All my ISPs appears unable to communicate with me true any other e-mail than "theirs". That is the user name I chose or they gave me "@ThatIsp.com". Now I never use it, I have 2 googles account, an old Yahoo! Account, and 3 domains I can create as many mail accounts I want (and use SpamGourmet). If you're using Gmail then get it to pick up email from your ISPs address via POP. That's what I do. Most of it is spam and is filtered as such, but if the ISP emails me I'll see it. Or just pick up yourself and spam filter it.
If you ask me it's their fault for not accepting an alternate e-mail. Well yes. There are plenty of options the ISPs could offer. The fact that they don't certainly does justify this page hijacking thing.
Methinks someone had better walk a mile in his ISP's moccasins before trying to tell that ISP how to do business. What? Every other ISP in the world manages to solve this issue without hijacking web pages they don't own. You think no one has thought of this before? Of course they have, and they've discounted it as the stupid idea that it is.
No. It's our problem (and our job) to provide good customer service with no effort or technical knowledge on the part of the user. That means being proactive even if the customer has changed computers; even if the customer has an incompatible computer; even if the customer has a broken computer. Remember, the ISP gets blamed for everything. This entire topic is a great example; it condemns an ISP for doing the right thing! This entire topic is great evidence that ISP customers do not want this.
But even then I don't think it's a good idea because it's only a matter of time before some marketing manager will decide it's a really good idea to use the same mechanism for advertising.
Hey, I guess that ISPs should block all P2P then. After all, some thief will decide it's a really good idea to use it to pirate music and movies, and start using the same mechanism for stealing.
There is a set mechanism: email. And if that's not sufficient they could easily write a little app to provided notification that could be run by users who are worried about exceeding their limit. There is no need for what they are doing.
As an ISP, I can tell you that there is no "set" or sure way of contacting a customer quickly. Customers frequently change their e-mail addresses due to spam. You can call, but this is expensive and intrusive. Users often change their numbers (especially cell phone numbers). And what if the user is about to exceed his or her download limit at 3 AM? Should you call and risk waking the household? Should you wait until the next morning and tell the user after the fact (which might cause him or her to claim that more notice should have been given)?
Many ISP's provide email. This in the obvious way to contact your customers. You don't need care about what email addresses your customers are currently using because you can always use the one you gave them. My ISP sends me an email when I hit 80% and again when I hit 100%. If I choose to ignore those emails (or the whole account) that's my business and problem. I certainly wouldn't want a call from my ISP over an exceeded limit at any time of the day or night.
We've tried a custom application, but people didn't load it because they feared viruses. Or were running a platform that couldn't run it. Or deleted it by mistake. We even tried the Windows Message Service; it worked only until pop-up spammers started abusing it. If customers don't want to run tools to tell them when they are about to exceed their limit that's their problem. You don't need to go to heroic lengths to make sure people are notified, you only need to give them reasonable options they can choose from: an app, an email, a webpage they can monitor, an RSS feed, a phone line they can call.
Frankly, putting a banner at the top of Web pages is a really good, customer-friendly idea. No, it's intrusive, it's a slippery slope to really unethical behavior, and it's possibly illegal (for the copyright infringement reason). If you want to notify your customers via web pages then use your own page, don't hijack other peoples' pages. If you absolutely must do this page hijacking then at make it clear that you're doing it and give people a way of switching it off. But even then I don't think it's a good idea because it's only a matter of time before some marketing manager will decide it's a really good idea to use the same mechanism for advertising.
It seems that the customer would be less unhappy about a warning that he is about to reach a bandwidth cap, page modifications and all, than just get a thousand dollar bill out of the blue. There is no set mechanism for the ISP to communicate with the customer over Internet, so creating one might be justifiable in this case. There is a set mechanism: email. And if that's not sufficient they could easily write a little app to provided notification that could be run by users who are worried about exceeding their limit. There is no need for what they are doing. In fact what they are doing is probably copyright infringement: they are creating and distributing a derived work (the modified page) without the author's permission.
