I'll add to this my tinfoil wrapped soda bottle filled with salt water, which I call a capacitor, and the highly polished chinese wok which I call a solar collector!
Soon we'll be able to build a rube-goldbergian technocratic empire!
One place this might shine would be archetectural plans.
An open library of archetectural plans would leverage structural designs for a host of potential markets, not all of which would need to be tangible. (Yes, I know this is a thing of the devil, I don't care.) Take for instance, virtual world environments like Second Life, or even just FPS shooters created under open licenses. Archetectural drawings are for more than just houses; they include manufacturing centers, office buildings, etc--- a free and easily accessible/modifyable archive of them would greatly fascilitate startup businesses or home builders (who would then not have to hire an architect to design their building, but only to vet the design), but also any software projects that might be able to make use of such detailed plans.
This wouldnt negate "all" costs, but pre-vetted designs would be essentially free, and due to license requirements any modified designs that get vetted would be added to the archive as well. Eventually you would have building plans for just about every concievable purpose, and that's just architecture.
A knoppix installation on a USB flash disk would allow clandestine activity at work, without leaving any traces. As long as the use was intermittent, then my workstation would appear to have both been used in that time, AND be clean.
the flash drive is also much easier to destroy secretly, even though it would not have any evidence on it either. (knoppix is read only by default.)
at the risk of suffering 5000 degree flamewar posts...
There *IS* some (small) evidence that being a rapist is at least partially genetically based. (rather, a predisposition to being a rapist that is.)
In such cases, I would say the impulse is mother nature's fault. The decision to act, is the purpetrator's.
(Much like mother nature is at fault for our desire to eat sweet things, but our reaching into the cookie jar when we know better is OUR fault.)
Now, that aside-- White collar criminals who destroy thousands of people's lives so they can live in obscene luxury deserve not only to be devested of said luxuries, but to be treated like the criminals they are. That does not mean I advocate prison rape or the like-- even serial killers shouldnt be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments or conditions in the penal system-- it just means that they should be put away and prevented from doing any further harm.
I believe you will find that most americans that are not spoon fed pro-war propoganda from Fox News (and it's satellite affiliates) are very much in favor of that very thing: bringing troops home, and letting the middle east explode like it wants to.
The problem is that the government knows that it cannot do this while addicted to foriegn oil, and it also knows that it cannot get over its addiction to foriegn oil while the senators all make their money from oil and oil related industries. Because the senators comprise the government, the government's only motivation to bring troops home comes from the bad press they get. (They are financially motivated to keep sending american troops to die for their financial interests, while spinning it as national security. See EG, Dick Cheney and his heavy investments in Halliburton. He's a bit of a poster child for that kind of corruption, but a good portion of our currently elected career politicians also fall into this niche to one degree or another, and are culpable to varying degrees accordingly.)
The end result is that we get "Token" efforts to get away from foriegn oil (like that 50 million dollar offshore wind project), while bankrupting the country by hemmoraging money to maintain "Diplomatic" interests in the middle east (so that cheap oil keeps flowing.)
A concerted PR effort appears to be in effect to conflate lack of support of the middle eastern occupation and the managment of tinpot dictators there as a lack of patriotism, lack of national loyalty, and a lack of support of "our men and women in uniform." This is simply untrue; Many, if not most of the people that call for these forces to be recalled care deeply about the men and women that are there-- what they lack is support for the OPERATIONS that these people are deployed there to do. This distinction is almost religiously marginallized by the talking heads of this PR front, which while not started by Bush, was greatly emboldened by his cabinet and his policies. This same PR campaign tries to spin any and all outcry over the middle eastern bullshit as the rantings of un-american terrorist sympathizers, and similarly tries to paint the whole middle east as one giant terrorist training camp. [with alarming levels of success.]
Take for instance, the recent hemming and hawing of capitol hill over the imminent deposal of Egyptian president Mubarak. Mubarak has been "Our man" for decades, and has been instrumental in maintaining the imbalance of power in the middle east in favor of US and other developed countries' energy supplies, and in performing several "nasty extradition" services for our government. His deposal by citizens seeking a truly democratic regime free from foriegn interference places the policy makers on Capitol Hill in a nasty pickle because of their two-faced rhetoric, and now conflictory interests: On one hand they want to retain voter confidence, and spew pro-democracy rhetoric to get re-elected, and on the other they want to protect their financial interests so they can fund their next re-election bid. They REALLY want to retain Mubarak, and are "Very concerned" about the situation, because they would lose a key player in their investment and power strategies.
This is why the US media is trying desperately to create a connection between the (mostly) peaceful protestors and the extremist "Islamic Brotherhood", because that would allow the heads on capitol hill to decry the protestors without looking like the crooks they are-- despite the fact that both the islamic brotherhood AND the protestors deny any such connection, and have consistently done so for more than 2 weeks. The only support for such an allegation comes from an extremist islamic cleric (Khomeni sp?) who sees an opportunity to do some spin doctoring, and to derail the legitimate democratic nature of the protests there to further his own power base. These inconvenient truths aside, you will find no shortage of articles online or of televised newscasts with reporters and anchors asking loaded questions t
I believe he is referring to FDR's "New Deal" era government work projects to help curb unemployment, by using the government to employ people doing civic works projects--- Like building the national highway system, and several civic drainage and municipal water reservoirs.
The creation of a national commuter railway system on government payroll would be very much a similar thing. The only real difference here is that the Obaminator would be bumping heads with a number of established interests: State level governments make considerable money from toll road revinues, motor vehicle companies would experience reduced demand for motor vehicles and parts for same should people start driving less. (Less wear and tear from less driving means fewer new sales as vehicles last longer.) Then you have the extremely powerful interests behind big oil. (reduced automotive commuting would radically cut the fuel use of the US, since the energy needs of a highspeed electric train for 500 commuters is FAR less than the fuel/energy needs for 500 commuters in automobiles.)
FDR was creating NEW infrastructure for EXISTING enterprises (Motor vehicles predate the depression.), and thus was NOT bumping any such heads.
This plan will fail, just like all other proposals for revitalized commuter rail in the US.
A better use of the drug user/dealer analogy would be:
The drug user does not blame the dealer for their addiction, but does blame the dealer for cutting the cocaine with powdered lye when it causes them severe caustic soda burns in their nasal passages-- simply because they got a deal on powdered lye and ordered more than their meth cooks could turn into meth, making it cheaper than baking soda. Afterall, caustic soda.. baking soda.. what's the difference?
Which is a more apt analogy to:
The consumer does not complain when the utility company gives them inexpensive energy but does complain when the energy company cuts corners in health, safety and reliability proceedures which result in the largest man-made catastrophe to hit the gulf coast, simplyto turn a higher quarterly profit while simultaneously earning record profits overall. Mud, Concrete, what's the difference?
