Bourne, what's the lightest element on the periodic table?
You know, the element so light that it was once thought a myth, because any natural forms of said element loose in the atmosphere invariably rise through the atmosphere, often simply escaping into space?
A broken hydrogen tank MIGHT cause a sudden explosion--but so can a gasoline tank. The thing is, a hydrogen tank could be engineered to "break open", and while 250 miles of gasoline will cause an horrlbe fire hazard and an environmental spill, 250 miles of hydrogen will cause a temporary problem, possibly a very quick explosion, and then be far away from the crash site.
FWIW, though, biomass does seem to be our next great alternative energy source. Let's skip the fossil fuel millenia and harvest dead life directly.
Americans suck at it with the small exception of that potential 2%. Outgoing Americans tend to be horrible when it comes to sarcasm.
I hate to do this--but you're wrong again.
Sarcasm requirse the speaker to give numerous signals that the words they are speaking are, in fact, false. While it's quite possible to convey sarcasm without a sarcastic tone, doing such is only really done with a body of people the speaker is sure will not judge them as such.
Sarcasm on the internet--well, a bit of textual exageration is normally required, as both tone and identity are usually figured out.
Or, on the other hand, MAYBE we're all just morons who can't speak our own language, and it's the tiny minority that are right. Obviously, democracy is wrong and science only works because of its institutional screening.
You are wrong. Most people are unsuitable as friends or anything else.
It's always interesting when we make broad comments--the natural tendency is always to place ourselves into the majority, even if it's unconciously.
I'm a leading-class introvert. My wife has trouble understanding me, and she's spent a mind-boggling ammount of time trying. I drink only very rarey, I don't watch sports, and I don't go to church--
but I make a good friend, because I take people as they come and present myself as I am. Some of my friends are as introverted as I am, but most of them are like most people--extroverts who like to hang out in groups.
You are placing FAR too much burden on other people. Introverts can get along just fine with extroverts--you just need to change "despise extroverts" to "aren't an extrovert", and let the social chips fall where they may.
I believe that Linux will make more significant inroads into the user community via embedded devices than it ever could as a more general-purpose operating system.
Yep.
Or, more to the point, Linux will shine in areas where it can shed the various Windows-replacements that slow it down. Linux works great on servers because the average user doesn't ever even notice the OS that hands them their website.
Similiarly, Linux has chances for great growth in areas where people don't mind sudden and dramatic UI changes--such as when buying a new dedicated video machine, new cell phone, or (to a much lesser extent) a new PDA.
Just "heavy." If the shuttle was personnel-only, it's likely be 1/10th the weight--and an even smaller fraction of a per-launch cost.
By all accounts, this is exactly the flaw the Shuttle's replacement is going to fix--it's going to be one dedicated cargo-lifter, and one dedicated crew-lifter. The latter, obviously, will have the tighter and more paranoid controls on safety.
In the mid-to-late 1980s there was a USAF program called NASP--National Aero-Space Plane. It was supposed to do exactly what you're describing.
NASP was eventually scrapped as "unworkable", and its successor project -- IIRC, the X-33 -- did not fare much better, even though it was actually built.
The short answer for why we haven't done it is "fuel is heavy." I'm not qualified to give the long answer, but a straight shot right into the atmosphere really is the cheapest way to get a given weight into orbit.
And, btw, the Space Shuttle *IS* hydrogen powered. The two solid-fuel boosters aren't, but that big foam-covered tank is just a shell carrying two parts H to one part O, which is what burns out of the shuttle's main engines.
I haven't heard of this farm-based synthetic crude, but if it works out anything like ethanol from corn has, it'll be a net energy loss.
Remember that every ethanol projection you see treats the fuel-corn crop almost the same way as a food-corn crop. The effeciency leaps up if you allow for use of the whole plant, or even just generic "waste" biomass such as roadkill and fallen timber.
Farm-waste crude has a similar gain--it's processed from essentially manure and a few other ingredients, meaning that ANY energy we gain from it is net: we've already paid for the creation of the manure.
You give the creationists too much credit, I fear.
