Actually you'd be surprised. What about the economies of scale in running a centralized event calendar, with the advantages of letting the reader select it's own idea of "local"? (Obviously you'd need to apply some minimal pre-filtering for "local" on the server)
The results one gets from "cell phone" or "plain cell phone" do not satisfy the poster's criteria. OTOH myself and at least a half dozen other folks immediately thought of the Jitterbug and have posted comments to that effect. It wasn't that dumb of an Ask Slashdot Bub.
I'm sorry, but the public *is* stupid. The sooner one wake's up to it, well the more miserable one is. Regardless, there is room for non-journal coverage of "STEM." Popular Mechanics? Awful. Popular Science? Pretty bad. New Scientist? Not Bad. Scientific American? Good. There are also things like Invention & Technology. While I've not subscribed in recent years, last I checked it did a pretty good job at telling stories of STS.
STEM=Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (apparently the latest buzz-acronym in education) STS =Science, Technology & Society.
>Well, embarrassment to Henderson for her semantic gaffe, It's not a gaffe, it's an evaluation. A value judgement if you will.
>I disagree with you on Economics trying to "solve" our "major problems". That's fine. You are more than welcome to do so, but be sure it is a common perception.
>First, Economics is a Science. It does not try to "solve" anything. Determination of how to best allocate scarce resources certainly sounds like solving a problem to me.
>Unfortunately there are a lot of smart Economics majors who feel they have a franchise on the >absolute truth and try to "sell" their prejudices instead of solving problems Indeed.
>You sound angry, you sound like your mind is already made up, Advocating for the wholesale relinquishment of control, and total subjugation of individuals and policy to the market does that to me. Yes, I have certainly made my mind up against that, extreme left-liberal that I am.
>your response is an argument against the site the article appears on rather than the quality Actually, it's against both.
>I suspect this conversation about objectivity is lost on you. Not at all. Were that the case, I would have simply read "CATO," thought "fucking nutjobs," and moved on.
The dismal science, isn't. It has solved none of the major problems* it seeks to, and by and large is but a collection of equations and heuristics with gaping holes in them. FYI, "Economics is a disease" happens to be a somewhat obscure quote from economist Hazel Henderson.
Aside from libertarian socialism, libertarianism as espoused by most (especially around here) is largely indistinguishable from the crap neo-cons push**. The Cato Institute's description of itself is no different.
You may also wish to refamiliarize yourself with the definition(s) of neocon, and pay more attention which labels were used where. I said the ideas (market supremacy) were conservative dogma (they are). And that expanding this model to other areas would be welcomed by neo-cons.
* Particularly in a socially acceptable manner. **Excluding their willingness to, say, legalize pot.
Yes, you can. This is done in Greater Boston. The MWRA sells it as "Bay State Fertilizer," available at local home centers and apparently quite popular amongst Floridian citrus growers.
I should think lead would be a more likely contaminant than cadmium though. (For the interested, apparently the main theorized source of Cd in sewage is car washes, although leachates from plastic waste may contribute. Mmm Dasani.)
Don't you mean an irrational acceptance of conservative dogma is required? Economics is a disease. As broken as our non-democracy might be, operating it more like a neo-con's ill-conceived wet dream is no solution.
>The instability discussed, however is not really Newtons third law. Sure it is. The same laws of physics exist for land based turbines, but because this one is sitting on water, it would seem to have nothing to push back against and provide countervailing force. Worrying about it tipping like a giant Weebol with pinwheel, and subsequent effects, certainly sounds like concern over the 3rd law to me.
The only meaningful point you make (which is not insightful) is B. The generally accepted term for that is *dispatchable* particularly since wind *is* to some extent predictable. Where it really falls flat is control. Of course in the interim, as we switch from coal to say CNG, that's less of an issue; even without effective storage mechanisms. CNG is quite dispatchable and can easily be paired with wind to provide a pretty decent base load. (Supplement that with solar during the day and you've got a system that isn't perfect, but a far cry better than the status quo).
And it was going through the minds of numerous engineers long before that, it made it into a textbook I have from '05. (Textbooks take quite some time to prepare)
As for "Big Wind" that's a bit of a misnomer. There aren't really any big wind companies other than GE itself. Of course, they also happen to be a big player in coal too... "ecomagination" my ass.
