How about this idea (a meshing of other ideas I've been reading).
We have an electronic voting system that at the end prints out a voter sheet that is hole punch with the votes. The computer tallies the votes itself but before submitting the votes to the central system it first waits for a number of sequential verification steps to take place. The first step would require the voter to look at the print out of their votes and verify the accuracy. This would be done while still in the voting booth. The paper with the holes would be black with white lettering for the names and information. The paper would be placed over a light bed which would shine through the punched holes to illuminate the selections. If everything matched up the person would push the button on the screen to say that the paper had been verified. This might be tied to the door so then the person could exit. Verifying the vote would also encode that vote into the system and wait for the next step to release the vote as fully cast. The next step would invlove the person taking the paper sheet over to another machine that it would be feed into and that machine would do a count itself (which would be stored seperately from the other count in the computer system). As soon as it would accept the paper vote as accurate - having no mechanical flaws - it would send a response to the computer system to free up the voters vote. The information sent to the computer system would be a one way transmition that basically would say vote (some randomly generated number that was tied to the vote while the paper was printed and encoded on the paper using a UV ink) is valid and accepted by the paper system, accept into that vote computer system.
What this system does for you is gives you the same vote in three different formats. First it leaves a paper trail that cannot be tied to a person, but is an accepted and valid vote - this is the real vote that is cast. The second is a mechanical count (the paper counter count) that is a verification for the computer system count. The computer system count is a fast count that is verified against the mechanical count and can be used to get up to the second data and if verified is than accepted as the true vote. If the verification fails then it would go to the paper votes which would be considered more accurate the computer system which must always be suspected.
Ok so what if the person doesn't like the printout at the first step? Easy. They are required to push the not accepted button which then causes the computer vote to be discarded and a new vote started up. The paper would then be requested by the system and shredded completely before a new vote could be started. Once the paper was shredded the process would start over and the verification process started again as well.
If the paper is somehow damaged between the voting booth and the paper tally machine then a new vote could be created by putting the damaged paper through a scanning shredder that would say please reprint this vote. The person would then be allowed to reverify and if everything was good then it would be put into the machine. If it wasn't good then the vote could be recycled as per the first do again section from the last paragraph.
Ok so that all might be a bit confusing so here is a step by step.
1. John Doe enters voting place and waits in line to sign-in. The sign-in process should be such that the brunt of the wait should take place before the person gets into a booth. i.e. If there isn't a booth open then no one is allowed to sign-in until a booth opens. 2. Booth opens and John Doe is allowed to sign-in and is given a start card and a paper sleeve. This card is his means to activate the computer and the voting process. 3. John Doe walks straight from sign-in table to booth and closes door (for those that are claustrophobic or who require assistant a special "large booth" is provided and an assistant is provided up until the voting begins. The rooms should be void of everything exc
Why not attach a thruster pack on it using an unmanned robot launched whenever and then have the Hubble pushed into a lunar orbit. That way we can preserve the Hubble (unless something small and fast hits it) and it will be in a great location for potential future use. I can Imagine the first moon base scientists taking on a "restore the Hubble" as a small project as from the moon getting into lunar orbit is so easy to do. yeah you would need to send the spare parts to the moon for such a thing to happen, but with the Hubble parked it would be a do-it-our-own-time kind project. Sure it wouldn't be as good as what we would have at the time, but it would still be very useful. If anything giving universities or other organizations "hubble time" on the cheap could help to pay for it.
I would hate to see something as wonderful as this work of art burned up.
It is entirely possible that Mr. Whatley did not recieve the certified mail. In a case like this it is up to the courts to serve the defendant with the notice of hearing. This is done with certified mail. The prosecution can only assume that the person receieved the letter. I have a friend who was doing much the same, except in his case he was suing a business. In his case the business did not show up and he won by forfeit. The company then came to the court claiming that the letter was not receieved. That was when the records were checked and found that indeed they had not recieved the letter. Of course it is also possible to refuse certified mail and by doing so make it appear as though you have not recieved it. Certified mail is no guarantee that a party will recieve a letter.
This is all speculation though, since there is a lot of information we do not know. We can only hope that this is resolved properly, on the side of justice. Besides, $450,000 is an extremely large judgement, and an appeal is still possible.
Ahh, and that is a very good point. I guess my posts must be taken with the assumption that Oxygen has some how found itself into the pressure tank. Otherwise you are correct, that pressurized tank just won't react unless it gets really really hot.
Compressed hydrogen would possibly be a bad thing. It would basically go "BOOM" and then it would be over. Of course if you were near the boom then it might be a problem. However unlike fossil fuels, hydrogen doesn't keep burning. It may do some nice physical damage you really won't have a fire to deal with afterwards. Though it is still possible.
