No, but he read it in an old book and it sounds like something he would like to believe, so he does. Be careful presenting evidence that counters this opinion...
No, the two halves would go around the earth and rejoin on the other side just like something out of Scooby Doo, which based on the apparent comprehension level I'm guessing is the favorite cartoon of most of these AC's.
Note that the headline includes the word 'deflect' and the summary mentions nudging asteroids off of a collision course. Neither suggests that the asteroid would be split. To save time, it also does not mention 'death wielding laser of doom' (even though those would be awesome), sharks (although it does fit dinosaurs in), or anything about using these satellites to 'deflect' political opponents (but it does almost mention why that wouldn't work, traveling through the atmosphere).
Now please go back to aol or myspace, where your reading comprehension, grammar, and lack of identity will no doubt leave them in awe.
Your examples are generally accurate (except I am unfamiliar with the German butter gap) but irrelevant. That you can only think of three examples, both from over 50 years ago, almost proves his point for him (if you change it to mid 20th century). Now I know there are areas where researchers not in the U.S. are in the lead, but those researchers are also not in China. Instead of trying to refute his argument with 'I am sure there are...' why don't you provide some relevant examples?
Which would they make more money off of- 6 months of chemo drugs, or 40 years of lipitor/viagra/bladder control/whatever*100 other drugs? The dead are not consumers. Maybe they could make more money off of chemo drugs than an anti-body cancer cure, but at the cost of a huge amount of future sales of other products. It's in the best interest of "Big Pharma" to keep you alive, and consuming, as long as possible.
Scientists don't mind people questioning their science. If the scientist is correct, their work will stand up to it. If they're not correct, they now know more than they did before and can correct their theory. Scientists do mind people people saying they're wrong, but offering no evidence/proof/reasoning why, instead just saying 'because I/this book/these tea leaves/loud guy on tv/someone with absolutely no scientific knowledge say so'. Scientists also don't like when people subvert the scientific process, then claim their predetermined "results" disprove reams of peer-reviewed research. Nothing religious about it.
Oh you kids and your new-fangled postal service! When I was a kid we would carve our next game move onto a rock and wait for the glacier to deliver it. And we liked it that way.
That's true. Although, in reality I think 9/10 households will be using a cordless phone which will be useless in a power outage, regardless to how you're hooked into the phone network.
That's why I have my cordless phone base station connected to my UPS. I surely can't be the only one to do this.
Having exercised for several years, and being in fairly good shape, I have found that the cure to obesity lies in what you do in the kitchen, not in the gym.
Thermostats are themselves now addressable over the network, usually via Ethernet if not UDP/IP. There will also be an Operator Work Station, hopefully running an updated OS (always Windows afaik, please please tell me if there's another option) on the network. This network should never, ever be connected to the outside world, but often is (firewall? What firewall? Sigh.).
So take a laptop filled with misinformation, science fiction, and totally bogus stuff. If enough people do this, your adversary will bankrupt himself trying to figure it all out. Extra points for the size of the server farms you can get trying to decrypt output from/dev/random.
Why encrypt/dev/random, when you can have them working to unencrypt pictures from goatwhatever.com? Or if you don't want to have the goat pictures in the first place, encrypt a bunch of demotivational posters. Or if you want to mess with them, use steganography to embed the goat pictures in the posters.
Putting it in units of Marshmallow Fluff is pointless and misleading, especially to the Slashdot crowd. This needs to be put in units we can understand. Here goes:
Library of Congress- ~286,720 GB (est from wikipedia info)
Cheapest DVD I could find (Melody 600 pk, on Amazon, use your credit) $0.2065 per DVD including shipping. There may be tape cheaper per GB, but most people don't have tape drives. The $25 from Amazon will buy 121 DVDs at that cost, assuming you split the package with someone else.
This works out to about 0.198% of the LOC. People will trade their online privacy for less than 1/5 of 1 percent of the LOC! Truly shameful.
This. A million times this. There is never an excuse for not being transparent.
See, if you don't want me to see the law you are writing, clearly it means you know I won't agree. Now in a democracy, who are you to redact a law which does not have popular support? Bismark was not a democrat, and his laws were acts balancing the public interest, yes, but also all the special interests who supported the empire.
