Gas stations bury their gas tanks underground with few problems of water seepage.
Are you sure? Because when I managed a gas station 20 years ago, I had to check the tanks daily for water, and generally had to pump the water out at least twice a month before seepage and condensation built up enough to reach the uptake pipe. Using a hand pump.
And that's with gasoline, which floats on water - diesel absorbs water so you can't just pump it off the bottom of the tank. Look up "hygroscopic" and "diesel fuel dryer"...
Granted, they aren't surrounded by water and there is little water pressure (i.e. covered by water). However, you would think that they would have at least waterproofed the fuel tanks.
This is totally doable, and well within the capabilities of a New York hospital or large data center, except it would cost so much the doctors and CEOs would have to stop lighting their cigars with hundred dollar bills, and we can't let that happen in Obamney's America! It would be wrong to let emergency preparedness rob the hardworking rich people of their bailout money, wrong I tell you.
All kidding aside, the return on investment is not going to be very attractive. Evacuation is probably cheaper.
You're seriously going to use blatant fear-mongering, appeals to cowardice, and logical nit-picking to defend the practice of groping children? I can't even begin to imagine what's going on in your head. I personally would rather be shot by terrorists than have my children sexually abused by government bullies.
Alcohol abuse harms more innocent people than terrorism. Is that better? Or will you find yet another way to stand on the side of TSA paedophiles?
And yes, the above is ad hominem. You're going to need to get used to that if you're going to defend state sponsored child molestation.
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Sure, but remember that whiskey kills more people than terrorism. We rejected prohibition, for the same reason that we should reject the so-called "War on Terrorism". In the hands of our government, the cure turns out to be worse than the disease.
You don't get to redefine the English language to suit your thesis, sorry. Lossless means having no losses.
When you push gas into a pipe, the same amount comes out the other end as you put in, regardless of length of pipe. There is no loss. This is not true of electricity traveling through wires for any significant distance.
I have just consulted a plumber, as per your request. He says you live under a bridge.
If you are doing mail forwarding or certain kinds of mailing list paradigms, you can have difficulties with SPF - you'll have to go straight to DKIM or change the way you use mail.
However, the absolute statement the prior poster made is the cry of a butthurt spammer - SPF keeps him from spoofing your address, so it's hurting his v14gr/-\ sales. Spammers hate SPF more than taxes... it's so trivially easy to implement that it's a real threat to their business model. DKIM's even worse for them, but it's also harder to do. You can set up SPF in 15 minutes if you've done it before.
There are gas lines all over the place. There's tens of thousands of them in my immediate area, mostly from back when we had a more competent local government, that encouraged their use and construction. And the local telecommunications company has a gigantic gas powered generator that they use quite frequently (they also have a backup that's diesel powered), as do many of the local petroleum refineries. The refineries use self-made propane, piped-in nat gas, or purchase outside electricity depending on what's cheapest this month. They sell power back to the grid during the summer AC season, too.
The reason you don't have a gas-powered generator is because at the scale you're operating at, the maintenance and capital cost makes it uneconomical, since you've already got a power line from the local power corp. You're absolutely right about that part. But just because you haven't noticed the gas powered generators that can be found in large industries doesn't mean they don't exist.
None of this has anything to do with Kewaunee or even my own digression about sustainable gas production, of course.
Serious question - What does DKIM do that SPF doesn't?
DKIM is intended to allow mail sent through any server to be shown to be originally from a specific domain, thus preventing spoofing which is the basis of most spamming. SPF just allows server(s) to be identified as valid mailers for a domain, it doesn't work if you forward mail through other undesignated systems (which is still pretty significant, and covers most legitimate use cases).
If you're not checking SPFv1 on incoming mail, you're not a competent email admin. If you're not publishing SPFv1 for your domain you're not a competent DNS admin. This is just basic stuff nowadays; claiming otherwise is like claiming surgeons don't need to know about anatomy.
DKIM requires significant effort by comparison to SPF, and you can still be forgiven (for a little while) for not checking it or generating it.
Can anyone provide a quote or other evidence that early computer pioneers drew upon Babbage's invention for their own work?
Sure... try Turing, Alan M. in "Computing machinery and intelligence" Mind, 59, 433-460, 1950.
Or Vannevar Bush in "As We May Think" The Atlantic Monthly, 1945.
Or Howard Aiken, or Flowers, or von Neumann... many computing pioneers acknowledged Babbage specifically. Aiken actually studied a partial Babbage machine built by Babbage's son. Von Neumann even used notation developed by Babbage for some of his own work.
Around here, nat gas generators, fuel cells, refrigerators, and furnaces are all readily available. Perhaps not where he is. But that wasn't really the point of my post anyway.