You have some very good points. It is good that we raise these kinds of questions now and begin testing the viability of this "new" technology. I would also suggest that we support the strong growth of a hydrogen economy. Its potential benefits are far greater then the green and clean arguement always put forth. The ability to move closer to an off-grid or neighborhood-grid based electrical system is an incredible boon. Massive powerlines, and with them transmission loss (not to forget eyesores), will be needed less and less. Power outages will be fewer and effect smaller groups of people. A big military benfit of a local grid system is that it is very hard to knock out power to any large population. Another benefit is the pure water generated. While not very tasty to drink it is wonderful for use in things like laundry and dish washing. Of course you can also drink it and know for certain that the water contains almost no traces of any sort of contamination (short of whatever may be introduced on site).
Hydrogen fuel systems are safe and easy to repair. They have almost no moving parts. They are safe because hydrogen as a gas is non-toxic (unless taken in massive doses, but seldom does it stick around to allow that) and though it can ignite it does not burn like other fuels. Pressurized tanks pose a small hazard risk, but no wherenear the potential danger fossil fuels have. Hydrogen when it ignites goes boom once and is all gone, fossil fuels however can burn for quite awhile. Also the pressure tanks are typically built to take abuse and punishment and not explode.
As for how to get the hydrogen (and transport it) well those remain the greater challenges. Something to look forward to really. You can bet though that whoever comes up with an effient means to obtain, transport and use hydrogen power will find themselves sitting on a potentially spectular gold mine. And besides you know you can't wait for the day when you don't have to stop at a gas when its negative 30 degrees with a wind chill of negative 60.
The Hindenburg blew up not because of the hydrogen, but because of the paint used. It was a mixture that very closely resembled aircraft fuel and was highly explosive. The hydrogen would not have exploded anyways. If ignite hydrogen it goes up almost like a puff and then its gone. Very limited reaction. More on this here http://www.ttcorp.com/nha/advocate/ad22zepp.htm. Yeah the site is done by the National Hydrogen Association, but this a very well excepted explination of what happened.
Here is another link from PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/html/e3-menu.htm l
There was an episode of STNG in which a group of special "adaptive" robot-like drones evolved an awareness and Data tries to save them when they are put in danger. The problem encountered in the episode was an ethical one. It asked the crew to look at what was considered intelligent, aware life for a machine. It should be a while before we are faced with such a problem, but it still doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking some questions.
Personally I can't wait for more and more of these systems to be designed and to see how they act and react. If the statement is accurate that only a third of the circuits of a human designed chip were used then this is a potentially incredible resource. Drawing again from my Sci-Fi background, if you look at Issac Asimov's robot's books you will find a short about a AI Brain that was used to create the first hyperdrive ship. While only science fiction, a computer has the advantage of being able to look at all possible known rules, be able to test its environment and summarily report back on a problem that it is given. Seeing what humans may not be able to consider, because we just don't have the perspective, is what makes these systems really valueable. In no time computers like these evolving ones will be giving scientists new puzzles to solve, and a challenged scientist is a happy one (most of the time:)
And if they do withhold these, privileges, then we will find them elsewhere. We sometimes forget that we are the government. If enough people don't like something then they can change it! For better or worse, it has happened. Thankfully we have rights guarunteed by a set of unbreakable, undeniable freedoms. We just need to be more vigilant about keeping them sacred. We need to put pressure on those who would take them away, like Ashcroft, the Religious Right, or businesses trying to make money from fear. Vote with your money, vote with your conscience and vote to make changes.
Those of us here who are Americans need to keep stupid things like this out of the public sphere. These technologies to track and tag are dangerous on more levels then they are ever possibly useful. It doesn't mean that we can't look at what they are and what they do, it just means that we cannot allow anyone to mandate their use on the masses. Sadly those that would have technologies like this used are very good at using FUD to get there way. Its why Microsoft is so successful. So instead we must educate, fight, and in our own way remind people that these technologies are to be feared even more then terrorists/Antrax/etc (pick your excuse for control).
Ok I've rambled enough. Just remember my fellow Americans. No matter what we are still able to guide our collective destiny, we just need to be willing to work for it.
I'm curious as to what happens to the natural gas, methanol, etc... after the conversion. I understand that there is hydrogen generated, but what about the left over carbons, and other elements?
Re:Spoiler Alert!! About the ending and a thought
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
D'oh! Looks like I posted a little late about the idea. Glad to see others were coming to the same conclusion about the ending.
