I was merely pointing out that while these 6 kids might not starve, they are a burden on the economy,
That's just goofy. As children, their parents support them. Their parents buy more goods, thus more money circulates the economy. When they grow up, they get jobs and cause even more wealth to be distributed.
My point is that Carter was intensely intenterted in energy policy.
Which has nothing to do with anything. The original poster claimed that Bush and Company were out to reap profits by continuing to encourage everyone to drive big SUVs. I pointed out that he's the only President who has ever given government funding to alternative fuel sources. Period. End of story. Stop trying to blow it out of proportion.
We wouldn't even have to stop feeding the beef. The US currently produces *way* to much grain. As a result, the number of farms is continuing to shrink. If food became a serious issue, we'd see a revitalization in farming.
I said: "All while Bush is the only president to ever provide funding for alternative fuel sources. "
You said: Really? Didn't Carter provide funding for alternative energy? He was the one who put in the alternative energy tax credit.
I'm really interested to know how "alternative fuel" gets transmuted into "alternative energy". Hmm? Be pissed about it all you want. Alternative energy isn't what I said, and you know it.
That's a half-truth at best. I'm assuming you're not talking about nuclear power, first of all, since its funding history is long. Carter did fund it, in a sense, by offering tax credits to homeowners investing in solar energy.
You twisted my words. I did not say "alternative energy sources", I said "alternative fuel sources". Heating your home is a lot different than powering your car.
I agree that hydrogen is a dumb way to go. Perhaps Bush is pushing for it because it will keep energy under the thumb of huge corporations.
I think he's pushing it because it's the only alternative offered at the moment. It's worth mentioning that his administration has offered up enormous tax breaks to people who buy hybrid cars. Whether you want to thank Bush or Congress for that is up to you. It still doesn't change the fact that it's never happened before.
Sure. We've already got solutions. People just don't like them. The *only* semi-safe, inexpensive (or possibly inexpensive) material with higher energy densities than fossil fuels are atomic materials. While it may be infeasible to put a reactor in your car (although the waste materials I suggested *would* work), small reactors could be used at pumping stations to produce cheap hydrogen/oxygen fuels.
The core of the problem is getting past this silliness that anything that generates power == evil. There's no way to extract energy from a fuel without leaving some waste. The trick is that nature has been doing all the grunt work up until now. We can't continue pulling fossil fuels and natural gasses and expect them to continue forever. We've got to build more powerful energy providers. Thus nuclear plants produce more power, expend less waste, and create hydrogen fuels that are exceedingly clean and cheap.
Pathetic. About 15 MJ/kg. And it's pretty hard to come up with kilograms of rice or corn when compared to other fuels.
It always amazing me how little food we animals need to eat to continue functioning and moving around.
Well, your body is generating about 200 watts of constant power. That means that you need about.72 MJ per hour to operate. For cars, you tend to need a lot more horsepower. Here's the conversion:
1 Watt = 0.00134102209 horsepower
For a 150HP engine, you're talking about an energy drain of about 112 KW. That's 403 MJ of energy per hour. Realistically, cars only expend a lot of energy when accelerating. Thus an economy car tends to use more like 20 HP for cruising. That works out to a constant power requirement of about 15 KW. 15KW is 5.4 MJ per hour.
A hell of a lot of people are affected by irresponsible idiots breeding like rabbits.
Really? Who? In every developed country, there's more than enough food for everyone. Anything that can't be grown locally (due to a variety of problems) can be easily imported. The only ones I see without food are underdeveloped countries where they can't or won't develop a strong enough economy to meet the needs of the people.
Burn more coal and oil. Forget more friendly alternatives, BushCo doesn't make money when you don't burn fossil fuels.
All while Bush is the only president to ever provide funding for alternative fuel sources. Yeesh. I've got a much better idea. Let's make cars based on Stirling engines powered by the radioactive decay of Pu-238. You'll only need about 1/2 ton of the stuff per car, and your vehicle could run for hundreds of years!
Or we could simply realize that as the problem gets worse economic pressures will naturally solve the problem.
FWIW, hydrogen fuel cells have some serious energy density problems. Gasoline has an energy density of 44MJ/kg. Hydrogen fuel cells appear to be about 15-30 MJ/kg. And the more advanced the design, the more expensive, complex, and dangerous it gets.