As a technical creationist, I beg to differ.;) (What do I mean by "Technical?" That I don't try and aruge that science prooves God. If the Almighty can cause someone to win the lottery, He can either create life via evolution or create the universe so we can learn how life will evolve going foward.)
Yeah, because what the creationists want is for religion to be presented as if it was science, which clearly doesn't belong in the schools. It could be included if the creationist arguments were treated from a scientific perspective (see above), or if the religious aspects of it were considered in a non-science class (comparative religion, or some such).
Exactly right. Except that what, IMO, vocal Creationists (i.e., not me) want is for atheism to be treated like any other religion -- i.e., they don't want the science class saying "God doesn't exist."
Unfortunately, detailing exactly WHY "creationist" arguments are full of crap is rather complicated;
No, it's not. It's horribly simple. In fact, THAT's the reason right there.
"It's possible there was an intelligent designer--but it's not certain, and it's equally possible that there wasn't. And since it's simpler to not have one, we act as if there weren't one."
Not to mention, the creationist types would probably sue the school for religious descrimination [sic].
Not likely. If you're teaching their theory and pointing out why it's not the majority theory, you're doing everything they could ask for.
Claiming it's a religious thing is the quickest way to get creationism OUT of the public school. In fact, that's what happened.
The important reason NOT to only teach evolution is to teach children good science--so they know that even the most basic parts of science are open to question, which is why we know that they're probably right.
What are you going to tap into to replace the awesome amounts of energy we currently get from fossil fuels?
Just about anything. Or, rather, EVERYTHING. In 100,000 years we'll be using a lot of "fuel crops", but for the next thousand or so we can keep on digging into the earth for ancient hydrocarbons.
And, of course, the whole "Peak Oil" idea theorum requires crude oil to really be biological and not geological in origin. While most take it as such, it's not totally proven just yet.
There is a very good chance we will have a long and significant readjustment period that will be very hard on ravenous oil consumers such as the USA.
I don't think "hard" is the right word for it. Americans are historically very adaptable -- I would be surprised if even a total elimination of crude oil caught the US on a disadvatageous situation.
Although, why some entity with enough processing power and intelligence to design a simulation completely capable of fooling the human brain can't make a real-time edit, I don't know.
Because they wanted a constant resistance, to channel and control the inevitable saviors. Worked pretty well, too--of all the failings with the Matrix sequels, explaining the Matrix itself isn't one of them.
Ok, let's take as a given that Peak Oil has already passed, just for the sake of argument.
All that this means is that crude oil pumped from the ground will continue to become more expensive. Not in great leaps and bounds, but at a relatively steady pace.
As crude oil becomes more expensive, alternate fuels become relatively less expensive. Sooner rather than later we'll see both synthetic crude (from farm waste, of all things) and expanded hydrogen trade.
In a hundred years, we won't be back to hand-working on farms. We'll have a bunch of telecommuters working the same networked jobs they all want to work now, and the same green revolution farms, only the tractors will use more electric motors and less internal combustion.
Is Peak Oil going to give us change? Yes. It is going to cause a capitalist apocolypse? No, not really. We did rather well before gasoline, and we'll do farily well long after it's gone.
it could get used for reducing the amount of people in the public that have dissenting opinons.
Really? If everyone knew everything you did online, are you so sure that your opinion would somehow go away?
Also, even if the capability could be introduced, it would be cracked/spoofed/worked around somehow eventually, unless there was some sort of way to prevent computers from communicating with each other in the ways that they currently do, and some sort of way to prevent people from creating their own networks.
The easy answer is "make it optional." Let folk stay anonymous if they want--you just don't need to give them anything.
Try buying something online without using ANYTHING that links back to you. After you do that, kindly tell me how you managed to violate the laws of physics so.
You would expect correct, not popular, terms used on Slashdot...
*ahem*
English is descriptive, not perscriptive.
English is descriptive, not perscriptive.
English is descriptive, not perscriptive.
Our spoken language evolves over time, and words mean no more and no less than how they are used by the greatest number of people.
While the technical or local jargon of certain elements of our culture may include more specific terminology to reflect a desired distinction, this does not in any way invalidate the correctness of the more common term.