If you are moving energy around, there are plenty of site-specific reasons to do one thing or another (mostly related to accessibility and maintenance) but all things being equal, moving liquid or gaseous fuels to a generator as close as possible to the point of use incurs less transmission loss than moving electricity the same distance through wires. Get it? That's why you heat your house with gas, instead of burning the gas in Saudi Arabia and transmitting it through a wire from the other side of the world.
Once you've pressurized a pipe the first time, whatever amount of material you put in one end, an equal amount comes out the other. When you energize a wire, you can't get the same amount of energy out that you put in; some energy is consumed to sustain the magnetic and electric fields around the wires and some becomes heat.
Nuke plants are often pushed as close as possible to the points of energy use; which places them on watersheds and in densely populated areas, to minimize electrical losses and decrease distribution system costs - this is to the benefit of the corporation that owns the plant, but increases the damage of any accidents... but the owners don't care, because they are taxpayer subsidized and insured and their directors don't live anywhere near the plants.
A carbon-neutral sustainable biogas industry based on American agriculture and labor would need both pipes and wiring. You'd want each farmer to be able to bring his biomass to one of a great many local gasification plants that would be connected by pipeline to more centralized (although still very distributed, compared to nukes and Edison plants) electric generators. Like the grid or the Internet, such a system would take decades to build out, but once built would be locally maintainable, extremely robust, and scalable. And it would completely devastate the existing political landscape, which is why we're not doing it.
I have plenty of lossless pipelines right in my house. I built them myself, from black iron, using a pipe breaker and threader that are older than I am.
I suppose if you're some kind of crack-smoking first year physics student you'll consider loss of individual atoms to be significant, though.
They don't need to bring natural gas to your shop, or even to your area. They just need to bring it to the power plant. The wires that are currently in place will bring that power to you.
As long as you keep in mind that a well maintained pipeline is lossless, and wires are lossy, you're right.
If we ever manage to create a sustainable biologically derived natural gas infrastructure, we'll be using lots of both wires and pipes.
But a simple, workable plan based on domestic labor and agriculture that would actually make our economy boom again would unfortunately disrupt existing, oil-based political power structures... so don't hold your breath waiting for it.
I bear the cost - GE's shareholders got the profit.
Yup, but your stereotypical nuke shill honestly believes he'll some day be a rich corporate plutocrat, and so they really don't care about negative externalities. They think their own kids will be living in gated community, far away from shiftless poor people and ugly power generation facilities.
Terrestrial nuclear fission power plants can't be economically viable in a free and fair market, because the insurance costs are beyond what companies can bear without taxpayer assistance. And given the potential for damage in a single accident, an insurer is objectively correct to set the premiums at such rates. It's only profitable to do nuke plants in socialist states and dictatorships.
I personally don't really have a use case for an iPad or cell phone. In fact the mouse is usually just an annoying distraction that slows me down when I'm using a computer. And my poor color vision and heavy scarring on my fingertips makes most touchscreens annoying for me to use - I have no sense of touch on my right index finger, and the tissue there has the consistency and moisture content of kiln-dried hardwood.
People on the Internet often seem to believe that if you point out you have a different perspective you are making some absurd claim that only your own perspective is valid. Starting this thread, I said that the tablet seems like it might finally find a viable niche this time around, and most of the responses here read like they are talking to somebody else entirely (except a few responses, such as your own).
I agree with your assessment of the IPad's utility as an entertainment device, and am amazed that nobody's pointed out it's pretty much optimized for viewing porn.
These 486 tablets you speak of: Were they lightweight?-- two pounds will do. Could they run a internet browser? Was the web that entertaining at the time? Did they require a stylus?
Tablet fads have come and gone... the iPad has actually done really well this time around, but I remember how the 486 tablets (that did all the same stuff at much lower resolution) were going to make PCs obsolete... sure they did.
Due to e-readers, I think this time around tablets might actually settle into a durable niche of their own. But a lot of people (such as myself) will never really have a use for one.
Most gasoline powered cars emit very little soot. Diesels (particularly the redneck black smokers purposely de-tuned to produce more smoke) emit much more.
But all vehicles generate brake dust and tire dust. Over the years the brake vendors have been trying to make the stuff less toxic, but since you "live next to a main road and the soot/dust is horrendous" you can expect a higher incidence of certain illnesses in your family. If police cars and emergency vehicles use the road a lot, that's even worse, because they are usually allowed to use high-performance brake pads that are loaded with known carcinogens.
The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
The real thing about standards is that the biggest corporate swinging dicks dominate the committees and have full control.