I think the difficulty is all the ice *above* the waterline. The ice shelfs at the poles make cliffs in the US look like speed-bumps. So there's plenty of water to make the waterline ascend. Now quick, run for the hills while the water chases you at the blazing rate of an inch every ten years!!!
I believe you actually mean The Meatrix. No one can be told what the Meatrix is. They must experience it for themselves. Be warned! The Meatrix may have you in its grasp at this very moment! Trust no one!
He has a wife and two kids and has worked & is currently working for commercial companies.
How does that change his feelings toward development of the Linux kernel? As I understand, his work for commercial companies is separate from his work on the kernel.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Of course the kernel can be distributed in binary form. But all kernel modules that it uses have to be compiled against that particular kernel. A minor configuration change and recompile will invalidate every binary module on your disk. This makes things like NVidia and ATI drivers particularly difficult.
NVidia got tied of trying to chase around every kernel version and released a binary lib that gets linked against some kernel "glue" that's distributed in source form. Most vendors don't even bother. If NVidia didn't have such good support for Linux, ATI almost surely wouldn't have *any* support.
You make it sound like Linus makes decisions about the kernel that everyone is forced to follow.
Many times it is infeasible to not follow the standard set forth by Linus. I've been using the example of source-only kernel modules. It just so happens that this is a perfect example of an item that everyone must follow. Changing the kernel to allow for binary modules would present the following challenges:
The vendor would have to convince companies that their kernel modules are The One True Way(TM), or convince the vendors that they are different enough from vanilla Linux to warrant special support.
Changing the module format would mean losing out on the huge number of modules already available. A "legacy mode" might be possible, but it would be complex and difficult to maintain.
Changes from the core have to be maintained across kernel versions. I've had the displeasure of attempting to maintain patch files and it isn't easy. In fact, it's usually far more trouble than its worth
The end result is that it is much easier for distributors to stay with the vanilla kernel's implementation of kernel modules, and thus it is easier for hardware vendors to continue to ignore Linux.
I'm not arguing that Linux has not made important strides. But many decisions made have been in favor of "ease of hacking" over "ease of use". That's just the way Linus thinks (something that he freely admits). He is most certainly aware of what's going on in the market and does allow some code that people ask for. However. some decisions (with source-only kernel modules being a perfect example) have been made in direct opposition to what the market wants. When Linus makes a decision like that, hackers rejoice and marketeers weep. Such is the way that Linux evolves.
It doesn't actually work that way. You could sign a contract that would specify the penalty of your firstborn in the case of a breech, but it wouldn't be valid in court. Instead, the court would require Microsoft to stop using the code immediately, then pay damages to the other party. As an alternative, Microsoft might be allowed to complete the terms of their contract and release the software under GPL. (Not bloody likely.)
Probably none. I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but Linus doesn't *care* about Microsoft or taking over the world. He just wants to hack his kernel. If Microsoft removed him from the process, the Linux community would have to reorganize. In the process of reorganizing, they'll probably make several decisions that will make Linux more competitive in the marketplace (e.g. allow binary kernel modules).
I have nothing against Linus, but he makes decisions for Linux primarily based on the idea that it's a "hacker's OS". Givin Linux's rising popularity, anything that makes it more market focused is a bad thing for M$.
Of course, it doesn't help that your girlfriend/wife is really a secret spy for Microsoft, and the agent who offered you an alternative was really an early warning system to have you bumped off. It gets even worse when they start killing your best friend Open Source programmers! What has this world come to!?
Side note: After we saw AntiTrust, my wife kept trying to convince me that she really *wasn't* a spy for Microsoft. Seems the movie hit a little too close to home.:-)
While it's possible that the plaintiff exaggerated, there are several reasons why money has gone unclaimed. The big one is simply this:
It's a lot of trouble for not a lot of return. Microsoft technically owes me for a copy of Windows 2000 I purchased while in California. But since that's all I bought from Microsoft, it's hard to justify it as worth the trouble.
A colleague of mine is head of IT for company and is owed far more than myself. Even he's too lazy to deal with getting a few bucks off of something he buys in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
I was merely pointing out that while these 6 kids might not starve, they are a burden on the economy,
That's just goofy. As children, their parents support them. Their parents buy more goods, thus more money circulates the economy. When they grow up, they get jobs and cause even more wealth to be distributed.