Spoiler Alert!! About the ending and a thought
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
My friends and I saw AI this past friday and we all walked out with mixed feelings particularly about the ending. The alien-like creatures seemed more of a plot device than anything else. But then someone made a suggestion that maybe they weren't aliens but super advanced AI mechas. Mechas that had evolved (if you can call it evolution) beyond humanity and survived. It would explain a great deal if you take it from that perspective. Their curiousity becomes more genuine. The way they act and look, which is remarkably human-like, makes more sense (Ok so almost every alien created is human like, but that's just because we humans are so full of ourselves). They even sort of look like advanced mechas with what appear to be circuitry in their bodies, plus there ability to access David's memory and even power him back up would be much more easily acceptable if they were indeed advanced mecha.
Just my $.02
replacement for current modern day planes? Think about it. Current day planes usually cruise at about 30 or so thousand feet. Plenty of oxygen up there. Could they build a glider based scramjet plane?
Modern day planes are huge polluters and loud ta boot. If you had a scramjet passenger glider it could take off with a regular turbine based engine or a scramjet (my understanding of the system is a bit limited). Powering itself with the oxygen it captures along the way. Should anything go wrong with the engines then it would just glide down like the space shuttle does. Of course it could also do a powered landing, but a glide in landing would be extremely quiet. And without very much fuel needed the weight would be a great deal less. Which you could either offset by carrying more (talk about round the world flight), use that displaced weight for better (and often heavier) materials that the plane could be made of, or carry more passengers.
There are possible downsides and I'm not sure if its doable. But wouldn't it be great if it was? The noise problem wouldn't exist and more airports could be built.
The bad thing about this is that it assumes that the primary use for a computer system is to steal copyrighted material. Which is a very unfair and wrong assumption to make. Ask corporations and schools what they're primary use for computers is. They'll tell you work and teaching. Those two groups are two of the biggest consumers of computer equipment out there. And under such a tax they would be unrightly charged for something they would never do.
As for regular consumers well again it is just a really bad assumption to make. I will grant that some people do use computers for illegal distribution and copying (though there is a major grey area), but that should not mean the rest of the legitimate users should be punished.
Sorry if this sounds so obvious, but it really is. I mean doesn't innocent until proven guilty mean anything to these people? And further more, where do they get off thinking that they have the power to ask the government to create such a tax? Oh yeah I forgot, they have lots of money and thats all that matters. I'm starting to lose faith in humanity (well government and business anyways) and yes at one time I did believe it could be better then this. I still think it can.
If this stuff pisses you off then make sure you let your representatives know and support groups like the EFF. Believe it or not, democracies are still the power of the people, sometimes it just takes a lot of us to make changes.
To start I must say a fine choice on the TV and DVD player. For the video connections between the two use monster cable component video connectors. You have component video connections so use them! I recommend monster cable because it really is a nice cable brand. Don't pass the video through anything else, like a receiver pretending to be a home everything unit. That'll keep things crisp and clean.
Now the next item on your list should be a receiver/decoder/pre-amp/amp. With literally thousands of setups to choose from this can be difficult. Someone mentioned audioreview.com and I second that. It really is a great site for info. As for the setup I would recommend going just with a receiver for starters. Later on down the road when you become a more experienced audiophile you'll want to look at some amps and pre-amps.
For the receiver I'd recommend either Harmon Kardon or Onkyo. Both are consistently the top of their class. For the Harmon Kardon I'd recommend the AVR-510 or the for the Onkyo the TX-DS676. Both are in about the same price range at soundpros.com. All told that'll set you back about $700, but its more then worth it. A good receiver will make a big difference when it comes to how things sound. Also don't let the small watt per speaker number scare you. These receivers will push out more sound and cleaner sound (very high signal to noise of 95db) then a cheaper higher wattage receiver.
The next things to consider are the speakers. For these you will need two fronts, two surrounds, a center and a power sub-woofer. Done right, you can get all of the speakers for under $600. To do that I recommend you shop at Ubid.com. Ubid is a bag of mixed blessings. But for speakers it is almost always a gold mine.
At Ubid I'd recommend that you look at the Wharfedale speakers. They are not very well known outside of Great Britain, but their quality is simply beautiful. I suggest the MFM-7's or Opal100's for your fronts. I've sampled both and the imaging is spectacular, especially the MFM-7's (which I own a pair of). The price you can expect to get a pair of either for is in the range of 110 to 140 each (total of 220 to 280), plus shipping. Next I suggest the Wharfedale Diamond 7.1's or the Opal 30's for your surrounds. Their price and quality are a perfect match for their purpose. They can be expected to go for between $50 and $100 a pair respectively. For the center I recommend the Opal center or the Wharfedale center. Either can be snagged for about $100 (with shipping). The reason I suggest all Wharfedale speakers is because it is usually best to have matching speaker brands in order to maintain sound matching across the speakers. For the final piece, the sub-woofer, there are a number of options available to you. Sub-woofers don't necessarily need to be sonically matched like the speakers. Instead you'll want a sub that lets you feel the explosions and action on the screen. For that I suggest you get a JBL PB10, about $250 at soundpros.com. That'll give you 150 watts of ground thumping goodness. I suggest only the 10inch because there are some nifty techniques you can use for "enhancing" the bass effect.