They're not going to start launching during thunderstorms. But having a system that protects the vehicle for the days leading up to the launch is certainly worthwhile. Actually the Shuttle launch facilities already have lightning protection, this story is just the new system they will be using for Ares launches. The system is already in place at LC-40 and LC-41 where is very obvious.
Everyone knows what spam is, but it's economical because there are idiots out there who ignore the warnings and buy the crap anyway. So it seems that the only ways to make spam uneconomical is to either remove idiots from the Internet (Internet Utopia here we come!), or stop the spam from getting to them. Make it illegal and fine the people who profit from it.
DEEP GEOTHERMAL DRILLING ON THE REYKJANES RIDGE... By the way this paper is talking about the Icelandic Deep Drilling Project. The plant they are proposing would essentially be a conventional type of plant (taking superheated fluid from the ground as a power source), but with a deeper than normal bore. So it's a new type of plant, a type that is not currently in use anywhere. And the IDDP project has not started - it is still just a proposal.
Doesn't say they drilled into magma. Does say that an eruption occurred when magma broke into a bore. That resulted in the best parts of the drillfield becoming inoperable for 10-15 years. Obviously no one wants magma venting through their bores and so no one drills into magma.
In this magma layer, water collects in columns or reserves. This trapped water, which can be heated to temperatures of about 700 degrees Fahrenheit, is known as a geothermal reservoir. When engineers want to use geothermal energy, they "tap" in to this geothermal water and use the resulting hot water and steam for various purposes.
That's obviously factually inaccurate as magma is at least 700 degrees Celsius and any water in contact with magma will be heated to that temperature. And they are talking about using existing water reservoirs so they must be talking about Flash or Binary Cycle systems and not EGS systems. So they are not talking about drilling to the magma's level.
Which shows the hot side very close to the magma layer, with the injection well being farther away...
So again, no drilling into magma. You still haven't given one example of someone deliberately drilling into a magma chamber for geothermal power generation. The fact is that it is not done. EGS systems involve drilling to heated rock not magma. They may drill close to magma but that is not the same as drilling into magma.
A conventional Geothermal Plant *is* a deep drill plant... check out all the large scale ones around the world. The depths are different because the magma layers are at different depths... but they all drill to really close - or into that layer.
You seem to be confused about the different geothermal plant systems.
A conventional plant is not a deep drill plant. A conventional plant uses water that was already in the ground. In the case of Flash steam systems superheated water (in excess of 180 degrees Celsius) is allowed to flash to steam that drives turbines directly. In the case of Binary Cycle systems cooler water (between 100 and 180 degrees Celsius) is used in a heat exchanger. Both of these systems have been in production for decades and neither one requires deep drilling. The largest scale plants, such as those in The Geysers in California, and the plants in the Philippines are of this type.
EGS systems are still relatively new. They have been developed since the 1980's. They involve drilling to superheated rock and then pumping water from the surface to be heated (i.e. they don't use existing water from the ground). They still do not drill into magma. "Hot dry rock technology is meant to stay well away from the 99 percent of the Earth's interior, which is over 1,000 degrees". Note the "hot dry rock" alternate name - they don't want ground water for these plants. So there is not much point is using this helium technique to find locations for them. And also note that there are no EGS plants in the US.
I think you just misread the article. The title sums it up nicely though... "Helium isotopes point to the best sources of geothermal energy"
I didn't misread at all. You are reading stuff into it that is not there. They developed the technique by analyzing samples from the area surrounding the Dixie Valley geothermal plant in Nevada. That's not a EGS plant. Why would they test a technique for deep drilling on the area occupied by a conventional plant? They did that because they are looking for sites for new conventional plants, not EGS plants. As for the title, clearly the best sources of geothermal energy are those that don't require deep drilling.