Pointing out that your dealer systemically uses improper cutting agents is good grounds to find another dealer, or at the very least to switch to a safer drug-- like weed.
As for the "Have cake XOR Eat cake" reference, I would say that is a false dichotomy type logical falacy in this particular instance, as it most certainly *IS* possible to have cheap energy from alternative sources. Amusingly, some of the very first power plants in the US were hydroelectric, not coal. (Take for instance, Colorado springs electrical power's hydro plant in the 1920s.) The difference is the amount of subsidization that the petrolium industry enjoys.
Uhm... Most (all?) commercial wind turbines are designed to furl (fold back) the blades if the wind speed exceeds the safe power generation threshold, and are geared to turn at much slower speeds than 300mph. (Try closer to 20 to 40mph, with a max at around 60. After that they go into stall mode.)
At 300mph you wouldnt be able to see the blades, and the kinetic energy in them would tear them off the rotor. (Each blade weighs several tons in commercial wind generator equipment. The stress of rotation at that rate would exceed all known material's capabilities.)
Most of the pricepoint for wind is tied up in all the "Impact studies" that have been tied to it by various NIMBY groups.
"how will it impact tourism?" "how will it impact the migratory habits of the eastern canada goose?" "how will it impact cellular telephone reception?"......... "How will it impact the local congressman's chances for re-election?"
With pretty much all of them being valued at OVER the 50 million startup capital investment made by this move. Quite amusing how all these impact studies get tacked on to projects intended to make everyone's life better, but not on building or development projects of similar scope or magnitude in civic centers. When was the last time you saw a cellular telephone tower getting tied down with impact studies on sparrows? Didn't think so.
1) windmills don't explode. Certainly not in a fashion that cause people's shadows to be burned into concrete like the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.
2) windmills do not HAVE to be "ugly." Seen kinetic art? No reason whatsoever the two cannot be one and the same. Even still, efficient designs are beautiful in and of themselves in their own way-- much the same way that a skyscraper can be beautiful.
3) It's more likely that the "I dont like it! WAAAAAH" from rich and powerful people has more to do with how heavily invested they are in "traditional" energy sources, than with any real or tangible complaint.
CFLs are an improvement over incandecent for a number of reasons, but believing that switching to them would in some fashion mean that we wont need new power plants is retarded in and of itself.
People keep having sex. People keep moving to our country. People keep buying and making expensive electronic devices. All these things totally trump any reduction in useage that changing lightbulb technology could ever hope to bring to the table. We need sustainable power generation, and we needed it yesterday.
Screw drilling. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but big oil is not so concerned about proceedure as they are about profit, which is exactly why Shell had deep water horizon explode like that. Moreover, it was not a singular incident. The federal investigation found systemic wrongdoing in many offshore drilling projects.
What I want to see, is land-based wind generation in areas suited to it. My home state could power at least 3 others if this were to come to fruition.
It is absolutely disgusting that people can build a new skyscraper in New York without any 'Environmental impact studies" on migratory birds, but somehow it becomes so very relevent as soon as we are talking about non-poluting power generation structures.
Just to add to what you said above, though I disagree with the tone, most end users are so far abstracted from even the most basic forms of understanding of how and what the computer actually does when it does it, that they would be unaware that it was the shovelware causing the problem. Many times users throw away perfectly good hardware because of purely software related problems. Happens all the time. Poorly/improperly configured software is by far the most common reason for "getting a new computer" than any other reason. As you point out, well established companies like Dell and HP are not worried about this-- far the opposite, they stand to make many more sales as a result of such shovelware screwing up. The shovelware is basically useless for any other purpose in most cases, and the end user is not properly educated enough to realize this.
In other cases, the shovelware is actually somewhat useful. The OEM redistributed copies of PowerDVD come to mind. While not exactly the most fantastical DVD playback software on the planet (Especially since it puts hentai tentacles into file type associations that it has no business messing with. [.mid, seriously powerDVD? You expect users to play mid files in your player? By default? Are you on crack?]) it DOES do the job without much additional whining about trial expirations or upgrading to pro versions, and it DOES give you a valid (if crappy) MPEG2 codec on a windows box that from a bare-bones install simply wouldnt be there otherwise, AND at no added charge to the end user. (Sure, you can install something like CCCP + Media player classic, but then you are just adding your own non-subsidy shovel ware after the fact-- as per the definition given in the submission. Obeying "Choice" per RMS's vision would be a bare rails system with nothing on it.)
"Educating users" is a terrifyingly daunting task, and if you have ever tried to do it in the course of your career as a computer nerd, you will know exactly why Dell, HP, and co. choose NOT to do so, and have instead created a situation where they profit from ignorance. Removing the shovelware would require users to be sufficiently educated to find, select, and install their own software after purchasing the computer, which is unlikely to ever happen for the following reasons:
1) As jarring as the idea may sound, nearly 99% of the rest of the human population will NOT be computer enthusiasts and would rather not care to learn anything about a computer other than how to turn it on, and use it to look for porn. Creating a self-hosting software environment from scratch as a hobby is about as far from their idea of "fun" as is the concept of getting a root canal, or sitting through a boring lecture on the differences between species of protozoans.
2) Because people have no need or desire to learn about their computers, they will be hostile toward such education from the outset.
3) Overcoming that hostility is tiring, and resource intensive. (Expensive.) This is why colleges charge lots of money. (well, one of the reasons anyway...) Colleges overcome this problem by being "absolutely necessary" for getting employment above the level of bussing tables or deep frying sliced potatoes. Most people would not go to college if it was not necessary, and for exactly the same reasons. Most people do NOT find learning to be in any way 'Fun', or "enjoyable." This means you would have to invest lots of dedicated effort into convincing them of how important it is that they learn this information and become informed consumers instead of ignorant ones. More than likely what will happen is that they will simply have this thought instead: "Wow, he's smart. I'll just come to him when it breaks." because then they get the benefits of your knowledge, without actually having to apply anything themselves. This is why they fall for 4) below.
4) The fact that 99% of end users are willfully ignorant of what is actually wrong with their computers when they 'act slow', means you can spin them any story you want to, and they
Sorry AC, Light cone is the correct terminology when discussing relativistic phenomena. It has to do with how the posibility function looks when graphed; it creates a cone shaped region. anything inside the cone is observable at some point in the lifetime of that photon generating event, anything outside that cone is not observable.
The point that the GP was trying to drive home is that relativity outright rejects the notion of "standardized time", and also any notion of a "universal reference point" from which to observe without also suffering from relativistic effects.
This is because time is a variable under relativity, and because all objects are in motion, and thus subject to relativistic effects. Your suggested correction of "light sphere" may not look very spherical from a specific vantage point, due to non-uniform spacial curvatures interacting with that light.
Long story short, your correction is in fact, incorrect. Sorry.