All together this will run you about $700, with whatever is left over for speaker-wire (at least 12 gauge). Put this all together and pop in a DVD with the THX sound check and listen as the bliss that is surround sound destroys your hearing J. As for the trick with the sub-woofer, make sure you place the sub against a corner, or under something thick and heavy (like an oak desk or something). The effect will amplify the sound by at least 10 to 20 db (no joke).
Well I hope this all helps you guys out. Make sure you read everything you can before buying and check out the home theater sites around the net. There is a lot of info out there and a lot of people that can help you find just what you need. Oh, and enjoy your system!
If it bears fruit then this will have been a remarkable turn of events. And if not, no small loss for Netpliance (people are doing this anyway). Some of the ideas are actually really good ones and could lead to future market potentials very easily. Its risks like this that make companies great, or kill them completely. Now Netappliance will need to prove themselves in the free market economy. I'm just happy to see them have the balls to do so.
Its also a model companies like those that belong to the RIAA, computer hardware/software, and mre should consider. Open-sourcing leads potentially greater returns at smaller risk, by spreading the development out to hundreds or thousands of people. I mention RIAA, because they could so have easily joined the on-line mp3 movement and easily grabbed massive influence. When companies choose to innovate we all win, thanks for a great start Netpliance! I hope your efforts succeed and the marketplace rewards you.
Okay first off I'm gonna say I'm all in favor of Napster and all of the software like it. So everything I write here and now will follow in that line.
For starters, as far as I can tell, Napster has yet to make a single cent from all this. Last I checked, which was before my University banned Napster, there were no ads anywhere. And even if there were they sure as hell wouldn't make any money for the Napster team. So don't go shouting from the hills that this is hypocracy! Offspring on the otherhand was making money off their endeavour. Big, big difference. Remember people Napster was designed as a file sharing program for mp3s. Legal or illegal the program doesn't care.
I don't give a shit if you think that it was for piracy or whatever. Until the author of the program says yes it was for piracy, all you have are simple assumptions. And making those kinds of statements is dangerous thing, tantamount to libel even! This latest little twist is only fuel for the media fire. Something we don't need, it only ends up helping to fuel the ignorence of society. Its bad enough that Napster has been labeled as a tool of piracy (well okay it is a bandwidth pirate). It is unfortuantly a connection general society will always associate. In the end this only further hurts the free market of innovation.
Groups like the RIAA, MPAA, and businesses like Mattell (with its cyberpatrol and constant copyright battles) only work to stifle innovation in the free market by closing down anything that doesn't follow their way of thinking. Sadly it is something that progress always seems to have to fight through. This whole thing isn't about whether some kid at some college is downloading a song that he/she doesn't own. Its about keeping with the old way of doing things, and controlling them.
I'll leave you some interesting tidbits before I post. The RIAA claims to be losing money due to Napster. In an article in CNet it talks about the lose of sales around college campuses. However the loses start before Napster was introduced and when compared to National sales is really irrelivent. National sales continue to raise about 20 percent, while most college areas only experienced a 4 percent drop over two years. But this can be explained mostly with online sales (which college students are more likely to do), and the introduction of cheap CD Burners.
[ sarcasm ]Hmm, maybe we should go after the CD Burner manufacturers next, they were obviously made to pirate music and software. Oh and while we are at it lets ban Hotline Software, IRC, umm FTP, and well hell, just about any digital medium for its ability to make perfect digital copies. [/sarcasm ]
Seriously, if you listen long enough to both sides neither speaks a whole lot of truth. But I can sure as hell tell you whose gonna lie more to get what they want. The ones that have the greatest perceived loss and they can be summed up with four letters, MIAA.
"we can expect to see the record companies purchase new laws...". This whole thing (open source vs. sell-your-soul source) is looking to become the next revolution. Personally I can't wait, we need something to shake things up. Society needs a fundamental shift in its view of things. Only a true revolution can bring that about. It goes along with what Stallman is saying about morals as well. They are defined by the society in which they are constructed (whoa I think that was circular logic there). Our generation (Generation Net or Generation/.) sees software and digital media in a completely different light. Open source seems, IMHO, to be a positive step in the right direction. It's just gonna be scary, for some people, accepting that as the new way of looking at things. That whole fear of the unknown thing.
Okay I need to comment on this. I as well go to the U of M (not U of MN, they hate it written out like that). I also work for the University's Relations department. We're the ones that send out all the press releases on anything and everything big going down at the U. When the Napster thing rolled through it hardly made a ripple. They had all sorts of different official releases. Never any hard facts though. A number of different reports indicated that at times napster would use up to 30% of the Universities outside (cross-boarder) traffic.
