Oh yeah, she has lied, brought in experts to lie, and so on. My point is more that now that people can take a 10 minute drive and look at a windmill that will be pretty similar to the ones that she is agitating against (and talk to the folks who are 'living with them'), the lies will have trouble standing up.
Until someone builds a practical propulsion system, one way tickets for a human mission are a problem (and for given propulsion system, a probe is going to be orders of magnitude cheaper than something that includes life support; this effect is worse for slower systems, as they demand that you send a generational ship).
Idiomatik does a reasonable job of talking about energy consumption, not electricity consumption. 20% of 72 TW is 14.4 TW, not 1.8 TW, so your link is also talking some about overall energy consumption, and not exclusively about electrical.
Looking at those maps, getting 100% coverage at locations with 6.9 m/s or better wind is going to take a lot of doing. On the other hand, it is clear that quite a lot more than 3 TW can be harvested from the wind.
The estimate you are talking about is probably based on uranium in mines that are active today (and probably other areas where the ore is similar).
If you use plutonium along with the uranium (much of today's nuclear 'waste' is plutonium, which can be used in reactors, but at greater cost than fresh uranium) you get hundreds of years more. If you harvest uranium from the oceans, you get thousands of years more (it is probably technologically possible to harvest uranium from the ocean now, it is not cost competitive with regular mines).
I did pay attention to most of it; CNBC looked really bad by the end of it. I was just pointing out that I enjoyed the irony of Stewart starting the whole thing by railing against cheap populism (he specifically said this about Santelli after his (Santelli's) shout out to traders on the floor of the CBOT) and then devolving into a situation where he characterized CNBC as not serving the little guy trying to manage his 401k (which I don't really think they would claim is what they do, or are trying to do).
The thing where Cramer talks about manipulating the market is pretty damning, but it is also pretty thin on context.
You need to account for the depreciation of windmill. It won't be worth €10,742 after 1 year of use. It certainly won't be worth €10,742 after 10 years of use.
I really have no idea if the different corrections matter (I thought about it some more and my actual corrections are in negative diopers, I am nearsighted).
Now that I 'get them', I can see stereograms without any correction.
There are investors working to put a couple of commercial wind towers up a couple miles from here. A woman with property in the area has been sending out monthly newsletters slamming wind power (infrasound, weird electrical effects, property values, etc.). Her agenda isn't going to stand up to the wind towers that just started operating 15 miles away that people can just go look at though.
They are pretty bad for the wind level where the test was done. Expensive electricity in Europe costs about €0.25, so €10,000 goes an awful long way. Even at the €0.318 quoted for Denmark, the €10,000 goes pretty far.
I certainly am not going to run out and buy something that barely pays for itself in 15 years (and that is without accounting for interest and maintenance...).
I'm not sure I miss the point. I'll agree that I don't think the point is worth consideration right now.
Spending a few billion dollars on increasing the chances that a future civilization notices we were here might be nice though.
Broadly speaking 'economically feasible' means 'the benefits outweigh the gains' not 'it is cheap', so I do like it when things are economically feasible.
CNBC is full of ridiculous cheerleaders (Cramer is among the loudest), but they don't market themselves as meeting the "safe, long term investment advice for everyman" standard that Stewart wants to hold them to.
Anyone who spends a half hour looking into Cramer's advice will find out that he advocates for people doing their own research (his show is for ideas...) and that "Mad Money" actually refers to money that you can afford to risk trading (so it is in addition to your 401k or whatever retirement account, not for money that you are depending on for your retirement).
The best part about that whole kerfuffle was when Jon Stewart railed at a CNBC talking-head for his cheap populism.
It is a lot easier to reverse or modify bad legislation than it is to back out of a economically painful international treaty (I agree that Kyoto would have shifted a great deal of productive activity to India and China; at a minimum, it would make them even more attractive to new investment).
I don't really agree. I'm not an astronomer or anything, but I would think that most of the interesting science that is done using interstellar probes will end up being done via data analysis, not utilizing systems that simulate environmental engagement (if that doesn't describe the essence of telepresence, then the word doesn't mean anything anyway).
So interstellar probes probably will be used to explore the universe, but describing something where input and feedback takes years as telepresence doesn't add any clarity to your message, and it maybe makes telepresence less useful as a word.
The author would have a much easier time making his case if he called it computer simulation instead of telepresence (which sort of implies a near real time experience) and referred to experiencing other worlds, rather than exploring them.
