Sorry, I tend to get caught up in what I'm saying. I've started to add smiley faces at the end to show that I'm still enjoying the discussion, but sometimes I forget.:-)
Of course. My point is that the Doctor in the article suggested that he and other doctors followed medical science. My point is to show how his "brand" of medical science isn't so scientific, and that there's a reason why people ignore their doctors.
We're not really arguing unless you want to delve down to the level of semantics that don't exist.:-)
I simply disagree with your terminology - you use the phrase "medical science" to include and indict a great many things which are not at all science.
Tie it back with the original statement, "It seems that traditional Western medicine based on scientific evidence is less and less trusted by the general public."
He's arguing that the practices of Doctors are based on sound Medical Science. This is at best, misleading. The practices of Doctors are often based on out of date information. At worst, this is outright incorrect since Doctors are often following FDA/ADA/(other association) recommendations rather than direct scientific evidence.:-)
The FDA is a political organization, not a scientific one.
So you're telling me that Doctors (the one's supposedly "following" medical science) never parrot the FDA's recommendations? Doctors never told their patients to stop eating eggs? Doctors never told their patients to follow the Food Pyramid? Doctors never told mothers to use formula instead of breast feeding? Doctors never used Mercury fillings? Doctors never give out advice that contradicts the cutting edge of medical science?
Of course they did! The problem (as I pointed out) is that Doctors aren't operating from the most recent medical research (much of which isn't even proven yet). Doctors are operating from data that's 20 years old, but happens to be what they are trained with. The FDA and ADA may not be scientific organizations, but Doctors do follow their recommendations. And that is the "medical science" of which the Doctor in the article spoke of, and what most Doctors speak of.
If you're lucky, you'll find a good Doctor who keeps extremely current and doesn't buy into everything that comes down the pipeline. But that Doctor would probably also tell you, "We don't really know jack, so exercise, eat right, and be happy."
You have a valid point to some extent, but much of what you're talking about doesn't come from the scientific medical establishment
It's easy to blame the "corporate shills", but the examples I mentioned (with margarine, perhaps, being the only exception) are really what medical science preached. There didn't use to be any differentiation between "good cholesterol" and "bad cholesterol". Nor was the Food Pyramid built by corporations. (If it was, you can be certain that it would tell you to get your daily intake of Captain Crunch, Coca-Cola, and Ho Hos.)
The key to the seeming "But science knows this yet does this" dicotomy is the fact that quite a few things are winding their way through research long before they ever reach the trenches. For example, there was medical evidence suggesting the two types of cholesterol 20 years ago, but medical science moves so slow that it didn't get fully studied and sent to the trenches until 10+ years later.
Is that a REALLY long time to wait for results? Well, yes. Unfortunately, that's just the nature of the beast. Medical Science is very concerned about not making things worse, so they take their time and try to get it right. The problem is that they spend the time in between trying to make things "better" by using their existing knowledge to mess with and adjust things that shouldn't be adjusted. As a result, it's much better not to bother with Doctors unless you actually have a problem. Live happy, and you'll live healthy.:-)
It's probably because almost all of the research is funded by corporations that make themselves sound good. I mean, I'd rather trust someone who I didn't know, but I considered a *regular guy* instead of a paid researcher who told what to find.
Personally? I don't trust any of them. From the summary:
It seems that traditional Western medicine based on scientific evidence is less and less trusted by the general public.
Is this the same scientific evidence that said "Margarine is good", "Eggs are bad", and "We know about triglyceride problems, but we'll built the Food Pyramid this way because people are too stupid?" I'm sorry, all medical "science" does is stumble around in circles until they land on top of something remotely approaching the truth.
My take on it is, if you're actually sick (i.e. Unable to operate in some way, shape, or form), then go to the doctor. He may not be very precise, but he might just save your life. If you're not outright sick, then eat a wide variety of foods in moderate quantities and excercise. Forget about the doctors and their "fads of the week". Just do what you're going to do and enjoy your life. In the end you'll be far healthier just by being happy than you'll ever be through ravaging your body by fad diets and drugs.
