Ron Paul is wrong about economic matters. There was a head-to-head between him and Paul Krugman; it's so very rare to have a politician have his ass handed to him quite so hard.
Yes, one farmer deliberately selected only Monsanto seed that blew onto his land and grew exclusively that, but that's the only time anyone ever got sued. If Monsanto ever sued someone for true accidental contamination it would be cutting their own throat.
For commuting in the mornings, apparently it's good to have it plugged in and to have set the battery to do a quick charge before you want to go, that warms the pack up, and at the same time you can also preheat the cabin; that also helps because the climate control doesn't have to use the battery to do that and it clears the windscreen, so you gain both range and convenience.
Actually the directional antenna helps with both RX and TX directionality and power equally; and there's almost certainly an attenuator that offsets the aerial's gain.
It doesn't help with the power coming from the laptop/tablet, but that's pretty small; some laptops will have gain control on their transmitters as well.
My understanding/way I imagine it is that; as you move towards the blackhole, the particles that make up the astronaut cause the event horizon to come out to meet them, and this curves the event horizon and this causes a local burst of Hawking-type radiation that rips apart the astronaut, and this radiation spreads out from the impact point in a wave; that in turn creates more perturbations of the horizon and so on. You end up with a very thin ring of fire all around the black hole. And this never goes away; indeed it forms the moment the black hole does, and so there's actually nothing inside the blackhole, just flat spacetime. In a sense I suppose the collapse never completely happens you end up with just a shell of matter.
I have only a qualitive understanding of this, but I think Hawking radiation is the radiation that escapes the blackhole; but there's probably some quantum-generated particles produced that don't have enough energy to escape and promptly fall back in again.
So as you fall into the blackhole, it will get warmer and warmer, until you get burnt to a crisp by the Hawking radiation that forms near to the event horizon which is unable to escape.
It's kind of like a sonic boom, or more like a light boom.
No, it's not omnidirectional, he's doing beam forming.
So he creates a 4W beam and aims it at the receiver. That's why when he moved the device, it went out; the beam was missing for a while until the transmitter figured it out and steered the beam to where he was now standing.
This works fine, provided the power density isn't too high; otherwise if people get in the way of the beam then they get heated up. A few watts may be the limit. more if the receiver is bigger.
Theoretical maximum is actually 64k in the UK, but the modem standards were designed to be compatible with the US, which can only handle 56K (7 bit bytes @ 8Khz rather than 8 bits @ 8 Khz) so... you won't get it.
Technology nearly always ultimately creates jobs, at least for a while.
Economists think that new technologies create jobs, at least in some phases. Generally, there's a few phases. Initially nobody uses the technology, and it's expensive, and nobody makes much money. Then more people use it, and the price starts to drop. This is the point where lots of money is made and usually lots of jobs. Finally, ubiquity, everyone uses it, and it's dirt cheap, relatively few, relatively badly paid jobs, and the total amount of money is not great. At this point you need a new technology.;-)
e.g. Wireless internet equipment used to be rather more expensive, and all the companies and engineers used to make good money developing it, but now it's dirt cheap, and nobody is making much money on it.
YOU'RE GOING OVER THE SPEED LIMIT OF -127 MPH! YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS TO DECELERATE! *car slows down below limit* YOU'RE STILL GOING OVER THE SPEED LIMIT OF -127 MPH! YOU HAVE 5 SECONDS TO DECELERATE! *car stops* YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED AND FOUND GUILTY *drone fires hellfire missile* *BOOOM*
Actually, grids use intermittent energy sources like wind and solar first, not coal, they turn the coal down for those. They're actually cheaper than coal once built, and for new builds, per unit of energy delivered to the consumer, onshore wind is the same cost as coal.
Hydro is the cleanest, and wind and hydro are BOTH widely considered cheaper and more environmentally friendly than nuclear per unit of delivered energy.
Hydro is actually the least safe because sometimes the damn break.
As for safest, it's debatable. Is it really safe if people have to vacate largish areas of land to avoid getting ill and dying??? Because that's what's happened at both Chernobyl and Fukushima; and it was largely luck that that didn't happen like that at 3 mile island.