"Zero Gravity" as meaning any time when there is no relative gravity is quite enough for most folk. The distinction between no effective gravity due to distance from an overriding mass ("zero G") and there being no effective gravity due to unhindered movement ("free-fall", or "Mu-G") is irrelevant in the common usage.
Still crappy evidence. It's entirely possible you only then-noticed it. Maybe even probable.
In fact, it's horrible evidence. Right up there with hearing someone talk about a UFO, then noticing your dog is missing and concluding you've seen a UFO.
If it was almost identical to sugar it would taste almost identical to sugar--it doesn't.
Coffee I grind at home and coffee that's mass-ground is almost identical, but it sure as heck tastes different.
I've never, ever said that HFCS and table sugar taste the same. Their texture is different. Their incidental ingredients are different. Their balance of sugar is oh-so-slighly different.
If you don't like HFCS because of the taste, then that's all well and good--even if it's identical to sugar, it's a good hallmark of a different methedology in food preparation, which is usually a good bellweather for taste.
What I said was that the folk who say that HFCS is somehow worse for you than table sugar are flat out wrong. Some of them are actually lying, and some of them are just very concerned but misguided individuals.
As far as dietary health goes, HFCS and Sugar are interchangeable and both should be used sparingly. As far as taste goes--well, there are people who can taste the difference between pasta cooked with a wodden spoon or a metal spoon, although I'm reasonably certain the nutritional value isn't changed by the spoon.
(FWIW, have you actually made the same recipie with the same incredients, swapping only HFCS and Sugar, and been able to notice a difference?)
One thing that I'm sure of is that you have never watched a movie on the tiny screen of a palm or a Windows Mobile device
Wrong. I have two Lifedrives -- one each for me & the mrs -- and i've watched more than a few movies on them.
You hold the thing in your hand, get comfortable, and watch. If it weren't for the hassle of converting video to divix -- and the lack of a tv tuner in my PC -- i'd likely not turn on my tv just for me ever again.
They claim that HFT is much more easily absorbed by the body than refined sugar
Don't believe them. HFCS isn't the best thing for you, but it's almost identical to white sugar. in fact, it has about 1% less sucralose (50.5% fructose / 49.5% sucralose compared to sugar's 50/50 split), and sucralose is the chemical anti-HFCS folk try and warn you about.
Sorry to sound like a cynic, but it's this kind of innovation that our IP laws will obstruct. Someone in the U.S. and the E.U. will get a patent on the very idea of sustainable cities and cause the whole thing to get bogged down in licensing.
The idea of a sustainable city would require someoem popping up with a hell dinger of a story to gain a patent. And then they'd have, at most, a decade until their patent was worthless.
Yes, patents will come into play as sustainable cities are made. But the smart thing in many of these instances is to go ahead and make the city now, and then pay the inventor afterwards if he doesn't want to play.
I would argue that without growth, you are little more than an actor in a stage play.
I would argue that without meaningful decisions, you're just an actor. The amazingly linear plots of some CRPGs strike me as a better thing to get rid of than flat characters.
Second, RPGs must allow for character growth that's driven by a player's choices or actions.
Growth is a common element of RPGs, but it's hardly a necessary one. Many interactive fiction games have no character growth whatsoever, and they certainly qualify as "rolepalying game."
That is why Enterprise failed. It was a good idea, but horribly executed, like an axemen who hits the guy in the back instead of hard on the neck when he's on the block.
Actually, it was at least two different good ideas, and they jumped back and forth too much.
A series about the first Warp 5 starship would have been cool.
A series about the temporal cold war told from a little guy's perspective would have been cool.
Slashdot Mirror
Bourne, what's the lightest element on the periodic table?
You know, the element so light that it was once thought a myth, because any natural forms of said element loose in the atmosphere invariably rise through the atmosphere, often simply escaping into space?
A broken hydrogen tank MIGHT cause a sudden explosion--but so can a gasoline tank. The thing is, a hydrogen tank could be engineered to "break open", and while 250 miles of gasoline will cause an horrlbe fire hazard and an environmental spill, 250 miles of hydrogen will cause a temporary problem, possibly a very quick explosion, and then be far away from the crash site.