I do not see a list of Yahoo/Google to click with yours?
And I don't see a list of sites with the original. ONLY FireFox 1.0.5 works with the original version. My version works with 98% of the browsership, plus adds a fallback for weird people like yourself who disable a very useful feature like JavaScript.
Here's a fully debugged version that degrades gracefully (for people like you) and supports more than 2% of the browsers out there:
<div id="popup" style="display:none; position: absolute; background: white;"></div> <a href="http://www.yahoo.com" onMouseOver="hoverLink(event, 'http://www.google.com,http://www.yahoo.com');">Search Engine</a> <script> function hoverLink(e, urls) {
var popup = document.getElementById("popup");
var array = new Array();
var loc = 0;
No, actually with his code it's not supported at all under Internet Explorer. All it does is set the "title" attribute in the tag so that the user gets a useless tooltip that is a list of a bunch of URLs which cannot be copied or edited or clicked on, so doesn't support going to any of the links at all.
It doesn't even seem to work in Mozilla 1.7.5! (i.e. I get the same lame behavior.)
You'd think with the wealth of info out there, this fellow would have figured out how to insert a cross-browser hidden and collapsed DIV that he can then reanimate later. i.e. Something like this:
<div id="popup" style="display:hidden;"></div> <a href="#" onClick="clickLink(event, 'http://www.google.com,http://www.yahoo.com');">Search Engine</a> <script> function clickLink(e, urls) {
var popup = document.getElementById("popup");
var array = new Array();
var loc = 0;
I don't know about you, but I don't buy fuel for my car by the tanker truck.;)
The reason why I ask is that Ethanol at a retail cost of ~$2.00/gal would already beat the heck out of oil prices.
Gasoline is somewhere around 65$/barrel right now, correct? A barrel is 42 gallons, so wholesale gasoline is $1.55/gal.
The figures I've seen have crude fluctuating around $60.00/gal, with refined gasoline at about $1.60/gal wholesale. The latest report is here. (FYI, that link will stop working on July 25th.) It quotes:
Light, sweet crude for August delivery was down 36 cents to $57.73 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange by afternoon in Europe. Heating oil dropped nearly 2 cents to $1.6430 a gallon, while unleaded gasoline fell nearly 3 cents to $1.6600.
The sell-off extended to London's International Petroleum Exchange, where Brent futures for September delivery fell 35 cents to $57.26 a barrel.
Oil is traded in US dollars. The weak dollar raises oil prices and cheapens ethanol by comparison.
*smacks forehead* Of course. I knew that. I need to stop skimming articles so fast. Yes, the lowering of the dollar is making the Ethanol prices more attractive, but it does seem to be backfiring on the economy. Traditionally, lowering the dollar has had a positive economic impact, but the US has never been as quite as dependent on oil as it is today. And now that the price of oil is up there, it's doubtful we'll be seeing it drop unless actual competition enters the market.
They keep getting closer, though, so expect to see more ethanol at the pumps in the future.
Indeed. I'd be happy if oil companies started focusing on Ethanol blends. We're currently at about a 10% blend in many areas. If that blend could be increased to say 20-50% while simultaneously dropping the price of Ethanol, we'd have a real winner on our hands.
The problem is that the government needs to pour a few temporary incentives into making it happen. It would also help if exceptions were made to the undercutting laws at the pump for Ethanol fuels. Passing lower prices on to the consumer could only be good for the demand. Also, lowering taxes on ethanol gasoline (like the Illinois gas tax suspension of 2000) would help tremendously.
Equatorial countries can be expected to push even more for ethanol production, as they can make it with sugarcane (more efficient than corn).
Indeed. This would be especially helpful once the dollar goes back up, and the price of gasoline doesn't.
Nope. The only reason why the switch hasn't occurred is because ethanol costs too much. We live in a market-based economy. If we had to spend 5 times as much energy to make the ethanol as it contained, but we got that energy from on-site ag-waste burning and managed to produce $1.50-per-gallon ethanol, people would flock to it.