I'm not sure which one I should believe, and after reading through the letter sent out to all the students telling them of the ban I got the feeling that bandwidth wasn't really the issue, but more of a nice scapegoat. The whole issue reeked of our General Council office and it smelled like they were afraid of being sued by the RIAA.
Of course life hasn't changed much since the ban. People just switched to different programs like iMesh or Spinfrenzy. Or they just went out and found a proxy server to run through. So far no one has been "busted" for using Napster even though I know of a number of people that still use it. All in all it does seem like information on the Net does want to be free. The old guard continues to fight to keep the old ways in place, and the younger generation keeps fighting to make changes. Sounds strangely familiar, like this has happened before. Just over different issues.
Slashdot Mirror
How about this idea (a meshing of other ideas I've been reading).
We have an electronic voting system that at the end prints out a voter sheet that is hole punch with the votes. The computer tallies the votes itself but before submitting the votes to the central system it first waits for a number of sequential verification steps to take place. The first step would require the voter to look at the print out of their votes and verify the accuracy. This would be done while still in the voting booth. The paper with the holes would be black with white lettering for the names and information. The paper would be placed over a light bed which would shine through the punched holes to illuminate the selections. If everything matched up the person would push the button on the screen to say that the paper had been verified. This might be tied to the door so then the person could exit. Verifying the vote would also encode that vote into the system and wait for the next step to release the vote as fully cast. The next step would invlove the person taking the paper sheet over to another machine that it would be feed into and that machine would do a count itself (which would be stored seperately from the other count in the computer system). As soon as it would accept the paper vote as accurate - having no mechanical flaws - it would send a response to the computer system to free up the voters vote. The information sent to the computer system would be a one way transmition that basically would say vote (some randomly generated number that was tied to the vote while the paper was printed and encoded on the paper using a UV ink) is valid and accepted by the paper system, accept into that vote computer system.
What this system does for you is gives you the same vote in three different formats. First it leaves a paper trail that cannot be tied to a person, but is an accepted and valid vote - this is the real vote that is cast. The second is a mechanical count (the paper counter count) that is a verification for the computer system count. The computer system count is a fast count that is verified against the mechanical count and can be used to get up to the second data and if verified is than accepted as the true vote. If the verification fails then it would go to the paper votes which would be considered more accurate the computer system which must always be suspected.
Ok so what if the person doesn't like the printout at the first step? Easy. They are required to push the not accepted button which then causes the computer vote to be discarded and a new vote started up. The paper would then be requested by the system and shredded completely before a new vote could be started. Once the paper was shredded the process would start over and the verification process started again as well.
If the paper is somehow damaged between the voting booth and the paper tally machine then a new vote could be created by putting the damaged paper through a scanning shredder that would say please reprint this vote. The person would then be allowed to reverify and if everything was good then it would be put into the machine. If it wasn't good then the vote could be recycled as per the first do again section from the last paragraph.
Ok so that all might be a bit confusing so here is a step by step.
1. John Doe enters voting place and waits in line to sign-in. The sign-in process should be such that the brunt of the wait should take place before the person gets into a booth. i.e. If there isn't a booth open then no one is allowed to sign-in until a booth opens.
2. Booth opens and John Doe is allowed to sign-in and is given a start card and a paper sleeve. This card is his means to activate the computer and the voting process.
3. John Doe walks straight from sign-in table to booth and closes door (for those that are claustrophobic or who require assistant a special "large booth" is provided and an assistant is provided up until the voting begins. The rooms should be void of everything exc
Why not attach a thruster pack on it using an unmanned robot launched whenever and then have the Hubble pushed into a lunar orbit. That way we can preserve the Hubble (unless something small and fast hits it) and it will be in a great location for potential future use. I can Imagine the first moon base scientists taking on a "restore the Hubble" as a small project as from the moon getting into lunar orbit is so easy to do. yeah you would need to send the spare parts to the moon for such a thing to happen, but with the Hubble parked it would be a do-it-our-own-time kind project. Sure it wouldn't be as good as what we would have at the time, but it would still be very useful. If anything giving universities or other organizations "hubble time" on the cheap could help to pay for it.
I would hate to see something as wonderful as this work of art burned up.
It is entirely possible that Mr. Whatley did not recieve the certified mail. In a case like this it is up to the courts to serve the defendant with the notice of hearing. This is done with certified mail. The prosecution can only assume that the person receieved the letter. I have a friend who was doing much the same, except in his case he was suing a business. In his case the business did not show up and he won by forfeit. The company then came to the court claiming that the letter was not receieved. That was when the records were checked and found that indeed they had not recieved the letter. Of course it is also possible to refuse certified mail and by doing so make it appear as though you have not recieved it. Certified mail is no guarantee that a party will recieve a letter.
