Erm, who on planet Windows expects a Windows Search of.log filenames to search using file headers and metadata. You searched for files ending in.log, not XML or Unicode header-ed files. That's exactly what you entered and that's exactly what it did.
If you have a problem with Windows not searching a folder, right click it>properties>Advanced>tick 'allow index'. The folders that have that unticked by default aren't 'Approved Directories'. They are system folders and it's probably done so when Grandma (or you) saves a file and names it the same as an important system file, she doesn't have Win32 directory files popping up next to it in the search and therefore doesn't delete something important.
If you don't know how to use your software to start with, you can't complain that you don't know how to use Win8 just because it showed you that fact.
The problem is that the interface isn't really that bad. It's the OS itself that I disagree with. An App Store, Secure Boot, and various other things that preclude Apple themed world domination are the main qualms I have against the OS. I run it on my Laptop, and most of the time its the same or better than 7. And people who disagree are usually the old people or those who actually don't know how to use their OS.
Consider this. In the design of the UI there are two ways a command was accessed. Menu access and Shortcut. Slow and Fast. Beginner and Advanced. Every Single shortcut is the same, hitting the WinKey and then trying the first letters of your program will still bring it up and open it... What the hell is everyone still bitching about?
There is no problem. Just bad PR and a bunch of idiots over there trying to be Apple and not tell anyone how to use their product or even respond to the press battering it down.
We drew up the plans for a orbital highway a long time ago, with hubs stationed in geosynchronous orbit with lasers providing power transport for them, but it requires a LOT of carbon nanofiber to hold it in place.
Realistically, this would be a modification to an existing weapon, so a thieer could just reverse the modification or replace the parts of the gun that were modified. I can't see you getting this ting permanently on any production handgun in a way that couldn't just be removed.
The government don't keep their server backbone at the same or even similar internet locations to the mainframes that actually hold this data, and any applications that will be receiving this data would go straight to the database, because it is more secure and protects in the event that the webserver is compromised. In the UK, where we have the NHS (I would hazard a guess that they are both very similar in actual implementation, else someone isn't using best practice over there) the webservers which would allow the common man to recover his records would use a web app to authenticate and recover the records from this remote server as well. That servers' multiple IPs would be liable to change whenever it wanted. The only thing that would have to stay fixed was the update servers. This helps evade DDoS and otherwise external attacks.
Missed the point completely. And I mis-said a few things.
ECC: I originally meant to say: pointless unless running a machine which you CAN reboot less than once a week.
Only actually useful when you either really need stupid GB of RAM, or you will be running an program 24/7 which happens in core server room machines but generally not on workstations. In my environment I have never seen a machine that you strictly CANNOT reboot for weeks else you lose everything. I know they exist, particularly in the heavy rendering and scientific fields, both of which have distributed processing in all examples I know of.
SMP: SSDs would just as effectively fix that problem. Most of that wait time is HDD spin latency based anyway, unless you are repeatedly and randomly accessing a 150GB+ working set then DDR would do the same but at lower latency (as ECC adds latency and so does SMP), and if that is the case I really think your product dev should have a real hard look at nodes.
And the part about closed source and vendors is an importantpoint that I did miss, almost deliberately, with the assumption that alternatives exist. Unfortunately I know as much as you probably do that that sn't always the case
Depends how you look at it. The BBC is not private, so it's both. It serves the state and is pro-independance and capitalism in very republican ways, yes promotes big gov't and things like welfare in very liberal ways. You really have to look at all the programs it makes to see that it is very unbiased as a whole. It has employees that like one side and employees that like the other.
You have to remember that they give out a big commission yearly to people who make public serving documents.
I can't see the math for that working. Ivy League costs something like $50k a year, probably more. If you can make that waiting tables AND have enough money to study then you should stick to waiting tables, because you have one hell of a talent there.
The real question is what happens when the next 2600k/3770k equivalent becomes a unit you can only buy soldered onto a Quad Sli/Triple Xfire bells and whistles motherboard that makes the K versions of all their chips super expensive and limits internally the over-clocking potential of them.
This all assumes you would be making a server in a business setting, with antiquated software, where simply turning it off any any point is unacceptable, and it must be rack mounted to be taken seriously by management, even if there's nothing but networking gear in that rack otherwise.
Sounds like most businesses today.
ECC: pointless unless running a machine which you reboot less than once a week. SMP: Pointless unless you run software that doesn't support nodes/farming 1U rack: Possible with a desktop mobo but needs to not use any PCI slots and have a CPU cooler and PSU made for servers. 4U's are usually better anyway.