Wholesale or retail? According to this data, Ethanol prices will reach about $1.80/gal by December. Unfortunately, Ethanol has not been widely tracked or promoted, so there's a LOT of inefficiency that's keeping the price up. If the market started demanding ethanol, the price equation would probably change considerably.
Truth be told, we *need* to get on it. The only thing holding down the price of gasoline (~$60/barrel and ~$2.30/gal retail!) is the constant the lowering of the dollar value. That's not something the US Economy can expect to maintain indefinitely without worldwide reprocussions.
By the way, all of the papers against ethanol were authored or coauthored by the same person: Pimental. He just keeps hashing his old, widely criticized as inaccurate data, and repeating the same calculations with it.
Nice. So the question is, why does anyone believe this guy? While it's tempting to point at big oil, it's not like they're not feeling the economic squeeze as well. Any thoughts?
Ah, I misread your post. Still, points 3 and 4 apply. We can replace the plants piecemeal without any major impact, and the nuclear fuel supply is far more extensive than the previous estimates given.:-)
If I calculated corectly, the world would need about 3300 nuclear powerplants to replace oil energy with nuclear energy. I'm not claiming this is impossible, but it would be by far the largest building effort humanity has ever attempted. Nuke plants take from 5-15 to build and cost.5 -3 billion USD. Please recall that the world economy is only produces 45 trillion/year. Additionally, we don't have unlimited supplies of uranium either. I'm not saying that we cant switch to nuclear. Just that it is not an easy fix or a magic bullet. It's not very feasible.
What you say rings true, but you're missing a few key details that make nuclear power plants workable:
1. Different parts of the world already rely heavily on nuclear power. France, for example, runs 75% off of nuclear power. These stations do not need to be replaced, so you can knock about 17% off your figures.
2. Dams and wind powered plants do not need to be replaced, so you can knock a few more percent off your figures.
3. Old power plants need to be rebuilt or replaced after their useful lifetimes, anyway. If the decision was made to make all new power plants nuclear fired, then new nuclear plants could be created with little to no negative effects on the world economy.
4. Modern nuclear techniques can provide us with nuclear fuels for much longer than the original 100 year estimate. In a breeder reactor, the reactor actually produces MORE energy dense material (via plutonium creation) than it uses up.
In 1996, ADM was the subject of the largest price fixing investigation in history. Senior ADM executives were indicted on criminal charges for engaging in price-fixing in the international lysine market, and the company was fined $100 million, the largest antitrust fine ever.
ADM has been criticized for having a board of directors that does not serve stockholder interests. Business Week has singled ADM out as being one of the worst-governed corporations in the US for three years in a row: 1998, 1999 and 2000. Specifically, the publication charged, ADM had a board packed full of management's incompetent cronies.
Why are so many obviously comedic posts getting modded insightful instead of funny lately?
Because the mods wish to reward the poster with a real mod-point that counts toward their score instead of the pseudo mod-point "funny". The problem with this scheme is that it tends to confuse the/. readers who are just skimming the posts, and it tends to send mod points to people who don't really need them anyway. If I make a joke (which, granted, I'm not the best at doing) I'm always happiest if the mods use the Funny mod instead of the Insightful mod.
I really do applaud the intentions of the mods, but this is one of those cases where you shouldn't try to game the system.:-)
Weve got sound based fusion reactors nearing break-even
Link? Last I heard, sonofusion was nowhere near being energy positive. For that matter, there is still some question about whether it's actually fusion or not.
we have what could be an easy way to generate hydrogen from water using sodium.
Which in no way detracts from the idea of using Ethanol.
Hydrogen is really great stuff. It's simple to make, relatively inexpensive, and reasonably safe. The problem is that it's also difficult to store, it's far more volatile than gasoline, it requires entirely new cars, and there needs to be an infrastructure to support it.
With ethanol we can leverage our existing ethanol infrastructure (part of which is already used for gasoline blends), convert our existing vehicles, and use our existing fill stations. All that's required is for farmers to farm *more*. Not necessarily a bad thing for our economy.
