Jeff, you know what is interesting? It is interesting that despite you "obviously being right" none of the posters in this topic have offered any support to your, frankly, riduculous claims. If that doesn't start to trigger some small mental cog that maybe you are infact the ignorant yokel than I don't know what will. I suspect you are simply delusional.
Yep. Wow. Yawn. Those Europeans are so damn smart........NOT! Before you go getting all jingoistic, the technology was first demonstrated by said damn smart Europeans in the 1890s. Have a read of Wikipedia's Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity page. There are plenty of examples of this technology other than the one you describe. One such example is the Dinorwig Pumped Hydro. Power station in the UK. The technology is already in widespread use.
I hate it when the post I reply to is modded so far down that the threading system makes it look like I'm talking to the parent:/ (browsing with threshold 1, nested, highest scores first)
Verses the combined military might of Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy to name a few. Bring your head out of the clouds! In a conventional military engagement with the rest of the world the US would literally be slaughtered.
The rest of the world have more soldiers, more planes, more ships and more than 10 times the US production capability and land access via the rest of the continent.
If you really believe what you just posted then you are a blind moron.
I wonder if anyone has considered using cell processors to run large neural network simulations, the SPEs would churn though node calculations at an incredible rate. You wouldn't need any greater accuracy than single precision.
Bullcrap, evolution does not state there is no creator, it does state that no creator is actively involved in the evolutionary process. It is entirely possible to have a creator compatable with evolutionary theory, an example would be a creator who designed the universe to allow evolution to take place and evolve life as we know it (ie the creator made the rules, set the "random seed" and then set the universe going. Incidentaly if we believe that a creator is all powerful and knowing then setting the randomness to cause the interactions that form life exactly to create life exactly as the creator desires is trivial.)
It does matter economically how efficient the conversion is. The senario you present could happen but economically it would not be very viable due to the huge investment needed.
I think you'll find that given the lack of knowledge of CJD at the time all that could be given were possible scenarios. It was the media and politicians that took the worst case and promoted that, not the researchers.
Solar power and wind power have other problems associated with them that make them difficult to forsee as a replacement to current power generation methods. The problem is the stability of the power supply, they are not continuous generators of power - solar in particular. Solar power does not produce energy when it is most needed - at night, also it is affected by cloud etc.. This means that to be reasonably sure of a decent supply of energy (during the day anyway) you need at least 4 times the capacity of solar power then coal, oil, nuclear etc...
The only way solar power + wind can be reliable is if they are backed up with energy storage plants. The only realistic energy storage currently is pumped hydoelectric plants, but these are few and far between due to their difficult requirements - a huge source of fresh water and suitable geology to support a large reservoir. Hydrogen electrolysis as a method of storing power is currently very inefficient, but development should hopefully improve it to a state where it can be routinely used.
Slashdot Mirror
Jeff, you know what is interesting? It is interesting that despite you "obviously being right" none of the posters in this topic have offered any support to your, frankly, riduculous claims. If that doesn't start to trigger some small mental cog that maybe you are infact the ignorant yokel than I don't know what will. I suspect you are simply delusional.
Welcome to slashdot. ;) :)
I did actually mean technological solutions to evade the censorship mechanisms. eg proxies, Tor etc...
I'm suprised no-one has asked this question yet.
Is there anything we can do to help them? Anyone have any ideas?
"And for sake of balance here is a modern study stating it wasn't resonance but instead a negative feedback"
You mean positive feedback, not negative. Negative feedback acts to damp the driving source, positive acts to amplify it.
Anyone considered asking Google to buy them out?
Benefit for us:
- google tend to be fairly decent with providing data to users, would likely continue the service.
Benefit for them:
- yet another resource they can provide as a search and generate revenue from providing it online with small ads.
Why imagine? Its called the US government.... :P :)
CnlPepper, prepare yourself for trolldom....
I hate it when the post I reply to is modded so far down that the threading system makes it look like I'm talking to the parent :/ (browsing with threshold 1, nested, highest scores first)
Er right.
Verses the combined military might of Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy to name a few. Bring your head out of the clouds! In a conventional military engagement with the rest of the world the US would literally be slaughtered.
The rest of the world have more soldiers, more planes, more ships and more than 10 times the US production capability and land access via the rest of the continent.
If you really believe what you just posted then you are a blind moron.
Oh I wish I had mod points....
And lo, did God, in his infinite wisdom, bless the geek with the almighty power of the CD-RW.
Talk about bad taste.
F*ck'in-A
I wonder if anyone has considered using cell processors to run large neural network simulations, the SPEs would churn though node calculations at an incredible rate. You wouldn't need any greater accuracy than single precision.
It would be an interesting application.
Bullcrap, evolution does not state there is no creator, it does state that no creator is actively involved in the evolutionary process. It is entirely possible to have a creator compatable with evolutionary theory, an example would be a creator who designed the universe to allow evolution to take place and evolve life as we know it (ie the creator made the rules, set the "random seed" and then set the universe going. Incidentaly if we believe that a creator is all powerful and knowing then setting the randomness to cause the interactions that form life exactly to create life exactly as the creator desires is trivial.)
No incompatability, no problem.
A bit of background info found doing a quick google:
D TU_04.pdf
http://lww.kt.dtu.dk/pdf_publications/department/
Not much there but adds a bit more ligitimacy to the claims. Its a university annual report from the Technical University of Denmark, see pages 24-26.
lol
Get a funny joke....!
It does matter economically how efficient the conversion is. The senario you present could happen but economically it would not be very viable due to the huge investment needed.
I think you'll find that given the lack of knowledge of CJD at the time all that could be given were possible scenarios. It was the media and politicians that took the worst case and promoted that, not the researchers.
Its a superb idea, basically allowing the "good" side internet to fight back against the "infected", "bad" side of the internet.
With this and anti-virus systems its starting to lok like the internet is growing its own immune system....
Solar power and wind power have other problems associated with them that make them difficult to forsee as a replacement to current power generation methods. The problem is the stability of the power supply, they are not continuous generators of power - solar in particular. Solar power does not produce energy when it is most needed - at night, also it is affected by cloud etc.. This means that to be reasonably sure of a decent supply of energy (during the day anyway) you need at least 4 times the capacity of solar power then coal, oil, nuclear etc...
The only way solar power + wind can be reliable is if they are backed up with energy storage plants. The only realistic energy storage currently is pumped hydoelectric plants, but these are few and far between due to their difficult requirements - a huge source of fresh water and suitable geology to support a large reservoir. Hydrogen electrolysis as a method of storing power is currently very inefficient, but development should hopefully improve it to a state where it can be routinely used.
oh yes.
You'd have a lot more to worry about than a laser burning your eye if the power supply powering a device strapped to your head was hit by lightning.
Your point is just plain stupid if you spend more than a knee-jerk thinking about it.