"Both House and Senate energy bills contained a first-ever federal fuel cell tax credit supported by IdaTech and over forty fuel cell companies and component suppliers."
Carter's plan was to develop Solar power and "other alternative fuel sources". However, only Solar power was ever funded.
My point is that Carter was intensely intenterted in energy policy.
Which has nothing to do with anything. The original poster claimed that Bush and Company were out to reap profits by continuing to encourage everyone to drive big SUVs. I pointed out that he's the only President who has ever given government funding to alternative fuel sources. Period. End of story. Stop trying to blow it out of proportion.
We wouldn't even have to stop feeding the beef. The US currently produces *way* to much grain. As a result, the number of farms is continuing to shrink. If food became a serious issue, we'd see a revitalization in farming.
You *do* realize there is more to life than just eating...right?
Sure. And I'm all ears on how having 6 kids tramples other people's rights. Or was that an attempt to distract from the issue?
I said: "All while Bush is the only president to ever provide funding for alternative fuel sources. "
You said: Really? Didn't Carter provide funding for alternative energy? He was the one who put in the alternative energy tax credit.
I'm really interested to know how "alternative fuel" gets transmuted into "alternative energy". Hmm? Be pissed about it all you want. Alternative energy isn't what I said, and you know it.
That's a half-truth at best. I'm assuming you're not talking about nuclear power, first of all, since its funding history is long. Carter did fund it, in a sense, by offering tax credits to homeowners investing in solar energy.
You twisted my words. I did not say "alternative energy sources", I said "alternative fuel sources". Heating your home is a lot different than powering your car.
I agree that hydrogen is a dumb way to go.
Perhaps Bush is pushing for it because it will keep energy under the thumb of huge corporations.
I think he's pushing it because it's the only alternative offered at the moment. It's worth mentioning that his administration has offered up enormous tax breaks to people who buy hybrid cars. Whether you want to thank Bush or Congress for that is up to you. It still doesn't change the fact that it's never happened before.
That's why it was a joke. :-)
However, those materials would get significantly cheaper if nuclear power became more common.
Sure. We've already got solutions. People just don't like them. The *only* semi-safe, inexpensive (or possibly inexpensive) material with higher energy densities than fossil fuels are atomic materials. While it may be infeasible to put a reactor in your car (although the waste materials I suggested *would* work), small reactors could be used at pumping stations to produce cheap hydrogen/oxygen fuels.
The core of the problem is getting past this silliness that anything that generates power == evil. There's no way to extract energy from a fuel without leaving some waste. The trick is that nature has been doing all the grunt work up until now. We can't continue pulling fossil fuels and natural gasses and expect them to continue forever. We've got to build more powerful energy providers. Thus nuclear plants produce more power, expend less waste, and create hydrogen fuels that are exceedingly clean and cheap.
Whoops! Missed a decimal point there. 15KW is 54 MJ.
Wow, I'm pro-nuclear power, but not like that :)
:-)
.72 MJ per hour to operate. For cars, you tend to need a lot more horsepower. Here's the conversion:
Ford was worse. At one point, they wanted to put a nuclear reactor into a car!
Whats the energy density of rice?
Pathetic. About 15 MJ/kg. And it's pretty hard to come up with kilograms of rice or corn when compared to other fuels.
It always amazing me how little food we animals need to eat to continue functioning and moving around.
Well, your body is generating about 200 watts of constant power. That means that you need about
1 Watt = 0.00134102209 horsepower
For a 150HP engine, you're talking about an energy drain of about 112 KW. That's 403 MJ of energy per hour. Realistically, cars only expend a lot of energy when accelerating. Thus an economy car tends to use more like 20 HP for cruising. That works out to a constant power requirement of about 15 KW. 15KW is 5.4 MJ per hour.
A hell of a lot of people are affected by irresponsible idiots breeding like rabbits.
Really? Who? In every developed country, there's more than enough food for everyone. Anything that can't be grown locally (due to a variety of problems) can be easily imported. The only ones I see without food are underdeveloped countries where they can't or won't develop a strong enough economy to meet the needs of the people.
Burn more coal and oil. Forget more friendly alternatives, BushCo doesn't make money when you don't burn fossil fuels.