1) Incorrect AGAIN. Atheism is "The belief that there is no god." *NOT* "The lack of belief in a god." While the latter naturally follows the former, (why would you believe in something that you feel does not exist?) the two are NOT interchangable, and have specific meanings. The atheist most certainly DOES have a belief: The belief that god (In any form) does not exist. It is a true belief, because there is no direct proof to support the position. It is made entirely on faith, and as is often mentioned, the incorrect assertion that a lack of evidence is evidence of absence.
2) No, it is NOT an invalid line of reasoning. A perfectly tangible analog would be "What is the spin of this particle hovering over my hand? Is it UP, or DOWN?" The answer, is that it is BOTH, until you measure. This has been scientifically proven many times. Such a circumstance is called "superposition." One of the curious side effects of bringing quantum phenomena into cosmological theory is that it becomes possible that our universe as we percieve it is merely a single quantum instance and that its full probability tree is fully represented in higher dimensions. (meaning that everything that can happen, does happen, and will happen, even if not in this quantum instance.) Your argument against this is a non-sequitor; it does not follow.
Now, you could argue that there is "Little" evidence for this (You cannot say "none", because of the well documented phenomenon of superposition, as mentioned.) , and that it is probably misguided to assert such a thing, which I would gladly accept--- Occams razor and all that. This does not negate the possibility that it is true though, nor does it negate the fact that it cannot be proven either way. Thus, the ONLY valid answer to such a question is "Possible, but unlikely." Not "Isnt true."
The two are NOT equivilent.
Any strawmen about fairies, pixies, the abominable snowman, or any other improbable entity equally does not dispell this argument, such being a combination of an appeal to ridicule>, and a strawman.
Further, your assertion that "It is the natural and rational course to conflate lack of evidence with evidence of absence." is ALSO a logical fallacy, in and of itself. Specifically, an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. Note how wikipedia mentions that the only way out of this kind of fallacy is the method that agnostics like myself employ: Not enough data to answer-- EG, "Unknown."
As for the last bit, about how you assert I could not possibly be consistent in my beliefs-- that is your assertion about your opinion; not an assertion of truth. Know the difference, and dont conflate the two.
1) you are incorrect. "Atheism" literally means "No god", or 'against god'. Not "Against religion". To fit your argument with this CORRECT (look it up in the dictionary if you feel I am wrong) definition of atheism, it would read "you can't 'not believe in a god' blindly", which is patently false. You certainly can. FAIL. It is quite possible for a person to be literally faced with an all-powerful god, right in front of them, and still chose disbelief. People did this in the early 1900s with germs, upgrading it to a divinity is is a trivial mental exercise.
2) "Agnosticism" literally means "Without knowledge". It means that I profess a lack of knowledge about any god, which is perfectly consistent with my statement above. Further, it implies that it is impossible "To know" a god, which is further consistent with what I said above. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious apologism, as you claim. Double fail.
3) Making up definitions to suit your world view is pretentious and conceited; It proclaims your decision for purposeful ignorance in the face of correction. It is a classic example of a "Moving the goal post" type logical fallacy, much like a "no true scottsman". You purposefully moved the goalpost (regarding what "Atheism" actually means) so that the argument would seem invalid.Triple fail.
You are correct in at least part of your rather barbed retort though; I cannot prove that you are not god, however, conversely, you cannot prove that you ARE. That does NOT make me have to bow down and worship you though. It just means I shouldnt fault somebody for falling for such a ploy and actually doing it. People have worshiped humans as if they were gods for centuries. I am not one of those people, so your commandment for me to die in a fire will fall on deaf ears. So sorry.
In short, your argument sounds like the siren of a waaaambulance. Try again, this time dont make shit up, K?
I had better get my thermally reflective undergarments on, because this will surely result in volcanic temperature flames being leveled at me-- but here it goes anyway.
When it comes to conflating 'Atheism' with 'religion', I would argue that there *IS* a portion of the atheist demographic that even under fairly strict definitions could be described as religious. (Yes, I mean 'blind faith' type.)
Example: The atheist that denounces not only a specific god, but the very concept of a god, even though the concept of either the existence or non-existence of god is unprovable either way. (In fact, the argument over whether or not a god exists is the quintessential example in that particular kind of logical fallacy.) That is to say, it takes just as much blind faith without real proof or evidence (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, after all) to assert in stark candor that no god exists, as it does to assert that one certainly must, since both positions are equally non-provable.
As such, both sides of that argument require a conviction of blind faith in order to substantiate the claims they make; Religion QED.
Now, to put a soaker hose on some people's innate reactions to my pointing this out, I feel it important to mention that I am NOT either one of those two extremes. Instead, here is my personal view on the matter of the existence/non-existence of any kind of god:
Long version:
Due to the implied special nature of god, there is no test that can be performed to determine if this being exists, or to disprove the hypothetical existence of this particular entity. Currently collected evidence hints that such a being either does not exist or very very rarely interacts with our form of existence, making the question rather moot except in some rather obscure and as-yet undocumented circumstance. Recent theories on the higher-order nature of existence (Such as multidimensional M-theories and their associated cadre of siblings like super gravity which suggest parallel universes and other unusual things) suggest that there may well be higher dimensions than those we can easily evaluate with our senses and with the tools we can create, making it at least slightly plausible that an "all powerful" (at least within our own subset of reality) being could exist, perhaps in a parallel universe, or in a higher dimensional construct of some sort. (Information theory and certain laws of thermodynamics, as well as the very nature of our 4D spacetime would prohibit the existence of any kind of infinite energy being in our neck of the multiverse, as such a being would instantly collapse our spacetime into the biggest black hole ever simply by being here. This is because an infinite energy bounded by any finite volume would result in an infinite density, which is the very definition of a singularity. Any manifestation of infinite energy density in our universe would result in energy density above the schwartzchild radial limit, and would induce rapid collapse. ) Again, current evidence would point out that if such a being did indeed exist, that this being does not, or very rarely interacts with us, and when or if it does do so, it would not be directly (because doing so would destroy us, as per above), making direct observation of this entity very unlikely if not impossible.
The short short version: I am a true agnostic.
The best that modern science can do in terms of the issue of "God" is to place constraints on how this "God" could manifest itself in regard to our spacetime environment, since our tools and understanding are perfectly bounded by these constraints. It cannot disprove or prove the existence of this entity.
So, without any objective means of validating the conjecture either way, ANY answer other than "Unanswerable" requires a leap of perfect faith, which is the foundational principle of religion. Thus, Atheism is a twisted form of religious faith. (The faith that there is no god.)
I dont really know if it would really work or not, but I've had this idea for an interferometer based "holo-tank" for over a year now.
(I really don't care if somebody steals this idea.)
The phenomenon of self-interference is the life-blood of traditional holography-- basically, one beam is split in a beam splitter, one of the resulting beams scans an object, while the other then interferes with the refracted light from the scanning beam as it exposes a photographic plate.
