Weighing in at 342kb, Coolplayer is an absolutely killer MP3/OGG/CD player. It supports streams, playlists, skins, and embeds absolutely no cruft in the windows registry. It's just one executable file, and it sounds much better than WinAmp. The only problem that I can see is that because it comes with no install file, or much documentation, people (newbies especially) are often be thrown off by how simple it is to use.
*Recap* - 342kb of low resource, low cruft programming. - support for MP3, Ogg, their respective streams, and CDaudio - Better sound than WinAmp - Dead easy to use - GNU General Public License
Download your copy at http://coolplayer.sourceforge.net/
As long as the cows aren't eating coal, petroleum or natural gas from a well, the carbon in their manure came from plant sources. Plants get thier carbon from the air. It's a zero-sum game. The big idea behind the problem with CO2 release is all the people releasing the carbon that was locked away deep underground as limestone (to make concrete) or fossil fuels.
Additionally, methane is much less stable than CO2 in the atmosphere. I forget the pricise figures, but I think the residence time for your average methane molecule is 1-2 years. Depending on your ocean uptake numbers, CO2 residence is in the 100's of years.
I don't know where you live, but here on the east coast, a very typical forecast in the summer is hot, muggy and partly cloudy with a chance of thunderstorms in the late afternoon. The reason? Hot air makes rain happen.
As you correctly said, as air warms, it rises. Now, if you've ever taken chemistry, you might remember Boyle's Law of Gases that relates temperature, pressure and volume of a gas. If you lower the pressure of a gas, the gas expands, and the temperature falls. As that warm, moist air rises, atmospheric pressure falls, and the air cools. Because cooler air holds less water, moisture will condense, forming cumulus clouds. Because condensing water vapor releases a good bit of heat, that air can keep rising, building clouds higher. Rain can happen when heavy drops of water fall through those clouds absorbing other droplets until they are big enough to fall to the ground without reevaporating. But don't take my word for it. USAToday will explain it with pretty color pictures. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/basics/wworks0.htm
Ok, here is a rather short-lived tip. You can get a very excellent 19" Samsung 955DF CRT for $255 shipped at newegg.com. Buy it *before June 29* and you can get a $50 rebate from Samsung. You're getting a very decent 19" monitor for $205. Look at reviews of this specific model at http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1612 or http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004Z 9FF/ 102-1344675-1690525
Get the rebate coupon at http://www.samsungusa.com/pdf/170mp_promo.pdf
You might try the Nvidia reference drivers on their website. They're usually much newer than the manufacturer drivers, and I've never had a problem with them working. If you bought a bargain Nvidia card, it's very likely that the manufacurer didn't very all that much from the Nvidia reference design at all.
I would disagree. To predict the climate effectively, you need to know the extent of all the feedack mechanisms. For instance, clouds. Low levels clouds have a warming effect, because they help reflect infrared radiation back to the earth. High level clouds have a net cooling effect, by shading the earth from incoming radiation. Or there is the Ice-albedo effect. As the Earth warms, ice melts. Ice is more refelctive than bare earth or vegetation, so the earth warms even more. Or what about water vapor? As the Earth warms, the air can hold more water vapor. Water vapor is a greehouse gas, so that woud accelerate the warming effect.
The point is that there are lots of feedback effects that need ot be modeled to predict climate accurately, and the modeling of those feedbacks is dependant on the understanding of how much those feedbacks will force the climate towards warming or cooling. Consider all the feedbacks, and all the permutations of the values of those feedbacks and you have a VERY complex system.
"What I mean is, how do they know if they did a good job?"
Notice that the dates being simulated are 1950-2050. We have historical data for 1950 to the present. One of the big accepted checks for a climate model is to run a period for which you have historic data from the same initial conditions and check to see if you end up with similar answers to reality. Pretty simple, in theory. The real problem is that the cell size is just enormous. Do you have any idea what sorts of ocean current and landscape variables are contained in a 3.75x2.25 degree square? To get better results, you need small cell size and very detailed modeling of feedbacks. However, the shear range of permutations that can be attempted with a seti@home size user base is useful in and of itself.
"The low yield of energy from burning hydrogen compared to gas, however, means that vast quantities of rock would have to be mined."
Any petroleum geologist would tell you that there is oodles of available oil in the ground, but it is unprofitable to recover it. That is, it cost more to get it than it would be worth on the market. Obviously, the same economies would apply to recovering the hydrogen trapped in the rock. The profits have to be available to make the business work
Also, the article says:
"Energy specialists estimate that oil production will start to decline within the next 10 to 15 years, as the economically viable reserves start to run out."
The key word here is "economically viable". Think for a moment, what would happen if oil supplies started running low because of a lack of profitable reserves? Demand for oil is pretty inelastic (not dependant on price), so the price would almost assuredly go up, just as when supplies are cut short for other reasons, like an OPEC quota. As the price of oil goes up, reserves that cost more to extract will now be profitable. We'll still have oil, but it will just be more expensive.