However I'm left wondering how much this was affected by the Bush admin, who has been cited a number tymes for altering science they didn't agree with even though they didn't have the qualifications, suppressing it, or totally ignoring science.
I doubt anything untoward has gone on in this case. The report is well referenced and is consistent with what USGS has said in the past. Also note that while the chances of a caldera forming event occurring are very low there are plenty of other types of activity, including less powerful eruptions, that are much more likely.
Actually, we do have the resources to do deep drilling to the magma layer... Your unsourced quote doesn't say anything about drilling to the magma layer. Show me something that indicates that this has been done. Of course we don't actually need to reach magma - the temperatures are sufficient for power generation well before that.
For the type of power generation (ie: amount of power) the article is discussing, there is no other known way to generate that level of power without deep drilling to the magma layer. For the type of power station you are talking about (EGS) the articles interest in 3He isotopes in water is irrelevant. Ergo, they are not talking about type of plant you are, they are talking about conventional designs. Take particular note of the line which says "And it doesn't even have to require drilling." I repeat: they are not talking about EGS plants. Do not be taken in by their total resource claims - that is just a nice attention getting statement to lead with.
Check Wiki and The US National Geological Survey pages for more info. THEY disagree with your assessment of a quarter million years... the site is recently increasingly active... moving whole mountain ranges and plateaus. Cite please? Yellowstone has always been active - I have yet to see anything out of USGS to say that it is unusually active at the moment. Yes, the caldera has been bulging, but it can and does do that for periods of hundreds or thousands of years without an eruption resulting. See, e.g, this page which states that "we find little indication that the volcano is moving towards an eruption". Or this page which mentions that between 1976 and 1984 part of the caldera uplifted 180mm before subsiding a similar amount between 1985 and 1992. I don't remember an eruption occurring in the early 80's.
USGS simply can't predict when eruptions of the magnitude that you are talking about will occur. So they are never going to say something as alarmist as "Yellowstone is due to erupt". To draw that conclusion from a mere three data points was extremely irresponsible of whatever journalist was the source of this meme. In fact USGS says this about Yellowstone's potential for a catastrophic eruption (ref):
If another large caldera-forming eruption were to occur at Yellowstone, its effects would be worldwide. Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States, and injection of huge volumes of volcanic gases into the atmosphere could drastically affect global climate. Fortunately, the Yellowstone volcanic system shows no signs that it is headed toward such an eruption. The probability of a large caldera-forming eruption within the next few thousand years is exceedingly low. The final nail in the coffin (I hope) for this "due" nonsense comes from the Preliminary Assessment of Volcanic and Hydrothermal Hazards in Yellowstone National Park and Vicinity report that came out this year. Read the whole thing if you really want to educate yourself. But the relevant part is this:
Although the probability of a large caldera-forming eruption at Yellowstone is exceedingly
small, it is exceedingly difficullt to make a defensible quantitative estimate of that probability. As
there have been three such eruptions in about the past 2,100,000 years, there are only two intereruptive
periods from which to gauge any additional possible interval between the third and a
potential fourth such event. The first interval, between the Huckleberry Ridge (2.059±0.004 Ma)
and Mesa Falls (1.285±0.004 Ma) caldera-forming events, was 774,000±5700 years. The second
interval, between the Mesa Falls and Lava Creek (0.639±0.002 Ma) events, was 646,000±4400
years. A statement, widely repeated in popular media, regards such eruptions as occurring at
Yellowstone "every 600,000 years" with the latest eruption having been "600,000 years ago". This
is commonly taken to imply that another such eruption is "overdue". Such a statement is
statistically indefensible on the basis of the extrapolation of two intervals. (Even the simple
arithmetic average of the two intervals is 710,000 years, not 600,000 years). From the line of
reasoning outlined here, the probability of a fourth large caldera-forming event at Yellowstone can
be considered to be less than 1 in a million, below the threshold of hazards interest unless future
premonitory phenomena, probably more severe than those recorded historically in caldera systems
around the world (Newhall and Dzurisin, 1988), were to be recognized. So you're right - my "maybe sometime in the next 250,000 years" prediction was probably wrong. I was drawing what I believed to be a more reasonable conclusion from the pitiful amount of data available. In fact USGS don't believe another such eruption is even that likely.
