You've basically described hippies. In touch with nature, avoid artificial everything, use midwives and acupuncture instead of going to doctors. Homeschooling to prevent government indoctrination. Eat everything organic if possible, locally grown, go to farmers markets. I guess the only difference is that hippies are more socially progressive and lax on drugs?
This study was done by a cancer researcher, who would have an incentive to say that cellphones cause cancer because then his field gets more funding. It is just as bad as the cellphone companies co-funding research as far as bias goes.
The only way we can actually prevent studies being buried is to require studies to be 'registered' with the journal before they are started in order to be published. Once the are registered they have to be published, no matter the result.
If you have more than enough electricity coming from the wind, then turn off the coal plant completely and use a SASOL process to turn the coal straight into gasoline. If you still have wind electricity left over, and you don't have any way of getting it to where there is a renewable-electricity shortage, then sure, use it to make gasoline from the air.
Turning the coal into electricity first is a major inefficiency which can be avoided if you're going to be using some of the electricity for making gasoline. Electric motors are much more efficient than gasoline/diesel engines, and that's not even counting the inefficiencies of turning the air into gasoline first, so anything which can be converted to electricity really should (I'm thinking goods trains, buses, around-the-town cars) before we start making more gasoline from the excess.
Green capacity is fully utilized if it is connected to the grid. Please check your facts.
I did not say that non-renewable is fully utilized - otherwise we would be having an energy crisis the moment somebody turns on a lightbulb. Natural gas turbines spool up and down several times a day to meed load, with coal providing the majority of the base supply. We don't actually have enough unstorable green capacity anywhere to have any purely green "slack" that you refer to. Decentralized green capacity IS fully utilized if you are feeding it back into the grid with the correct inverter. If you're not, you are probably charging batteries, and if you're not doing that, you should get an inverter and feed back into the grid. Currently Iceland is the only country with excess capacity of green energy (geothermal), so they can invest in this technology no problem. Anywhere else the only case where renewables should be used to generate petrochemicals instead of putting electricity into the grid is when the grid isn't actually available, and even then there are usually more worthy causes like desalination which could be used to remove the "slack".
Sure, once we get to a point that we have lots of reliable "green slack" this may be a worthy cause, but right now, or next year? Not really.
They should pay Google on a per-click-through basis for the advertising, surely? After all, Google just provides a thumbnail, a headline and the first sentence.
You missed the point too. We have less green energy available than what we're using, so anything which uses additional energy won't be using green energy because that is already being completely saturated, so anything new will have to come from non-renewables. If we build new 'green' power sources it is better to put them directly onto the grid and save petrol for direct usage than to convert electricity to petrol, and on the other side of the country be burning petrol for electricity. Only once we start having more green energy than we are using, ie. all of the non-renewables are completely off at some point in the day, then it makes sense to use some of the excess green energy to make petrol from CO2.
And they'd say, "It came from our website. Here are the server logs to prove it, here is where we sent the confirmation email. The order came from 187.64.34.8 at 14h24UTC on 2012/10/19. Please investigate industrial fraud."
Besides, how many genuine sales would you make before the feds caught on? I'm sure your competitor would be quite happy for the extra business. After all, there are profitable robocallers running as we speak.
You missed the point. Let's take the example of somebody who has added a windmill on top of their house, and which magically provides exactly 50% of their power needs to run their house all of the time at their current usage rate. If you install this petrol-generating plant at their house, because the windmill is already maxed out the extra power will have to come off of the grid, powered primarily by coal. Thus it would be better to use a direct coal-to-petrol process like SASOL rather than to convert to an electric intermediary which adds extra inefficiencies.
Sure, you can get the gist of it. But if you want to know any details, you need to click on the links. If Google showed less detail, I know I wouldn't be clicking on more links. I'd probably just not bother with news sites as much because they are so badly organised.
The first sentence isn't a "wholesale site rip". If that's all the article offered, then they weren't really offering anything of value, were they?
It's a balance between getting enough information to interest the user and little enough information that the user wants more. Should Google only be allowed to show headlines? Our news services would descend into chaos of ambiguous headlines then.
All the news sites have to do is change their robots.txt and Google will leave them alone, an equivalent to takedown notices. This is like the studios wanting Hollywood.com and Apple to show the trailer, without reimbursing them for each time somebody watches the movie as a result of seeing that trailer, and also demanding that if they show advertising with the trailer they get a cut of that as well.
Spoils the ending? Are you on some sort of witch hunt? Sheesh. If all of the useful information in the movie was in the first half a minute, well the movie was probably pretty crap then, wasn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Then they should upgrade the grid. You know, like they would if they built coal or nuke power plants.
You've basically described hippies. In touch with nature, avoid artificial everything, use midwives and acupuncture instead of going to doctors. Homeschooling to prevent government indoctrination. Eat everything organic if possible, locally grown, go to farmers markets. I guess the only difference is that hippies are more socially progressive and lax on drugs?
This study was done by a cancer researcher, who would have an incentive to say that cellphones cause cancer because then his field gets more funding. It is just as bad as the cellphone companies co-funding research as far as bias goes.