To me this says that 1U SMP Xeon servers are perfectly priced for the people that would be buying them. C-level's who are too lazy to do their research, modify their code to distribute processing or talk to their software providers, and then buy a bunch of cheap desktop PC's to do the heavy lifting for them. Or too lazy to listen to the tech guy banging down their door about it.
I think you're terribly wrong. A T3500 uses Socket 1366 Xeons from 2009. The most powerful one offered with that workstation is Nehalem EP (1st gen i7) although I very much doubt they sell that out of the box to financial companies anyway, which probably means he got the standard one that comes with a Bloomfield (Core2Quad).
Let's be generous and assume he got a fully maxed out T3500 and it came with a i7 though, just for kicks.
The AMD fx-8350 kicks it's backside and is $190, and most importantly, you won't need to throw everything away when it's time to upgrade. Spending an extra $100 now and saving $600 on buying new stuff over the course of the next 3 upgrades is how I like to work. That's why my current system (3930k, 32GB RAM 12TB of HDDs) was affordable on my student budget, because I already owned everything except the CPU and mob when I went ot buy them, and I just get bits and bobs one by one.
Vendor lock-in is a form of DRM. Sony want you to buy the PS4 to get the PS4 exclusives. Playing a PS4 game on something made by someone else would be using it in a way they did not dictate. This is mainly because of the various pains they went through to achieve their level of encryption and by using a more expensive CPU instruction set to make it more or less incompatible with everything without low level emulation.
"DRM is done with the intended purpose of thwarting efforts to copy data or use it in any other way than the hardware/software designers dictate."
Yes. If Tim Cook called everyone nigger sluts. Hell if he called one person a nigger slut, he would lose his job hours after. regardless if it is disclaimed or not. Nobody wants to thing that Apple is run by racists, in fact nobody wants to think that any company is run by people who's opinions run counter to public opinion, so Mr Orth screwed himself by letting the cat out of the bag and affecting the company position in the eyes of PR.
"The only thing that matters for toxicity is final concentration when it reaches people, not absolute quantity."
Neither of us have that information, infact I doubt it exists for the very reason that it would put both the gov't and the energy companies in the firing line... so ultimately your point is moot. If the Fracking guys really though it was so safe they would have come out with some evidence to calm public
That graphic only tells me one thing: the people who created it are either profound liars or totally incompetent. Sodium chloride, boric acid, and "non-crystalline silica" are simply not toxic by any reasonable definition.
My girlfriends college degree in biology says otherwise. To quote a website I went to get citations from:
Salt (table salt): Ingesting inorganic sodium chloride will result in an accumulation of sodium outside the cell and will pull water from the cells into the extracellular space by virtue of its concentration. In addition, water is withdrawn from the tissues in order to neutralize and suspend this toxic poison and then it is excreted via various routes (skin, kidneys, bowels, etc.). This inorganic mineral is totally unusable by our body and is excreted in the same form that it is ingested without being broken down or utilized. It creates an unnecessary hardship and wastage of energy on the body in general.
Continued use of salt results in a severe condition of the kidneys called “nephritis.” This means that the kidneys are inflamed and weakened due to their work overload and irritation from salt. Ingestion of salt also results in inflammation and swelling of all glands, contributes to constipation and indigestion, and is a factor in many skin diseases. It is in solution and suspended throughout all the fluids of the body which results in extreme irritation, injury and death to billions of cells. The body will regenerate new cells to replace those that have died but this again utilizes a great deal of energy and resources.
Moral of the story: Just because we're naturally tolerant does not mean it isn't harmful to human health in the long run.
"Carbon neutral is as "green" as it gets (provided you even think that CO2 emissions are a bad thing)."
If I take a pencil, and harvest the carbon in the graphite to make methane via this process, technically I have used a carbon neutral method to do so, as no more carbon is made. But if that is where we're setting the bar, drilling hydrocarbons is carbon neutral too. The point is not to make fuel ourselves, it's to make fuel and use it without adding more carbon dixoide to the atmosphere, and there is no way this could do that as it is still burning hydrocarbons (methane).
"So you are saying that it is OK to waste tax payer money on anything because, heck, the government is so corrupt that if it didn't waste it banks would waste it on bad loans anyway. That argument is both stupid and incorrect. Although there is a certain degree of corruption, it is still far from 100%. We're still far better off not having the government waste money on bad investments."
No, I'm saying you're illusion that banking is a free market is just that, an illusion. Your rates will go up as a result of my massive business failing and there will be no bank to switch to, because they will raise rates/lower interest uniformly as they always have. Great job cherry picking a portion of my argument and acting as if I was talking about a core point and not trying to describe to you why your point was stupid.