There is no place for that in a democracy.
I think the quote refers to the process of producing the sausage or law, not the final product. Just like you wouldn't want to see the pieces of pig snout and various orifices going into the grinder and coming out as your lunch, you wouldn't want to see the bickering, infighting, back-stabbing, and other types of anti-social behavior that are combined to make our laws.
I note that many of our laws have the same level of coherency and uniformity as a poorly ground sausage, without sharing any of the positive qualities.
Similarly, once finished, both the butcher and the legislature are eager for the product to be "in your face".
This is going to be incredibly insensitive torwards those lives that were lost...
If you are so sure, maybe you shouldn't say it. Right?
He shouldn't keep quiet because he's insensitive. He should keep quiet because his argument is poorly thought out. It is not proper to compare human losses in other irrelevant or loosely related areas to losses in space exploration. The Challenger disaster simply would not have happened if the management had listened to the engineers. The Columbia disaster was caused by a known problem which they had always been lucky with before. Apollo 1 seems to have required several mistakes, including the flammable material in the cabin and the high-pressure O2 in an untested environment. It's clearly impossible to be perfect, but that doesn't mean you should just write off the resultant deaths, and ignore the lessons.
But he said 'the frequent failure of our space launches, which occur at a time when they are flying over the part of Earth not visible from Russia, where we do not see the spacecraft and do not receive telemetric information, are not clear to us,' an apparent reference to the Americas.
It is thought inducing. Specifically: 1) Reference(s) please to 'frequent' failures without known explanation. 2) Most of the Earth is not visible from Russia. Are these 'frequent' failures all over the same part of the Earth, or is he playing with words? 3) Why do they not receive telemetric information there? They have other satellites to transmit to. A relay should not be difficult to establish. Are these things getting fried there, or could they download this data when the probe is back over Russia (or at least visible from Russia...) if they had saved the data? The probe under discussion is still in orbit- is it still communicating? The BBC article says it "went missing shortly after takeoff in November is due to crash land on Earth this weekend". I'm not sure how the BBC puts those conflicting details in the same sentence, but keep up the typical good work BBC. 4) Do they launch with different trajectories? What is the success rate of those launches? 5) A radar pulse powerful enough to fry a rocket would be detectable far beyond the vicinity of the rocket. Have they detected evidence of such a pulse? Have they failed to detect such evidence during a failed launch? 6) If their probe is not designed to withstand strong EM radiation, why are they a) launching it over a known source of strong EM radiation, b) sending it to Mars in the first place? 7) If it is known that the probe has design problems, and will probably fail its mission, sabotaging the launch is an excellent way to CYA.
So you have to expend a fairly large amount of energy heating the media to 85C/185F to get it to give up the CO2, (then more energy to store the CO2). How long it takes to saturate the polymer is not mentioned, but unless its months between regeneration, the CO2 generated while collecting the polymer media, transporting it to a facility, HEATING it, capturing the recovered CO2, could exceed the amount it could capture. And then you are still left with the CO2 you captured. What to do with that?
So the original purpose of this polymer, to keep C02 out of batteries seems to be a far better use for the polymer than environmental CO2 sequestration.
With a requirement of only 85 C, they could easily be heated using low-grade waste heat from a process plant, or using a solar concentrator or similar. No additional energy expenditure required. It would also probably be done locally, so there would be little to no transport cost. There will still be some cost to recover and contain it, but it should still be an overall reduction of CO2. There are multiple uses for the CO2, that should not be a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The question was being posed to the Taliban. Hopefully it was being asked rhetorically.
Did you hear that from a scientist?
No, but he read it in an old book and it sounds like something he would like to believe, so he does.
Be careful presenting evidence that counters this opinion...
No, the two halves would go around the earth and rejoin on the other side just like something out of Scooby Doo, which based on the apparent comprehension level I'm guessing is the favorite cartoon of most of these AC's.
Note that the headline includes the word 'deflect' and the summary mentions nudging asteroids off of a collision course. Neither suggests that the asteroid would be split. To save time, it also does not mention 'death wielding laser of doom' (even though those would be awesome), sharks (although it does fit dinosaurs in), or anything about using these satellites to 'deflect' political opponents (but it does almost mention why that wouldn't work, traveling through the atmosphere).