This is all speculation though, since there is a lot of information we do not know. We can only hope that this is resolved properly, on the side of justice. Besides, $450,000 is an extremely large judgement, and an appeal is still possible.
Ahh, and that is a very good point. I guess my posts must be taken with the assumption that Oxygen has some how found itself into the pressure tank. Otherwise you are correct, that pressurized tank just won't react unless it gets really really hot.
Compressed hydrogen would possibly be a bad thing. It would basically go "BOOM" and then it would be over. Of course if you were near the boom then it might be a problem. However unlike fossil fuels, hydrogen doesn't keep burning. It may do some nice physical damage you really won't have a fire to deal with afterwards. Though it is still possible.
You have some very good points. It is good that we raise these kinds of questions now and begin testing the viability of this "new" technology. I would also suggest that we support the strong growth of a hydrogen economy. Its potential benefits are far greater then the green and clean arguement always put forth. The ability to move closer to an off-grid or neighborhood-grid based electrical system is an incredible boon. Massive powerlines, and with them transmission loss (not to forget eyesores), will be needed less and less. Power outages will be fewer and effect smaller groups of people. A big military benfit of a local grid system is that it is very hard to knock out power to any large population. Another benefit is the pure water generated. While not very tasty to drink it is wonderful for use in things like laundry and dish washing. Of course you can also drink it and know for certain that the water contains almost no traces of any sort of contamination (short of whatever may be introduced on site).
Hydrogen fuel systems are safe and easy to repair. They have almost no moving parts. They are safe because hydrogen as a gas is non-toxic (unless taken in massive doses, but seldom does it stick around to allow that) and though it can ignite it does not burn like other fuels. Pressurized tanks pose a small hazard risk, but no wherenear the potential danger fossil fuels have. Hydrogen when it ignites goes boom once and is all gone, fossil fuels however can burn for quite awhile. Also the pressure tanks are typically built to take abuse and punishment and not explode.
As for how to get the hydrogen (and transport it) well those remain the greater challenges. Something to look forward to really. You can bet though that whoever comes up with an effient means to obtain, transport and use hydrogen power will find themselves sitting on a potentially spectular gold mine. And besides you know you can't wait for the day when you don't have to stop at a gas when its negative 30 degrees with a wind chill of negative 60.
The Hindenburg blew up not because of the hydrogen, but because of the paint used. It was a mixture that very closely resembled aircraft fuel and was highly explosive. The hydrogen would not have exploded anyways. If ignite hydrogen it goes up almost like a puff and then its gone. Very limited reaction. More on this here http://www.ttcorp.com/nha/advocate/ad22zepp.htm. Yeah the site is done by the National Hydrogen Association, but this a very well excepted explination of what happened.
m l
Here is another link from PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/html/e3-menu.ht
There was an episode of STNG in which a group of special "adaptive" robot-like drones evolved an awareness and Data tries to save them when they are put in danger. The problem encountered in the episode was an ethical one. It asked the crew to look at what was considered intelligent, aware life for a machine. It should be a while before we are faced with such a problem, but it still doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking some questions.
:)
Personally I can't wait for more and more of these systems to be designed and to see how they act and react. If the statement is accurate that only a third of the circuits of a human designed chip were used then this is a potentially incredible resource. Drawing again from my Sci-Fi background, if you look at Issac Asimov's robot's books you will find a short about a AI Brain that was used to create the first hyperdrive ship. While only science fiction, a computer has the advantage of being able to look at all possible known rules, be able to test its environment and summarily report back on a problem that it is given. Seeing what humans may not be able to consider, because we just don't have the perspective, is what makes these systems really valueable. In no time computers like these evolving ones will be giving scientists new puzzles to solve, and a challenged scientist is a happy one (most of the time
And if they do withhold these, privileges, then we will find them elsewhere. We sometimes forget that we are the government. If enough people don't like something then they can change it! For better or worse, it has happened. Thankfully we have rights guarunteed by a set of unbreakable, undeniable freedoms. We just need to be more vigilant about keeping them sacred. We need to put pressure on those who would take them away, like Ashcroft, the Religious Right, or businesses trying to make money from fear. Vote with your money, vote with your conscience and vote to make changes.
Those of us here who are Americans need to keep stupid things like this out of the public sphere. These technologies to track and tag are dangerous on more levels then they are ever possibly useful. It doesn't mean that we can't look at what they are and what they do, it just means that we cannot allow anyone to mandate their use on the masses. Sadly those that would have technologies like this used are very good at using FUD to get there way. Its why Microsoft is so successful. So instead we must educate, fight, and in our own way remind people that these technologies are to be feared even more then terrorists/Antrax/etc (pick your excuse for control).
