Where can I get this Zero point energy? What breakfast cereal must I buy to get it as a toy surprise?
Yes of course it's a storage medium. All you need is solar energy to produce biodiesel. I'm just saying that biodiesel is a better storage medium than hydrogen and it doesn't require developing an entirely new industry to do it. It can be ramped up on a large scale much faster than hydrogen without developing new technologies just minor changes to existing ones. You can buy a car out of a showroom today and run biodiesel in it without modification. Try that with hydrogen.
1) Plants aren't that efficient at turning sunlight into energy. They don't really need to be for their purposes, and they ignore certain wavelengths (such as green) altogether.
Your point being?
2) Once you have the plant, you need to turn it into diesel. Again, this is highly inefficient.
As opposed to what?
3) Once you have diesel, you must turn it into energy. Combustion engines are less efficient than fuel cells or power plant turbines.
Again what's your point? The most efficient engine is a Sterling engine, but not very practical. Diesel engines are far more efficient than gasoline engines. I could say that current braking technology is very inefficient. It recovers none of the energy used to put the car in motion. Though the Prius uses generators to recapture some of it. And there are flywheel technologies available but again not practical for cars.
Consider how much land we use for farming. Then consider how much more energy our cars use than we do.
I've considered it, but I still don't understand what you are driving at. Consider how much petroleum we use for farming to feed us. Algae has the most potential for producing biodiesel. It can produce 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre of oil. And it can be produced with waste or salt water on what would otherwise be unviable land. Ultimately we as a society will have to fundamentally change the way we live. We can improve the efficiency of vehicles up to a certain point and reduce their impact on the environment, but their is going to be a limit on the number of roads and vehicles the US or the entire Earth can support.
Hydrogen is a storage medium. It takes energy to produce it. What are they going to use? Nuclear, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, oil, or coal? Biodiesel is the way to go. The whole point of alternative fuels is to 1) to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and 2) to reduce our impact on the environment.
$500 a month rental wouldn't be bad if they took care of all the maintainence. It would even be better if that included the hydrogen fuel.
It's not real news. NBC Nightly News is a newslike substitute in much the same way that textured vegetable protein is a meatlike substitute. Fox News on the other hand is like dog vomit and it's viewers are like the dog who eats it. CBS News went downhill after Walter Cronkite left. ABC News was only worth watching late at night with Ted Koppel. You could stare at him for hours wondering whether or not that was his real hair.
And CNN has the hottest infobabes. Who cares if whether its real news or not? I wish CNN would bring Rudi Bakhtiar back. At least they still have Robin Meade, Soledad O'Brien, Erica Hill, Sophie Choi, Susan Hendricks, and Arthel Neville, to name a few. CNN definitely got the better end of the deal when they traded Greta van Susteran for Paula Zahn.
"Internet Killed the Newspaper" doesn't have quite the same ring as "Video Killed the Radio Star." Of course newspaper will always have one advantage the Internet does not. You can always wipe your ass with it when you run out of toilet paper. Try that with a monitor.
It's good to know that Oracle is releasing a free version that is as user friendly as it's CEO Larry Ellison, that has a profile as slim as a supertanker, and that it has a learning curve as gentle as the St. Louis arch. I'm reminded of an old Gaelic proverb:
Ge milis a' mhil, cò dh'imlicheadh o bhàrr dri i?
"Honey may be sweet, but who would lick it from the top of a briar?"
There are no stupid headlines. Only stupid people. For example: Can iTunes ressurect old time TV?", "How many times should we pay for our software?" "No Porn for You, iPod" Oh, wait there are stupid headlines. Never mind.
How can you tell? It's a radio show. I'm a fan of Rush. I loved those Clinton parodies.
I forgot you liberal tards have no respect.
You have proved my point about being thin skinned. As Mr. Cheney would say "Go <expletive deleted> yerself." I'm not a liberal, nor for that matter I am not a conservative, fascist, socialist, communist, objectivist nor a libertarian. There is some debate, however, as to whether I'm retarded.
Here is the standalone version of the site Weekly Radio Address. Not once during the Clinton administration did they send a cease and desist letter to the parodies aired on the Rush Limbaugh show. Looks like The Onion isn't the only thing that's
thin skinned.
