Yeah, I know it's messier to put a bullet in Bambi's brain, then gut, slice and dice, but the idea of eating muscle tissue grown in a nutrient tank makes my stomache roll.
I'm willing to bet your grandchildren will think just the opposite. ("You murdered, slaughtered, and ate a living animal? ewww!")
I'm quite amazed that 40 years after we walked on the moon, we are ending the programme, because of falling chunks of foam.
You don't think 24 years is a good run for a single spacecraft design? Hell, most car designs don't last half that long, and they are much simpler. It's time to move on to something better.
It doesn't help at all if it's too expensive for the economy to sustain. Solar power as it stands is ruinously expensive -- our economy cannot afford it
But renewable energy will not sustain us for some time. The demand for energy is too great and too immediate, and good conditions are too rare
I agree, but the need for a sustainable energy infrastructure is clear, and the sooner we start the long journey, the sooner we'll get there. At this point a large-scale "Manhattan Project" style program would be a very good idea on national-security grounds alone, if only we had a government with the guts/brains to look past the special interests of its campaign contributors and more than 48 months into the future.
"We'll use solar!" they say, as if that isn't many times more expensive than nuclear, and as if nuclear isn't more expensive than coal.
Only if you are counting just the initial out-of-pocket expense, and not the long term costs. How much is it worth to you not to have a planet damaged by global warming? How much would you pay to not have to worry about nuclear terrorism, or contamination due to nuclear waste? How much would you be willing to pay to never have to fight another war for oil (or any other scarce natural resource)? What is the value of being able to produce your own power and know that your energy supply is guaranteed until the sun burns out, and that you'll never again be held hostage to the unforseen fluctuations of a volatile energy market?
Renewable energy looks more expensive at first, and by traditional measures it is -- but that doesn't mean it's not the best value in the long run.
How many years does it take you to break even on the gas costs?
That depends on the price of gas over the next ten years. If you think gas prices will go down or stay the same, then spending extra for the better mileage may not be worth it. If you think gas prices will continue to rise, on the other hand, it could be money well spent.
Now that we are running out of new oil fields to discover, and every man, woman, and child in China has decided that they want to drive their own car, my bet is that prices will continue rise.
why does a "hybrid" get much less gas mileage than my old technology simple internal combustion engine with a CARBERATOR?
For the obvious reason, of course: your Geo Metro weighs much less than the cars you are comparing it to, and is much smaller. You may be okay with that, but a lot of people want the extra room and safety that a larger car provides. If you're going to criticize, fine, but at least compare apples to apples.
If it's so squeaky clean, then what the hell are you doing polluting with a hybrid? Dump it and get a 100% electric vehicle!
The nice thing about a hybrid is that its range isn't limited by the amount of energy its batteries can store. So you can use the batteries for your daily commute and short trips, while still using gas for your occasional long drives. That's probably a better solution than having to buy both an electric for daily use and a traditional car for long trips.
The code that runs the slot machines is REQUIRED to be inspected and approved by the Nevada Gaming Board (for vegas anyways). So yes, it'll be safe and secure.
Ah, my favorite kind of sarcasm.... so subtle that you can't tell whether the poster was serious, or not.
Yep, it's no wonder why the country's all screwed up with all these mental muttfucks running loose in society.
Ah, but they aren't running loose, they are all hiding in their parents' basement posting useless messages to a message board that nobody cares about. That way they are kept out of everyone's hair, and it's much cheaper than an asylum.:^)
(And yes, I understand Slashdot works on similar principles!)
The real reason? Because cities can think of better things to do with their land than use 4500 acres
On the brighter side (heh), cities do end up with lots and lots of roof space that currently more or less goes to waste. I suspect that sooner or later someone will find a way to make use of all the energy that currently just bounces off the roof and makes your air conditioner work harder. And the bonus is that you don't have to transport the generated electricity anywhere -- you can make use of it on location.
Doesn't anybody have a way to make large parabolic reflectors cheaply? Or isn't there a way to do away with the tracking devices?
On a smaller scale this design does away with the per-mirror tracking devices by using a single pair of motors to control the entire array. I don't know if the idea would scale up well, or not.
Nuclear is the only thing that is a universal solution.
You may think so, but most people would say it's (to use your phrase), "only for certain areas". In particular, areas where the local government and infrastructure can be trusted with the guardianship of nuclear materials. It only takes one accident (or covert sale to Al-Qaeda) to make the world a very unhappy place.