I would say blame the journalist, but the author of the Op-ed works at the Seti Institute, so he probably knew exactly what he was doing.
An unqualified (unqualified in the sense that there is nothing in the statement that indicates a limitation of scope) declarative statement is an interesting way to talk about perception.
And I'm not denying that compromising an OpenID account grants access to any dependent account (which does make OpenID a single point of failure for those accounts), I'm arguing that this aspect of the system has had very little impact on adoption (and thus, a statement that it has been a major stumbling block is horseshit).
Right, but, at least in the U.S., it is an item on the list of failures. I would think that gasoline taxes provide another reasonable window into the attitude of Congress towards energy consumption, and they were all set to repeal them when gas was hitting $4 a gallon, not raise them to levels comparable to 'the liberal West'.
I guess I don't think complaining about an instance of failure is a good way to complain about a particular agenda gaining traction.
Personally, I though Kyoto would have faired better if it had stuck to environmental regulation and left the economic fudging to another agreement. Hopefully developments in solar panels make them economic (say, an unsubsidized, 5-10 year payoff) sooner than later, making the whole issue much less interesting (because people will choose carbon neutral power in order to save money).
It wasn't my intent to complain about your post (You certainly didn't hurt my feelings; I was simply pointing out that not everybody catches on quickly).
I need a different correction for each eye (around 1 diopter for one eye, and around 3 for the other).
It took me something like 10 years before I actually saw a stereogram. I was with my brother when I first encountered one, he saw it in less than 30 seconds, adding to my frustration. I'm not sure the difference between my eyes contributed to the difficulty, but I like to think so.
Single point of failure stopping OpenID adoption is horseshit. Most sites use email password recovery which has exactly the same problem.
OpenID adoption has been slow because it is 'new and different' (which is equivalent to hard for at least half of all people), and because no one wants to be a consumer (sites seem to miss that you can use OpenID for authentication and still ask for other profile information).
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, she has lied, brought in experts to lie, and so on. My point is more that now that people can take a 10 minute drive and look at a windmill that will be pretty similar to the ones that she is agitating against (and talk to the folks who are 'living with them'), the lies will have trouble standing up.
Until someone builds a practical propulsion system, one way tickets for a human mission are a problem (and for given propulsion system, a probe is going to be orders of magnitude cheaper than something that includes life support; this effect is worse for slower systems, as they demand that you send a generational ship).
Idiomatik does a reasonable job of talking about energy consumption, not electricity consumption. 20% of 72 TW is 14.4 TW, not 1.8 TW, so your link is also talking some about overall energy consumption, and not exclusively about electrical.
Looking at those maps, getting 100% coverage at locations with 6.9 m/s or better wind is going to take a lot of doing. On the other hand, it is clear that quite a lot more than 3 TW can be harvested from the wind.
The estimate you are talking about is probably based on uranium in mines that are active today (and probably other areas where the ore is similar).
If you use plutonium along with the uranium (much of today's nuclear 'waste' is plutonium, which can be used in reactors, but at greater cost than fresh uranium) you get hundreds of years more. If you harvest uranium from the oceans, you get thousands of years more (it is probably technologically possible to harvest uranium from the ocean now, it is not cost competitive with regular mines).
I did pay attention to most of it; CNBC looked really bad by the end of it. I was just pointing out that I enjoyed the irony of Stewart starting the whole thing by railing against cheap populism (he specifically said this about Santelli after his (Santelli's) shout out to traders on the floor of the CBOT) and then devolving into a situation where he characterized CNBC as not serving the little guy trying to manage his 401k (which I don't really think they would claim is what they do, or are trying to do).
The thing where Cramer talks about manipulating the market is pretty damning, but it is also pretty thin on context.
You need to account for the depreciation of windmill. It won't be worth €10,742 after 1 year of use. It certainly won't be worth €10,742 after 10 years of use.
I really have no idea if the different corrections matter (I thought about it some more and my actual corrections are in negative diopers, I am nearsighted).
Now that I 'get them', I can see stereograms without any correction.
There are investors working to put a couple of commercial wind towers up a couple miles from here. A woman with property in the area has been sending out monthly newsletters slamming wind power (infrasound, weird electrical effects, property values, etc.). Her agenda isn't going to stand up to the wind towers that just started operating 15 miles away that people can just go look at though.
They are pretty bad for the wind level where the test was done. Expensive electricity in Europe costs about €0.25, so €10,000 goes an awful long way. Even at the €0.318 quoted for Denmark, the €10,000 goes pretty far.