This stores the interference pattern on the plate, so that when it gets illuminated by laser light of the same frequency, a virtual 3D image of the scanned object gets produced.
That's basic holography; The idea I have in mind is quite a bit different:
Since this is slashdot at least some of you guys will be familiar with the micro-mirror arrays found in some modern DLP projection television sets, (For those that are not, here is an obligatory wikipedia link.) and probably some of you already know about multi-mode lasers for use in frequency combs. (Another obligatory wikipedia link.)
Essentially, you take the beam from a multimode frequency comb laser that is calibrated to produce a series of discrete frequency spikes within the visible light spectrum, and run it through a beam splitter, just like traditional holography.
However, instead of sending one beam to interact with a real object as the scanning beam, you direct BOTH beams onto DLP chips. These DLP chips reflect and refract the laser light so that the beams will have a very subtle phase incongruity when they intersect within a transparent medium. This causes the beams to interfere with each other and scatter at the point of intersection. By carefully controlling the beam lengths to be highly specific to the individual frequency spikes of the laser comb's beam, you can modulate the apparent "color" of the glowing 'dot'. (Or, at least I think you should be able to anyway.)
Now, if you "Scan" the two lasers over the DLPs, you should be able to use them to produce a purely computer generated holographic image, in something that would approach real color. (Would not be true real color, because of the discrete nature of the laser comb you are using.)
Due to issues of blinding people with the laser light, you would need to project the image inside of a transparent block of material, like high clarity glass or crystal, with some kind of beam trap at the far end-- however, this "tank" doesnt need to be very thick to theoretically produce a nice 3D object. I would think a mere quarter inch thick would be more than sufficient.
But if the NPO sets up a toll free number for their internet freedom internet hotline, then it really is free to call (For the people in Egypt anyway.. SOMEBODY has to pay the bill, but in this case it would be the NPO.)
It would also make a great angle for getting donations.
"We at [afore mentioned French ISP] believe strongly in internet freedom, and offer this service free of charge; if however, you like the service, please feel free donate at [micropayment site]."
Such a move would generate lots of donation revenue from activists that are OUTSIDE Egypt as well, as it would be a simple way to assist the Egyptians without having to be in Egypt.
I'm not saying that this ISP is doing that mind-- just that if they did, it would boost their prominence as a key figure in this conflict-- thus, highly effective 'brand recognition'-- as well as producing a payment stream to support the venture. I think they would be silly not to do this in fact.
You need to make it sound "Green", since PR shenanigans are what apple PR is all about.
"iPlant" (Needs to have two pretty green ivy leaves silkscreened on the casing, which you would never see anyway, due to the pentalobular screws keeping the iDevice's cover firmly sealed.)
"Introducing, the new iPhone 5, powered by the environmentally friendly iPlant power system. The new iPhone 5 has over 6 months of continual talk-time, and is the thinnest iPhone ever!"
(show comparison. iPhone 5 is 1/3 thickness of iPhone 4.)
"All this powered by the nations largest 5G network." (Show wireless partner logo and marketing speak.)
Sports affilate groups (NBA, NFL, MLB, etc..) have much to lose if they lose their licensing monopolies. EG, they can currently charge Comcast/NBC for the "Priviledge" of airing the superbowl, and have sole copyright over the entire "Performance" of *all* games played under their banners, regardless of which agency is doing the filming. Ever paid attention to the small text at the beginning of football games? The text that spells out just how much the NFL really REALLY doesn't like having games recorded, etc?
[sarcasm]A free and open internet would permit game scores, stats, and dare I say it... FAIR USE (as in, the REAL deal) clips of game events to be proliferated without their having their fingers in the pie! I mean, Somebody MIGHT get to see a world record touchdown FOR FREE! [/sarcasm]
This same mentality is also applicable against the people who save up for the Season Pass tickets, get good seats on game day, and decide to bring the camcorder. Their camcorder footage is the property of [NBA/NFL/MLB/etc], and NOT them, and totally illegal as far as same is concerned. The fear that such footage might end up on YouTube, for free, makes their sphincters tighten.
To illustrate the point of insulation, and to put "3000 degrees" into perspective, you can get elecric kilns the size of a basketball that at most raise the temperature of the surrounding room a few degrees (and these are by no means as well insulated as I am implying this system should be) that are able to reach over 5000 deg inside. They are used by hobbyists to melt glass beads. They are CONSUMER hardware.
The point is that this system is both of these put together, AND field re-conditionable, when you think about it.
You use electricity to recondition the catalyst using something like an inductive heater, which is using electricity to break chemical bonds (not quite electrolysis, but the same energy source is used, and the same goal is accomplished, even if it is not a direct application like with electrolysis.)
Also, once reactivated, the catalyst *IS* a chemical CO2 scrubber. It only needs to be hot when it is being reactivated, which means *INTERMITTANT* heating.
With lithium salt carbon scrubbers, once it is full, it is full. End of story, return to base and get new cartridges.
With this, you flip a switch and recondition your scrubber on-route.
1) The reaction chamber is NOT thermally insulated. 2) Because of 1, the thermal energy is bleeding out of the submarine like blood from a hemophiliac with a knife wound.
The thermal signature of the submarine needn't be all that large, if you properly insulate the reaction system. The insulation ensures that it stays hot inside the hot side, and stays cold everywhere else. This increases the efficiency of the system as well, since you then you are not flushing energy down the drain with an inductive heater continuously.
Also, why on earth would you want to try to superheat the reactor coolant? Given the "This only has to be turned on when you recondition the catylist" nature of the system, an inductive heater (Not an incandescent heater, look it up) with a highly insulated hermetic vessel makes MUCH more sense than destabilizing your reactor by throttling up the coolant temperature. Much easier to regulate the temperature too, since it is purely electric.
Additionally, if you had read even the summary, you would have seen that such heating only needs to happen when you recondition the catalyst. It would NOT be "Running continuously", and thus would NOT make your thermal signature baseline higher, and even if it did, it would not be for very long. Just long enough to recondition the catalyst for another month of underwater cruising.
And lastly, for the "Chemically sequester the CO2" crowd above, that is basically what this system does except it has the added bonus of being able to be replenished in-field, where lithium salt carbon scrubbers DO NOT.
As for requirement of UV light-- You can get levels of UV light far exceeding that found in sunlight by turning on some cheap UV lamps, or even some UV LED arrays. How much UV do you need? You have a nuclear reactor at your disposal. A little UV light isn't a problem. You can create UV levels strong enough to cause instant flash burns on human skin with an electric arc in a CO2 gas medium for cripes sake.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll add to this my tinfoil wrapped soda bottle filled with salt water, which I call a capacitor, and the highly polished chinese wok which I call a solar collector!
Soon we'll be able to build a rube-goldbergian technocratic empire!
I dont know about that...
One place this might shine would be archetectural plans.