The only way we can actually prevent studies being buried is to require studies to be 'registered' with the journal before they are started in order to be published. Once the are registered they have to be published, no matter the result.
So a study funded by a cancer researcher isn't biased, whereas a study co-funded by cellphone companies is?
If you have more than enough electricity coming from the wind, then turn off the coal plant completely and use a SASOL process to turn the coal straight into gasoline. If you still have wind electricity left over, and you don't have any way of getting it to where there is a renewable-electricity shortage, then sure, use it to make gasoline from the air.
Turning the coal into electricity first is a major inefficiency which can be avoided if you're going to be using some of the electricity for making gasoline. Electric motors are much more efficient than gasoline/diesel engines, and that's not even counting the inefficiencies of turning the air into gasoline first, so anything which can be converted to electricity really should (I'm thinking goods trains, buses, around-the-town cars) before we start making more gasoline from the excess.
I did think "Mittens" was kinda cute.
Not nearly as plausibly deniable as Rmoney.
Hippies are republican?
Green capacity is fully utilized if it is connected to the grid. Please check your facts.
I did not say that non-renewable is fully utilized - otherwise we would be having an energy crisis the moment somebody turns on a lightbulb. Natural gas turbines spool up and down several times a day to meed load, with coal providing the majority of the base supply. We don't actually have enough unstorable green capacity anywhere to have any purely green "slack" that you refer to. Decentralized green capacity IS fully utilized if you are feeding it back into the grid with the correct inverter. If you're not, you are probably charging batteries, and if you're not doing that, you should get an inverter and feed back into the grid. Currently Iceland is the only country with excess capacity of green energy (geothermal), so they can invest in this technology no problem. Anywhere else the only case where renewables should be used to generate petrochemicals instead of putting electricity into the grid is when the grid isn't actually available, and even then there are usually more worthy causes like desalination which could be used to remove the "slack".
Sure, once we get to a point that we have lots of reliable "green slack" this may be a worthy cause, but right now, or next year? Not really.
Maybe Google figured out that for you it makes you more likely to click through if they show you right wing headlines?
If the small sites stay on Google they will actually do better than before.
They should pay Google on a per-click-through basis for the advertising, surely? After all, Google just provides a thumbnail, a headline and the first sentence.
You missed the point too. We have less green energy available than what we're using, so anything which uses additional energy won't be using green energy because that is already being completely saturated, so anything new will have to come from non-renewables. If we build new 'green' power sources it is better to put them directly onto the grid and save petrol for direct usage than to convert electricity to petrol, and on the other side of the country be burning petrol for electricity. Only once we start having more green energy than we are using, ie. all of the non-renewables are completely off at some point in the day, then it makes sense to use some of the excess green energy to make petrol from CO2.
+1 Informative!
And they'd say, "It came from our website. Here are the server logs to prove it, here is where we sent the confirmation email. The order came from 187.64.34.8 at 14h24UTC on 2012/10/19. Please investigate industrial fraud."
Besides, how many genuine sales would you make before the feds caught on? I'm sure your competitor would be quite happy for the extra business. After all, there are profitable robocallers running as we speak.
You missed the point. Let's take the example of somebody who has added a windmill on top of their house, and which magically provides exactly 50% of their power needs to run their house all of the time at their current usage rate. If you install this petrol-generating plant at their house, because the windmill is already maxed out the extra power will have to come off of the grid, powered primarily by coal. Thus it would be better to use a direct coal-to-petrol process like SASOL rather than to convert to an electric intermediary which adds extra inefficiencies.
This is /. where most people don't even bother to read TFA, never mind the linked 27 page PDF...
You also need to buy and ship their products and use the fed's CC to transfer money into *their* account. Yeah, not that simple.
Are they paying you to tap into your wifi? Did you give them express permission to do so? No? Well, then, you made a bad analogy.
Sure, you can get the gist of it. But if you want to know any details, you need to click on the links. If Google showed less detail, I know I wouldn't be clicking on more links. I'd probably just not bother with news sites as much because they are so badly organised.
The first sentence isn't a "wholesale site rip". If that's all the article offered, then they weren't really offering anything of value, were they?
It's a balance between getting enough information to interest the user and little enough information that the user wants more. Should Google only be allowed to show headlines? Our news services would descend into chaos of ambiguous headlines then.
All the news sites have to do is change their robots.txt and Google will leave them alone, an equivalent to takedown notices.
This is like the studios wanting Hollywood.com and Apple to show the trailer, without reimbursing them for each time somebody watches the movie as a result of seeing that trailer, and also demanding that if they show advertising with the trailer they get a cut of that as well.
Spoils the ending? Are you on some sort of witch hunt? Sheesh. If all of the useful information in the movie was in the first half a minute, well the movie was probably pretty crap then, wasn't it?
Nuclear power doesn't need to be carried if you can source the components there.
Their revenue went up and their profit simultaneously went down. Sounds like expansion to me...
Basically, they have spent lots of money on growth rather than putting it into a bank account. Sounds like a terrible idea, really.
Use :x instead.