This means that if they make money then solar energy will realy be a REAL solution we can use! And not no self-dillusional feel-good bullshit like wind power
C'mon, be even-handed... if wind power can make a profit, then it's just as valid an energy source as solar. If it can't, then it can't... but I wouldn't write it off just yet.
Why wouldn't you just change the port you're using?
As a reasonably intelligent Slashdotter, you would. As anyone else, you would answer that question with a blank look that says: "port? What's a port? All I know is my download didn't work."
It's sort of like the handicapped parking spots everywhere - I can't remember the last time I saw someone wheelchair-bound park in one, can you?
"Handicapped people" is not the same group as "wheelchair-bound people". There are plenty of people who have problems (e.g. multiple sclerosis) that restrict them to walking only very short distances.
That makes a lot of assumptions, but in that event, why would/should the employer be responsible? Should an employee have to pay worker's compensation claims for events that it is not primarily responsible
This whole issue only comes up because the poor way in which health care is structured in the U.S. If we had universal health coverage, it wouldn't really matter much "whose fault it was". The person with the injury would get treatment, and that would be the end of the problem. All the money that is currently wasted on finger-pointing litigation and redundant paperwork could be spent on actual medical care instead. (and before you accuse me of being business-unfriendly, let me point out that even big business is finding that the lack of a coherent health care system makes the US less competitive)
And on another note, why is every trend always "troubling", every impact "profound"?
That's not the case at all -- there are plenty of trends that are non-threatening and unimportant. It's just that nobody bothers to write articles about them, for precisely that reason.
I find it amusing that those who would, say, be fully in support of embryonic stem cell research, apparently throwing any ethical concerns to the wind, all of a sudden see "troubling" ethical implications for employers trying to use the same essential tools.
The distinction you are missing is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos, which are (a) not persons (in the commonly understood sense of the word), since they don't have minds or bodies, and (b) going to be thrown away anyway, so stem cell research will at worst not result in any loss of life that wasn't going to be lost anyway, and at best will save or improve the lives of millions of people. Genetic discrimination, on the other hand, has potential to cause significant problems for many people, hence the hand-wringing. (Go watch Gattaca if you'd like to see an example of the sort of things people want to avoid)
A typical cell phone [...] has more processing power than most computers 10 years ago.
Is that actually true? Are today's typical cell phones more powerful than, say, an i486 PC?
(And if it is, I'd like someone to come out with a cell phone that has a couple of USB ports, a video-out port, a hard drive, and runs Linux, so I can throw away my desktop PC and just plug the phone in to my I/O peripherals whenever I want to do web/email/etc)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm willing to bet your grandchildren will think just the opposite. ("You murdered, slaughtered, and ate a living animal? ewww!")
The problem with your list of criticisms are that they are also true of every other human endeavor so far. Are you arguing that nothing is worthwhile?
You don't think 24 years is a good run for a single spacecraft design? Hell, most car designs don't last half that long, and they are much simpler. It's time to move on to something better.
Perhaps.... but on the other hand, perhaps not.
But renewable energy will not sustain us for some time. The demand for energy is too great and too immediate, and good conditions are too rare
I agree, but the need for a sustainable energy infrastructure is clear, and the sooner we start the long journey, the sooner we'll get there. At this point a large-scale "Manhattan Project" style program would be a very good idea on national-security grounds alone, if only we had a government with the guts/brains to look past the special interests of its campaign contributors and more than 48 months into the future.
Don't worry, mate, that's easily fixed.
As a straight male, I find the idea of climbing into an '18-second pussy-mobile' rather more enticing than any kind of 'penis car'....
Only if you are counting just the initial out-of-pocket expense, and not the long term costs. How much is it worth to you not to have a planet damaged by global warming? How much would you pay to not have to worry about nuclear terrorism, or contamination due to nuclear waste? How much would you be willing to pay to never have to fight another war for oil (or any other scarce natural resource)? What is the value of being able to produce your own power and know that your energy supply is guaranteed until the sun burns out, and that you'll never again be held hostage to the unforseen fluctuations of a volatile energy market?
Renewable energy looks more expensive at first, and by traditional measures it is -- but that doesn't mean it's not the best value in the long run.
That depends on the price of gas over the next ten years. If you think gas prices will go down or stay the same, then spending extra for the better mileage may not be worth it. If you think gas prices will continue to rise, on the other hand, it could be money well spent.