All while Bush is the only president to ever provide funding for alternative fuel sources. Yeesh. I've got a much better idea. Let's make cars based on Stirling engines powered by the radioactive decay of Pu-238. You'll only need about 1/2 ton of the stuff per car, and your vehicle could run for hundreds of years!
Or we could simply realize that as the problem gets worse economic pressures will naturally solve the problem.
FWIW, hydrogen fuel cells have some serious energy density problems. Gasoline has an energy density of 44MJ/kg. Hydrogen fuel cells appear to be about 15-30 MJ/kg. And the more advanced the design, the more expensive, complex, and dangerous it gets.
I think the difficulty is all the ice *above* the waterline. The ice shelfs at the poles make cliffs in the US look like speed-bumps. So there's plenty of water to make the waterline ascend. Now quick, run for the hills while the water chases you at the blazing rate of an inch every ten years!!!
I believe you actually mean The Meatrix. No one can be told what the Meatrix is. They must experience it for themselves. Be warned! The Meatrix may have you in its grasp at this very moment! Trust no one!
I use a WYSE terminal, you insensative clod!
;-)
A WYSE?! Ha! You've got it easy! I've got a Burroughs (yes, pre-Unisys) T-20 terminal! Beat that!
Psst... I think you mean photons.
He has a wife and two kids and has worked & is currently working for commercial companies.
How does that change his feelings toward development of the Linux kernel? As I understand, his work for commercial companies is separate from his work on the kernel.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Of course the kernel can be distributed in binary form. But all kernel modules that it uses have to be compiled against that particular kernel. A minor configuration change and recompile will invalidate every binary module on your disk. This makes things like NVidia and ATI drivers particularly difficult.
NVidia got tied of trying to chase around every kernel version and released a binary lib that gets linked against some kernel "glue" that's distributed in source form. Most vendors don't even bother. If NVidia didn't have such good support for Linux, ATI almost surely wouldn't have *any* support.
Many times it is infeasible to not follow the standard set forth by Linus. I've been using the example of source-only kernel modules. It just so happens that this is a perfect example of an item that everyone must follow. Changing the kernel to allow for binary modules would present the following challenges:
The end result is that it is much easier for distributors to stay with the vanilla kernel's implementation of kernel modules, and thus it is easier for hardware vendors to continue to ignore Linux.
I'm not arguing that Linux has not made important strides. But many decisions made have been in favor of "ease of hacking" over "ease of use". That's just the way Linus thinks (something that he freely admits). He is most certainly aware of what's going on in the market and does allow some code that people ask for. However. some decisions (with source-only kernel modules being a perfect example) have been made in direct opposition to what the market wants. When Linus makes a decision like that, hackers rejoice and marketeers weep. Such is the way that Linux evolves.
It doesn't actually work that way. You could sign a contract that would specify the penalty of your firstborn in the case of a breech, but it wouldn't be valid in court. Instead, the court would require Microsoft to stop using the code immediately, then pay damages to the other party. As an alternative, Microsoft might be allowed to complete the terms of their contract and release the software under GPL. (Not bloody likely.)
Standard IANAL bs.
Probably none. I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but Linus doesn't *care* about Microsoft or taking over the world. He just wants to hack his kernel. If Microsoft removed him from the process, the Linux community would have to reorganize. In the process of reorganizing, they'll probably make several decisions that will make Linux more competitive in the marketplace (e.g. allow binary kernel modules).
I have nothing against Linus, but he makes decisions for Linux primarily based on the idea that it's a "hacker's OS". Givin Linux's rising popularity, anything that makes it more market focused is a bad thing for M$.
Of course, it doesn't help that your girlfriend/wife is really a secret spy for Microsoft, and the agent who offered you an alternative was really an early warning system to have you bumped off. It gets even worse when they start killing your best friend Open Source programmers! What has this world come to!?
:-)
Side note: After we saw AntiTrust, my wife kept trying to convince me that she really *wasn't* a spy for Microsoft. Seems the movie hit a little too close to home.
While it's possible that the plaintiff exaggerated, there are several reasons why money has gone unclaimed. The big one is simply this:
It's a lot of trouble for not a lot of return. Microsoft technically owes me for a copy of Windows 2000 I purchased while in California. But since that's all I bought from Microsoft, it's hard to justify it as worth the trouble.
A colleague of mine is head of IT for company and is owed far more than myself. Even he's too lazy to deal with getting a few bucks off of something he buys in the future.