This is why the estimates for the amount of recoverable petroleum reserve are SO varied. When you hear doomsday predictions of running out of oil supply, remember these effects of supply and demand on price and profitability.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the rising CO2 levels at all, and I don't think fossil fuels are a sustainable energy source. I just think that clear-eyed skepticism is more productive than knee-jerk idealism.
It depends on how you look at it. Phytoplankton can only grow at the very upper depths of the ocean, where there is light. They also are limited by the levels of phosphorus and nitrogen and other nutrients. Furthermore, they do not live very densely. Because forests can grow plants taller and with more density, they photosynthesize more per M^2.
The biosphere has a limited capacity for uptake of CO2. If you take a vacant lot and plant trees there, you will have CO2 sink. However, decomposing vegetation is a CO2 source. At some point in that forest's lifecycle, you will have a steady state where CO2 uptake from new plants will be equal to the CO2 sources from decomposition. This is why the plan to use tree planting as a credit in a future CO2 trading scheme is controversial. More science needs to be done to figure out the CO2 fluxes for ecosystems to fairly judge the credit earned for planting trees. The value of tree planting credits is a controversial issue.
I don't think that they have fixed it. You'e talking about a DFI board, aren't you? I have a p5bv3+ wich is extremely similar to the k6bv3+, and it refuses to deal correctly with most of my ATAPI CD-Roms. However, the drives work just fine with installing and use on my Athlon MB, an Epox 8kta3.
I also have the problem on an old Micron computer with a p133. You might try flashing the BIOS for the MB, but the last BIOS from DFI for my board was put out about 15 months ago. Somehow, I don't think they're going to come out with a new one anytime soon. It still did not fix the problem, even though the changelog makes tantalizing references to fixing the CD-ROM transfer of very large files, and unspecified "Linux 6.0"[sic] problems. I'm guessing that they're referring to Redhat 6.0. I AM able to install the distro on the computer, but I have to use my Yahmaha CD-RW.
It connects with a different protocol, so i'm guessing that that's what the problem is. All other CD drives work just dandy with other distros like Redhat, and Debian, but I like Mandrake, and so I put up with not having a CD-drive in the machine.
So, to sum up, DL and flash the new BIOS, try other CD drives, stick with LM7.1, or switch to another Distro. Or maybe, just maybe, we can band together with some other people that have similar problems and bug them to fix the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Weighing in at 342kb, Coolplayer is an absolutely killer MP3/OGG/CD player. It supports streams, playlists, skins, and embeds absolutely no cruft in the windows registry. It's just one executable file, and it sounds much better than WinAmp. The only problem that I can see is that because it comes with no install file, or much documentation, people (newbies especially) are often be thrown off by how simple it is to use.
*Recap*
- 342kb of low resource, low cruft programming.
- support for MP3, Ogg, their respective streams, and CDaudio
- Better sound than WinAmp
- Dead easy to use
- GNU General Public License
Download your copy at http://coolplayer.sourceforge.net/
As long as the cows aren't eating coal, petroleum or natural gas from a well, the carbon in their manure came from plant sources. Plants get thier carbon from the air. It's a zero-sum game. The big idea behind the problem with CO2 release is all the people releasing the carbon that was locked away deep underground as limestone (to make concrete) or fossil fuels.
Additionally, methane is much less stable than CO2 in the atmosphere. I forget the pricise figures, but I think the residence time for your average methane molecule is 1-2 years. Depending on your ocean uptake numbers, CO2 residence is in the 100's of years.
I don't know where you live, but here on the east coast, a very typical forecast in the summer is hot, muggy and partly cloudy with a chance of thunderstorms in the late afternoon. The reason? Hot air makes rain happen.
m
As you correctly said, as air warms, it rises. Now, if you've ever taken chemistry, you might remember Boyle's Law of Gases that relates temperature, pressure and volume of a gas. If you lower the pressure of a gas, the gas expands, and the temperature falls. As that warm, moist air rises, atmospheric pressure falls, and the air cools. Because cooler air holds less water, moisture will condense, forming cumulus clouds. Because condensing water vapor releases a good bit of heat, that air can keep rising, building clouds higher. Rain can happen when heavy drops of water fall through those clouds absorbing other droplets until they are big enough to fall to the ground without reevaporating. But don't take my word for it. USAToday will explain it with pretty color pictures. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/basics/wworks0.ht
Ok, here is a rather short-lived tip. You can get a very excellent 19" Samsung 955DF CRT for $255 shipped at newegg.com. Buy it *before June 29* and you can get a $50 rebate from Samsung. You're getting a very decent 19" monitor for $205.
orZ 9FF/ 102-1344675-1690525
Look at reviews of this specific model at
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1612
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004
Get the rebate coupon at
http://www.samsungusa.com/pdf/170mp_promo.pdf
You might try the Nvidia reference drivers on their website. They're usually much newer than the manufacturer drivers, and I've never had a problem with them working. If you bought a bargain Nvidia card, it's very likely that the manufacurer didn't very all that much from the Nvidia reference design at all.