Ok I've rambled enough. Just remember my fellow Americans. No matter what we are still able to guide our collective destiny, we just need to be willing to work for it.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-processor.htm
Found the answer to my own question. How Stuff Works is a great site. They also have more articles on the other aspects of fuels cells.
I'm curious as to what happens to the natural gas, methanol, etc... after the conversion. I understand that there is hydrogen generated, but what about the left over carbons, and other elements?
D'oh! Looks like I posted a little late about the idea. Glad to see others were coming to the same conclusion about the ending.
My friends and I saw AI this past friday and we all walked out with mixed feelings particularly about the ending. The alien-like creatures seemed more of a plot device than anything else. But then someone made a suggestion that maybe they weren't aliens but super advanced AI mechas. Mechas that had evolved (if you can call it evolution) beyond humanity and survived. It would explain a great deal if you take it from that perspective. Their curiousity becomes more genuine. The way they act and look, which is remarkably human-like, makes more sense (Ok so almost every alien created is human like, but that's just because we humans are so full of ourselves). They even sort of look like advanced mechas with what appear to be circuitry in their bodies, plus there ability to access David's memory and even power him back up would be much more easily acceptable if they were indeed advanced mecha. Just my $.02
Modern day planes are huge polluters and loud ta boot. If you had a scramjet passenger glider it could take off with a regular turbine based engine or a scramjet (my understanding of the system is a bit limited). Powering itself with the oxygen it captures along the way. Should anything go wrong with the engines then it would just glide down like the space shuttle does. Of course it could also do a powered landing, but a glide in landing would be extremely quiet. And without very much fuel needed the weight would be a great deal less. Which you could either offset by carrying more (talk about round the world flight), use that displaced weight for better (and often heavier) materials that the plane could be made of, or carry more passengers.
There are possible downsides and I'm not sure if its doable. But wouldn't it be great if it was? The noise problem wouldn't exist and more airports could be built.
Just my two cents
As for regular consumers well again it is just a really bad assumption to make. I will grant that some people do use computers for illegal distribution and copying (though there is a major grey area), but that should not mean the rest of the legitimate users should be punished.
Sorry if this sounds so obvious, but it really is. I mean doesn't innocent until proven guilty mean anything to these people? And further more, where do they get off thinking that they have the power to ask the government to create such a tax? Oh yeah I forgot, they have lots of money and thats all that matters. I'm starting to lose faith in humanity (well government and business anyways) and yes at one time I did believe it could be better then this. I still think it can.
If this stuff pisses you off then make sure you let your representatives know and support groups like the EFF. Believe it or not, democracies are still the power of the people, sometimes it just takes a lot of us to make changes.
TraceProgram
Now the next item on your list should be a receiver/decoder/pre-amp/amp. With literally thousands of setups to choose from this can be difficult. Someone mentioned audioreview.com and I second that. It really is a great site for info. As for the setup I would recommend going just with a receiver for starters. Later on down the road when you become a more experienced audiophile you'll want to look at some amps and pre-amps.
For the receiver I'd recommend either Harmon Kardon or Onkyo. Both are consistently the top of their class. For the Harmon Kardon I'd recommend the AVR-510 or the for the Onkyo the TX-DS676. Both are in about the same price range at soundpros.com. All told that'll set you back about $700, but its more then worth it. A good receiver will make a big difference when it comes to how things sound. Also don't let the small watt per speaker number scare you. These receivers will push out more sound and cleaner sound (very high signal to noise of 95db) then a cheaper higher wattage receiver.
The next things to consider are the speakers. For these you will need two fronts, two surrounds, a center and a power sub-woofer. Done right, you can get all of the speakers for under $600. To do that I recommend you shop at Ubid.com. Ubid is a bag of mixed blessings. But for speakers it is almost always a gold mine.
At Ubid I'd recommend that you look at the Wharfedale speakers. They are not very well known outside of Great Britain, but their quality is simply beautiful. I suggest the MFM-7's or Opal100's for your fronts. I've sampled both and the imaging is spectacular, especially the MFM-7's (which I own a pair of). The price you can expect to get a pair of either for is in the range of 110 to 140 each (total of 220 to 280), plus shipping. Next I suggest the Wharfedale Diamond 7.1's or the Opal 30's for your surrounds. Their price and quality are a perfect match for their purpose. They can be expected to go for between $50 and $100 a pair respectively. For the center I recommend the Opal center or the Wharfedale center. Either can be snagged for about $100 (with shipping). The reason I suggest all Wharfedale speakers is because it is usually best to have matching speaker brands in order to maintain sound matching across the speakers. For the final piece, the sub-woofer, there are a number of options available to you. Sub-woofers don't necessarily need to be sonically matched like the speakers. Instead you'll want a sub that lets you feel the explosions and action on the screen. For that I suggest you get a JBL PB10, about $250 at soundpros.com. That'll give you 150 watts of ground thumping goodness. I suggest only the 10inch because there are some nifty techniques you can use for "enhancing" the bass effect.