FWIW, though, biomass does seem to be our next great alternative energy source. Let's skip the fossil fuel millenia and harvest dead life directly.
Americans suck at it with the small exception of that potential 2%. Outgoing Americans tend to be horrible when it comes to sarcasm.
I hate to do this--but you're wrong again.
Sarcasm requirse the speaker to give numerous signals that the words they are speaking are, in fact, false. While it's quite possible to convey sarcasm without a sarcastic tone, doing such is only really done with a body of people the speaker is sure will not judge them as such.
Sarcasm on the internet--well, a bit of textual exageration is normally required, as both tone and identity are usually figured out.
Or, on the other hand, MAYBE we're all just morons who can't speak our own language, and it's the tiny minority that are right. Obviously, democracy is wrong and science only works because of its institutional screening.
No, wait, that's sarcasm.
You are wrong. Most people are unsuitable as friends or anything else.
It's always interesting when we make broad comments--the natural tendency is always to place ourselves into the majority, even if it's unconciously.
I'm a leading-class introvert. My wife has trouble understanding me, and she's spent a mind-boggling ammount of time trying. I drink only very rarey, I don't watch sports, and I don't go to church--
but I make a good friend, because I take people as they come and present myself as I am. Some of my friends are as introverted as I am, but most of them are like most people--extroverts who like to hang out in groups.
You are placing FAR too much burden on other people. Introverts can get along just fine with extroverts--you just need to change "despise extroverts" to "aren't an extrovert", and let the social chips fall where they may.
I believe that Linux will make more significant inroads into the user community via embedded devices than it ever could as a more general-purpose operating system.
Yep.
Or, more to the point, Linux will shine in areas where it can shed the various Windows-replacements that slow it down. Linux works great on servers because the average user doesn't ever even notice the OS that hands them their website.
Similiarly, Linux has chances for great growth in areas where people don't mind sudden and dramatic UI changes--such as when buying a new dedicated video machine, new cell phone, or (to a much lesser extent) a new PDA.
Carrying two-part fuel is heavy and inefficient.
Just "heavy." If the shuttle was personnel-only, it's likely be 1/10th the weight--and an even smaller fraction of a per-launch cost.
By all accounts, this is exactly the flaw the Shuttle's replacement is going to fix--it's going to be one dedicated cargo-lifter, and one dedicated crew-lifter. The latter, obviously, will have the tighter and more paranoid controls on safety.
In the mid-to-late 1980s there was a USAF program called NASP--National Aero-Space Plane. It was supposed to do exactly what you're describing.
NASP was eventually scrapped as "unworkable", and its successor project -- IIRC, the X-33 -- did not fare much better, even though it was actually built.
The short answer for why we haven't done it is "fuel is heavy." I'm not qualified to give the long answer, but a straight shot right into the atmosphere really is the cheapest way to get a given weight into orbit.
And, btw, the Space Shuttle *IS* hydrogen powered. The two solid-fuel boosters aren't, but that big foam-covered tank is just a shell carrying two parts H to one part O, which is what burns out of the shuttle's main engines.
I haven't heard of this farm-based synthetic crude, but if it works out anything like ethanol from corn has, it'll be a net energy loss.
Remember that every ethanol projection you see treats the fuel-corn crop almost the same way as a food-corn crop. The effeciency leaps up if you allow for use of the whole plant, or even just generic "waste" biomass such as roadkill and fallen timber.
Farm-waste crude has a similar gain--it's processed from essentially manure and a few other ingredients, meaning that ANY energy we gain from it is net: we've already paid for the creation of the manure.
You give the creationists too much credit, I fear.
;) (What do I mean by "Technical?" That I don't try and aruge that science prooves God. If the Almighty can cause someone to win the lottery, He can either create life via evolution or create the universe so we can learn how life will evolve going foward.)
As a technical creationist, I beg to differ.