Now that we are running out of new oil fields to discover, and every man, woman, and child in China has decided that they want to drive their own car, my bet is that prices will continue rise.
For the obvious reason, of course: your Geo Metro weighs much less than the cars you are comparing it to, and is much smaller. You may be okay with that, but a lot of people want the extra room and safety that a larger car provides. If you're going to criticize, fine, but at least compare apples to apples.
The nice thing about a hybrid is that its range isn't limited by the amount of energy its batteries can store. So you can use the batteries for your daily commute and short trips, while still using gas for your occasional long drives. That's probably a better solution than having to buy both an electric for daily use and a traditional car for long trips.
I bet a few days after that a few other geeks from the software development house mysteriously dissappear...
Ah, my favorite kind of sarcasm.... so subtle that you can't tell whether the poster was serious, or not.
Because nobody likes a sourpuss.
Ah, but they aren't running loose, they are all hiding in their parents' basement posting useless messages to a message board that nobody cares about. That way they are kept out of everyone's hair, and it's much cheaper than an asylum.
(And yes, I understand Slashdot works on similar principles!)
Dude, that's not an energy source, that's a death ray! Tired of listening to Kim Jong Il threaten nuclear armageddon? ZZZAPPP!!!
Maybe you could just use the excess energy to pump water uphill, and then let it run back downhill through a dam during the night.
On the brighter side (heh), cities do end up with lots and lots of roof space that currently more or less goes to waste. I suspect that sooner or later someone will find a way to make use of all the energy that currently just bounces off the roof and makes your air conditioner work harder. And the bonus is that you don't have to transport the generated electricity anywhere -- you can make use of it on location.
On a smaller scale this design does away with the per-mirror tracking devices by using a single pair of motors to control the entire array. I don't know if the idea would scale up well, or not.
You may think so, but most people would say it's (to use your phrase), "only for certain areas". In particular, areas where the local government and infrastructure can be trusted with the guardianship of nuclear materials. It only takes one accident (or covert sale to Al-Qaeda) to make the world a very unhappy place.
This means that if they make money then solar energy will realy be a REAL solution we can use! And not no self-dillusional feel-good bullshit like wind power
C'mon, be even-handed... if wind power can make a profit, then it's just as valid an energy source as solar. If it can't, then it can't... but I wouldn't write it off just yet.
Oh, I see... there are fewer IPv6 addresses than grains of sand, except there are more. WTF?
As a reasonably intelligent Slashdotter, you would. As anyone else, you would answer that question with a blank look that says: "port? What's a port? All I know is my download didn't work."
You only need to walk as far as the cash register or help desk, and then you can ask an employee to get the item(s) you need for you.
"Handicapped people" is not the same group as "wheelchair-bound people". There are plenty of people who have problems (e.g. multiple sclerosis) that restrict them to walking only very short distances.
This whole issue only comes up because the poor way in which health care is structured in the U.S. If we had universal health coverage, it wouldn't really matter much "whose fault it was". The person with the injury would get treatment, and that would be the end of the problem. All the money that is currently wasted on finger-pointing litigation and redundant paperwork could be spent on actual medical care instead. (and before you accuse me of being business-unfriendly, let me point out that even big business is finding that the lack of a coherent health care system makes the US less competitive)
And on another note, why is every trend always "troubling", every impact "profound"?
That's not the case at all -- there are plenty of trends that are non-threatening and unimportant. It's just that nobody bothers to write articles about them, for precisely that reason.
I find it amusing that those who would, say, be fully in support of embryonic stem cell research, apparently throwing any ethical concerns to the wind, all of a sudden see "troubling" ethical implications for employers trying to use the same essential tools.
The distinction you are missing is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos, which are (a) not persons (in the commonly understood sense of the word), since they don't have minds or bodies, and (b) going to be thrown away anyway, so stem cell research will at worst not result in any loss of life that wasn't going to be lost anyway, and at best will save or improve the lives of millions of people. Genetic discrimination, on the other hand, has potential to cause significant problems for many people, hence the hand-wringing. (Go watch Gattaca if you'd like to see an example of the sort of things people want to avoid)
Is that actually true? Are today's typical cell phones more powerful than, say, an i486 PC?
(And if it is, I'd like someone to come out with a cell phone that has a couple of USB ports, a video-out port, a hard drive, and runs Linux, so I can throw away my desktop PC and just plug the phone in to my I/O peripherals whenever I want to do web/email/etc)