The only reason why a switch to ethanol hasn't happened yet is that there is a constant argument over the issue of ethanol taking more energy to farm than it ever produces. Some studies say that it's a losing game (in which case it's useless) others say that we passed the energy positive stage a long time ago. Until we can get a general consensus on this, the technology isn't going anywhere.
For the record, I think "Wireless" means everything wireless. Mouse, keyboard, monitor, power supply (...)
Fair enough. We have that technology today with Bluetooth devices. The problem is that wireless isn't necessarily better. Wireless means batteries, which occasionaly need to be replaced or charged. Chargable batteries result in a lower lifespan for the device. Wireless also means interference, causing problems at weird times.
The IBM PC Jr came with a wireless keyboard. It was, to put it in a word, annoying. The batteries were always dying, and the IR alignment was always problematic. The latter doesn't apply with bluetooth, but many of the other problems still do.
Wireless is a feature that IMHO should always stay optional unless there is a very compelling reason to make it standard. In my experience, there is no compelling reason for wireless input devices on a desktop computer.
Ooookkkaaayyy. Anyone who's shopped for a PC as of late knows that 2 is pretty easy to come by (even on Dell PCs) and 3 is pretty standard on laptops. 1 is included in all Macs, with the PowerMac being the ultimate quiet cooling solution. (It's a combination of lots of low RPM fans with heat pipes.)
Honestly, on the hardware side we're seeing plenty of innovation. It's the Operating System/Software side where things are crawling. I have my own thoughts on how to accomplish innovation in software, but there's a LOT more that can be done that isn't being addressed. Apple is the closest one to accomplishing massive innovation, but there's a lot more that can still be done.
Where's the nuclear powered car we were promised back in the 1950s?
Some genius figured out that providing every man, woman, and child with sufficient nuclear material to create an atomic pile wasn't such a good idea?
From a technology perspective, there were a few other problems as well. Off the top of my head:
- Radiation: You need a lot of shielding to stop the "hard" stuff like Gamma, Neutron, and X-Ray bursts from escaping a functioning pile.
- Weight: All that shielding results in a lot of extra weight.
- Inefficiency: A "simple" atomic pile may be relatively safe (from a runaway reaction perspective), but it's not particularly efficient, nor can it be actively controlled.
In any case, the Ford atom car was never seriously developed. It was just an "Atoms for Peace" idea that was kicked around as a promotional gig.
A far better use for nuclear tech is in Merchant ships. Today's merchies pay extraordinary amounts for diesel fuel, have limited range, and burn fuel at the rate of gallons per feet. Nuclear reactors could provide these ships with more cargo space (no fuel tanks!), greater speed, longer endurance, and better turn-around times.
Unfortunately, the case of the NS Savannah turned off the private sector to the idea of a nuclear merchant ship. There was no real problem with the ship herself, but rather the fact that she was ahead of her time (crude was still VERY cheap back then) and one of a kind (no infrastructure to support her) meant that she couldn't compete in the market.
The equation today is a very different one from the equation back then, but concerns related to the control of reactors and nuclear fuels have placed road-blocks in the way of reviving the idea.
Have you actually tried Plan9? (Rhetorical question, don't answer that.) Last time I did so, I gave up because I couldn't figure out how the windowing system worked, and there didn't seem to be any way of dropping to the command line. I remember searching around for a "let's get started with Plan9!" tutorial, but I couldn't find one.
I mean, there are only three buttons on a mouse. The fact that none of them did anything other than scroll the one text window on screen in weird ways, frustrated the heck out of me. How about some user friendliness to go with the uber-architecture, guys?
.but then us people from WI put cheese on EVERYTHING...and as a consequence i found that no one outside of WI knows how to make pizza!