I would disagree. To predict the climate effectively, you need to know the extent of all the feedack mechanisms. For instance, clouds. Low levels clouds have a warming effect, because they help reflect infrared radiation back to the earth. High level clouds have a net cooling effect, by shading the earth from incoming radiation. Or there is the Ice-albedo effect. As the Earth warms, ice melts. Ice is more refelctive than bare earth or vegetation, so the earth warms even more. Or what about water vapor? As the Earth warms, the air can hold more water vapor. Water vapor is a greehouse gas, so that woud accelerate the warming effect.
The point is that there are lots of feedback effects that need ot be modeled to predict climate accurately, and the modeling of those feedbacks is dependant on the understanding of how much those feedbacks will force the climate towards warming or cooling. Consider all the feedbacks, and all the permutations of the values of those feedbacks and you have a VERY complex system.
"What I mean is, how do they know if they did a good job?"
Notice that the dates being simulated are 1950-2050. We have historical data for 1950 to the present. One of the big accepted checks for a climate model is to run a period for which you have historic data from the same initial conditions and check to see if you end up with similar answers to reality. Pretty simple, in theory. The real problem is that the cell size is just enormous. Do you have any idea what sorts of ocean current and landscape variables are contained in a 3.75x2.25 degree square? To get better results, you need small cell size and very detailed modeling of feedbacks. However, the shear range of permutations that can be attempted with a seti@home size user base is useful in and of itself.
The original article says:
"The low yield of energy from burning hydrogen compared to gas, however, means that vast quantities of rock would have to be mined."
Any petroleum geologist would tell you that there is oodles of available oil in the ground, but it is unprofitable to recover it. That is, it cost more to get it than it would be worth on the market. Obviously, the same economies would apply to recovering the hydrogen trapped in the rock. The profits have to be available to make the business work
Also, the article says:
"Energy specialists estimate that oil production will start to decline within the next 10 to 15 years, as the economically viable reserves start to run out."
The key word here is "economically viable". Think for a moment, what would happen if oil supplies started running low because of a lack of profitable reserves? Demand for oil is pretty inelastic (not dependant on price), so the price would almost assuredly go up, just as when supplies are cut short for other reasons, like an OPEC quota. As the price of oil goes up, reserves that cost more to extract will now be profitable. We'll still have oil, but it will just be more expensive.
This is why the estimates for the amount of recoverable petroleum reserve are SO varied. When you hear doomsday predictions of running out of oil supply, remember these effects of supply and demand on price and profitability.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the rising CO2 levels at all, and I don't think fossil fuels are a sustainable energy source. I just think that clear-eyed skepticism is more productive than knee-jerk idealism.
It depends on how you look at it. Phytoplankton can only grow at the very upper depths of the ocean, where there is light. They also are limited by the levels of phosphorus and nitrogen and other nutrients. Furthermore, they do not live very densely. Because forests can grow plants taller and with more density, they photosynthesize more per M^2.
The biosphere has a limited capacity for uptake of CO2. If you take a vacant lot and plant trees there, you will have CO2 sink. However, decomposing vegetation is a CO2 source. At some point in that forest's lifecycle, you will have a steady state where CO2 uptake from new plants will be equal to the CO2 sources from decomposition. This is why the plan to use tree planting as a credit in a future CO2 trading scheme is controversial. More science needs to be done to figure out the CO2 fluxes for ecosystems to fairly judge the credit earned for planting trees. The value of tree planting credits is a controversial issue.
I don't think that they have fixed it. You'e talking about a DFI board, aren't you? I have a p5bv3+ wich is extremely similar to the k6bv3+, and it refuses to deal correctly with most of my ATAPI CD-Roms. However, the drives work just fine with installing and use on my Athlon MB, an Epox 8kta3.
I also have the problem on an old Micron computer with a p133. You might try flashing the BIOS for the MB, but the last BIOS from DFI for my board was put out about 15 months ago. Somehow, I don't think they're going to come out with a new one anytime soon. It still did not fix the problem, even though the changelog makes tantalizing references to fixing the CD-ROM transfer of very large files, and unspecified "Linux 6.0"[sic] problems. I'm guessing that they're referring to Redhat 6.0. I AM able to install the distro on the computer, but I have to use my Yahmaha CD-RW.
It connects with a different protocol, so i'm guessing that that's what the problem is. All other CD drives work just dandy with other distros like Redhat, and Debian, but I like Mandrake, and so I put up with not having a CD-drive in the machine.
So, to sum up, DL and flash the new BIOS, try other CD drives, stick with LM7.1, or switch to another Distro. Or maybe, just maybe, we can band together with some other people that have similar problems and bug them to fix the issue.