Now please go back to aol or myspace, where your reading comprehension, grammar, and lack of identity will no doubt leave them in awe.
Your examples are generally accurate (except I am unfamiliar with the German butter gap) but irrelevant. That you can only think of three examples, both from over 50 years ago, almost proves his point for him (if you change it to mid 20th century). Now I know there are areas where researchers not in the U.S. are in the lead, but those researchers are also not in China. Instead of trying to refute his argument with 'I am sure there are...' why don't you provide some relevant examples?
Which would they make more money off of- 6 months of chemo drugs, or 40 years of lipitor/viagra/bladder control/whatever*100 other drugs? The dead are not consumers. Maybe they could make more money off of chemo drugs than an anti-body cancer cure, but at the cost of a huge amount of future sales of other products. It's in the best interest of "Big Pharma" to keep you alive, and consuming, as long as possible.
Scientists don't mind people questioning their science. If the scientist is correct, their work will stand up to it. If they're not correct, they now know more than they did before and can correct their theory.
Scientists do mind people people saying they're wrong, but offering no evidence/proof/reasoning why, instead just saying 'because I/this book/these tea leaves/loud guy on tv/someone with absolutely no scientific knowledge say so'. Scientists also don't like when people subvert the scientific process, then claim their predetermined "results" disprove reams of peer-reviewed research. Nothing religious about it.
Oh you kids and your new-fangled postal service! When I was a kid we would carve our next game move onto a rock and wait for the glacier to deliver it. And we liked it that way.
Now where did my fiber go....
does not have the electrolytes data centers crave.
But it does earn them the coveted LEED Brown status.
You kidding me? The prospect of GPS-guided bullets accurate to the millimeter ....
Snipe much?
Come on, be creative:
4)
Throw the fish and bait in the river to distract the crocodile.
5)
Wait until the crocodile gets close to the boat, and bash it on the head with an oar.
6)
Wait until the crocodile gets close to the boat, and push the fat guy onto it, killing the crocodile.
The Blackbird itself was a secret program for a long time. God knows what we have in the wings.
They usually put fuel tanks in the wings, this shouldn't require God-like knowledge to figure out.
That's true. Although, in reality I think 9/10 households will be using a cordless phone which will be useless in a power outage, regardless to how you're hooked into the phone network.
That's why I have my cordless phone base station connected to my UPS. I surely can't be the only one to do this.
Maybe they jam the GPS signal and then put up a "Detour" sign?
Having exercised for several years, and being in fairly good shape, I have found that the cure to obesity lies in what you do in the kitchen, not in the gym.
Exactly. Next year I expect an article titled "Why People Don't Live Past 115".
Just waiting to see an RC moving truck pull up to his house. Maybe it will only take 5 years to move?
Thermostats are themselves now addressable over the network, usually via Ethernet if not UDP/IP. There will also be an Operator Work Station, hopefully running an updated OS (always Windows afaik, please please tell me if there's another option) on the network. This network should never, ever be connected to the outside world, but often is (firewall? What firewall? Sigh.).
So take a laptop filled with misinformation, science fiction, and totally bogus stuff. If enough people do this, your adversary will bankrupt himself trying to figure it all out. Extra points for the size of the server farms you can get trying to decrypt output from /dev/random.
Why encrypt /dev/random, when you can have them working to unencrypt pictures from goatwhatever.com? Or if you don't want to have the goat pictures in the first place, encrypt a bunch of demotivational posters. Or if you want to mess with them, use steganography to embed the goat pictures in the posters.
Putting it in units of Marshmallow Fluff is pointless and misleading, especially to the Slashdot crowd. This needs to be put in units we can understand. Here goes:
Library of Congress- ~286,720 GB (est from wikipedia info)
Cheapest DVD I could find (Melody 600 pk, on Amazon, use your credit) $0.2065 per DVD including shipping. There may be tape cheaper per GB, but most people don't have tape drives. The $25 from Amazon will buy 121 DVDs at that cost, assuming you split the package with someone else.