I certainly am not going to run out and buy something that barely pays for itself in 15 years (and that is without accounting for interest and maintenance...).
(Price quotes from here: http://www.energy.eu/#domestic )
I'm not sure I miss the point. I'll agree that I don't think the point is worth consideration right now.
Spending a few billion dollars on increasing the chances that a future civilization notices we were here might be nice though.
Broadly speaking 'economically feasible' means 'the benefits outweigh the gains' not 'it is cheap', so I do like it when things are economically feasible.
Yeah, they really took down that straw-man.
CNBC is full of ridiculous cheerleaders (Cramer is among the loudest), but they don't market themselves as meeting the "safe, long term investment advice for everyman" standard that Stewart wants to hold them to.
Anyone who spends a half hour looking into Cramer's advice will find out that he advocates for people doing their own research (his show is for ideas...) and that "Mad Money" actually refers to money that you can afford to risk trading (so it is in addition to your 401k or whatever retirement account, not for money that you are depending on for your retirement).
The best part about that whole kerfuffle was when Jon Stewart railed at a CNBC talking-head for his cheap populism.
It is a lot easier to reverse or modify bad legislation than it is to back out of a economically painful international treaty (I agree that Kyoto would have shifted a great deal of productive activity to India and China; at a minimum, it would make them even more attractive to new investment).
I don't really agree. I'm not an astronomer or anything, but I would think that most of the interesting science that is done using interstellar probes will end up being done via data analysis, not utilizing systems that simulate environmental engagement (if that doesn't describe the essence of telepresence, then the word doesn't mean anything anyway).
So interstellar probes probably will be used to explore the universe, but describing something where input and feedback takes years as telepresence doesn't add any clarity to your message, and it maybe makes telepresence less useful as a word.
Building a moon base probably won't give us better launch propulsion. Better launch propulsion would make it much easier to build a moon base.
Given current rocket technology, there isn't any reason to rush into anything (because it isn't particularly practical).
The author would have a much easier time making his case if he called it computer simulation instead of telepresence (which sort of implies a near real time experience) and referred to experiencing other worlds, rather than exploring them.
I would say blame the journalist, but the author of the Op-ed works at the Seti Institute, so he probably knew exactly what he was doing.
An unqualified (unqualified in the sense that there is nothing in the statement that indicates a limitation of scope) declarative statement is an interesting way to talk about perception.
And I'm not denying that compromising an OpenID account grants access to any dependent account (which does make OpenID a single point of failure for those accounts), I'm arguing that this aspect of the system has had very little impact on adoption (and thus, a statement that it has been a major stumbling block is horseshit).
Really? I think they are reasonably fair, but they also clearly have a bias.
Right, but, at least in the U.S., it is an item on the list of failures. I would think that gasoline taxes provide another reasonable window into the attitude of Congress towards energy consumption, and they were all set to repeal them when gas was hitting $4 a gallon, not raise them to levels comparable to 'the liberal West'.
I guess I don't think complaining about an instance of failure is a good way to complain about a particular agenda gaining traction.
Personally, I though Kyoto would have faired better if it had stuck to environmental regulation and left the economic fudging to another agreement. Hopefully developments in solar panels make them economic (say, an unsubsidized, 5-10 year payoff) sooner than later, making the whole issue much less interesting (because people will choose carbon neutral power in order to save money).
It wasn't my intent to complain about your post (You certainly didn't hurt my feelings; I was simply pointing out that not everybody catches on quickly).
I need a different correction for each eye (around 1 diopter for one eye, and around 3 for the other).
It took me something like 10 years before I actually saw a stereogram. I was with my brother when I first encountered one, he saw it in less than 30 seconds, adding to my frustration. I'm not sure the difference between my eyes contributed to the difficulty, but I like to think so.
Isn't eBay itself already a reverse intelligence test?
Single point of failure stopping OpenID adoption is horseshit. Most sites use email password recovery which has exactly the same problem.
OpenID adoption has been slow because it is 'new and different' (which is equivalent to hard for at least half of all people), and because no one wants to be a consumer (sites seem to miss that you can use OpenID for authentication and still ask for other profile information).
Is "tard" the universal backdoor password?
Are you speculating that keeping a VHS recording is illegal, or is there some precedent or whatever that has been set?
Really?
My point was more that it won't contribute to such a tax until it is ratified (specifically by the U.S.).