You've obviously never been to Downtown Chicago's Uno's. As a true Wisconsinite, I LOVE cheese, but Uno's is pretty close to more than I can take. A deepdish pizza there (which takes 45 minutes to make!) is like 3 inches deep in pure cheese! Although, probably imported from Wisconsin.;-)
One of the more interesting Pizzas I've had as of late was a three cheese concoction at the Cheese Factory in Wisconsin Dells. It had Mozzarella, Cheddar, and Blue Cheese. Yum! I never knew that Blue Cheese could make such a great spice! Another thing to try is the Buffulo Hot Dog from the Great American Hotdog restaurant in Navy Pier, Chicago. This thing is a hotdog with Buffalo Sauce, Celery Salt, and liberal amounts of Blue Cheese. It's a little strong, but man is it good.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I tend to get caught up in what I'm saying. I've started to add smiley faces at the end to show that I'm still enjoying the discussion, but sometimes I forget. :-)
You realize that you're agreeing with me, right?
:-)
Of course. My point is that the Doctor in the article suggested that he and other doctors followed medical science. My point is to show how his "brand" of medical science isn't so scientific, and that there's a reason why people ignore their doctors.
We're not really arguing unless you want to delve down to the level of semantics that don't exist.
I simply disagree with your terminology - you use the phrase "medical science" to include and indict a great many things which are not at all science.
:-)
Tie it back with the original statement, "It seems that traditional Western medicine based on scientific evidence is less and less trusted by the general public."
He's arguing that the practices of Doctors are based on sound Medical Science. This is at best, misleading. The practices of Doctors are often based on out of date information. At worst, this is outright incorrect since Doctors are often following FDA/ADA/(other association) recommendations rather than direct scientific evidence.
The FDA is a political organization, not a scientific one.
So you're telling me that Doctors (the one's supposedly "following" medical science) never parrot the FDA's recommendations? Doctors never told their patients to stop eating eggs? Doctors never told their patients to follow the Food Pyramid? Doctors never told mothers to use formula instead of breast feeding? Doctors never used Mercury fillings? Doctors never give out advice that contradicts the cutting edge of medical science?
Of course they did! The problem (as I pointed out) is that Doctors aren't operating from the most recent medical research (much of which isn't even proven yet). Doctors are operating from data that's 20 years old, but happens to be what they are trained with. The FDA and ADA may not be scientific organizations, but Doctors do follow their recommendations. And that is the "medical science" of which the Doctor in the article spoke of, and what most Doctors speak of.
If you're lucky, you'll find a good Doctor who keeps extremely current and doesn't buy into everything that comes down the pipeline. But that Doctor would probably also tell you, "We don't really know jack, so exercise, eat right, and be happy."
You have a valid point to some extent, but much of what you're talking about doesn't come from the scientific medical establishment
:-)
It's easy to blame the "corporate shills", but the examples I mentioned (with margarine, perhaps, being the only exception) are really what medical science preached. There didn't use to be any differentiation between "good cholesterol" and "bad cholesterol". Nor was the Food Pyramid built by corporations. (If it was, you can be certain that it would tell you to get your daily intake of Captain Crunch, Coca-Cola, and Ho Hos.)
The key to the seeming "But science knows this yet does this" dicotomy is the fact that quite a few things are winding their way through research long before they ever reach the trenches. For example, there was medical evidence suggesting the two types of cholesterol 20 years ago, but medical science moves so slow that it didn't get fully studied and sent to the trenches until 10+ years later.
Is that a REALLY long time to wait for results? Well, yes. Unfortunately, that's just the nature of the beast. Medical Science is very concerned about not making things worse, so they take their time and try to get it right. The problem is that they spend the time in between trying to make things "better" by using their existing knowledge to mess with and adjust things that shouldn't be adjusted. As a result, it's much better not to bother with Doctors unless you actually have a problem. Live happy, and you'll live healthy.
It's probably because almost all of the research is funded by corporations that make themselves sound good. I mean, I'd rather trust someone who I didn't know, but I considered a *regular guy* instead of a paid researcher who told what to find.
Personally? I don't trust any of them. From the summary:
It seems that traditional Western medicine based on scientific evidence is less and less trusted by the general public.