I read the other replies and they don't get it. But it's even more basic than that, remember the last line of Feynman's comments:
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
So the question remains: Has NASA learned their lesson? Ignoring Columbia for a moment, did they learn their lessons after Challenger? Oh, wait, you can't ignore Columbia.
Feynman said the main engines were built top down as opposed to the tried and true way of bottom up. You build a component and test it thoroughly, then you combine the components. The system is easier to maintain, isolate problems and fix them. Feynman goes on to say:
A further disadvantage of the top-down method is that, if an
understanding of a fault is obtained, a simple fix, such as a new
shape for the turbine housing, may be impossible to implement without
a redesign of the entire engine.
It's true nature cannot be fooled, but human nature can. NASA has a very tough haul in front of them. I'll reserve my judgement on Apollo-on-Steroids. I'm afraid I'm going end up disappointed just like when VW introduced the New Beetle. It just wasn't the same car.
Is it really a good idea to hook sick people up with sick people? I can imagine how it might go:
*[sick_person] enters the chatroom.*
*[chatter] enters the chatroom.* sick person: Hi, I have three months to live. chatter: What are you wearing? sick_person: I'm wearing a hospital gown. chatter: Is it open at the front or the back? sick_person: Huh? The back. ...
Surely you jest. Java was supposed to be our saviour. Our killer app. At the very least, our Microsoft killer. It was supposed to lead us to the promised land of write once, run everywhere. It was supposed to be fast. Now this upstart, PHP (Putting the Hype back in Programming), comes along and succeeds where Java has failed?
Of course, no slashdot discussion would be complete without the obligatory Ruby evangelists chiming in with their posts. I haven't seen that sort of zeal since the disappearance of the undead Amiga fans. They want to railroad us into using Ruby.
I'm still a big fan of Perl, but for web work, PHP gets the job done for me. I'm looking into Python which seems to be easy enough to learn, but it's spawned that beast Zope which takes a long time to tame if I want to do any serious web work with.
Java, PHP, Ruby, Python, Perl, VB, C#, and ASP all have their supporters. And other than saying what I think, programmers trying to persuade other programmers what language to use is a waste of time. If you think I'm being a troll. This whole
fucking storyIS a troll. We all have different learning styles. We have to use our judgement on what programming tool is going to work best for us. For some people it's the Microsoft paradigm, for others it's the Java paradigm, and for those of us who want to get work done it's the C++, PHP, Perl, and Python paradigms.
As they spiral in, one of the ISS crew locks himself in the engine room. The other crew cut through the bulkheads in time but in order to keep from crashing into the planet they have do a cold restart of the warp engines. This of course will launch them back in time. Oh wait! That's a Star Trek episode I watched. Never mind.
the outcome will suffer because the underlying architecture is off limits
So what? This shouldn't be a problem. In fact it should be a good thing.
Is he still in the last century? Hasn't he heard of webstandards? A good website will have have content separated from presentation. I don't know if slashdot has that kind of separation, but it should. Anyway take a look at CSS Zen Garden for examples.
I do hope Ruby overtakes that blastedly inconsistent language known as Perl.
Them's fightin' words, sorta. That blasted inconsistentcy is why I love Perl. It's the Swiss Army Chainsaw of programming languages.
Smalltalk!?! **choke** **gasp** **coke-coming-out-my-noise** It burnses! It burnses! Make it stop! I had to learn Objective-C (for WebObjects) which is a close to Smalltalk as I want to get. OK I'll take smalltalk over Java any day. Perl will always be the first programming language I fell in love with, though I'm pretty productive in PHP. I am not enamoured of any PHP based CMS. The PHP CMS community is seriously fragmented. I'm leaning towards Python/Zope/Plone paradigm. And yes, Ruby/Amiga comparison is valid. It engenders the same doomed devotion as the Amiga did.
Is it me, or does Ruby seem to be the Amiga of programming languages? It's cool. It's powerful. And no one cares. Oh and it's bound to be just as successful.
Slashdot Mirror
Aisle drink to that.
Where can I get this Zero point energy? What breakfast cereal must I buy to get it as a toy surprise?
Yes of course it's a storage medium. All you need is solar energy to produce biodiesel. I'm just saying that biodiesel is a better storage medium than hydrogen and it doesn't require developing an entirely new industry to do it. It can be ramped up on a large scale much faster than hydrogen without developing new technologies just minor changes to existing ones. You can buy a car out of a showroom today and run biodiesel in it without modification. Try that with hydrogen.
