Yes, you made up unrealistic numbers and ignored the most helpfull parts. well don. You where generate by a math program, where you?
Most countries have plenty of room to expand renewable beyond just whats need to power these plants. There are a lot of out of the way area we could use solar or wind to power these plants that aren't piratical to run lines to.
We can use wind power the is in excess of need, probably at night.
We could build a Nuclear plant away from everyone and build an array of these things.
We should think of them as scrubbers with petrol creating as icing on the cake.
""saves the planet"(from what?)" from an extreme over abundance of CO2.
Since this technology was done by Sandia and works, it isn't Cold Fusion; which has never worked. Now, this specific company might be committing fraud, sure.
" just because it's claimed to be "carbon-neutral" (it hides the carbon generation further up the supply chain)" care to explain? With this technology, you would use Wind, Solar or Nuclear to power it. Hopefully we could use it it 'scrub' the CO2 down to preindustrialized levels.
No we should all go singing praises and assume the problem is solved; but that doesn't mean we should ignore possible solution. It only means we should use science and critical thinking to find out if it works, the cost, and scalability.
"You can't gain energy going both ways with gasoline." Why would you power it with a petroleum product?
"Oh, and we're making it harder for plants to grow." false. Are you a dimwit? or do you just enjoy basking in ignorance? Clue: 40% of the CO2 emitted by humans is not reabsorbed into the carbon cycles becasue there isn't enough plants to convert it. So, we have an over abundance of CO2. That's why it keep going up.
"Oh, and shorelines are receding, drying up fishing stocks in shallows." Ocean shore kines? lake shore lines? WTH are you talking about?
You are making as much sense as people who don't believe the Earth orbits the Sun.
Once the CO2 returns to normal levels, yes, obviously we would keep it in the air fro food to grow. D.uh.
The problem is we put more CO2 into the air then what can be readily returned. 40% of the CO2 we put into the air is more then what can be absorbed by the carbon cycle.
Yes, this doesn't end the need for cleaner fuels, but it helps scrub the air. Assuming it really works. Power these with a wind turbine or a solar plant.
Or power a large area of them with a nuclear plant. The advantage of that is you can build it in the middle of nowhere since you aren't running lines anywhere. You could, literally, put it on an island.
Becasue you want to be sure it's actually giving out accurate information. unaccredited school are regulated as well. You don't want fraud. They are a for-profit company, coupled with university, and give out certificate Now, in Coursera's specific case, I don't think there is any fraud, but I can see how easy it would be to create something that could deceive people and perpetrate a fraud.
You true doesn't bill itself and an educational site. Educational TV also doesn't apply.
Lets not forget they are partnered with other educational institutions that do offer degrees, and the classes give out certificates. and is a is a for-profit company.
No. The issue here is that they don't want any old school popping up and selling crap degrees. So the school needs to go through the proper channels. It has nothing to do with being online, or greasing any palms.
I went to your home page, and I initially read this: "operating in and around Kingston" as "operating in Klingon" heh. Is it bad that I immediately wanted an excuse to book you?
Anyways, what about the oxygen radicals? BTW: saying 'Free' isn't necessary and it makes you look like you are talking about a nonsense health remedy.
The the resulting petrol os just icing on the cake. If we can build enough to take down CO2 levels to a reasonable degree thta would be wonderful in and of itself.
OTOH, I have seen many single experts get fooled. Lets get a lot of experts in the relative fields looking at this. Sorry, Tim, but you can be fooled. And I'm not sure what this would have to do with you're expertise in Mechanical Engineering. Wouldn't this require a chemical engineer to look at and try to reproduce?
"Yes. All the laws based on "Thou shalt not kill" should be stricken from the law." HAHAHahaha. this old ham? seriously? what, are you in a sixth grade catholic class?
religion didn't invent the idea that killing someone is wrong.
"Science shows that a foetus is not part of the mother's body. Genetically, it's a different person. " once again, you are talking out your ass. You can have a genetic difference and still be a part of someone see: Fetus. Or Chimera.
"Simply displaying emotion is not grounds to dismiss an argument." Yes, but you have no logical points, so the only ration conclusion is that your bias is wrapping up your thinking.
"If that were the case, then most of what Dawkins and Hitchens ever said on the subject would be invalidated" since their argument are based on science and facts, your statement would be incorrect. You: no facts or science Hitchens and Dawkins based on science and fact.