In case you forgot, here's what I said on why I thought the loan was just: [When you take out a bad loan or go bankrupt, y]ou don't suffer the full consequences as they should technically be (indentured slavery) and I don't have a say in whether my money goes towards you or not. I may be pissed at that thought, and take the same stand that you're taking against this, but it doesn't change the fact that it's for the greater good and sometimes people will resist the greater good until they find themse
Okay, lets stop 'going back and forth for the sake of going back and forth'. I will explain in totality because it seems like you simply don't get what fracking is properly and are attempting to attack my credibility to justify yourself. It is very VERY logical that is it harmful to human health in the same way that smoking is. I.E putting dangerous chemicals into the human body.
Now granted, over 90% of fracking fluid is water and sand, but that 1% is still a hell of a lot when you pump millions of gallons per site.10,000 gallons of chemicals per mil of fluid remember. And most of that fluid will be absorbed by porous rock whereas I very much doubt kerosene distillate and many of these chemicals have that luxury. More info about how it gets from the site to the water supply, lawsuits etc: http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fracking+lawsuit http://www.dangersoffracking.com/
2. The Sabatier process makes methane, and uses hydrogen. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, because that's just carbon neutral, not actually green. When you consider that most of that CO2 is not going to be collected from the atmosphere (due to the cost of doing that) then you realize it's just the same as hydrocarbons pollution-wise. If you're talking about doing that in reverse, that is just a form of electrolysis and has the same problems I mentioned before. Namely, it's not green, it just shifts the blame from the car to the pump.
3. In case you haven't noticed, banking is a cartel. Stop living in dreamland. If one bank raises it's rates the other banks will do the same universally because they can and it's profitable. In reality if a bank gives out too many bad loans, it is bailed out by the state. You should know all too well about that seeing as we and the rest of the West are sitting in a recession as a result of that right now.
4. The iPad didn't need to be subsidized, most of the R+D for the tech was done by Xerox/PARC in the 80s and 90s, it was also lead by a huge giant in an industry next door to it; computing. It's a poor comparison for anything but the point I was making but if you want to beat the strawman I will show it's a pointless comparison. GM, Dodge, Ford and all the other US car companies make some of the most uneconomical cars in the world. Fact. Even Honda looks bad next to it's eastern rivals because of it's Americanization. None of the above companies would seriously make EVs their main business focus. It would be a life threatening decision for them and would frankly require them to make an about turn on lots of their marketing, policies etc etc. There is no truly 'green' US car company that is large enough to fab it's own components and design it's own cars so the DoE had to finance the creation of a new company to carry out aforementioned goals. So it's like the DoE seeing a public need for iPads but there being no Apple and no Xerox PARC. So the DoE makes it's own East India Trading Company to do the work for it.
It's all well having businesses like the AC Propulsion that do engine conversion but actually making real EVs that are normal enough to be embraced by the general public is not something that has been done before. (Look at this list http://ev.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_EV_companies and I bet you can call every car there too quirky for general tastes except the Tesla without talking about their power-train or fuel tech.)
Did you even read what I wrote? I already explained why the Tesla was priced out of most people's range, the tech needs to come down in size, but to do that it need
Oh and just to add, do you really think the US public would buy cars that they know have nuclear power in them. Many of us still think of 13 legged mutant cows and sci-fi movies when you say nuclear powered car. It's way too scary for most of the public.
1. If you poison/drain or do anything to groudwater, most of the time you will get away with it. It's very hard to directly assert that you were the cause, even if it was your fault. Ask the same of Coca Cola's industrial pumps in India that have been killing the locals for decades by removing their sources of water from the wells.
2.Chevy was working on it a few years ago, I don't know what happened to that, but it's a daft idea anyway. AFAIK the processes for making hydrogen is either polluting as well (steam reforming) - so now the pumps would be the sources not the cars -, or energy negative (electrolysis, induced thermolysis), meaning you would be far better off making a good battery so there isn't two stages at which power is lost.
3. When you make a bet and take out a loan to build a business, then you screw up/have a bad run of luck and go bankrupt, it's my money that bails you out, whether through the gov't administration system or the bank writing off your loans and raising everyone else's premiums and interest rates to compensate. It's all of our money that bails you out. You don't suffer the full consequences as they should technically be (indentured slavery) and I don't have a say in whether my money goes towards you or not. I may be pissed at that thought, and take the same stand that you're taking against this, but it doesn't change the fact that it's for the greater good and sometimes people will resist the greater good until they find themselves in that situation themselves. To further that point, I will copy something I just had to explain to someone else illustrating why this was neither a bet nor investment and why they are seeing it wrong.
"The initial plan was an investment, that's why it was a loan and not a grant. I expect it was not interest free, thus it qualifies as an investment. Even if it was interest free, it was still an investment as it was a loan and the DoE expected repayment. It was not for monetary gains, in spirit it was to provide the US with good alternatives to oil transport, or at least put the technology on the map to prove it was possible. This is about kickstarting an industry, the gov't as a whole would more than make back their money in tax if it worked."
