves but they are often those that grow in shade (under other plants).
The advantage of plants is they can do much of the construction, self repair, and even some self-cleaning themselves. They don't need a energy consuming pollution spewing factory in China to make them.
The other advantage is if you plant the right sort of plants, you can eat the end product without needing that much more processing.
Whereas even if you had a 30% efficient solar panel, I figure by the time you convert the electricity and raw materials to food, it'll probably not be that much more efficient. And the end result might not be as tasty or nutritious.
If you wanted a more efficient way of generating electricity (and not for creating food for humans) might be better to just go for solar thermal.
Of course there are other usage scenarios, for example: http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20040727/pv-tv-a-multifunctional-eco-friendly-building-material
That tech seems expensive though...
Actually if there isn't a high chance of thick fresh snow or a suitable amount of water I might actually pick a landing area and landing orientation that would kill me very very fast ;).
FWIW, many skydivers have survived failed chutes - but most had the failed chute slowing them down.
http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/unlucky.html
From the first account water may not be such a bad option - it sure is better than concrete ;).
This is nuts though:
Fort Bragg, NC: In the summer of 1977, Michael Cox was a Radio-Teletype operator in the 82nd Airborne division. Jumping with a heavy equipment bag from 1,200 feet out of a C-130, Cox hit the side of the plane and spun as he fell, which prevented his parachute from opening properly. With his parachute streaming uselessly above him, he hit the ground in a sandy area. He was knocked out for about 45 minutes, but recovered well enough to hike back to the mustering point where the company commander ordered him to do fifty push-ups for arriving late. Cox collapsed and was taken to the emergency room where he was found to have a neck fracture. He recovered and jumped again about six weeks later.
Doing push-ups with a neck fracture...
Tough/lucky/blessed lady:
Kuala Lumpur: In February of 2001 Tang Lee Ping of Malaysia fell 1,500 meters after her main and back-up parachutes failed to open. She woke up three hours later in a nearby hospital. Her injuries were minor (only bruises). She attributed her survival to God and a soft landing area.
There's also this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49-50&version=NIV
49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
So if any arrogant, overfed and selfish person thinks he's doing OK just because he's not doing "detestable things", he should think again.
That Lot was considered righteous compared to the rest of those in Sodom might be an indication how bad things were. From what I read, Lot doesn't seem to be an extremely righteous person.
Lasers are much more precise and reduce collateral damage significantly.
Wouldn't there still be a high potential of causing blindness? Given enough power, even diffuse reflections can blind people permanently.
Sure but I still think you'd hit the ground before you die of any decompression issues.
The pressure difference between 6000-8000 feet (cabin pressure) and 30000 feet is not big enough to explode you - unlike some rapid decompression accidents (the squeamish probably shouldn't look those up).
Step 2: start marketing parts instead of finished products only so it isn't an entire industry of iMacs. Let people build their own.
Uh how many tablet users actually want to build their own?
Some desktop/tower PC users may want to build their own - that's why they buy those sort of computers.
Judging from the article summary: tablet owners want to buy something and be able to play games on it near immediately.
They don't want to do some DIY assembly.
The real next form of computing would be wearables or even prosthetics. Then we would have virtual telepathy, telekinesis and eidetic memory. We are already seeing a similar form when people send each other videos, buy stuff with their phones, or when they go shopping, post a photo on FB/etc and ask "Should I buy this?" and within a few minutes friends from around the world chip in.
Restrictive copyright laws would be a bigger issue when that happens.
There's a similar problem with women's birth control pills:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/35663.php
Messing with hormones could also alter the sort of people you find attractive:
http://www.livescience.com/2781-pill-women-pick-bad-mates.html
The shape of your skull does matter more if you are bald though.
Some men look fine bald (good even) whereas others would be better off with hair hiding the shape of their skull.
I think this case is also a bit different since one of the threats was:
"You're an abomination, you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads"
AND a "random" bullet has actually hit Cantor's office before. Yes last year, but that's not that long ago.
So yes there is good cause for arresting this guy.
If you want to influence an elected politician, write well-reasoned letters to them and vote accordingly.
Threatening them or allowing threats to go unchallenged, undermines democracy.
Remember the voters voted Cantor in. You may not agree or like him, but the voters elected him in.
The method of "winning" debates/arguments by killing or threatening or silencing the other party should be left to crazy Islamic countries.
You can say nothing but do something.
There's stuff like voting, or civil disobedience.
Ah but did she kill the guy in the end?
Thing is women aren't very good at killing people (when compared to men). They're getting better at bashing people up, but still not so good at killing.
They're not even good at killing themselves. In the western world[1] women make more suicide attempts but have a poorer success rate.
If she made a threatening video with her waving an actual weapon and saying she's going to kill him with that, then she's past the "dangerous loony" to the "potentially lethal loony" point. Because it starts to show she's got a coherent enough plan to kill.
[1] I suspect in many parts of the non-western world, men actually help women make very successful "suicide attempts".
If someone takes the trouble to make a similar video threatening to kill some nonpolitician he knows personally, I'd take that seriously too, because it might actually be personal and a real threat. Plus the video is good enough evidence in court to justify taking action, whereas "hearsay", "your word vs mine" or just one post in some forum or twitter is not enough.
If he's just spouting hate messages against "immigrants" or some other group, I wouldn't bother giving him extra publicity.
On the other hand if it was a politician or a person with some degree of fame, you have to take it seriously too:
40+ US presidents 4 assassinations, more than 20 attempts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots
The more famous you are the more likely some wacko is going to kill you.
Just store enough so that there is enough time for it to cool down (temperature-wise, not radioactivity-wise).
OK looks like my figures are a bit wrong. But after corrections the point still stands:
The NHS 2.7billion cost was just for England:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7654153.stm
Oxford uni says cost is 5 billion:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2009/090609_1.html
Tobacco tax revenue = 10.5 billion:
http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/
One has also to wonder whether the 5 billion is the absolute cost or a _relative_ cost increase compared to nonsmokers.
For example it's like saying dinner X costs 5 billion. But if you must have dinner anyway and the alternatives cost 2 billion, then the actual difference is 3 billion, despite dinner X indeed costing 5 billion.
Because nonsmokers also get sick, eventually die and thus also cost the NHS money :).
For example if a nonsmoker picked a lifestyle and diet which was super healthy (say steamed fish and vegetables) but as a result ended up surviving cancers a few times (they won't die from chemo, surgery, heart disease or stroke, because they're fit and healthy) and eventually dying at 95 after lingering in a nursing home (paid for by NHS[1]) with age onset dementia or Alzheimers (because they won't die of heart disease or strokes). So a lot of people picking a long walks, steamed fish and vegetables lifestyle might actually cost the NHS more billions than smoking does ;).
I've seen some pretty bullshit cost estimates too - one actually said that potential lost earnings from a smoker dying earlier = cost to society. Given that smokers tend to die near retirement or soon after, even if they are earning a lot it doesn't mean that them dying at that point would be such a great loss to the rest of society.
Lastly I'm a nonsmoker and have never smoked in my life (except via second hand smoke ). I don't like cigarette smoke (pipe smoke actually doesn't smell that bad), but to me it seems ridiculous for governments to ban away such great sources of tax revenue while making stupid noises about "aging populations".
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-13010087
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4002953
If they can filter out the crud, why can't they just reuse the water for cooling radioactive stuff?
It's not like they are going to reuse the reactor right?
Can't they reuse that water for cooling the reactor?