An open library of archetectural plans would leverage structural designs for a host of potential markets, not all of which would need to be tangible. (Yes, I know this is a thing of the devil, I don't care.) Take for instance, virtual world environments like Second Life, or even just FPS shooters created under open licenses. Archetectural drawings are for more than just houses; they include manufacturing centers, office buildings, etc--- a free and easily accessible/modifyable archive of them would greatly fascilitate startup businesses or home builders (who would then not have to hire an architect to design their building, but only to vet the design), but also any software projects that might be able to make use of such detailed plans.
This wouldnt negate "all" costs, but pre-vetted designs would be essentially free, and due to license requirements any modified designs that get vetted would be added to the archive as well. Eventually you would have building plans for just about every concievable purpose, and that's just architecture.
My workstation at work allows USB bootable media.
A knoppix installation on a USB flash disk would allow clandestine activity at work, without leaving any traces. As long as the use was intermittent, then my workstation would appear to have both been used in that time, AND be clean.
the flash drive is also much easier to destroy secretly, even though it would not have any evidence on it either. (knoppix is read only by default.)
at the risk of suffering 5000 degree flamewar posts...
There *IS* some (small) evidence that being a rapist is at least partially genetically based. (rather, a predisposition to being a rapist that is.)
In such cases, I would say the impulse is mother nature's fault. The decision to act, is the purpetrator's.
(Much like mother nature is at fault for our desire to eat sweet things, but our reaching into the cookie jar when we know better is OUR fault.)
Now, that aside-- White collar criminals who destroy thousands of people's lives so they can live in obscene luxury deserve not only to be devested of said luxuries, but to be treated like the criminals they are. That does not mean I advocate prison rape or the like-- even serial killers shouldnt be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments or conditions in the penal system-- it just means that they should be put away and prevented from doing any further harm.
I believe you will find that most americans that are not spoon fed pro-war propoganda from Fox News (and it's satellite affiliates) are very much in favor of that very thing: bringing troops home, and letting the middle east explode like it wants to.
The problem is that the government knows that it cannot do this while addicted to foriegn oil, and it also knows that it cannot get over its addiction to foriegn oil while the senators all make their money from oil and oil related industries. Because the senators comprise the government, the government's only motivation to bring troops home comes from the bad press they get. (They are financially motivated to keep sending american troops to die for their financial interests, while spinning it as national security. See EG, Dick Cheney and his heavy investments in Halliburton. He's a bit of a poster child for that kind of corruption, but a good portion of our currently elected career politicians also fall into this niche to one degree or another, and are culpable to varying degrees accordingly.)
The end result is that we get "Token" efforts to get away from foriegn oil (like that 50 million dollar offshore wind project), while bankrupting the country by hemmoraging money to maintain "Diplomatic" interests in the middle east (so that cheap oil keeps flowing.)
A concerted PR effort appears to be in effect to conflate lack of support of the middle eastern occupation and the managment of tinpot dictators there as a lack of patriotism, lack of national loyalty, and a lack of support of "our men and women in uniform." This is simply untrue; Many, if not most of the people that call for these forces to be recalled care deeply about the men and women that are there-- what they lack is support for the OPERATIONS that these people are deployed there to do. This distinction is almost religiously marginallized by the talking heads of this PR front, which while not started by Bush, was greatly emboldened by his cabinet and his policies. This same PR campaign tries to spin any and all outcry over the middle eastern bullshit as the rantings of un-american terrorist sympathizers, and similarly tries to paint the whole middle east as one giant terrorist training camp. [with alarming levels of success.]
Take for instance, the recent hemming and hawing of capitol hill over the imminent deposal of Egyptian president Mubarak. Mubarak has been "Our man" for decades, and has been instrumental in maintaining the imbalance of power in the middle east in favor of US and other developed countries' energy supplies, and in performing several "nasty extradition" services for our government. His deposal by citizens seeking a truly democratic regime free from foriegn interference places the policy makers on Capitol Hill in a nasty pickle because of their two-faced rhetoric, and now conflictory interests: On one hand they want to retain voter confidence, and spew pro-democracy rhetoric to get re-elected, and on the other they want to protect their financial interests so they can fund their next re-election bid. They REALLY want to retain Mubarak, and are "Very concerned" about the situation, because they would lose a key player in their investment and power strategies.
This is why the US media is trying desperately to create a connection between the (mostly) peaceful protestors and the extremist "Islamic Brotherhood", because that would allow the heads on capitol hill to decry the protestors without looking like the crooks they are-- despite the fact that both the islamic brotherhood AND the protestors deny any such connection, and have consistently done so for more than 2 weeks. The only support for such an allegation comes from an extremist islamic cleric (Khomeni sp?) who sees an opportunity to do some spin doctoring, and to derail the legitimate democratic nature of the protests there to further his own power base. These inconvenient truths aside, you will find no shortage of articles online or of televised newscasts with reporters and anchors asking loaded questions t
I believe he is referring to FDR's "New Deal" era government work projects to help curb unemployment, by using the government to employ people doing civic works projects--- Like building the national highway system, and several civic drainage and municipal water reservoirs.
The creation of a national commuter railway system on government payroll would be very much a similar thing. The only real difference here is that the Obaminator would be bumping heads with a number of established interests: State level governments make considerable money from toll road revinues, motor vehicle companies would experience reduced demand for motor vehicles and parts for same should people start driving less. (Less wear and tear from less driving means fewer new sales as vehicles last longer.) Then you have the extremely powerful interests behind big oil. (reduced automotive commuting would radically cut the fuel use of the US, since the energy needs of a highspeed electric train for 500 commuters is FAR less than the fuel/energy needs for 500 commuters in automobiles.)
FDR was creating NEW infrastructure for EXISTING enterprises (Motor vehicles predate the depression.), and thus was NOT bumping any such heads.
This plan will fail, just like all other proposals for revitalized commuter rail in the US.
A better use of the drug user/dealer analogy would be:
The drug user does not blame the dealer for their addiction, but does blame the dealer for cutting the cocaine with powdered lye when it causes them severe caustic soda burns in their nasal passages-- simply because they got a deal on powdered lye and ordered more than their meth cooks could turn into meth, making it cheaper than baking soda. Afterall, caustic soda.. baking soda.. what's the difference?
Which is a more apt analogy to:
The consumer does not complain when the utility company gives them inexpensive energy but does complain when the energy company cuts corners in health, safety and reliability proceedures which result in the largest man-made catastrophe to hit the gulf coast, simplyto turn a higher quarterly profit while simultaneously earning record profits overall. Mud, Concrete, what's the difference?
Pointing out that your dealer systemically uses improper cutting agents is good grounds to find another dealer, or at the very least to switch to a safer drug-- like weed.