Just becasue you seemed to have missed it, C was directed at you, specifically
"Pro-lifers tend to argue that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception so I say lets adopt that. " yes, an some neo-Nazi say black people aren't persons, so lets adopt that~
Fine, when you are pregnant, you can believe that. Just keep it to yourself.
Alive? whats' that have to do with anything? The bacteria I brush out ogf my mouth are alive, my skin cells are alive. Stop conlating subjects.
At no point is it NOT part of this impossible machine you contrive to support a weak argument. At no point is it not a fetus of that machine. Your problem is you don't know what a fetus is, nor do you seem to know the process of going from a cell to birth.
"“Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. ..Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” " Which God then does. So, killed all the fetuses
Numbers 5:11-21 describes brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery in order to induce an abortion.
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.”
Hosea 13:16 God promise to kill all the pregnant women. '“their women with child shall be ripped up”
and there are others.
SO no, the punishment for killing a fetus was never death.
Logic, fail. Also, your knowledge of how a fetus behaves compared to a baby is seriously lacking.
I have never referred to my baby as a blob, and if you think a child is nothing but a blob those first 3 months, you are going to have potato heads for children.
Yes, nothing prove a point wrong like a spelling error.
sigh. THIS is why I go on about spelling to my children. Between have my jaw completely restructured*, and English being the class I did my math work, I suffer for it. I probably will forever.
The best way to loose a debate is to drink while debating, of course if you do that you're likely to lose the debate.
I'm almost don't want to post this becasue I am certain there is a spelling error I am not seeing.
Yes, people often say that when I am right and they have no argument. Those same people say that same thing about any one whose is factual right that they don't agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you made up unrealistic numbers and ignored the most helpfull parts. well don. You where generate by a math program, where you?
Most countries have plenty of room to expand renewable beyond just whats need to power these plants. There are a lot of out of the way area we could use solar or wind to power these plants that aren't piratical to run lines to.
We can use wind power the is in excess of need, probably at night.
We could build a Nuclear plant away from everyone and build an array of these things.
We should think of them as scrubbers with petrol creating as icing on the cake.
No we shouldn't.
""saves the planet"(from what?)"
from an extreme over abundance of CO2.
Since this technology was done by Sandia and works, it isn't Cold Fusion; which has never worked. Now, this specific company might be committing fraud, sure.
https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/sunshine.html
" just because it's claimed to be "carbon-neutral" (it hides the carbon generation further up the supply chain)"
care to explain?
With this technology, you would use Wind, Solar or Nuclear to power it. Hopefully we could use it it 'scrub' the CO2 down to preindustrialized levels.
No we should all go singing praises and assume the problem is solved; but that doesn't mean we should ignore possible solution. It only means we should use science and critical thinking to find out if it works, the cost, and scalability.
"You can't gain energy going both ways with gasoline."
Why would you power it with a petroleum product?
"Oh, and we're making it harder for plants to grow."
false. Are you a dimwit? or do you just enjoy basking in ignorance? Clue: 40% of the CO2 emitted by humans is not reabsorbed into the carbon cycles becasue there isn't enough plants to convert it. So, we have an over abundance of CO2. That's why it keep going up.
"Oh, and shorelines are receding, drying up fishing stocks in shallows."
Ocean shore kines? lake shore lines? WTH are you talking about?
You are making as much sense as people who don't believe the Earth orbits the Sun.
Did you get paid 50 cents to post that article?
Once the CO2 returns to normal levels, yes, obviously we would keep it in the air fro food to grow. D.uh.
The problem is we put more CO2 into the air then what can be readily returned. 40% of the CO2 we put into the air is more then what can be absorbed by the carbon cycle.
Yes, this doesn't end the need for cleaner fuels, but it helps scrub the air. Assuming it really works. Power these with a wind turbine or a solar plant.
Or power a large area of them with a nuclear plant. The advantage of that is you can build it in the middle of nowhere since you aren't running lines anywhere. You could, literally, put it on an island.
The poi t of feed back from the person reviewing the paper is not to make the paper better.
publication is the beginning of peer review.
Becasue you want to be sure it's actually giving out accurate information. unaccredited school are regulated as well.
You don't want fraud.
They are a for-profit company, coupled with university, and give out certificate
Now, in Coursera's specific case, I don't think there is any fraud, but I can see how easy it would be to create something that could deceive people and perpetrate a fraud.