If not, Tesla's work alone may still provide them with a flagship product to really open an industry. What iPad was to the tablet market.
3. Again, I will answer with a quote I've said elsewhere: "Tesla did not [build a green commodity car], but Tesla actually built a real EV, not a hybrid and Tesla explained a long time ago that a commodity car was in it's roadmap. Fisker did the precise opposite if this is to be believed and took the money with zero EVs in it's roadmap. (see: http://www.fiskerbuzz.com/forums/14-fisker-lounge/1118-fisker-product-roadmap.html [fiskerbuzz.com]
Tesla also spent a lot of money in R+D like the DoE wanted them to, yet I've heard nothing about Fisker advancing EV tech. Making things smaller is harder and thus everything points to Tesla releasing bigger more powerful stuff [to start with] whilst it downsizes the tech. Tesla's new releases on its roadmap clearly get smaller and smaller but they key difference is that they are all proper EVs."
They never subsidized Fisker, nor Tesla or any other EV manufacturer. They subsidized EVs as a whole. EVs are not luxury products. There are some pretty low priced ones, but ultimately the DoE wants to see lots more and that's why they are handing out these loans.
1. I was not speaking financially, I was talking about range, power and technology. Funnily enough you also forget that it cost a lot of money to economize the design of any good to the level where it is financially profitable. Hell in the computer games industry consoles are often selling at a loss at release date, but the business knows that when the platform is redesigned a few times, the R+D department will be able to reduce the BoM to the point where it's extremely profitable, and it's worth it to release it now whilst it's not in order to build loss lead against your competitors by having the best and most cutting edge tech. This is exactly in the DoE's vein of thought.
2.Tesla did not, but Tesla actually built a real EV, not a hybrid and Tesla explained a long time ago that a commodity car was in it's roadmap. Fisker did the precise opposite if this is to be belived and took the money with zero EVs in it's roadmap. (see: http://www.fiskerbuzz.com/forums/14-fisker-lounge/1118-fisker-product-roadmap.html
Tesla also spent a lot of money in R+D like the DoE wanted them to, yet I've heard nothing about Fisker advancing EV tech. Making things smaller is harder and thus everything points to Tesla releasing bigger more powerful stuff whilst it downsizes the tech. Tesla's new releases on its roadmap clearly get smaller and smaller but they key difference is that they are all proper EVs.
3. Don't be silly. You can't tell me that the DoE expected Fisker to put 7 petrol cars in it's roadmap, build one hybrid sports car, then run off with the money with no further investment in EV. If they had, then why did they stop Fisker's funding half way through the money? Nevermind the fact that the Karma is a great car, it's not really in the vein of what the DoE wanted.
4. The initial plan was an investment, that's why it was a loan and not a grant. I expect it was not interest free, thus it qualifies as an investment. Even if it was interest free, it was still an investment as it was a loan and the DoE expected repayment. It was not for monetary gains, in spirit it was to provide the US with good alternatives to oil transport, or at least put the technology on the map to prove it was possible. This is about kickstarting an industry, the gov't as a whole would more than make back their money in tax if it worked.
Fracking is a terrible technology that kill in droves. Nuclear is viable but cannot be a substitute in a car because as it stands most pure electric cars simply don't have the range/price ratio that they need to compete with petrol.
This is what the DoE wanted to address. Tesla is doing the right thing by starting off with luxury products. You look in the history books, all revolutionary technology products start as luxury products. You build them till you can profit, then you make a lower tier product when you have the money to convince your partners that the large orders you will be making on your BoM is deserving of a great economy of scale.
I don't think you get it at all. The DoE was not trying to start the industry so much as it was trying to prove that green products that are competitive to fossil fuels could actually be built. Elon Musk and Tesla unfortunately were the only people that managed to pull themselves off the ground, but that by no means makes it impossible without gov't subsidies, it just means it required too much R&D to start up and the DoE was fronting that money.
If Fisker decides to take a green energy loan and build a hybrid sports car instead of an actual green commodity car, and the other half of their loan is taken away, justice has been done. Nobody could have predicted them being so stupid in the first place, and the unfortunate thing about investing is sometimes you hit a dud. Sure, DoE's investing could have been a little more selective, but I doubt anyone though Fisker would be THIS stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
But if I satisfy you too much, you'll never need another thing I make and I won't get any more money!!
Well both MS, IBM and Apple have quasi-monopolies created by their ecosystem or applications so I think you raise a moot point.