You ARE correct - about the drilling part - IF this wasnt a DEEP DRILL scenario. Creating enough power to power the US via Geothermal requires DEEP DRILL setups... not near surface setups such as are used for smaller implementations (small towns, individual houses, etc).
My statement is based on assuming (by the article's reference about creating enough power for the world) that they are talking about large scale geothermal plants which drill through to the magma layer...
They are talking about "accessible" geothermal energy - anything requiring drilling to the magma layer is not accessible (in fact we don't have the tech to drill to the magma layer). What they are talking about is finding places where water is being naturally circulated deep into the crust (where it picks up H3e) and back. Those locations are ideal for Flash and Binary Cycle geothermal plants. You are probably thinking of the EGS/Hot Dry Rock type of geothermal plant, but you don't need to look for 3He in water for good locations for those plants - pretty much anywhere will work.
In places like Yellowstone heated water is already venting to the surface and any bores required would be very shallow. They wouldn't breach any pressure chambers at all. But you are right that it is probably not an ideal location due to seismic instability. You certainly wouldn't build a EGS plant there - they have caused earthquakes in the past in areas with seismic instability.
I think any proposal to build a plant at Yellowstone would probably met with significant community opposition due to the possibility of diminishing the areas tourist appeal. Think of the outcry if Old Faithful was affected.
The (unstable) Yellowstone caldera is actually one of the largest Super Volcanos in the world... and due for an eruption. Due according to who? All I've seen is some sensationalist rubbish in the media based on the extrapolation of the three most recent eruptions, 2.1 million years ago, 1.3 million years ago, and 640,000 years ago. Hardly enough data to come up with anything more concrete than "it'll probably erupt sometime in the next quarter million years". Certainly not enough to say it's due.
Probably NOT the place I would mess with... the whole mass-extinction level eruption thing and all... Taking geothermal energy out of ground makes an eruption less likely, if anything. Actually it probably won't make any difference in terms of magma eruptions, though it could reduce the amount of geothermal activity (particularly geysers) in the area and make a steam eruption less likely.
Nope, that's not what they said. You should generally check to make sure your correction is correct. FTFA:
About 4,000 children were afflicted with cancer. Less well-known, however, is the fact that only nine of those 4,000 died -- thyroid cancers are often easy to operate on. That implies that the 9 deaths they are talking about were due to the cancer. I can see how you might interpret the statement to mean that only 9 died of any cause, but common sense should discount that interpretation - 9 deaths out of 4000 children over a 20 year period is below what you'd expect in a healthy population, let alone a group of cancer sufferers. As it happens this article does explicitly state that those 9 deaths were due to the cancer. So I was right to say that it is not clear that the number includes any who died as a direct result of surgery.
However, among the more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases diagnosed in 1992-2002
in persons who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident, fifteen
deaths related to the progression of the disease had been documented by 2002. So I don't know where the "9" even came from. And I must say it seems a little disingenuous for the article linked by this story to both understate the number of deaths and neglect to point out that the 4000 figure is from a limited time frame.
Ok, thousands of people were exposed at Hiroshima, and we have a breakdown of what they died of. Boy, these people are healthy. Where's the weird cancers which people die of now and then? Where's the skin cancer? Prostate? I suspect an incredible scrubbing of data. Only cancers they decide are radiation-related are listed. And they're deciding.