Everything we do has to be peer-reviewed, so the way I deal with it is to simply not approve anything that doesn't meet my standards, and help the person to understand why.
Unless you're the boss, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that you should have personal standards, that you force onto your colleagues to meet them like that.
In a business situation, the organization should have standards, and that's what they should meet. only if they've done something that is not fit for purpose, then yes, you can and should fail the review. But that's not you just not liking the way they've done it, you have to actually have a good reason to think it won't work.
The purpose of economic activity is to make money, not dot i;s and cross ts.
They've tested it at the test rig and it works fine.
The engine has a far easier time than scramjet engines, they should be able to keep the running for hours; good luck with getting a scramjet engine to do that!
SABRE idea has also got a huge advantage that the cycle works with excellent thrust and efficiency from zero speed all the way up to Mach 5.5. Scramjets ONLY work above Mach 4 or so.
The air starts to burn the nitrogen with the oxygen giving nitrates; this takes energy and tends to be rather inefficient and changes the aerodynamics.
Nuclear doesn't kill people, but fallout causes large areas of land to have to be evacuated, and causes MASSIVE economic damage. The nuclear pushers will claim that modern reactors don't melt down, but there's no good reason to think that that's 100% so. And if it's not, then they will sometimes and the more reactors there are, the more chance of it happening.
Note also that hydro- just ordinary hydro, not pumped- is virtually 100% efficient at storing wind energy; in many cases you just hold back the water and release it when the wind drops. Many hydro systems are now being fitted with bigger generators to make that work better.
I bet that the turbines can be built better to last much longer.
Environmentalism is always a tradeoff- trading off riverbeds against global warming for example. And the thing about hydro is that it doesn't matter if the hydro is already deployed, wind generally allows you to make better use of it, because when the wind blows you can hold back the water, and the evaporation losses are very small, and so it's very efficient. Pumped storage is OK too, but it's a rather less efficient.
Actually the solar panel thing isn't as good as you'd hope. Solar energy is still much more expensive than nuclear or wind, although it's getting there.
The gas thing, $10 billion sounds like a lot, but it's over 7 years or more, it's not as bad as it sounds, and wind is otherwise cheaper than nuclear anyway. Also, although you probably can get that high pressure front effect sometimes, wind speeds are generally higher in winter. That quote "In winter, when the most intense cold period coincides with a high pressure front, most wind turbines do not work." is only a partial truth.
Wind power energy cost is at grid parity right now, and is virtually CO2 neutral.
I mean, yeah sure, wind is intermittent; but it doesn't melt down, and storage can be done with hydro, pumped hydro or electric cars, or you can fill in with a bit of fossil or biofuel when the wind doesn't blow.
Wind power is growing at ~25% per annum. It's only about 3% at the moment, but with that growth rate, it's going to be huge.
Some countries like Denmark are already at 30%, and are aiming for 50%, and Denmark isn't even very good for wind resources (although they're surrounded by hydro, which certainly is good.)
Nuclear is more expensive than wind, and is also poor at load following; you normally find nuclear needs hydro as well; because it's so expensive to build it runs flat out and then the hydro does the load following- nuclear is better for baseload.
Actually, not that much energy; the cost of drinkable water is measured in pennies per cubic metre (1000 litres).
Basically, you can use heat exchangers to boil and distil the water using hardly any energy, the water comes out lukewarm and virtually all the heat used is recycled within the process. You can even use solar energy for this.
There's also processes using membranes that are about as good where you just pump the water through the membrane.
You can't usually make a patent critically hinge on just using a different material, the patent office won't usually give you a patent on that; they normally want a bit more than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul is wrong about economic matters. There was a head-to-head between him and Paul Krugman; it's so very rare to have a politician have his ass handed to him quite so hard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEoGKpnutyA
That's co-codamol, the combination apparently works better as a painkiller than codeine on its own.
I don't think it's just them cutting the codeine.