Erm, who on planet Windows expects a Windows Search of .log filenames to search using file headers and metadata. You searched for files ending in .log, not XML or Unicode header-ed files. That's exactly what you entered and that's exactly what it did.
If you have a problem with Windows not searching a folder, right click it>properties>Advanced>tick 'allow index'. The folders that have that unticked by default aren't 'Approved Directories'. They are system folders and it's probably done so when Grandma (or you) saves a file and names it the same as an important system file, she doesn't have Win32 directory files popping up next to it in the search and therefore doesn't delete something important.
If you don't know how to use your software to start with, you can't complain that you don't know how to use Win8 just because it showed you that fact.
The problem is that the interface isn't really that bad. It's the OS itself that I disagree with. An App Store, Secure Boot, and various other things that preclude Apple themed world domination are the main qualms I have against the OS. I run it on my Laptop, and most of the time its the same or better than 7. And people who disagree are usually the old people or those who actually don't know how to use their OS.
Consider this. In the design of the UI there are two ways a command was accessed. Menu access and Shortcut. Slow and Fast. Beginner and Advanced. Every Single shortcut is the same, hitting the WinKey and then trying the first letters of your program will still bring it up and open it... What the hell is everyone still bitching about?
There is no problem. Just bad PR and a bunch of idiots over there trying to be Apple and not tell anyone how to use their product or even respond to the press battering it down.
We drew up the plans for a orbital highway a long time ago, with hubs stationed in geosynchronous orbit with lasers providing power transport for them, but it requires a LOT of carbon nanofiber to hold it in place.
Realistically, this would be a modification to an existing weapon, so a thieer could just reverse the modification or replace the parts of the gun that were modified. I can't see you getting this ting permanently on any production handgun in a way that couldn't just be removed.
No.
The government don't keep their server backbone at the same or even similar internet locations to the mainframes that actually hold this data, and any applications that will be receiving this data would go straight to the database, because it is more secure and protects in the event that the webserver is compromised. In the UK, where we have the NHS (I would hazard a guess that they are both very similar in actual implementation, else someone isn't using best practice over there) the webservers which would allow the common man to recover his records would use a web app to authenticate and recover the records from this remote server as well. That servers' multiple IPs would be liable to change whenever it wanted. The only thing that would have to stay fixed was the update servers. This helps evade DDoS and otherwise external attacks.
Missed the point completely. And I mis-said a few things.
ECC: I originally meant to say: pointless unless running a machine which you CAN reboot less than once a week.
Only actually useful when you either really need stupid GB of RAM, or you will be running an program 24/7 which happens in core server room machines but generally not on workstations. In my environment I have never seen a machine that you strictly CANNOT reboot for weeks else you lose everything. I know they exist, particularly in the heavy rendering and scientific fields, both of which have distributed processing in all examples I know of.
SMP: SSDs would just as effectively fix that problem. Most of that wait time is HDD spin latency based anyway, unless you are repeatedly and randomly accessing a 150GB+ working set then DDR would do the same but at lower latency (as ECC adds latency and so does SMP), and if that is the case I really think your product dev should have a real hard look at nodes.
And the part about closed source and vendors is an importantpoint that I did miss, almost deliberately, with the assumption that alternatives exist. Unfortunately I know as much as you probably do that that sn't always the case
Depends how you look at it. The BBC is not private, so it's both. It serves the state and is pro-independance and capitalism in very republican ways, yes promotes big gov't and things like welfare in very liberal ways. You really have to look at all the programs it makes to see that it is very unbiased as a whole. It has employees that like one side and employees that like the other.
You have to remember that they give out a big commission yearly to people who make public serving documents.
I can't see the math for that working. Ivy League costs something like $50k a year, probably more. If you can make that waiting tables AND have enough money to study then you should stick to waiting tables, because you have one hell of a talent there.
The real question is what happens when the next 2600k/3770k equivalent becomes a unit you can only buy soldered onto a Quad Sli/Triple Xfire bells and whistles motherboard that makes the K versions of all their chips super expensive and limits internally the over-clocking potential of them.
This all assumes you would be making a server in a business setting, with antiquated software, where simply turning it off any any point is unacceptable, and it must be rack mounted to be taken seriously by management, even if there's nothing but networking gear in that rack otherwise.
Sounds like most businesses today.
ECC: pointless unless running a machine which you reboot less than once a week.
SMP: Pointless unless you run software that doesn't support nodes/farming
1U rack: Possible with a desktop mobo but needs to not use any PCI slots and have a CPU cooler and PSU made for servers. 4U's are usually better anyway.
To me this says that 1U SMP Xeon servers are perfectly priced for the people that would be buying them. C-level's who are too lazy to do their research, modify their code to distribute processing or talk to their software providers, and then buy a bunch of cheap desktop PC's to do the heavy lifting for them. Or too lazy to listen to the tech guy banging down their door about it.