Re:Stability may be a big problem here.
on
Floating Wind Turbines
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Gee, really? And they couldn't possibly have thought of that could they? Seriously man, this is an old idea. If it's *finally* going into production I'd be willing to bet they've given some serious thought to adressing such basic things as Newton's Third law.
Some of the sites are interesting, but they're all fucking ancient. Did the Greeks pick things that were falling apart when they made their list? No, they chose contemporary works (note also *works*, i.e; man made, so no Grand Canyon). Of course, when you've got steel and concrete, it takes a lot more to impress... Maybe the Chunnel or Golden Gate?
Yup, that's what I went to go get numbers for to compare this against. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/02/mit_carbon _nano.html Now, if they can even get anywhere near their potential 60 kW/kg that's damn good and comparable to NiMH with much better economics of use.
And ignorant minds come up with this tripe. Don't believe any/everything you see on Star Trek/Stargate. *Rewriting* an entire chromosome is ludicrous, that's far too much information to carry. Just replace it. As for tweaking melanin expression, it's far more likely it would go the other way; reducing the need for suncreen.
Sorry, nope. I used to use Maps on Us to do this kind of thing, it lets you add way points once you've set your start and destination. It used to be the bees knees of online mapping services.
Surely nearly all strains of HIV have some fundamental part of the genome in common. Nothing which is unique to them, AFAIK. This is a large part of the problem in developing said vaccine: HIV (like most viruses) has a small genome (9 genes), but it also mutates rapidly. In the course of an infection you will develop new strains yourself i.e; drug resistance.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually you'd be surprised. What about the economies of scale in running a centralized
event calendar, with the advantages of letting the reader select it's own idea of "local"?
(Obviously you'd need to apply some minimal pre-filtering for "local" on the server)
Of course it is, but how does that change what I said?
(Other than that I meant "the meaning *in* kph," which may clarify things)
Sure, the meaning of kph changes due to the differeing density,
but it sounds like everything else changes more or less in scale?
You don't have to lug your systems and fuel several million miles,
after getting them out of a deep gravity well, to do VTOL on Earth.
The results one gets from "cell phone" or "plain cell phone" do not satisfy the poster's criteria.
OTOH myself and at least a half dozen other folks immediately thought of the Jitterbug and have
posted comments to that effect. It wasn't that dumb of an Ask Slashdot Bub.
In last month's issue (May/June '07) of the Sierra Club magainze there is an ad on page 20 for
Jitterbug from firstSTREET 1-866-540-0299
Plain cell phones for $10 a month, promo code 32988
http://www.jitterbug.com/
I don't own a cell phone, and have no intention of getting one anytime soon, but the phones and
fess don't look to bad.
http://www.americanheritage.com/inventionandtechno logy/
Also, as further explanation, STS ~= history of tech and its impacts.
I'm sorry, but the public *is* stupid. The sooner one wake's up to it, well the more miserable one is.
Regardless, there is room for non-journal coverage of "STEM." Popular Mechanics? Awful. Popular Science?
Pretty bad. New Scientist? Not Bad. Scientific American? Good. There are also things like Invention &
Technology. While I've not subscribed in recent years, last I checked it did a pretty good job at telling
stories of STS.
STEM=Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (apparently the latest buzz-acronym in education)
STS =Science, Technology & Society.
Hein? B2 is still around...
>Well, embarrassment to Henderson for her semantic gaffe,
It's not a gaffe, it's an evaluation. A value judgement if you will.
>I disagree with you on Economics trying to "solve" our "major problems".
That's fine. You are more than welcome to do so, but be sure it is a common perception.
>First, Economics is a Science. It does not try to "solve" anything.
Determination of how to best allocate scarce resources certainly sounds like solving a problem to me.
>Unfortunately there are a lot of smart Economics majors who feel they have a franchise on the
>absolute truth and try to "sell" their prejudices instead of solving problems
Indeed.
>You sound angry, you sound like your mind is already made up,
Advocating for the wholesale relinquishment of control, and total subjugation of individuals and policy to the
market does that to me. Yes, I have certainly made my mind up against that, extreme left-liberal that I am.