As for the "Have cake XOR Eat cake" reference, I would say that is a false dichotomy type logical falacy in this particular instance, as it most certainly *IS* possible to have cheap energy from alternative sources. Amusingly, some of the very first power plants in the US were hydroelectric, not coal. (Take for instance, Colorado springs electrical power's hydro plant in the 1920s.) The difference is the amount of subsidization that the petrolium industry enjoys.
Uhm... Most (all?) commercial wind turbines are designed to furl (fold back) the blades if the wind speed exceeds the safe power generation threshold, and are geared to turn at much slower speeds than 300mph. (Try closer to 20 to 40mph, with a max at around 60. After that they go into stall mode.)
At 300mph you wouldnt be able to see the blades, and the kinetic energy in them would tear them off the rotor. (Each blade weighs several tons in commercial wind generator equipment. The stress of rotation at that rate would exceed all known material's capabilities.)
So, [citation needed] on the 300mph claim.
Most of the pricepoint for wind is tied up in all the "Impact studies" that have been tied to it by various NIMBY groups.
"how will it impact tourism?" ... ... ...
"how will it impact the migratory habits of the eastern canada goose?"
"how will it impact cellular telephone reception?"
"How will it impact the local congressman's chances for re-election?"
With pretty much all of them being valued at OVER the 50 million startup capital investment made by this move.
Quite amusing how all these impact studies get tacked on to projects intended to make everyone's life better, but not on building or development projects of similar scope or magnitude in civic centers. When was the last time you saw a cellular telephone tower getting tied down with impact studies on sparrows? Didn't think so.
1) windmills don't explode. Certainly not in a fashion that cause people's shadows to be burned into concrete like the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.
2) windmills do not HAVE to be "ugly." Seen kinetic art? No reason whatsoever the two cannot be one and the same. Even still, efficient designs are beautiful in and of themselves in their own way-- much the same way that a skyscraper can be beautiful.
3) It's more likely that the "I dont like it! WAAAAAH" from rich and powerful people has more to do with how heavily invested they are in "traditional" energy sources, than with any real or tangible complaint.
CFLs are an improvement over incandecent for a number of reasons, but believing that switching to them would in some fashion mean that we wont need new power plants is retarded in and of itself.
People keep having sex. People keep moving to our country. People keep buying and making expensive electronic devices. All these things totally trump any reduction in useage that changing lightbulb technology could ever hope to bring to the table. We need sustainable power generation, and we needed it yesterday.
Who needs bartertown? My investments into personal knowledge and skill will render the utility of bartertown useless.
(besides, with the right deadly traps in place the deserted wastes look far safer to live in. Just ask the kid with the boomerang!) :)
(looks both ways, feeds troll)
Screw drilling. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but big oil is not so concerned about proceedure as they are about profit, which is exactly why Shell had deep water horizon explode like that. Moreover, it was not a singular incident. The federal investigation found systemic wrongdoing in many offshore drilling projects.
What I want to see, is land-based wind generation in areas suited to it. My home state could power at least 3 others if this were to come to fruition.
It is absolutely disgusting that people can build a new skyscraper in New York without any 'Environmental impact studies" on migratory birds, but somehow it becomes so very relevent as soon as we are talking about non-poluting power generation structures.
Just to add to what you said above, though I disagree with the tone, most end users are so far abstracted from even the most basic forms of understanding of how and what the computer actually does when it does it, that they would be unaware that it was the shovelware causing the problem. Many times users throw away perfectly good hardware because of purely software related problems. Happens all the time. Poorly/improperly configured software is by far the most common reason for "getting a new computer" than any other reason. As you point out, well established companies like Dell and HP are not worried about this-- far the opposite, they stand to make many more sales as a result of such shovelware screwing up. The shovelware is basically useless for any other purpose in most cases, and the end user is not properly educated enough to realize this.
In other cases, the shovelware is actually somewhat useful. The OEM redistributed copies of PowerDVD come to mind. While not exactly the most fantastical DVD playback software on the planet (Especially since it puts hentai tentacles into file type associations that it has no business messing with. [.mid, seriously powerDVD? You expect users to play mid files in your player? By default? Are you on crack?]) it DOES do the job without much additional whining about trial expirations or upgrading to pro versions, and it DOES give you a valid (if crappy) MPEG2 codec on a windows box that from a bare-bones install simply wouldnt be there otherwise, AND at no added charge to the end user. (Sure, you can install something like CCCP + Media player classic, but then you are just adding your own non-subsidy shovel ware after the fact-- as per the definition given in the submission. Obeying "Choice" per RMS's vision would be a bare rails system with nothing on it.)
"Educating users" is a terrifyingly daunting task, and if you have ever tried to do it in the course of your career as a computer nerd, you will know exactly why Dell, HP, and co. choose NOT to do so, and have instead created a situation where they profit from ignorance. Removing the shovelware would require users to be sufficiently educated to find, select, and install their own software after purchasing the computer, which is unlikely to ever happen for the following reasons:
1) As jarring as the idea may sound, nearly 99% of the rest of the human population will NOT be computer enthusiasts and would rather not care to learn anything about a computer other than how to turn it on, and use it to look for porn. Creating a self-hosting software environment from scratch as a hobby is about as far from their idea of "fun" as is the concept of getting a root canal, or sitting through a boring lecture on the differences between species of protozoans.
2) Because people have no need or desire to learn about their computers, they will be hostile toward such education from the outset.
3) Overcoming that hostility is tiring, and resource intensive. (Expensive.) This is why colleges charge lots of money. (well, one of the reasons anyway...) Colleges overcome this problem by being "absolutely necessary" for getting employment above the level of bussing tables or deep frying sliced potatoes. Most people would not go to college if it was not necessary, and for exactly the same reasons. Most people do NOT find learning to be in any way 'Fun', or "enjoyable." This means you would have to invest lots of dedicated effort into convincing them of how important it is that they learn this information and become informed consumers instead of ignorant ones. More than likely what will happen is that they will simply have this thought instead: "Wow, he's smart. I'll just come to him when it breaks." because then they get the benefits of your knowledge, without actually having to apply anything themselves. This is why they fall for 4) below.
4) The fact that 99% of end users are willfully ignorant of what is actually wrong with their computers when they 'act slow', means you can spin them any story you want to, and they
Sorry AC, Light cone is the correct terminology when discussing relativistic phenomena. It has to do with how the posibility function looks when graphed; it creates a cone shaped region. anything inside the cone is observable at some point in the lifetime of that photon generating event, anything outside that cone is not observable.
The point that the GP was trying to drive home is that relativity outright rejects the notion of "standardized time", and also any notion of a "universal reference point" from which to observe without also suffering from relativistic effects.
This is because time is a variable under relativity, and because all objects are in motion, and thus subject to relativistic effects. Your suggested correction of "light sphere" may not look very spherical from a specific vantage point, due to non-uniform spacial curvatures interacting with that light.
Long story short, your correction is in fact, incorrect. Sorry.