I think you're terribly wrong. A T3500 uses Socket 1366 Xeons from 2009. The most powerful one offered with that workstation is Nehalem EP (1st gen i7) although I very much doubt they sell that out of the box to financial companies anyway, which probably means he got the standard one that comes with a Bloomfield (Core2Quad).
Let's be generous and assume he got a fully maxed out T3500 and it came with a i7 though, just for kicks.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+X5570+%40+2.93GHz&id=1302
The AMD fx-8350 kicks it's backside and is $190, and most importantly, you won't need to throw everything away when it's time to upgrade. Spending an extra $100 now and saving $600 on buying new stuff over the course of the next 3 upgrades is how I like to work. That's why my current system (3930k, 32GB RAM 12TB of HDDs) was affordable on my student budget, because I already owned everything except the CPU and mob when I went ot buy them, and I just get bits and bobs one by one.
Vendor lock-in is a form of DRM. Sony want you to buy the PS4 to get the PS4 exclusives. Playing a PS4 game on something made by someone else would be using it in a way they did not dictate. This is mainly because of the various pains they went through to achieve their level of encryption and by using a more expensive CPU instruction set to make it more or less incompatible with everything without low level emulation.
"DRM is done with the intended purpose of thwarting efforts to copy data or use it in any other way than the hardware/software designers dictate."
No, he's saying that Always on DRM is to protect against hacking and emulation.
http://xkcd.com/643/
Yes. If Tim Cook called everyone nigger sluts. Hell if he called one person a nigger slut, he would lose his job hours after. regardless if it is disclaimed or not. Nobody wants to thing that Apple is run by racists, in fact nobody wants to think that any company is run by people who's opinions run counter to public opinion, so Mr Orth screwed himself by letting the cat out of the bag and affecting the company position in the eyes of PR.
"The only thing that matters for toxicity is final concentration when it reaches people, not absolute quantity."
Neither of us have that information, infact I doubt it exists for the very reason that it would put both the gov't and the energy companies in the firing line... so ultimately your point is moot. If the Fracking guys really though it was so safe they would have come out with some evidence to calm public
That graphic only tells me one thing: the people who created it are either profound liars or totally incompetent. Sodium chloride, boric acid, and "non-crystalline silica" are simply not toxic by any reasonable definition.
My girlfriends college degree in biology says otherwise. To quote a website I went to get citations from:
Salt (table salt): Ingesting inorganic sodium chloride will result in an accumulation of sodium outside the cell and will pull water from the cells into the extracellular space by virtue of its concentration. In addition, water is withdrawn from the tissues in order to neutralize and suspend this toxic poison and then it is excreted via various routes (skin, kidneys, bowels, etc.). This inorganic mineral is totally unusable by our body and is excreted in the same form that it is ingested without being broken down or utilized. It creates an unnecessary hardship and wastage of energy on the body in general.
Continued use of salt results in a severe condition of the kidneys called “nephritis.” This means that the kidneys are inflamed and weakened due to their work overload and irritation from salt. Ingestion of salt also results in inflammation and swelling of all glands, contributes to constipation and indigestion, and is a factor in many skin diseases. It is in solution and suspended throughout all the fluids of the body which results in extreme irritation, injury and death to billions of cells. The body will regenerate new cells to replace those that have died but this again utilizes a great deal of energy and resources.
Moral of the story: Just because we're naturally tolerant does not mean it isn't harmful to human health in the long run.
"Carbon neutral is as "green" as it gets (provided you even think that CO2 emissions are a bad thing)."
If I take a pencil, and harvest the carbon in the graphite to make methane via this process, technically I have used a carbon neutral method to do so, as no more carbon is made. But if that is where we're setting the bar, drilling hydrocarbons is carbon neutral too. The point is not to make fuel ourselves, it's to make fuel and use it without adding more carbon dixoide to the atmosphere, and there is no way this could do that as it is still burning hydrocarbons (methane).
"So you are saying that it is OK to waste tax payer money on anything because, heck, the government is so corrupt that if it didn't waste it banks would waste it on bad loans anyway. That argument is both stupid and incorrect. Although there is a certain degree of corruption, it is still far from 100%. We're still far better off not having the government waste money on bad investments."
No, I'm saying you're illusion that banking is a free market is just that, an illusion. Your rates will go up as a result of my massive business failing and there will be no bank to switch to, because they will raise rates/lower interest uniformly as they always have. Great job cherry picking a portion of my argument and acting as if I was talking about a core point and not trying to describe to you why your point was stupid.