1) Plants aren't that efficient at turning sunlight into energy. They don't really need to be for their purposes, and they ignore certain wavelengths (such as green) altogether.
Your point being?
2) Once you have the plant, you need to turn it into diesel. Again, this is highly inefficient.
As opposed to what?
3) Once you have diesel, you must turn it into energy. Combustion engines are less efficient than fuel cells or power plant turbines.
Again what's your point? The most efficient engine is a Sterling engine, but not very practical. Diesel engines are far more efficient than gasoline engines. I could say that current braking technology is very inefficient. It recovers none of the energy used to put the car in motion. Though the Prius uses generators to recapture some of it. And there are flywheel technologies available but again not practical for cars.
Consider how much land we use for farming. Then consider how much more energy our cars use than we do.
I've considered it, but I still don't understand what you are driving at. Consider how much petroleum we use for farming to feed us. Algae has the most potential for producing biodiesel. It can produce 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre of oil. And it can be produced with waste or salt water on what would otherwise be unviable land. Ultimately we as a society will have to fundamentally change the way we live. We can improve the efficiency of vehicles up to a certain point and reduce their impact on the environment, but their is going to be a limit on the number of roads and vehicles the US or the entire Earth can support.
Hydrogen is a storage medium. It takes energy to produce it. What are they going to use? Nuclear, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, oil, or coal? Biodiesel is the way to go. The whole point of alternative fuels is to 1) to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and 2) to reduce our impact on the environment.
$500 a month rental wouldn't be bad if they took care of all the maintainence. It would even be better if that included the hydrogen fuel.
It's not real news. NBC Nightly News is a newslike substitute in much the same way that textured vegetable protein is a meatlike substitute. Fox News on the other hand is like dog vomit and it's viewers are like the dog who eats it. CBS News went downhill after Walter Cronkite left. ABC News was only worth watching late at night with Ted Koppel. You could stare at him for hours wondering whether or not that was his real hair.
And CNN has the hottest infobabes. Who cares if whether its real news or not? I wish CNN would bring Rudi Bakhtiar back. At least they still have Robin Meade, Soledad O'Brien, Erica Hill, Sophie Choi, Susan Hendricks, and Arthel Neville, to name a few. CNN definitely got the better end of the deal when they traded Greta van Susteran for Paula Zahn.
It's been consistently demonstrated that reducing infant mortality is the first step to reducing fertility rates and thus stabilizing population
Raising the standard of living goes even further in that direction.
"Internet Killed the Newspaper" doesn't have quite the same ring as "Video Killed the Radio Star." Of course newspaper will always have one advantage the Internet does not. You can always wipe your ass with it when you run out of toilet paper. Try that with a monitor.
It's good to know that Oracle is releasing a free version that is as user friendly as it's CEO Larry Ellison, that has a profile as slim as a supertanker, and that it has a learning curve as gentle as the St. Louis arch. I'm reminded of an old Gaelic proverb:
Ge milis a' mhil, cò dh'imlicheadh o bhàrr dri i?
"Honey may be sweet, but who would lick it from the top of a briar?"
...this isn't some Male Fantasy?
There are no stupid headlines. Only stupid people. For example: Can iTunes ressurect old time TV?", "How many times should we pay for our software?" "No Porn for You, iPod" Oh, wait there are stupid headlines. Never mind.
You mean these iPorn adverts aren't real? iPorn Portable HDD iPod/iPorn. Boy, that'll disappoint a lot of slashdotters.
And with that circumcision you can enlarge your testicles with Neuticles and save 50%.
Patient: "I'll still be able to father children, won't I?"
Dr. Vas Deferens: "As far as you know."
Patient: Doctor, is that an iPod in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
--Or--
Nurse: Doctor, is that an iPod Nano in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
--Or--
Doctor: Nurse, you want to see my iPod Shuffle?
Standford? Berkly? I don't get it. What's so funny? And here I just learnt how to spell Lebalebanon correctly.
Rush modified or changed the Seal,
How can you tell? It's a radio show. I'm a fan of Rush. I loved those Clinton parodies.
I forgot you liberal tards have no respect.
You have proved my point about being thin skinned. As Mr. Cheney would say "Go <expletive deleted> yerself." I'm not a liberal, nor for that matter I am not a conservative, fascist, socialist, communist, objectivist nor a libertarian. There is some debate, however, as to whether I'm retarded.