Is this the same scientific evidence that said "Margarine is good", "Eggs are bad", and "We know about triglyceride problems, but we'll built the Food Pyramid this way because people are too stupid?" I'm sorry, all medical "science" does is stumble around in circles until they land on top of something remotely approaching the truth.
My take on it is, if you're actually sick (i.e. Unable to operate in some way, shape, or form), then go to the doctor. He may not be very precise, but he might just save your life. If you're not outright sick, then eat a wide variety of foods in moderate quantities and excercise. Forget about the doctors and their "fads of the week". Just do what you're going to do and enjoy your life. In the end you'll be far healthier just by being happy than you'll ever be through ravaging your body by fad diets and drugs.
I do not see a list of Yahoo/Google to click with yours?
And I don't see a list of sites with the original. ONLY FireFox 1.0.5 works with the original version. My version works with 98% of the browsership, plus adds a fallback for weird people like yourself who disable a very useful feature like JavaScript.
It doesn't even seem to work in Mozilla 1.7.5! (i.e. I get the same lame behavior.)
You'd think with the wealth of info out there, this fellow would have figured out how to insert a cross-browser hidden and collapsed DIV that he can then reanimate later. i.e. Something like this:I haven't tried the code above so there may be a few bugs, but the idea should be clear enough. It's really not that hard of a thing to implement.
P.S. Spaces inserted because Slashcode is trying to be "smart" by incorrectly autolinking the code.
There's a link to a "FREE" Razr in this review. Watch the Cingular fine print.
The reason why I ask is that Ethanol at a retail cost of ~$2.00/gal would already beat the heck out of oil prices.
Gasoline is somewhere around 65$/barrel right now, correct? A barrel is 42 gallons, so wholesale gasoline is $1.55/gal.
The figures I've seen have crude fluctuating around $60.00/gal, with refined gasoline at about $1.60/gal wholesale. The latest report is here. (FYI, that link will stop working on July 25th.) It quotes:
Oil is traded in US dollars. The weak dollar raises oil prices and cheapens ethanol by comparison.
*smacks forehead* Of course. I knew that. I need to stop skimming articles so fast. Yes, the lowering of the dollar is making the Ethanol prices more attractive, but it does seem to be backfiring on the economy. Traditionally, lowering the dollar has had a positive economic impact, but the US has never been as quite as dependent on oil as it is today. And now that the price of oil is up there, it's doubtful we'll be seeing it drop unless actual competition enters the market.
They keep getting closer, though, so expect to see more ethanol at the pumps in the future.
Indeed. I'd be happy if oil companies started focusing on Ethanol blends. We're currently at about a 10% blend in many areas. If that blend could be increased to say 20-50% while simultaneously dropping the price of Ethanol, we'd have a real winner on our hands.
The problem is that the government needs to pour a few temporary incentives into making it happen. It would also help if exceptions were made to the undercutting laws at the pump for Ethanol fuels. Passing lower prices on to the consumer could only be good for the demand. Also, lowering taxes on ethanol gasoline (like the Illinois gas tax suspension of 2000) would help tremendously.
Equatorial countries can be expected to push even more for ethanol production, as they can make it with sugarcane (more efficient than corn).
Indeed. This would be especially helpful once the dollar goes back up, and the price of gasoline doesn't.
Nope. The only reason why the switch hasn't occurred is because ethanol costs too much. We live in a market-based economy. If we had to spend 5 times as much energy to make the ethanol as it contained, but we got that energy from on-site ag-waste burning and managed to produce $1.50-per-gallon ethanol, people would flock to it.
Wholesale or retail? According to this data, Ethanol prices will reach about $1.80/gal by December. Unfortunately, Ethanol has not been widely tracked or promoted, so there's a LOT of inefficiency that's keeping the price up. If the market started demanding ethanol, the price equation would probably change considerably.
Truth be told, we *need* to get on it. The only thing holding down the price of gasoline (~$60/barrel and ~$2.30/gal retail!) is the constant the lowering of the dollar value. That's not something the US Economy can expect to maintain indefinitely without worldwide reprocussions.