In case you forgot, here's what I said on why I thought the loan was just: [When you take out a bad loan or go bankrupt, y]ou don't suffer the full consequences as they should technically be (indentured slavery) and I don't have a say in whether my money goes towards you or not. I may be pissed at that thought, and take the same stand that you're taking against this, but it doesn't change the fact that it's for the greater good and sometimes people will resist the greater good until they find themse
The US and UK have.
Okay, lets stop 'going back and forth for the sake of going back and forth'. I will explain in totality because it seems like you simply don't get what fracking is properly and are attempting to attack my credibility to justify yourself. It is very VERY logical that is it harmful to human health in the same way that smoking is. I.E putting dangerous chemicals into the human body.
1. Look at this. http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.3/unpacking-health-hazards-in-frackings-chemical-cocktail/graphic.
Now granted, over 90% of fracking fluid is water and sand, but that 1% is still a hell of a lot when you pump millions of gallons per site.10,000 gallons of chemicals per mil of fluid remember. And most of that fluid will be absorbed by porous rock whereas I very much doubt kerosene distillate and many of these chemicals have that luxury.
More info about how it gets from the site to the water supply, lawsuits etc:
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fracking+lawsuit
http://www.dangersoffracking.com/
2. The Sabatier process makes methane, and uses hydrogen. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, because that's just carbon neutral, not actually green. When you consider that most of that CO2 is not going to be collected from the atmosphere (due to the cost of doing that) then you realize it's just the same as hydrocarbons pollution-wise. If you're talking about doing that in reverse, that is just a form of electrolysis and has the same problems I mentioned before. Namely, it's not green, it just shifts the blame from the car to the pump.
3. In case you haven't noticed, banking is a cartel. Stop living in dreamland. If one bank raises it's rates the other banks will do the same universally because they can and it's profitable. In reality if a bank gives out too many bad loans, it is bailed out by the state. You should know all too well about that seeing as we and the rest of the West are sitting in a recession as a result of that right now.
4. The iPad didn't need to be subsidized, most of the R+D for the tech was done by Xerox/PARC in the 80s and 90s, it was also lead by a huge giant in an industry next door to it; computing. It's a poor comparison for anything but the point I was making but if you want to beat the strawman I will show it's a pointless comparison. GM, Dodge, Ford and all the other US car companies make some of the most uneconomical cars in the world. Fact. Even Honda looks bad next to it's eastern rivals because of it's Americanization. None of the above companies would seriously make EVs their main business focus. It would be a life threatening decision for them and would frankly require them to make an about turn on lots of their marketing, policies etc etc. There is no truly 'green' US car company that is large enough to fab it's own components and design it's own cars so the DoE had to finance the creation of a new company to carry out aforementioned goals. So it's like the DoE seeing a public need for iPads but there being no Apple and no Xerox PARC. So the DoE makes it's own East India Trading Company to do the work for it.
It's all well having businesses like the AC Propulsion that do engine conversion but actually making real EVs that are normal enough to be embraced by the general public is not something that has been done before. (Look at this list http://ev.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_EV_companies and I bet you can call every car there too quirky for general tastes except the Tesla without talking about their power-train or fuel tech.)
Did you even read what I wrote? I already explained why the Tesla was priced out of most people's range, the tech needs to come down in size, but to do that it need
Oh and just to add, do you really think the US public would buy cars that they know have nuclear power in them. Many of us still think of 13 legged mutant cows and sci-fi movies when you say nuclear powered car. It's way too scary for most of the public.
1. If you poison/drain or do anything to groudwater, most of the time you will get away with it. It's very hard to directly assert that you were the cause, even if it was your fault. Ask the same of Coca Cola's industrial pumps in India that have been killing the locals for decades by removing their sources of water from the wells.
2.Chevy was working on it a few years ago, I don't know what happened to that, but it's a daft idea anyway. AFAIK the processes for making hydrogen is either polluting as well (steam reforming) - so now the pumps would be the sources not the cars -, or energy negative (electrolysis, induced thermolysis), meaning you would be far better off making a good battery so there isn't two stages at which power is lost.
3. When you make a bet and take out a loan to build a business, then you screw up/have a bad run of luck and go bankrupt, it's my money that bails you out, whether through the gov't administration system or the bank writing off your loans and raising everyone else's premiums and interest rates to compensate. It's all of our money that bails you out. You don't suffer the full consequences as they should technically be (indentured slavery) and I don't have a say in whether my money goes towards you or not. I may be pissed at that thought, and take the same stand that you're taking against this, but it doesn't change the fact that it's for the greater good and sometimes people will resist the greater good until they find themselves in that situation themselves. To further that point, I will copy something I just had to explain to someone else illustrating why this was neither a bet nor investment and why they are seeing it wrong.