This works out to about 0.198% of the LOC. People will trade their online privacy for less than 1/5 of 1 percent of the LOC! Truly shameful.
This. A million times this. There is never an excuse for not being transparent.
See, if you don't want me to see the law you are writing, clearly it means you know I won't agree. Now in a democracy, who are you to redact a law which does not have popular support? Bismark was not a democrat, and his laws were acts balancing the public interest, yes, but also all the special interests who supported the empire.
There is no place for that in a democracy.
I think the quote refers to the process of producing the sausage or law, not the final product. Just like you wouldn't want to see the pieces of pig snout and various orifices going into the grinder and coming out as your lunch, you wouldn't want to see the bickering, infighting, back-stabbing, and other types of anti-social behavior that are combined to make our laws.
I note that many of our laws have the same level of coherency and uniformity as a poorly ground sausage, without sharing any of the positive qualities.
Similarly, once finished, both the butcher and the legislature are eager for the product to be "in your face".
Can we ask him if the chicken or egg came first?
Or is this more like claiming the chicken omelette came before either?
This is going to be incredibly insensitive torwards those lives that were lost...
If you are so sure, maybe you shouldn't say it. Right?
He shouldn't keep quiet because he's insensitive. He should keep quiet because his argument is poorly thought out. It is not proper to compare human losses in other irrelevant or loosely related areas to losses in space exploration. The Challenger disaster simply would not have happened if the management had listened to the engineers. The Columbia disaster was caused by a known problem which they had always been lucky with before. Apollo 1 seems to have required several mistakes, including the flammable material in the cabin and the high-pressure O2 in an untested environment. It's clearly impossible to be perfect, but that doesn't mean you should just write off the resultant deaths, and ignore the lessons.
You must be an engineer, as they're ignoring you too.
But he said 'the frequent failure of our space launches, which occur at a time when they are flying over the part of Earth not visible from Russia, where we do not see the spacecraft and do not receive telemetric information, are not clear to us,' an apparent reference to the Americas.
It is thought inducing. Specifically:
1) Reference(s) please to 'frequent' failures without known explanation.
2) Most of the Earth is not visible from Russia. Are these 'frequent' failures all over the same part of the Earth, or is he playing with words?
3) Why do they not receive telemetric information there? They have other satellites to transmit to. A relay should not be difficult to establish. Are these things getting fried there, or could they download this data when the probe is back over Russia (or at least visible from Russia...) if they had saved the data? The probe under discussion is still in orbit- is it still communicating? The BBC article says it "went missing shortly after takeoff in November is due to crash land on Earth this weekend". I'm not sure how the BBC puts those conflicting details in the same sentence, but keep up the typical good work BBC.
4) Do they launch with different trajectories? What is the success rate of those launches?
5) A radar pulse powerful enough to fry a rocket would be detectable far beyond the vicinity of the rocket. Have they detected evidence of such a pulse? Have they failed to detect such evidence during a failed launch?
6) If their probe is not designed to withstand strong EM radiation, why are they a) launching it over a known source of strong EM radiation, b) sending it to Mars in the first place?
7) If it is known that the probe has design problems, and will probably fail its mission, sabotaging the launch is an excellent way to CYA.
From TFA:
It also says:
So you have to expend a fairly large amount of energy heating the media to 85C/185F to get it to give up the CO2, (then more energy to store the CO2).
How long it takes to saturate the polymer is not mentioned, but unless its months between regeneration, the CO2 generated while collecting the polymer media, transporting it to a facility, HEATING it, capturing the recovered CO2, could exceed the amount it could capture. And then you are still left with the CO2 you captured. What to do with that?
So the original purpose of this polymer, to keep C02 out of batteries seems to be a far better use for the polymer than environmental CO2 sequestration.
While far from perfect, farming real trees seems a less energy intensive method especially when treated as a crop, harvested at the optimal time, with the wood used for long duration storage.
With a requirement of only 85 C, they could easily be heated using low-grade waste heat from a process plant, or using a solar concentrator or similar. No additional energy expenditure required. It would also probably be done locally, so there would be little to no transport cost. There will still be some cost to recover and contain it, but it should still be an overall reduction of CO2. There are multiple uses for the CO2, that should not be a problem.