There might be something to this, but I smell a grossly twisted study which eliminates complexity and debatable data by wiping it away with a sweep of a pen. It's generally impossible to isolate the exact cause of a particular cancer. But what you can do is to compare the rates in Hiroshima with the rates in other similar environments. You can then conclude that the difference is attributable to the bomb. They didn't mention prostate or skin cancer because the rates were not statistically higher for those cancers. That's not to say that some of those cancers weren't caused by the bomb, just not enough of them to make a difference statistically.
That such a major surgery could be carried out on four THOUSAND people with only nine deaths, REGARDLESS of the type of malady, is miraculous to me. They stated that 9 died of thyroid cancer. It is not at all clear that the 9 includes any who died as a direct result of surgery.
I'm surprised no body else has mentioned this, but if the person put songs on a file sharing network the RIAA could claim that on average the files were downloaded 750 times so its 750 x $1. But unless all 750 of those downloaders would have otherwise bought the song for $1 the argument isn't valid. The RIAA like to make press releases arguing that every downloaded song is a lost sale but I don't think a judge will be convinced.
The homepage says that kites with areas up to 320 sq m will be available in 2007. Given that 2007 is almost over I'd say the homepage is a little out of date. According to this page SkySails for cargo ships range between 160 and 5000 sq m. It's not unreasonable to describe 5000 sq m as football field-sized.
Because most of the "funny" posts aren't very funny at all (i.e. the quality of "funny" moderations is lower than the quality of other moderations)? I think the number of funny mods I just got kinda proves my point...
Some people disagree with the Slashdot system that "funny" mods don't contribute to karma. So some people choose a different positive mod to use when something's funny.
I tend to agree. If I find something worthy of using a mod point for any reason, then I think it should be reflected in that user's karma. Why discriminate against humor? Because most of the "funny" posts aren't very funny at all (i.e. the quality of "funny" moderations is lower than the quality of other moderations)?
Because Slashdot is intended to generate informative and insightful discussion rather than humor?
Deliberately using the wrong category when moderating reduces the readers ability to filter the posts in the way that they want. Moderators are supposed to categorize posts. They are not supposed to care about the karma of the authors.
Someone who was always about the merch and not the music would complain. If the music is just there to drive sales of merchandise then it makes sense to give the music away (or sell it very cheaply). The more people exposed to the music the better as it increases the market for the merchandise.
Until they can provide the same density as a lithium ion battery, their product is essentially useless to the public. EEstor are claiming energy densities approximately double that of Li-ion batteries. They claim they will be shipping supercapacitors for use in automotive applications this year.
Re:Let's hope it's cancelled after 15 eps
on
Joss Whedon Back on TV
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
http://imdb.com/name/nm0923736/otherworks
Though that says he wrote an unused draft, many of his lines appeared in the film, e.g. "Do you know what happens to a toad when it gets struck by lightning?" Whedon claims only two lines were used from his script and the "lightning" line was not intended to have the style of delivery that it ended up with.
In summary, anything in freefall whether it be a plane or a satellite, does not have a natural "up" as determined by acceleration.
Who said anything about "up" being determined by acceleration? Spin a blindfolded person around and they probably wouldn't be able to recall which way north is either, but that doesn't mean that north doesn't exist when you're not holding a compass. Astronauts on the ISS probably define "up" in terms of the orientation of the ISS. That is a perfectly valid definition for "up" - it doesn't matter at all that they can't instinctively feel which way "up" is.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I guess that ISPs should block all P2P then. After all, some thief will decide it's a really good idea to use it to pirate music and movies, and start using the same mechanism for stealing.
That doesn't follow at all.As an ISP, I can tell you that there is no "set" or sure way of contacting a customer quickly. Customers frequently change their e-mail addresses due to spam. You can call, but this is expensive and intrusive. Users often change their numbers (especially cell phone numbers). And what if the user is about to exceed his or her download limit at 3 AM? Should you call and risk waking the household? Should you wait until the next morning and tell the user after the fact (which might cause him or her to claim that more notice should have been given)?