1) Incorrect AGAIN. Atheism is "The belief that there is no god." *NOT* "The lack of belief in a god." While the latter naturally follows the former, (why would you believe in something that you feel does not exist?) the two are NOT interchangable, and have specific meanings. The atheist most certainly DOES have a belief: The belief that god (In any form) does not exist. It is a true belief, because there is no direct proof to support the position. It is made entirely on faith, and as is often mentioned, the incorrect assertion that a lack of evidence is evidence of absence.
2) No, it is NOT an invalid line of reasoning. A perfectly tangible analog would be "What is the spin of this particle hovering over my hand? Is it UP, or DOWN?" The answer, is that it is BOTH, until you measure. This has been scientifically proven many times. Such a circumstance is called "superposition." One of the curious side effects of bringing quantum phenomena into cosmological theory is that it becomes possible that our universe as we percieve it is merely a single quantum instance and that its full probability tree is fully represented in higher dimensions. (meaning that everything that can happen, does happen, and will happen, even if not in this quantum instance.) Your argument against this is a non-sequitor; it does not follow.
Now, you could argue that there is "Little" evidence for this (You cannot say "none", because of the well documented phenomenon of superposition, as mentioned.) , and that it is probably misguided to assert such a thing, which I would gladly accept--- Occams razor and all that. This does not negate the possibility that it is true though, nor does it negate the fact that it cannot be proven either way. Thus, the ONLY valid answer to such a question is "Possible, but unlikely." Not "Isnt true."
The two are NOT equivilent.
Any strawmen about fairies, pixies, the abominable snowman, or any other improbable entity equally does not dispell this argument, such being a combination of an appeal to ridicule>, and a strawman.
Further, your assertion that "It is the natural and rational course to conflate lack of evidence with evidence of absence." is ALSO a logical fallacy, in and of itself. Specifically, an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. Note how wikipedia mentions that the only way out of this kind of fallacy is the method that agnostics like myself employ: Not enough data to answer-- EG, "Unknown."
As for the last bit, about how you assert I could not possibly be consistent in my beliefs-- that is your assertion about your opinion; not an assertion of truth. Know the difference, and dont conflate the two.
1) you are incorrect. "Atheism" literally means "No god", or 'against god'. Not "Against religion". To fit your argument with this CORRECT (look it up in the dictionary if you feel I am wrong) definition of atheism, it would read "you can't 'not believe in a god' blindly", which is patently false. You certainly can. FAIL. It is quite possible for a person to be literally faced with an all-powerful god, right in front of them, and still chose disbelief. People did this in the early 1900s with germs, upgrading it to a divinity is is a trivial mental exercise.
2) "Agnosticism" literally means "Without knowledge". It means that I profess a lack of knowledge about any god, which is perfectly consistent with my statement above. Further, it implies that it is impossible "To know" a god, which is further consistent with what I said above. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious apologism, as you claim. Double fail.
3) Making up definitions to suit your world view is pretentious and conceited; It proclaims your decision for purposeful ignorance in the face of correction. It is a classic example of a "Moving the goal post" type logical fallacy, much like a "no true scottsman". You purposefully moved the goalpost (regarding what "Atheism" actually means) so that the argument would seem invalid.Triple fail.
You are correct in at least part of your rather barbed retort though; I cannot prove that you are not god, however, conversely, you cannot prove that you ARE. That does NOT make me have to bow down and worship you though. It just means I shouldnt fault somebody for falling for such a ploy and actually doing it. People have worshiped humans as if they were gods for centuries. I am not one of those people, so your commandment for me to die in a fire will fall on deaf ears. So sorry.
In short, your argument sounds like the siren of a waaaambulance. Try again, this time dont make shit up, K?
I had better get my thermally reflective undergarments on, because this will surely result in volcanic temperature flames being leveled at me-- but here it goes anyway.
When it comes to conflating 'Atheism' with 'religion', I would argue that there *IS* a portion of the atheist demographic that even under fairly strict definitions could be described as religious. (Yes, I mean 'blind faith' type.)
Example: The atheist that denounces not only a specific god, but the very concept of a god, even though the concept of either the existence or non-existence of god is unprovable either way. (In fact, the argument over whether or not a god exists is the quintessential example in that particular kind of logical fallacy.) That is to say, it takes just as much blind faith without real proof or evidence (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, after all) to assert in stark candor that no god exists, as it does to assert that one certainly must, since both positions are equally non-provable.
As such, both sides of that argument require a conviction of blind faith in order to substantiate the claims they make; Religion QED.
Now, to put a soaker hose on some people's innate reactions to my pointing this out, I feel it important to mention that I am NOT either one of those two extremes. Instead, here is my personal view on the matter of the existence/non-existence of any kind of god:
Long version:
Due to the implied special nature of god, there is no test that can be performed to determine if this being exists, or to disprove the hypothetical existence of this particular entity. Currently collected evidence hints that such a being either does not exist or very very rarely interacts with our form of existence, making the question rather moot except in some rather obscure and as-yet undocumented circumstance. Recent theories on the higher-order nature of existence (Such as multidimensional M-theories and their associated cadre of siblings like super gravity which suggest parallel universes and other unusual things) suggest that there may well be higher dimensions than those we can easily evaluate with our senses and with the tools we can create, making it at least slightly plausible that an "all powerful" (at least within our own subset of reality) being could exist, perhaps in a parallel universe, or in a higher dimensional construct of some sort. (Information theory and certain laws of thermodynamics, as well as the very nature of our 4D spacetime would prohibit the existence of any kind of infinite energy being in our neck of the multiverse, as such a being would instantly collapse our spacetime into the biggest black hole ever simply by being here. This is because an infinite energy bounded by any finite volume would result in an infinite density, which is the very definition of a singularity. Any manifestation of infinite energy density in our universe would result in energy density above the schwartzchild radial limit, and would induce rapid collapse. ) Again, current evidence would point out that if such a being did indeed exist, that this being does not, or very rarely interacts with us, and when or if it does do so, it would not be directly (because doing so would destroy us, as per above), making direct observation of this entity very unlikely if not impossible.
The short short version: I am a true agnostic.
The best that modern science can do in terms of the issue of "God" is to place constraints on how this "God" could manifest itself in regard to our spacetime environment, since our tools and understanding are perfectly bounded by these constraints. It cannot disprove or prove the existence of this entity.
So, without any objective means of validating the conjecture either way, ANY answer other than "Unanswerable" requires a leap of perfect faith, which is the foundational principle of religion. Thus, Atheism is a twisted form of religious faith. (The faith that there is no god.)
I dont really know if it would really work or not, but I've had this idea for an interferometer based "holo-tank" for over a year now.
(I really don't care if somebody steals this idea.)