You true doesn't bill itself and an educational site. Educational TV also doesn't apply.
Lets not forget they are partnered with other educational institutions that do offer degrees, and the classes give out certificates. and is a is a for-profit company.
No. The issue here is that they don't want any old school popping up and selling crap degrees. So the school needs to go through the proper channels.
It has nothing to do with being online, or greasing any palms.
I went to your home page, and I initially read this:
"operating in and around Kingston"
as
"operating in Klingon"
heh. Is it bad that I immediately wanted an excuse to book you?
Anyways, what about the oxygen radicals? BTW: saying 'Free' isn't necessary and it makes you look like you are talking about a nonsense health remedy.
The the resulting petrol os just icing on the cake. If we can build enough to take down CO2 levels to a reasonable degree thta would be wonderful in and of itself.
OTOH, I have seen many single experts get fooled. Lets get a lot of experts in the relative fields looking at this.
Sorry, Tim, but you can be fooled. And I'm not sure what this would have to do with you're expertise in Mechanical Engineering. Wouldn't this require a chemical engineer to look at and try to reproduce?
"Wind is already beating most other generation methods except for coal on cost. "
not by any practical measure.
Everyone at the special Olympics is a winner! Clearly, you got to many rewards for 'participation' as a child.
Sine when to late term fetus breath? Since when to fetuses use another women's breast milk?
So, do you just not know what a toddler is, you do you just not know what words mean?
"Yes. All the laws based on "Thou shalt not kill" should be stricken from the law."
HAHAHahaha. this old ham? seriously? what, are you in a sixth grade catholic class?
religion didn't invent the idea that killing someone is wrong.
"Science shows that a foetus is not part of the mother's body. Genetically, it's a different person. "
once again, you are talking out your ass. You can have a genetic difference and still be a part of someone see: Fetus. Or Chimera.
"Simply displaying emotion is not grounds to dismiss an argument."
Yes, but you have no logical points, so the only ration conclusion is that your bias is wrapping up your thinking.
"If that were the case, then most of what Dawkins and Hitchens ever said on the subject would be invalidated"
since their argument are based on science and facts, your statement would be incorrect.
You: no facts or science
Hitchens and Dawkins based on science and fact.
Just becasue you seemed to have missed it, C was directed at you, specifically
"Pro-lifers tend to argue that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception so I say lets adopt that. "
yes, an some neo-Nazi say black people aren't persons, so lets adopt that~
Fine, when you are pregnant, you can believe that. Just keep it to yourself.
Alive? whats' that have to do with anything? The bacteria I brush out ogf my mouth are alive, my skin cells are alive. Stop conlating subjects.
At no point is it NOT part of this impossible machine you contrive to support a weak argument.
At no point is it not a fetus of that machine.
Your problem is you don't know what a fetus is, nor do you seem to know the process of going from a cell to birth.
Oh, so who puts your God to death?
"“Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” "
Which God then does. So, killed all the fetuses
Numbers 5:11-21 describes brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery in order to induce an abortion.
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.”
Hosea 13:16 God promise to kill all the pregnant women. '“their women with child shall be ripped up”
and there are others.
SO no, the punishment for killing a fetus was never death.
Yes, more picking and choosing for a belief system. Yawn.
Christ was a Jew, and he says he is there to enforce the rules of old, so Yes, yes they do apply.
one more:
"I don't think you said what you thought you said."
If I had said it, you wouldn't have known the difference.
The sentence I wrote doesn't mean what I wanted it to mean, obviously You aren't the only pedantic.
Logic, fail.
Also, your knowledge of how a fetus behaves compared to a baby is seriously lacking.
I have never referred to my baby as a blob, and if you think a child is nothing but a blob those first 3 months, you are going to have potato heads for children.
Yes, nothing prove a point wrong like a spelling error.
sigh. THIS is why I go on about spelling to my children. Between have my jaw completely restructured*, and English being the class I did my math work, I suffer for it. I probably will forever.
The best way to loose a debate is to drink while debating, of course if you do that you're likely to lose the debate.
I'm almost don't want to post this becasue I am certain there is a spelling error I am not seeing.
*I can't us phonetics.
Yes, people often say that when I am right and they have no argument. Those same people say that same thing about any one whose is factual right that they don't agree with.
At least most people aren't cowardly about it.
"..morally superior ..."
True.