Many ISP's provide email. This in the obvious way to contact your customers. You don't need care about what email addresses your customers are currently using because you can always use the one you gave them. My ISP sends me an email when I hit 80% and again when I hit 100%. If I choose to ignore those emails (or the whole account) that's my business and problem. I certainly wouldn't want a call from my ISP over an exceeded limit at any time of the day or night. We've tried a custom application, but people didn't load it because they feared viruses. Or were running a platform that couldn't run it. Or deleted it by mistake. We even tried the Windows Message Service; it worked only until pop-up spammers started abusing it. If customers don't want to run tools to tell them when they are about to exceed their limit that's their problem. You don't need to go to heroic lengths to make sure people are notified, you only need to give them reasonable options they can choose from: an app, an email, a webpage they can monitor, an RSS feed, a phone line they can call. Frankly, putting a banner at the top of Web pages is a really good, customer-friendly idea. No, it's intrusive, it's a slippery slope to really unethical behavior, and it's possibly illegal (for the copyright infringement reason). If you want to notify your customers via web pages then use your own page, don't hijack other peoples' pages. If you absolutely must do this page hijacking then at make it clear that you're doing it and give people a way of switching it off. But even then I don't think it's a good idea because it's only a matter of time before some marketing manager will decide it's a really good idea to use the same mechanism for advertising.They're not going to start launching during thunderstorms. But having a system that protects the vehicle for the days leading up to the launch is certainly worthwhile. Actually the Shuttle launch facilities already have lightning protection, this story is just the new system they will be using for Ares launches. The system is already in place at LC-40 and LC-41 where is very obvious.
Everyone knows what spam is, but it's economical because there are idiots out there who ignore the warnings and buy the crap anyway. So it seems that the only ways to make spam uneconomical is to either remove idiots from the Internet (Internet Utopia here we come!), or stop the spam from getting to them.
Make it illegal and fine the people who profit from it.
DEEP GEOTHERMAL DRILLING ON THE REYKJANES RIDGE...
Doesn't say they drilled into magma. Does say that an eruption occurred when magma broke into a bore. That resulted in the best parts of the drillfield becoming inoperable for 10-15 years. Obviously no one wants magma venting through their bores and so no one drills into magma.
In this magma layer, water collects in columns or reserves. This trapped water, which can be heated to temperatures of about 700 degrees Fahrenheit, is known as a geothermal reservoir. When engineers want to use geothermal energy, they "tap" in to this geothermal water and use the resulting hot water and steam for various purposes.
That's obviously factually inaccurate as magma is at least 700 degrees Celsius and any water in contact with magma will be heated to that temperature. And they are talking about using existing water reservoirs so they must be talking about Flash or Binary Cycle systems and not EGS systems. So they are not talking about drilling to the magma's level.
http://www.crest.org/geothermal/geothermal_brief_geothermal_resources.html
Which shows the hot side very close to the magma layer, with the injection well being farther away...
So again, no drilling into magma. You still haven't given one example of someone deliberately drilling into a magma chamber for geothermal power generation. The fact is that it is not done. EGS systems involve drilling to heated rock not magma. They may drill close to magma but that is not the same as drilling into magma.
A conventional Geothermal Plant *is* a deep drill plant... check out all the large scale ones around the world. The depths are different because the magma layers are at different depths... but they all drill to really close - or into that layer.
You seem to be confused about the different geothermal plant systems.
A conventional plant is not a deep drill plant. A conventional plant uses water that was already in the ground. In the case of Flash steam systems superheated water (in excess of 180 degrees Celsius) is allowed to flash to steam that drives turbines directly. In the case of Binary Cycle systems cooler water (between 100 and 180 degrees Celsius) is used in a heat exchanger. Both of these systems have been in production for decades and neither one requires deep drilling. The largest scale plants, such as those in The Geysers in California, and the plants in the Philippines are of this type.