The phenomenon of self-interference is the life-blood of traditional holography-- basically, one beam is split in a beam splitter, one of the resulting beams scans an object, while the other then interferes with the refracted light from the scanning beam as it exposes a photographic plate.
traditional holography
This stores the interference pattern on the plate, so that when it gets illuminated by laser light of the same frequency, a virtual 3D image of the scanned object gets produced.
That's basic holography; The idea I have in mind is quite a bit different:
Since this is slashdot at least some of you guys will be familiar with the micro-mirror arrays found in some modern DLP projection television sets, (For those that are not, here is an obligatory wikipedia link.) and probably some of you already know about multi-mode lasers for use in frequency combs. (Another obligatory wikipedia link.)
Essentially, you take the beam from a multimode frequency comb laser that is calibrated to produce a series of discrete frequency spikes within the visible light spectrum, and run it through a beam splitter, just like traditional holography.
However, instead of sending one beam to interact with a real object as the scanning beam, you direct BOTH beams onto DLP chips. These DLP chips reflect and refract the laser light so that the beams will have a very subtle phase incongruity when they intersect within a transparent medium. This causes the beams to interfere with each other and scatter at the point of intersection. By carefully controlling the beam lengths to be highly specific to the individual frequency spikes of the laser comb's beam, you can modulate the apparent "color" of the glowing 'dot'. (Or, at least I think you should be able to anyway.)
Now, if you "Scan" the two lasers over the DLPs, you should be able to use them to produce a purely computer generated holographic image, in something that would approach real color. (Would not be true real color, because of the discrete nature of the laser comb you are using.)
Due to issues of blinding people with the laser light, you would need to project the image inside of a transparent block of material, like high clarity glass or crystal, with some kind of beam trap at the far end-- however, this "tank" doesnt need to be very thick to theoretically produce a nice 3D object. I would think a mere quarter inch thick would be more than sufficient.
But if the NPO sets up a toll free number for their internet freedom internet hotline, then it really is free to call (For the people in Egypt anyway.. SOMEBODY has to pay the bill, but in this case it would be the NPO.)
It would also make a great angle for getting donations.
"We at [afore mentioned French ISP] believe strongly in internet freedom, and offer this service free of charge; if however, you like the service, please feel free donate at [micropayment site]."
Such a move would generate lots of donation revenue from activists that are OUTSIDE Egypt as well, as it would be a simple way to assist the Egyptians without having to be in Egypt.
I'm not saying that this ISP is doing that mind-- just that if they did, it would boost their prominence as a key figure in this conflict-- thus, highly effective 'brand recognition'-- as well as producing a payment stream to support the venture. I think they would be silly not to do this in fact.
*NPO==Non Profit Organization
You need to make it sound "Green", since PR shenanigans are what apple PR is all about.
"iPlant" (Needs to have two pretty green ivy leaves silkscreened on the casing, which you would never see anyway, due to the pentalobular screws keeping the iDevice's cover firmly sealed.)
"Introducing, the new iPhone 5, powered by the environmentally friendly iPlant power system. The new iPhone 5 has over 6 months of continual talk-time, and is the thinnest iPhone ever!"
(show comparison. iPhone 5 is 1/3 thickness of iPhone 4.)
"All this powered by the nations largest 5G network."
(Show wireless partner logo and marketing speak.)
"Yours for only 59.99 with 10 year contract!"
Sports affilate groups (NBA, NFL, MLB, etc..) have much to lose if they lose their licensing monopolies. EG, they can currently charge Comcast/NBC for the "Priviledge" of airing the superbowl, and have sole copyright over the entire "Performance" of *all* games played under their banners, regardless of which agency is doing the filming. Ever paid attention to the small text at the beginning of football games? The text that spells out just how much the NFL really REALLY doesn't like having games recorded, etc?
[sarcasm]A free and open internet would permit game scores, stats, and dare I say it... FAIR USE (as in, the REAL deal) clips of game events to be proliferated without their having their fingers in the pie! I mean, Somebody MIGHT get to see a world record touchdown FOR FREE! [/sarcasm]
This same mentality is also applicable against the people who save up for the Season Pass tickets, get good seats on game day, and decide to bring the camcorder. Their camcorder footage is the property of [NBA/NFL/MLB/etc], and NOT them, and totally illegal as far as same is concerned. The fear that such footage might end up on YouTube, for free, makes their sphincters tighten.
THAT is why they support internet censorship.
Sorry to reply to my own post but...
To illustrate the point of insulation, and to put "3000 degrees" into perspective, you can get elecric kilns the size of a basketball that at most raise the temperature of the surrounding room a few degrees (and these are by no means as well insulated as I am implying this system should be) that are able to reach over 5000 deg inside. They are used by hobbyists to melt glass beads. They are CONSUMER hardware.
The point is that this system is both of these put together, AND field re-conditionable, when you think about it.
You use electricity to recondition the catalyst using something like an inductive heater, which is using electricity to break chemical bonds (not quite electrolysis, but the same energy source is used, and the same goal is accomplished, even if it is not a direct application like with electrolysis.)
Also, once reactivated, the catalyst *IS* a chemical CO2 scrubber. It only needs to be hot when it is being reactivated, which means *INTERMITTANT* heating.
With lithium salt carbon scrubbers, once it is full, it is full. End of story, return to base and get new cartridges.
With this, you flip a switch and recondition your scrubber on-route.
These arguments are implying 2 things:
1) The reaction chamber is NOT thermally insulated.
2) Because of 1, the thermal energy is bleeding out of the submarine like blood from a hemophiliac with a knife wound.
The thermal signature of the submarine needn't be all that large, if you properly insulate the reaction system. The insulation ensures that it stays hot inside the hot side, and stays cold everywhere else. This increases the efficiency of the system as well, since you then you are not flushing energy down the drain with an inductive heater continuously.
Also, why on earth would you want to try to superheat the reactor coolant? Given the "This only has to be turned on when you recondition the catylist" nature of the system, an inductive heater (Not an incandescent heater, look it up) with a highly insulated hermetic vessel makes MUCH more sense than destabilizing your reactor by throttling up the coolant temperature. Much easier to regulate the temperature too, since it is purely electric.
Additionally, if you had read even the summary, you would have seen that such heating only needs to happen when you recondition the catalyst. It would NOT be "Running continuously", and thus would NOT make your thermal signature baseline higher, and even if it did, it would not be for very long. Just long enough to recondition the catalyst for another month of underwater cruising.
And lastly, for the "Chemically sequester the CO2" crowd above, that is basically what this system does except it has the added bonus of being able to be replenished in-field, where lithium salt carbon scrubbers DO NOT.
As for requirement of UV light-- You can get levels of UV light far exceeding that found in sunlight by turning on some cheap UV lamps, or even some UV LED arrays. How much UV do you need? You have a nuclear reactor at your disposal. A little UV light isn't a problem. You can create UV levels strong enough to cause instant flash burns on human skin with an electric arc in a CO2 gas medium for cripes sake.