"The initial plan was an investment, that's why it was a loan and not a grant. I expect it was not interest free, thus it qualifies as an investment. Even if it was interest free, it was still an investment as it was a loan and the DoE expected repayment. It was not for monetary gains, in spirit it was to provide the US with good alternatives to oil transport, or at least put the technology on the map to prove it was possible. This is about kickstarting an industry, the gov't as a whole would more than make back their money in tax if it worked."
If not, Tesla's work alone may still provide them with a flagship product to really open an industry. What iPad was to the tablet market.
3. Again, I will answer with a quote I've said elsewhere:
"Tesla did not [build a green commodity car], but Tesla actually built a real EV, not a hybrid and Tesla explained a long time ago that a commodity car was in it's roadmap. Fisker did the precise opposite if this is to be believed and took the money with zero EVs in it's roadmap. (see: http://www.fiskerbuzz.com/forums/14-fisker-lounge/1118-fisker-product-roadmap.html [fiskerbuzz.com]
Tesla also spent a lot of money in R+D like the DoE wanted them to, yet I've heard nothing about Fisker advancing EV tech. Making things smaller is harder and thus everything points to Tesla releasing bigger more powerful stuff [to start with] whilst it downsizes the tech. Tesla's new releases on its roadmap clearly get smaller and smaller but they key difference is that they are all proper EVs."
They never subsidized Fisker, nor Tesla or any other EV manufacturer. They subsidized EVs as a whole. EVs are not luxury products. There are some pretty low priced ones, but ultimately the DoE wants to see lots more and that's why they are handing out these loans.
1. I was not speaking financially, I was talking about range, power and technology. Funnily enough you also forget that it cost a lot of money to economize the design of any good to the level where it is financially profitable. Hell in the computer games industry consoles are often selling at a loss at release date, but the business knows that when the platform is redesigned a few times, the R+D department will be able to reduce the BoM to the point where it's extremely profitable, and it's worth it to release it now whilst it's not in order to build loss lead against your competitors by having the best and most cutting edge tech. This is exactly in the DoE's vein of thought.
2.Tesla did not, but Tesla actually built a real EV, not a hybrid and Tesla explained a long time ago that a commodity car was in it's roadmap. Fisker did the precise opposite if this is to be belived and took the money with zero EVs in it's roadmap. (see: http://www.fiskerbuzz.com/forums/14-fisker-lounge/1118-fisker-product-roadmap.html
Tesla also spent a lot of money in R+D like the DoE wanted them to, yet I've heard nothing about Fisker advancing EV tech. Making things smaller is harder and thus everything points to Tesla releasing bigger more powerful stuff whilst it downsizes the tech. Tesla's new releases on its roadmap clearly get smaller and smaller but they key difference is that they are all proper EVs.
3. Don't be silly. You can't tell me that the DoE expected Fisker to put 7 petrol cars in it's roadmap, build one hybrid sports car, then run off with the money with no further investment in EV. If they had, then why did they stop Fisker's funding half way through the money? Nevermind the fact that the Karma is a great car, it's not really in the vein of what the DoE wanted.
4. The initial plan was an investment, that's why it was a loan and not a grant. I expect it was not interest free, thus it qualifies as an investment. Even if it was interest free, it was still an investment as it was a loan and the DoE expected repayment. It was not for monetary gains, in spirit it was to provide the US with good alternatives to oil transport, or at least put the technology on the map to prove it was possible. This is about kickstarting an industry, the gov't as a whole would more than make back their money in tax if it worked.
Fracking is a terrible technology that kill in droves. Nuclear is viable but cannot be a substitute in a car because as it stands most pure electric cars simply don't have the range/price ratio that they need to compete with petrol.
This is what the DoE wanted to address. Tesla is doing the right thing by starting off with luxury products. You look in the history books, all revolutionary technology products start as luxury products. You build them till you can profit, then you make a lower tier product when you have the money to convince your partners that the large orders you will be making on your BoM is deserving of a great economy of scale.
I don't think you get it at all. The DoE was not trying to start the industry so much as it was trying to prove that green products that are competitive to fossil fuels could actually be built. Elon Musk and Tesla unfortunately were the only people that managed to pull themselves off the ground, but that by no means makes it impossible without gov't subsidies, it just means it required too much R&D to start up and the DoE was fronting that money.
If Fisker decides to take a green energy loan and build a hybrid sports car instead of an actual green commodity car, and the other half of their loan is taken away, justice has been done. Nobody could have predicted them being so stupid in the first place, and the unfortunate thing about investing is sometimes you hit a dud. Sure, DoE's investing could have been a little more selective, but I doubt anyone though Fisker would be THIS stupid.