EGS systems are still relatively new. They have been developed since the 1980's. They involve drilling to superheated rock and then pumping water from the surface to be heated (i.e. they don't use existing water from the ground). They still do not drill into magma. "Hot dry rock technology is meant to stay well away from the 99 percent of the Earth's interior, which is over 1,000 degrees". Note the "hot dry rock" alternate name - they don't want ground water for these plants. So there is not much point is using this helium technique to find locations for them. And also note that there are no EGS plants in the US.
I think you just misread the article. The title sums it up nicely though... "Helium isotopes point to the best sources of geothermal energy"
I didn't misread at all. You are reading stuff into it that is not there. They developed the technique by analyzing samples from the area surrounding the Dixie Valley geothermal plant in Nevada. That's not a EGS plant. Why would they test a technique for deep drilling on the area occupied by a conventional plant? They did that because they are looking for sites for new conventional plants, not EGS plants. As for the title, clearly the best sources of geothermal energy are those that don't require deep drilling.
However I'm left wondering how much this was affected by the Bush admin, who has been cited a number tymes for altering science they didn't agree with even though they didn't have the qualifications, suppressing it, or totally ignoring science.
I doubt anything untoward has gone on in this case. The report is well referenced and is consistent with what USGS has said in the past. Also note that while the chances of a caldera forming event occurring are very low there are plenty of other types of activity, including less powerful eruptions, that are much more likely.USGS simply can't predict when eruptions of the magnitude that you are talking about will occur. So they are never going to say something as alarmist as "Yellowstone is due to erupt". To draw that conclusion from a mere three data points was extremely irresponsible of whatever journalist was the source of this meme. In fact USGS says this about Yellowstone's potential for a catastrophic eruption (ref):
If another large caldera-forming eruption were to occur at Yellowstone, its effects would be worldwide. Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States, and injection of huge volumes of volcanic gases into the atmosphere could drastically affect global climate. Fortunately, the Yellowstone volcanic system shows no signs that it is headed toward such an eruption. The probability of a large caldera-forming eruption within the next few thousand years is exceedingly low. The final nail in the coffin (I hope) for this "due" nonsense comes from the Preliminary Assessment of Volcanic and Hydrothermal Hazards in Yellowstone National Park and Vicinity report that came out this year. Read the whole thing if you really want to educate yourself. But the relevant part is this: Although the probability of a large caldera-forming eruption at Yellowstone is exceedingly small, it is exceedingly difficullt to make a defensible quantitative estimate of that probability. As there have been three such eruptions in about the past 2,100,000 years, there are only two intereruptive periods from which to gauge any additional possible interval between the third and a potential fourth such event. The first interval, between the Huckleberry Ridge (2.059±0.004 Ma) and Mesa Falls (1.285±0.004 Ma) caldera-forming events, was 774,000±5700 years. The second interval, between the Mesa Falls and Lava Creek (0.639±0.002 Ma) events, was 646,000±4400 years. A statement, widely repeated in popular media, regards such eruptions as occurring at Yellowstone "every 600,000 years" with the latest eruption having been "600,000 years ago". This is commonly taken to imply that another such eruption is "overdue". Such a statement is statistically indefensible on the basis of the extrapolation of two intervals. (Even the simple arithmetic average of the two intervals is 710,000 years, not 600,000 years). From the line of reasoning outlined here, the probability of a fourth large caldera-forming event at Yellowstone can be considered to be less than 1 in a million, below the threshold of hazards interest unless future premonitory phenomena, probably more severe than those recorded historically in caldera systems around the world (Newhall and Dzurisin, 1988), were to be recognized. So you're right - my "maybe sometime in the next 250,000 years" prediction was probably wrong. I was drawing what I believed to be a more reasonable conclusion from the pitiful amount of data available. In fact USGS don't believe another such eruption is even that likely.You ARE correct - about the drilling part - IF this wasnt a DEEP DRILL scenario. Creating enough power to power the US via Geothermal requires DEEP DRILL setups... not near surface setups such as are used for smaller implementations (small towns, individual houses, etc).