By the way, all of the papers against ethanol were authored or coauthored by the same person: Pimental. He just keeps hashing his old, widely criticized as inaccurate data, and repeating the same calculations with it.
Nice. So the question is, why does anyone believe this guy? While it's tempting to point at big oil, it's not like they're not feeling the economic squeeze as well. Any thoughts?
Ah, I misread your post. Still, points 3 and 4 apply. We can replace the plants piecemeal without any major impact, and the nuclear fuel supply is far more extensive than the previous estimates given. :-)
It's the moderators' sense of humor. I actually think it's rather funny for a change. :-)
If I calculated corectly, the world would need about 3300 nuclear powerplants to replace oil energy with nuclear energy. I'm not claiming this is impossible, but it would be by far the largest building effort humanity has ever attempted. Nuke plants take from 5-15 to build and cost .5 -3 billion USD. Please recall that the world economy is only produces 45 trillion/year. Additionally, we don't have unlimited supplies of uranium either. I'm not saying that we cant switch to nuclear. Just that it is not an easy fix or a magic bullet. It's not very feasible.
What you say rings true, but you're missing a few key details that make nuclear power plants workable:
1. Different parts of the world already rely heavily on nuclear power. France, for example, runs 75% off of nuclear power. These stations do not need to be replaced, so you can knock about 17% off your figures.
2. Dams and wind powered plants do not need to be replaced, so you can knock a few more percent off your figures.
3. Old power plants need to be rebuilt or replaced after their useful lifetimes, anyway. If the decision was made to make all new power plants nuclear fired, then new nuclear plants could be created with little to no negative effects on the world economy.
4. Modern nuclear techniques can provide us with nuclear fuels for much longer than the original 100 year estimate. In a breeder reactor, the reactor actually produces MORE energy dense material (via plutonium creation) than it uses up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Daniels_Midla
Why are so many obviously comedic posts getting modded insightful instead of funny lately?
/. readers who are just skimming the posts, and it tends to send mod points to people who don't really need them anyway. If I make a joke (which, granted, I'm not the best at doing) I'm always happiest if the mods use the Funny mod instead of the Insightful mod.
:-)
Because the mods wish to reward the poster with a real mod-point that counts toward their score instead of the pseudo mod-point "funny". The problem with this scheme is that it tends to confuse the
I really do applaud the intentions of the mods, but this is one of those cases where you shouldn't try to game the system.
Weve got sound based fusion reactors nearing break-even
Link? Last I heard, sonofusion was nowhere near being energy positive. For that matter, there is still some question about whether it's actually fusion or not.
we have what could be an easy way to generate hydrogen from water using sodium.
Which in no way detracts from the idea of using Ethanol.
Hydrogen is really great stuff. It's simple to make, relatively inexpensive, and reasonably safe. The problem is that it's also difficult to store, it's far more volatile than gasoline, it requires entirely new cars, and there needs to be an infrastructure to support it.
With ethanol we can leverage our existing ethanol infrastructure (part of which is already used for gasoline blends), convert our existing vehicles, and use our existing fill stations. All that's required is for farmers to farm *more*. Not necessarily a bad thing for our economy.
The only reason why a switch to ethanol hasn't happened yet is that there is a constant argument over the issue of ethanol taking more energy to farm than it ever produces. Some studies say that it's a losing game (in which case it's useless) others say that we passed the energy positive stage a long time ago. Until we can get a general consensus on this, the technology isn't going anywhere.
For the record, I think "Wireless" means everything wireless. Mouse, keyboard, monitor, power supply (...)
Fair enough. We have that technology today with Bluetooth devices. The problem is that wireless isn't necessarily better. Wireless means batteries, which occasionaly need to be replaced or charged. Chargable batteries result in a lower lifespan for the device. Wireless also means interference, causing problems at weird times.
The IBM PC Jr came with a wireless keyboard. It was, to put it in a word, annoying. The batteries were always dying, and the IR alignment was always problematic. The latter doesn't apply with bluetooth, but many of the other problems still do.