All together this will run you about $700, with whatever is left over for speaker-wire (at least 12 gauge). Put this all together and pop in a DVD with the THX sound check and listen as the bliss that is surround sound destroys your hearing J. As for the trick with the sub-woofer, make sure you place the sub against a corner, or under something thick and heavy (like an oak desk or something). The effect will amplify the sound by at least 10 to 20 db (no joke).
Well I hope this all helps you guys out. Make sure you read everything you can before buying and check out the home theater sites around the net. There is a lot of info out there and a lot of people that can help you find just what you need. Oh, and enjoy your system!
TraceProgram
Its also a model companies like those that belong to the RIAA, computer hardware/software, and mre should consider. Open-sourcing leads potentially greater returns at smaller risk, by spreading the development out to hundreds or thousands of people. I mention RIAA, because they could so have easily joined the on-line mp3 movement and easily grabbed massive influence. When companies choose to innovate we all win, thanks for a great start Netpliance! I hope your efforts succeed and the marketplace rewards you.
For starters, as far as I can tell, Napster has yet to make a single cent from all this. Last I checked, which was before my University banned Napster, there were no ads anywhere. And even if there were they sure as hell wouldn't make any money for the Napster team. So don't go shouting from the hills that this is hypocracy! Offspring on the otherhand was making money off their endeavour. Big, big difference. Remember people Napster was designed as a file sharing program for mp3s. Legal or illegal the program doesn't care.
I don't give a shit if you think that it was for piracy or whatever. Until the author of the program says yes it was for piracy, all you have are simple assumptions. And making those kinds of statements is dangerous thing, tantamount to libel even! This latest little twist is only fuel for the media fire. Something we don't need, it only ends up helping to fuel the ignorence of society. Its bad enough that Napster has been labeled as a tool of piracy (well okay it is a bandwidth pirate). It is unfortuantly a connection general society will always associate. In the end this only further hurts the free market of innovation.
Groups like the RIAA, MPAA, and businesses like Mattell (with its cyberpatrol and constant copyright battles) only work to stifle innovation in the free market by closing down anything that doesn't follow their way of thinking. Sadly it is something that progress always seems to have to fight through. This whole thing isn't about whether some kid at some college is downloading a song that he/she doesn't own. Its about keeping with the old way of doing things, and controlling them.
I'll leave you some interesting tidbits before I post. The RIAA claims to be losing money due to Napster. In an article in CNet it talks about the lose of sales around college campuses. However the loses start before Napster was introduced and when compared to National sales is really irrelivent. National sales continue to raise about 20 percent, while most college areas only experienced a 4 percent drop over two years. But this can be explained mostly with online sales (which college students are more likely to do), and the introduction of cheap CD Burners.
[ sarcasm ]Hmm, maybe we should go after the CD Burner manufacturers next, they were obviously made to pirate music and software. Oh and while we are at it lets ban Hotline Software, IRC, umm FTP, and well hell, just about any digital medium for its ability to make perfect digital copies. [ /sarcasm ]
Seriously, if you listen long enough to both sides neither speaks a whole lot of truth. But I can sure as hell tell you whose gonna lie more to get what they want. The ones that have the greatest perceived loss and they can be summed up with four letters, MIAA.
Rant done,
Josh
"we can expect to see the record companies purchase new laws...". This whole thing (open source vs. sell-your-soul source) is looking to become the next revolution. Personally I can't wait, we need something to shake things up. Society needs a fundamental shift in its view of things. Only a true revolution can bring that about. It goes along with what Stallman is saying about morals as well. They are defined by the society in which they are constructed (whoa I think that was circular logic there). Our generation (Generation Net or Generation /.) sees software and digital media in a completely different light. Open source seems, IMHO, to be a positive step in the right direction. It's just gonna be scary, for some people, accepting that as the new way of looking at things. That whole fear of the unknown thing.
Report 1
Of course another report says that "up to 60% of campus traffic" was caused by Napster.
Report 2
I'm not sure which one I should believe, and after reading through the letter sent out to all the students telling them of the ban I got the feeling that bandwidth wasn't really the issue, but more of a nice scapegoat. The whole issue reeked of our General Council office and it smelled like they were afraid of being sued by the RIAA.
Of course life hasn't changed much since the ban. People just switched to different programs like iMesh or Spinfrenzy. Or they just went out and found a proxy server to run through. So far no one has been "busted" for using Napster even though I know of a number of people that still use it. All in all it does seem like information on the Net does want to be free. The old guard continues to fight to keep the old ways in place, and the younger generation keeps fighting to make changes. Sounds strangely familiar, like this has happened before. Just over different issues.