>your response is an argument against the site the article appears on rather than the quality
Actually, it's against both.
>I suspect this conversation about objectivity is lost on you.
Not at all. Were that the case, I would have simply read "CATO," thought "fucking nutjobs," and moved on.
You assume that I did not RTFA.
The dismal science, isn't. It has solved none of the major problems* it seeks to, and by and large is but a collection of equations and heuristics
with gaping holes in them. FYI, "Economics is a disease" happens to be a somewhat obscure quote from economist Hazel Henderson.
Aside from libertarian socialism, libertarianism as espoused by most (especially around here) is largely indistinguishable from the crap neo-cons
push**. The Cato Institute's description of itself is no different.
You may also wish to refamiliarize yourself with the definition(s) of neocon, and pay more attention which labels were used where. I said the
ideas (market supremacy) were conservative dogma (they are). And that expanding this model to other areas would be welcomed by neo-cons.
* Particularly in a socially acceptable manner.
**Excluding their willingness to, say, legalize pot.
Yes, you can. This is done in Greater Boston. The MWRA sells it as "Bay State Fertilizer,"
available at local home centers and apparently quite popular amongst Floridian citrus growers.
I should think lead would be a more likely contaminant than cadmium though.
(For the interested, apparently the main theorized source of Cd in sewage is car washes,
although leachates from plastic waste may contribute. Mmm Dasani.)
Don't you mean an irrational acceptance of conservative dogma is required? Economics is a disease.
As broken as our non-democracy might be, operating it more like a neo-con's ill-conceived wet dream is no solution.
How so exactly? Metamoderation shows message sout of context anyhow...
>The instability discussed, however is not really Newtons third law.
Sure it is. The same laws of physics exist for land based turbines, but because this one is sitting on water,
it would seem to have nothing to push back against and provide countervailing force. Worrying about it tipping
like a giant Weebol with pinwheel, and subsequent effects, certainly sounds like concern over the 3rd law to me.
The only meaningful point you make (which is not insightful) is B. The generally accepted term for that is
*dispatchable* particularly since wind *is* to some extent predictable. Where it really falls flat is control.
Of course in the interim, as we switch from coal to say CNG, that's less of an issue; even without effective
storage mechanisms. CNG is quite dispatchable and can easily be paired with wind to provide a pretty decent base
load. (Supplement that with solar during the day and you've got a system that isn't perfect, but a far cry
better than the status quo).
And it was going through the minds of numerous engineers long before that, it made it into a textbook I have from '05.
(Textbooks take quite some time to prepare)
As for "Big Wind" that's a bit of a misnomer. There aren't really any big wind companies other than GE itself.
Of course, they also happen to be a big player in coal too... "ecomagination" my ass.
Gee, really? And they couldn't possibly have thought of that could they? Seriously man,
this is an old idea. If it's *finally* going into production I'd be willing to bet
they've given some serious thought to adressing such basic things as Newton's Third law.
Some of the sites are interesting, but they're all fucking ancient. Did the Greeks pick things that
were falling apart when they made their list? No, they chose contemporary works (note also *works*,
i.e; man made, so no Grand Canyon). Of course, when you've got steel and concrete, it takes a lot
more to impress... Maybe the Chunnel or Golden Gate?
Yup, that's what I went to go get numbers for to compare this against.n _nano.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/02/mit_carbo
Now, if they can even get anywhere near their potential 60 kW/kg that's
damn good and comparable to NiMH with much better economics of use.
Computers and "nanites" are not enzymes. That was my point, you cannot really do this on a large scale with biology.
And ignorant minds come up with this tripe. Don't believe any/everything you see on Star Trek/Stargate.
*Rewriting* an entire chromosome is ludicrous, that's far too much information to carry. Just replace it.
As for tweaking melanin expression, it's far more likely it would go the other way; reducing the need for suncreen.
Sorry, nope. I used to use Maps on Us to do this kind of thing,
it lets you add way points once you've set your start and destination. It used to
be the bees knees of online mapping services.
He obviously meant Type II, not Type I. Dumbass.
developing said vaccine: HIV (like most viruses) has a small genome (9 genes),
but it also mutates rapidly. In the course of an infection you will develop new
strains yourself i.e; drug resistance.