Here is the standalone version of the site Weekly Radio Address. Not once during the Clinton administration did they send a cease and desist letter to the parodies aired on the Rush Limbaugh show. Looks like The Onion isn't the only thing that's thin skinned.
I read the other replies and they don't get it. But it's even more basic than that, remember the last line of Feynman's comments:
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
So the question remains: Has NASA learned their lesson? Ignoring Columbia for a moment, did they learn their lessons after Challenger? Oh, wait, you can't ignore Columbia. Feynman said the main engines were built top down as opposed to the tried and true way of bottom up. You build a component and test it thoroughly, then you combine the components. The system is easier to maintain, isolate problems and fix them. Feynman goes on to say:
A further disadvantage of the top-down method is that, if an understanding of a fault is obtained, a simple fix, such as a new shape for the turbine housing, may be impossible to implement without a redesign of the entire engine.
It's true nature cannot be fooled, but human nature can. NASA has a very tough haul in front of them. I'll reserve my judgement on Apollo-on-Steroids. I'm afraid I'm going end up disappointed just like when VW introduced the New Beetle. It just wasn't the same car.
Is that a new distribution?
... when it can milk chickens. Then I'll be impressed.
Is it really a good idea to hook sick people up with sick people? I can imagine how it might go:
...
*[sick_person] enters the chatroom.*
*[chatter] enters the chatroom.*
sick person: Hi, I have three months to live.
chatter: What are you wearing?
sick_person: I'm wearing a hospital gown.
chatter: Is it open at the front or the back?
sick_person: Huh? The back.
And it's all downhill from there.
Surely you jest. Java was supposed to be our saviour. Our killer app. At the very least, our Microsoft killer. It was supposed to lead us to the promised land of write once, run everywhere. It was supposed to be fast. Now this upstart, PHP (Putting the Hype back in Programming), comes along and succeeds where Java has failed?
Of course, no slashdot discussion would be complete without the obligatory Ruby evangelists chiming in with their posts. I haven't seen that sort of zeal since the disappearance of the undead Amiga fans. They want to railroad us into using Ruby.
I'm still a big fan of Perl, but for web work, PHP gets the job done for me. I'm looking into Python which seems to be easy enough to learn, but it's spawned that beast Zope which takes a long time to tame if I want to do any serious web work with.
Java, PHP, Ruby, Python, Perl, VB, C#, and ASP all have their supporters. And other than saying what I think, programmers trying to persuade other programmers what language to use is a waste of time. If you think I'm being a troll. This whole fucking story IS a troll. We all have different learning styles. We have to use our judgement on what programming tool is going to work best for us. For some people it's the Microsoft paradigm, for others it's the Java paradigm, and for those of us who want to get work done it's the C++, PHP, Perl, and Python paradigms.
As they spiral in, one of the ISS crew locks himself in the engine room. The other crew cut through the bulkheads in time but in order to keep from crashing into the planet they have do a cold restart of the warp engines. This of course will launch them back in time. Oh wait! That's a Star Trek episode I watched. Never mind.
the outcome will suffer because the underlying architecture is off limits
So what? This shouldn't be a problem. In fact it should be a good thing. Is he still in the last century? Hasn't he heard of webstandards? A good website will have have content separated from presentation. I don't know if slashdot has that kind of separation, but it should. Anyway take a look at CSS Zen Garden for examples.
I do hope Ruby overtakes that blastedly inconsistent language known as Perl.
Them's fightin' words, sorta. That blasted inconsistentcy is why I love Perl. It's the Swiss Army Chainsaw of programming languages.
Smalltalk!?! **choke** **gasp** **coke-coming-out-my-noise** It burnses! It burnses! Make it stop! I had to learn Objective-C (for WebObjects) which is a close to Smalltalk as I want to get. OK I'll take smalltalk over Java any day. Perl will always be the first programming language I fell in love with, though I'm pretty productive in PHP. I am not enamoured of any PHP based CMS. The PHP CMS community is seriously fragmented. I'm leaning towards Python/Zope/Plone paradigm. And yes, Ruby/Amiga comparison is valid. It engenders the same doomed devotion as the Amiga did.
Is it me, or does Ruby seem to be the Amiga of programming languages? It's cool. It's powerful. And no one cares. Oh and it's bound to be just as successful.