In the case of electric cars, it's worse than that. The big corporate dicks at GM actually did everything they could to kill the Magne Charge system after they repossessed all the EV-1s and ran them through the crusher.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure? Because when I managed a gas station 20 years ago, I had to check the tanks daily for water, and generally had to pump the water out at least twice a month before seepage and condensation built up enough to reach the uptake pipe. Using a hand pump.
And that's with gasoline, which floats on water - diesel absorbs water so you can't just pump it off the bottom of the tank. Look up "hygroscopic" and "diesel fuel dryer"...
This is totally doable, and well within the capabilities of a New York hospital or large data center, except it would cost so much the doctors and CEOs would have to stop lighting their cigars with hundred dollar bills, and we can't let that happen in Obamney's America! It would be wrong to let emergency preparedness rob the hardworking rich people of their bailout money, wrong I tell you.
All kidding aside, the return on investment is not going to be very attractive. Evacuation is probably cheaper.
Um, Hell is not a feature of most religions. However, it's a big feature of the most dominant religion(s) today, so I guess you do have a point!
You're seriously going to use blatant fear-mongering, appeals to cowardice, and logical nit-picking to defend the practice of groping children? I can't even begin to imagine what's going on in your head. I personally would rather be shot by terrorists than have my children sexually abused by government bullies.
Alcohol abuse harms more innocent people than terrorism. Is that better? Or will you find yet another way to stand on the side of TSA paedophiles?
And yes, the above is ad hominem. You're going to need to get used to that if you're going to defend state sponsored child molestation.
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
--Niccolo Machiavelli
Sure, but remember that whiskey kills more people than terrorism. We rejected prohibition, for the same reason that we should reject the so-called "War on Terrorism". In the hands of our government, the cure turns out to be worse than the disease.
You don't get to redefine the English language to suit your thesis, sorry. Lossless means having no losses.
When you push gas into a pipe, the same amount comes out the other end as you put in, regardless of length of pipe. There is no loss. This is not true of electricity traveling through wires for any significant distance.
I have just consulted a plumber, as per your request. He says you live under a bridge.
If you are doing mail forwarding or certain kinds of mailing list paradigms, you can have difficulties with SPF - you'll have to go straight to DKIM or change the way you use mail.
However, the absolute statement the prior poster made is the cry of a butthurt spammer - SPF keeps him from spoofing your address, so it's hurting his v14gr/-\ sales. Spammers hate SPF more than taxes... it's so trivially easy to implement that it's a real threat to their business model. DKIM's even worse for them, but it's also harder to do. You can set up SPF in 15 minutes if you've done it before.
There are gas lines all over the place. There's tens of thousands of them in my immediate area, mostly from back when we had a more competent local government, that encouraged their use and construction. And the local telecommunications company has a gigantic gas powered generator that they use quite frequently (they also have a backup that's diesel powered), as do many of the local petroleum refineries. The refineries use self-made propane, piped-in nat gas, or purchase outside electricity depending on what's cheapest this month. They sell power back to the grid during the summer AC season, too.
The reason you don't have a gas-powered generator is because at the scale you're operating at, the maintenance and capital cost makes it uneconomical, since you've already got a power line from the local power corp. You're absolutely right about that part. But just because you haven't noticed the gas powered generators that can be found in large industries doesn't mean they don't exist.
None of this has anything to do with Kewaunee or even my own digression about sustainable gas production, of course.
Doctor Malthus, how did you get on Slashdot?
Oh, and also DKIM serves as a message checksum, so you can be reasonably sure an email wasn't tampered with after it left the sender.
DKIM is intended to allow mail sent through any server to be shown to be originally from a specific domain, thus preventing spoofing which is the basis of most spamming. SPF just allows server(s) to be identified as valid mailers for a domain, it doesn't work if you forward mail through other undesignated systems (which is still pretty significant, and covers most legitimate use cases).
If you're not checking SPFv1 on incoming mail, you're not a competent email admin. If you're not publishing SPFv1 for your domain you're not a competent DNS admin. This is just basic stuff nowadays; claiming otherwise is like claiming surgeons don't need to know about anatomy.
DKIM requires significant effort by comparison to SPF, and you can still be forgiven (for a little while) for not checking it or generating it.
Sure... try Turing, Alan M. in "Computing machinery and intelligence" Mind, 59, 433-460, 1950.
Or Vannevar Bush in "As We May Think" The Atlantic Monthly, 1945.
Or Howard Aiken, or Flowers, or von Neumann... many computing pioneers acknowledged Babbage specifically. Aiken actually studied a partial Babbage machine built by Babbage's son. Von Neumann even used notation developed by Babbage for some of his own work.
Well, don't tell any of the few remaining Yiddish speakers, they'll be terribly upset when they find out.