Yes, one farmer deliberately selected only Monsanto seed that blew onto his land and grew exclusively that, but that's the only time anyone ever got sued. If Monsanto ever sued someone for true accidental contamination it would be cutting their own throat.
Not so.
For commuting in the mornings, apparently it's good to have it plugged in and to have set the battery to do a quick charge before you want to go, that warms the pack up, and at the same time you can also preheat the cabin; that also helps because the climate control doesn't have to use the battery to do that and it clears the windscreen, so you gain both range and convenience.
Actually, the exact same car would get significantly worse mpg in America than in (say) the UK.
The reason is: the American gallon is rather smaller(!)
So it's not really a fair comparison.
Actually the directional antenna helps with both RX and TX directionality and power equally; and there's almost certainly an attenuator that offsets the aerial's gain.
It doesn't help with the power coming from the laptop/tablet, but that's pretty small; some laptops will have gain control on their transmitters as well.
My understanding/way I imagine it is that; as you move towards the blackhole, the particles that make up the astronaut cause the event horizon to come out to meet them, and this curves the event horizon and this causes a local burst of Hawking-type radiation that rips apart the astronaut, and this radiation spreads out from the impact point in a wave; that in turn creates more perturbations of the horizon and so on. You end up with a very thin ring of fire all around the black hole. And this never goes away; indeed it forms the moment the black hole does, and so there's actually nothing inside the blackhole, just flat spacetime. In a sense I suppose the collapse never completely happens you end up with just a shell of matter.
I have only a qualitive understanding of this, but I think Hawking radiation is the radiation that escapes the blackhole; but there's probably some quantum-generated particles produced that don't have enough energy to escape and promptly fall back in again.
So as you fall into the blackhole, it will get warmer and warmer, until you get burnt to a crisp by the Hawking radiation that forms near to the event horizon which is unable to escape.
It's kind of like a sonic boom, or more like a light boom.
So what you're saying is that you used google once and you didn't like 2 of the 10 results?
Search engines before google were universally the biggest heap of junk in the entire history of life on this planet.
No, it's not omnidirectional, he's doing beam forming.
So he creates a 4W beam and aims it at the receiver. That's why when he moved the device, it went out; the beam was missing for a while until the transmitter figured it out and steered the beam to where he was now standing.
This works fine, provided the power density isn't too high; otherwise if people get in the way of the beam then they get heated up. A few watts may be the limit. more if the receiver is bigger.
Theoretical maximum is actually 64k in the UK, but the modem standards were designed to be compatible with the US, which can only handle 56K (7 bit bytes @ 8Khz rather than 8 bits @ 8 Khz) so ... you won't get it.
Technology nearly always ultimately creates jobs, at least for a while.
Economists think that new technologies create jobs, at least in some phases. Generally, there's a few phases. Initially nobody uses the technology, and it's expensive, and nobody makes much money. Then more people use it, and the price starts to drop. This is the point where lots of money is made and usually lots of jobs. Finally, ubiquity, everyone uses it, and it's dirt cheap, relatively few, relatively badly paid jobs, and the total amount of money is not great. At this point you need a new technology. ;-)
e.g. Wireless internet equipment used to be rather more expensive, and all the companies and engineers used to make good money developing it, but now it's dirt cheap, and nobody is making much money on it.
YOU'RE GOING OVER THE SPEED LIMIT OF -127 MPH! YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS TO DECELERATE!
*car slows down below limit*
YOU'RE STILL GOING OVER THE SPEED LIMIT OF -127 MPH! YOU HAVE 5 SECONDS TO DECELERATE!
*car stops*
YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED AND FOUND GUILTY
*drone fires hellfire missile*
*BOOOM*
HAVE A NICE DAY!
*flies off*
Actually, grids use intermittent energy sources like wind and solar first, not coal, they turn the coal down for those. They're actually cheaper than coal once built, and for new builds, per unit of energy delivered to the consumer, onshore wind is the same cost as coal.
Nope. Nuclear isn't the cleanest or cheapest.
Hydro is the cleanest, and wind and hydro are BOTH widely considered cheaper and more environmentally friendly than nuclear per unit of delivered energy.