Yeah, because what the creationists want is for religion to be presented as if it was science, which clearly doesn't belong in the schools. It could be included if the creationist arguments were treated from a scientific perspective (see above), or if the religious aspects of it were considered in a non-science class (comparative religion, or some such).
Exactly right. Except that what, IMO, vocal Creationists (i.e., not me) want is for atheism to be treated like any other religion -- i.e., they don't want the science class saying "God doesn't exist."
Unfortunately, detailing exactly WHY "creationist" arguments are full of crap is rather complicated;
No, it's not. It's horribly simple. In fact, THAT's the reason right there.
"It's possible there was an intelligent designer--but it's not certain, and it's equally possible that there wasn't. And since it's simpler to not have one, we act as if there weren't one."
Not to mention, the creationist types would probably sue the school for religious descrimination [sic].
Not likely. If you're teaching their theory and pointing out why it's not the majority theory, you're doing everything they could ask for.
Claiming it's a religious thing is the quickest way to get creationism OUT of the public school. In fact, that's what happened.
Here's a thought:
The important reason NOT to only teach evolution is to teach children good science--so they know that even the most basic parts of science are open to question, which is why we know that they're probably right.
What are you going to tap into to replace the awesome amounts of energy we currently get from fossil fuels?
Just about anything. Or, rather, EVERYTHING. In 100,000 years we'll be using a lot of "fuel crops", but for the next thousand or so we can keep on digging into the earth for ancient hydrocarbons.
And, of course, the whole "Peak Oil" idea theorum requires crude oil to really be biological and not geological in origin. While most take it as such, it's not totally proven just yet.
There is a very good chance we will have a long and significant readjustment period that will be very hard on ravenous oil consumers such as the USA.
I don't think "hard" is the right word for it. Americans are historically very adaptable -- I would be surprised if even a total elimination of crude oil caught the US on a disadvatageous situation.
Although, why some entity with enough processing power and intelligence to design a simulation completely capable of fooling the human brain can't make a real-time edit, I don't know.
Because they wanted a constant resistance, to channel and control the inevitable saviors. Worked pretty well, too--of all the failings with the Matrix sequels, explaining the Matrix itself isn't one of them.
Sheesh.
Ok, let's take as a given that Peak Oil has already passed, just for the sake of argument.
All that this means is that crude oil pumped from the ground will continue to become more expensive. Not in great leaps and bounds, but at a relatively steady pace.
As crude oil becomes more expensive, alternate fuels become relatively less expensive. Sooner rather than later we'll see both synthetic crude (from farm waste, of all things) and expanded hydrogen trade.
In a hundred years, we won't be back to hand-working on farms. We'll have a bunch of telecommuters working the same networked jobs they all want to work now, and the same green revolution farms, only the tractors will use more electric motors and less internal combustion.
Is Peak Oil going to give us change? Yes. It is going to cause a capitalist apocolypse? No, not really. We did rather well before gasoline, and we'll do farily well long after it's gone.
it could get used for reducing the amount of people in the public that have dissenting opinons.
Really? If everyone knew everything you did online, are you so sure that your opinion would somehow go away?
Also, even if the capability could be introduced, it would be cracked/spoofed/worked around somehow eventually, unless there was some sort of way to prevent computers from communicating with each other in the ways that they currently do, and some sort of way to prevent people from creating their own networks.
The easy answer is "make it optional." Let folk stay anonymous if they want--you just don't need to give them anything.
Try buying something online without using ANYTHING that links back to you. After you do that, kindly tell me how you managed to violate the laws of physics so.
You would expect correct, not popular, terms used on Slashdot...
*ahem*
English is descriptive, not perscriptive.
English is descriptive, not perscriptive.
English is descriptive, not perscriptive.
Our spoken language evolves over time, and words mean no more and no less than how they are used by the greatest number of people.
While the technical or local jargon of certain elements of our culture may include more specific terminology to reflect a desired distinction, this does not in any way invalidate the correctness of the more common term.
"Zero Gravity" as meaning any time when there is no relative gravity is quite enough for most folk. The distinction between no effective gravity due to distance from an overriding mass ("zero G") and there being no effective gravity due to unhindered movement ("free-fall", or "Mu-G") is irrelevant in the common usage.