My statement is based on assuming (by the article's reference about creating enough power for the world) that they are talking about large scale geothermal plants which drill through to the magma layer...
They are talking about "accessible" geothermal energy - anything requiring drilling to the magma layer is not accessible (in fact we don't have the tech to drill to the magma layer). What they are talking about is finding places where water is being naturally circulated deep into the crust (where it picks up H3e) and back. Those locations are ideal for Flash and Binary Cycle geothermal plants. You are probably thinking of the EGS/Hot Dry Rock type of geothermal plant, but you don't need to look for 3He in water for good locations for those plants - pretty much anywhere will work.In places like Yellowstone heated water is already venting to the surface and any bores required would be very shallow. They wouldn't breach any pressure chambers at all. But you are right that it is probably not an ideal location due to seismic instability. You certainly wouldn't build a EGS plant there - they have caused earthquakes in the past in areas with seismic instability.
I think any proposal to build a plant at Yellowstone would probably met with significant community opposition due to the possibility of diminishing the areas tourist appeal. Think of the outcry if Old Faithful was affected.
Going to the original source the actual statement is:
However, among the more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases diagnosed in 1992-2002 in persons who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident, fifteen deaths related to the progression of the disease had been documented by 2002. So I don't know where the "9" even came from. And I must say it seems a little disingenuous for the article linked by this story to both understate the number of deaths and neglect to point out that the 4000 figure is from a limited time frame.There might be something to this, but I smell a grossly twisted study which eliminates complexity and debatable data by wiping it away with a sweep of a pen. It's generally impossible to isolate the exact cause of a particular cancer. But what you can do is to compare the rates in Hiroshima with the rates in other similar environments. You can then conclude that the difference is attributable to the bomb. They didn't mention prostate or skin cancer because the rates were not statistically higher for those cancers. That's not to say that some of those cancers weren't caused by the bomb, just not enough of them to make a difference statistically.
Is the cost of the cable really that relevant? I thought it was the cost of installing the cable that was the major stumbling block.
But unless all 750 of those downloaders would have otherwise bought the song for $1 the argument isn't valid. The RIAA like to make press releases arguing that every downloaded song is a lost sale but I don't think a judge will be convinced.
Hardly the size of a football field.
The homepage says that kites with areas up to 320 sq m will be available in 2007. Given that 2007 is almost over I'd say the homepage is a little out of date. According to this page SkySails for cargo ships range between 160 and 5000 sq m. It's not unreasonable to describe 5000 sq m as football field-sized.I tend to agree. If I find something worthy of using a mod point for any reason, then I think it should be reflected in that user's karma. Why discriminate against humor? Because most of the "funny" posts aren't very funny at all (i.e. the quality of "funny" moderations is lower than the quality of other moderations)?
Because Slashdot is intended to generate informative and insightful discussion rather than humor?
Deliberately using the wrong category when moderating reduces the readers ability to filter the posts in the way that they want. Moderators are supposed to categorize posts. They are not supposed to care about the karma of the authors.
Though that says he wrote an unused draft, many of his lines appeared in the film, e.g. "Do you know what happens to a toad when it gets struck by lightning?" Whedon claims only two lines were used from his script and the "lightning" line was not intended to have the style of delivery that it ended up with.
In summary, anything in freefall whether it be a plane or a satellite, does not have a natural "up" as determined by acceleration.
Who said anything about "up" being determined by acceleration? Spin a blindfolded person around and they probably wouldn't be able to recall which way north is either, but that doesn't mean that north doesn't exist when you're not holding a compass. Astronauts on the ISS probably define "up" in terms of the orientation of the ISS. That is a perfectly valid definition for "up" - it doesn't matter at all that they can't instinctively feel which way "up" is.