Around here, nat gas generators, fuel cells, refrigerators, and furnaces are all readily available. Perhaps not where he is. But that wasn't really the point of my post anyway.
If you are moving energy around, there are plenty of site-specific reasons to do one thing or another (mostly related to accessibility and maintenance) but all things being equal, moving liquid or gaseous fuels to a generator as close as possible to the point of use incurs less transmission loss than moving electricity the same distance through wires. Get it? That's why you heat your house with gas, instead of burning the gas in Saudi Arabia and transmitting it through a wire from the other side of the world.
Once you've pressurized a pipe the first time, whatever amount of material you put in one end, an equal amount comes out the other. When you energize a wire, you can't get the same amount of energy out that you put in; some energy is consumed to sustain the magnetic and electric fields around the wires and some becomes heat.
Nuke plants are often pushed as close as possible to the points of energy use; which places them on watersheds and in densely populated areas, to minimize electrical losses and decrease distribution system costs - this is to the benefit of the corporation that owns the plant, but increases the damage of any accidents... but the owners don't care, because they are taxpayer subsidized and insured and their directors don't live anywhere near the plants.
A carbon-neutral sustainable biogas industry based on American agriculture and labor would need both pipes and wiring. You'd want each farmer to be able to bring his biomass to one of a great many local gasification plants that would be connected by pipeline to more centralized (although still very distributed, compared to nukes and Edison plants) electric generators. Like the grid or the Internet, such a system would take decades to build out, but once built would be locally maintainable, extremely robust, and scalable. And it would completely devastate the existing political landscape, which is why we're not doing it.
I have plenty of lossless pipelines right in my house. I built them myself, from black iron, using a pipe breaker and threader that are older than I am.
I suppose if you're some kind of crack-smoking first year physics student you'll consider loss of individual atoms to be significant, though.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Hint: the setuid, setgid, and sticky bits are three different things with more than three different functions.
As long as you keep in mind that a well maintained pipeline is lossless, and wires are lossy, you're right.
If we ever manage to create a sustainable biologically derived natural gas infrastructure, we'll be using lots of both wires and pipes.
But a simple, workable plan based on domestic labor and agriculture that would actually make our economy boom again would unfortunately disrupt existing, oil-based political power structures... so don't hold your breath waiting for it.
Yup, but your stereotypical nuke shill honestly believes he'll some day be a rich corporate plutocrat, and so they really don't care about negative externalities. They think their own kids will be living in gated community, far away from shiftless poor people and ugly power generation facilities.
Terrestrial nuclear fission power plants can't be economically viable in a free and fair market, because the insurance costs are beyond what companies can bear without taxpayer assistance. And given the potential for damage in a single accident, an insurer is objectively correct to set the premiums at such rates. It's only profitable to do nuke plants in socialist states and dictatorships.
I personally don't really have a use case for an iPad or cell phone. In fact the mouse is usually just an annoying distraction that slows me down when I'm using a computer. And my poor color vision and heavy scarring on my fingertips makes most touchscreens annoying for me to use - I have no sense of touch on my right index finger, and the tissue there has the consistency and moisture content of kiln-dried hardwood.
People on the Internet often seem to believe that if you point out you have a different perspective you are making some absurd claim that only your own perspective is valid. Starting this thread, I said that the tablet seems like it might finally find a viable niche this time around, and most of the responses here read like they are talking to somebody else entirely (except a few responses, such as your own).
I agree with your assessment of the IPad's utility as an entertainment device, and am amazed that nobody's pointed out it's pretty much optimized for viewing porn.
Yes, yes, not really, most of them.
This could not possibly have anything to do with Apple's recent legal activities, eh?
Tablet fads have come and gone... the iPad has actually done really well this time around, but I remember how the 486 tablets (that did all the same stuff at much lower resolution) were going to make PCs obsolete... sure they did.
Due to e-readers, I think this time around tablets might actually settle into a durable niche of their own. But a lot of people (such as myself) will never really have a use for one.
Most gasoline powered cars emit very little soot. Diesels (particularly the redneck black smokers purposely de-tuned to produce more smoke) emit much more.
But all vehicles generate brake dust and tire dust. Over the years the brake vendors have been trying to make the stuff less toxic, but since you "live next to a main road and the soot/dust is horrendous" you can expect a higher incidence of certain illnesses in your family. If police cars and emergency vehicles use the road a lot, that's even worse, because they are usually allowed to use high-performance brake pads that are loaded with known carcinogens.
And if we repeal Obamacare everything will be OK again.
In the case of electric cars, it's worse than that. The big corporate dicks at GM actually did everything they could to kill the Magne Charge system after they repossessed all the EV-1s and ran them through the crusher.