Hydro is actually the least safe because sometimes the damn break.
As for safest, it's debatable. Is it really safe if people have to vacate largish areas of land to avoid getting ill and dying??? Because that's what's happened at both Chernobyl and Fukushima; and it was largely luck that that didn't happen like that at 3 mile island.
Everything we do has to be peer-reviewed, so the way I deal with it is to simply not approve anything that doesn't meet my standards, and help the person to understand why.
Unless you're the boss, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that you should have personal standards, that you force onto your colleagues to meet them like that.
In a business situation, the organization should have standards, and that's what they should meet. only if they've done something that is not fit for purpose, then yes, you can and should fail the review. But that's not you just not liking the way they've done it, you have to actually have a good reason to think it won't work.
The purpose of economic activity is to make money, not dot i;s and cross ts.
They've tested it at the test rig and it works fine.
The engine has a far easier time than scramjet engines, they should be able to keep the running for hours; good luck with getting a scramjet engine to do that!
SABRE idea has also got a huge advantage that the cycle works with excellent thrust and efficiency from zero speed all the way up to Mach 5.5. Scramjets ONLY work above Mach 4 or so.
The air starts to burn the nitrogen with the oxygen giving nitrates; this takes energy and tends to be rather inefficient and changes the aerodynamics.
Yeah, this makes sense because America is the most ethical country on the planet.
Nuclear doesn't kill people, but fallout causes large areas of land to have to be evacuated, and causes MASSIVE economic damage. The nuclear pushers will claim that modern reactors don't melt down, but there's no good reason to think that that's 100% so. And if it's not, then they will sometimes and the more reactors there are, the more chance of it happening.
Note also that hydro- just ordinary hydro, not pumped- is virtually 100% efficient at storing wind energy; in many cases you just hold back the water and release it when the wind drops. Many hydro systems are now being fitted with bigger generators to make that work better.
I bet that the turbines can be built better to last much longer.
Environmentalism is always a tradeoff- trading off riverbeds against global warming for example. And the thing about hydro is that it doesn't matter if the hydro is already deployed, wind generally allows you to make better use of it, because when the wind blows you can hold back the water, and the evaporation losses are very small, and so it's very efficient. Pumped storage is OK too, but it's a rather less efficient.
Actually the solar panel thing isn't as good as you'd hope. Solar energy is still much more expensive than nuclear or wind, although it's getting there.
The gas thing, $10 billion sounds like a lot, but it's over 7 years or more, it's not as bad as it sounds, and wind is otherwise cheaper than nuclear anyway. Also, although you probably can get that high pressure front effect sometimes, wind speeds are generally higher in winter. That quote "In winter, when the most intense cold period coincides with a high pressure front, most wind turbines do not work." is only a partial truth.
Not necessarily.
Wind power energy cost is at grid parity right now, and is virtually CO2 neutral.
I mean, yeah sure, wind is intermittent; but it doesn't melt down, and storage can be done with hydro, pumped hydro or electric cars, or you can fill in with a bit of fossil or biofuel when the wind doesn't blow.
Wind power is growing at ~25% per annum. It's only about 3% at the moment, but with that growth rate, it's going to be huge.
Some countries like Denmark are already at 30%, and are aiming for 50%, and Denmark isn't even very good for wind resources (although they're surrounded by hydro, which certainly is good.)
Nuclear is more expensive than wind, and is also poor at load following; you normally find nuclear needs hydro as well; because it's so expensive to build it runs flat out and then the hydro does the load following- nuclear is better for baseload.
Actually, not that much energy; the cost of drinkable water is measured in pennies per cubic metre (1000 litres).
Basically, you can use heat exchangers to boil and distil the water using hardly any energy, the water comes out lukewarm and virtually all the heat used is recycled within the process. You can even use solar energy for this.
There's also processes using membranes that are about as good where you just pump the water through the membrane.
You can't usually make a patent critically hinge on just using a different material, the patent office won't usually give you a patent on that; they normally want a bit more than that.
The plural of trite phrases is not 'rebuttal'.