Wireless is a feature that IMHO should always stay optional unless there is a very compelling reason to make it standard. In my experience, there is no compelling reason for wireless input devices on a desktop computer.
1) Quiet case fans
2) Cool cases
3) Wireless
Ooookkkaaayyy. Anyone who's shopped for a PC as of late knows that 2 is pretty easy to come by (even on Dell PCs) and 3 is pretty standard on laptops. 1 is included in all Macs, with the PowerMac being the ultimate quiet cooling solution. (It's a combination of lots of low RPM fans with heat pipes.)
Honestly, on the hardware side we're seeing plenty of innovation. It's the Operating System/Software side where things are crawling. I have my own thoughts on how to accomplish innovation in software, but there's a LOT more that can be done that isn't being addressed. Apple is the closest one to accomplishing massive innovation, but there's a lot more that can still be done.
Where's the nuclear powered car we were promised back in the 1950s?
Some genius figured out that providing every man, woman, and child with sufficient nuclear material to create an atomic pile wasn't such a good idea?
From a technology perspective, there were a few other problems as well. Off the top of my head:
- Radiation: You need a lot of shielding to stop the "hard" stuff like Gamma, Neutron, and X-Ray bursts from escaping a functioning pile.
- Weight: All that shielding results in a lot of extra weight.
- Inefficiency: A "simple" atomic pile may be relatively safe (from a runaway reaction perspective), but it's not particularly efficient, nor can it be actively controlled.
In any case, the Ford atom car was never seriously developed. It was just an "Atoms for Peace" idea that was kicked around as a promotional gig.
A far better use for nuclear tech is in Merchant ships. Today's merchies pay extraordinary amounts for diesel fuel, have limited range, and burn fuel at the rate of gallons per feet. Nuclear reactors could provide these ships with more cargo space (no fuel tanks!), greater speed, longer endurance, and better turn-around times.
Unfortunately, the case of the NS Savannah turned off the private sector to the idea of a nuclear merchant ship. There was no real problem with the ship herself, but rather the fact that she was ahead of her time (crude was still VERY cheap back then) and one of a kind (no infrastructure to support her) meant that she couldn't compete in the market.
The equation today is a very different one from the equation back then, but concerns related to the control of reactors and nuclear fuels have placed road-blocks in the way of reviving the idea.
Have you actually tried Plan9? (Rhetorical question, don't answer that.) Last time I did so, I gave up because I couldn't figure out how the windowing system worked, and there didn't seem to be any way of dropping to the command line. I remember searching around for a "let's get started with Plan9!" tutorial, but I couldn't find one.
;-)
I mean, there are only three buttons on a mouse. The fact that none of them did anything other than scroll the one text window on screen in weird ways, frustrated the heck out of me. How about some user friendliness to go with the uber-architecture, guys?
Guys?
You there?
Hello?
Is this thing on?
He was talking (singing?) about The Who, not Twisted Sister.
;-)
I know. I just like Twisted Sister better. (Must be from the 50 times I watched Iron Eagle.)
.but then us people from WI put cheese on EVERYTHING...and as a consequence i found that no one outside of WI knows how to make pizza!
;-)
:-)
You've obviously never been to Downtown Chicago's Uno's. As a true Wisconsinite, I LOVE cheese, but Uno's is pretty close to more than I can take. A deepdish pizza there (which takes 45 minutes to make!) is like 3 inches deep in pure cheese! Although, probably imported from Wisconsin.
One of the more interesting Pizzas I've had as of late was a three cheese concoction at the Cheese Factory in Wisconsin Dells. It had Mozzarella, Cheddar, and Blue Cheese. Yum! I never knew that Blue Cheese could make such a great spice! Another thing to try is the Buffulo Hot Dog from the Great American Hotdog restaurant in Navy Pier, Chicago. This thing is a hotdog with Buffalo Sauce, Celery Salt, and liberal amounts of Blue Cheese. It's a little strong, but man is it good.