Ok. Great anectode.
Still crappy evidence. It's entirely possible you only then-noticed it. Maybe even probable.
In fact, it's horrible evidence. Right up there with hearing someone talk about a UFO, then noticing your dog is missing and concluding you've seen a UFO.
No, but I was alive when Coke made the switch.
What I'm going to say is "did you check the date, to be certain that the change that made you go blegh was HFCS and not something else?"
And I'd follow that with "Recollections are not the way to knowledge", and ask if you knew where I could get some HFCS to test with.
If it was almost identical to sugar it would taste almost identical to sugar--it doesn't.
Coffee I grind at home and coffee that's mass-ground is almost identical, but it sure as heck tastes different.
I've never, ever said that HFCS and table sugar taste the same. Their texture is different. Their incidental ingredients are different. Their balance of sugar is oh-so-slighly different.
If you don't like HFCS because of the taste, then that's all well and good--even if it's identical to sugar, it's a good hallmark of a different methedology in food preparation, which is usually a good bellweather for taste.
What I said was that the folk who say that HFCS is somehow worse for you than table sugar are flat out wrong. Some of them are actually lying, and some of them are just very concerned but misguided individuals.
As far as dietary health goes, HFCS and Sugar are interchangeable and both should be used sparingly. As far as taste goes--well, there are people who can taste the difference between pasta cooked with a wodden spoon or a metal spoon, although I'm reasonably certain the nutritional value isn't changed by the spoon.
(FWIW, have you actually made the same recipie with the same incredients, swapping only HFCS and Sugar, and been able to notice a difference?)
One thing that I'm sure of is that you have never watched a movie on the tiny screen of a palm or a Windows Mobile device
Wrong. I have two Lifedrives -- one each for me & the mrs -- and i've watched more than a few movies on them.
You hold the thing in your hand, get comfortable, and watch. If it weren't for the hassle of converting video to divix -- and the lack of a tv tuner in my PC -- i'd likely not turn on my tv just for me ever again.
They claim that HFT is much more easily absorbed by the body than refined sugar
Don't believe them. HFCS isn't the best thing for you, but it's almost identical to white sugar. in fact, it has about 1% less sucralose (50.5% fructose / 49.5% sucralose compared to sugar's 50/50 split), and sucralose is the chemical anti-HFCS folk try and warn you about.
The iPod equivalent for movies is a laptop.
Ah, no. THe iPod equivalent for "movies" will be whomever has their PDA/dedicated device linked to an easy to use store/download center first.
It might be a video iPod. It might be a palm lifedrive. It might be a Windows Mobile device. Or, it might just be the PSP.
The one thing I'm sure it won't be is a laptop.
Sorry to sound like a cynic, but it's this kind of innovation that our IP laws will obstruct. Someone in the U.S. and the E.U. will get a patent on the very idea of sustainable cities and cause the whole thing to get bogged down in licensing.
The idea of a sustainable city would require someoem popping up with a hell dinger of a story to gain a patent. And then they'd have, at most, a decade until their patent was worthless.
Yes, patents will come into play as sustainable cities are made. But the smart thing in many of these instances is to go ahead and make the city now, and then pay the inventor afterwards if he doesn't want to play.
To say nothing of the power of eminent domain.
I would argue that without growth, you are little more than an actor in a stage play.
I would argue that without meaningful decisions, you're just an actor. The amazingly linear plots of some CRPGs strike me as a better thing to get rid of than flat characters.
Second, RPGs must allow for character growth that's driven by a player's choices or actions.
Growth is a common element of RPGs, but it's hardly a necessary one. Many interactive fiction games have no character growth whatsoever, and they certainly qualify as "rolepalying game."
That is why Enterprise failed. It was a good idea, but horribly executed, like an axemen who hits the guy in the back instead of hard on the neck when he's on the block.
Actually, it was at least two different good ideas, and they jumped back and forth too much.
A series about the first Warp 5 starship would have been cool.
A series about the temporal cold war told from a little guy's perspective would have been cool.
Trying to be both was just foolish.