We're working on it: Inkscape If you're handy with a compiler, or can wield a gtkmm, give us a hand!
Re:Flash as an application development platform
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I can play any standard format (mpeg, avi, quicktime, ogg) in the browser window. Been able to for at least a few years. Perhaps you could use a more modern browser/OS? MPEG is certainly not proprietary! (If you think flash isn't you are very confused indeed).
You could make a super computer out of DOS 6.1 given enough computers. Most of what makes a supercomputer is the libraries and hardware. For many single task runs you don't even need an OS.
There are plenty of LiBr absorbtion airconditioners out there, you don't really need a tracking dish, those evacuated tube collectors would be quite adequate, able to get to at least 140C even in freezing conditions. They are cheap too - I bought some for about $30au each. And they are mass produced in china.
The real problem is that there is little practical reason to make such a system, as in 99% of the places where people live a simple two-stage indirect evaporative cooler provides a cheaper, simpler and well tested way to keep houses cool. Very little plumbing, no vacuums to maintain, no 'unsightly' solar collectors. They waste some water, but most of the waste water could actually be collected and reused as greywater (the rest is 'turned into cooling energy').
I have partially built a solar absorbtion cooler as you suggest, but after analysing the problem more closely I found that there really isn't any good reason to use that technology for air conditioning. For cooling fridges and freezers in hot, sunny places with unreliable power, there you might have a market. But the rest of us can use simpler technology.
You've missed my point - if we got all those naive users to use any new operating system the blackhats would switch to whatever they were using and fool them just like they fool them now.
My personal experience in a large department with around 500 machines, 30% macs, 30% windows and 30% linux, is that although macosx is more reliable than windows, it is less reliable than ubuntu (and before that, debian), the macosx users tend to stand around in the tea room complaining about how their compiler was generating the wrong instructions, or whatever latest hardware failure has got them. Our linux machines generally operate until they are no longer useful, 5 years later. My workmate's machine was finally replaced last month - he had a 400 MHz pentium II from around 99; it was still running the original debian install. Macs last until their warranty period ends. XP is the majority of tech support.
Joe sixpack is easy to fool with social engineering. MacOSX will not save him from that. Thus, if your world came true, he would still pay $80 every now and then to get the spyware removed. (Thus, he may as well stay with the devil he knows)
Yeah, you can burn hydrogen in an ordinary engine if the compression ratio is raised, too. However, extremely high compression ratios cause their own problems. My '81 MBZ 300SD has a battery and a starter that would be more at home on a full-size truck even though it has only a 3 liter, because it's got a 22:1 compression ratio.
This can be solved using hybrid technology, where your generator can be used as a serious starter motor.
Sure and one packer learns how to stack the fruit so it takes up more space. Is he working better? At least with mass you can detect cheating (putting rocks in perhaps) after the fact. The fact that volume can be changed considerably without changing the product makes it more risky. (Much like cheap shampoo being diluted with more water.)
Here we measure fruit by weighing (and estimating mass from that), but we use the same sized baskets as everywhere else.
Well my house is already using less than half national average footprint, and we're comfortable, so we can certainly make some progress. I agree there are lots of problems. My big gripe is that outside technical forums like this nobody is willing to talk about the problem carefully.
If I were to advocate anything it would be contraception. Scarcity is relative to the population. Fewer people, more "stuff" per capita. Not too little oil. Too many damned rats in the cage. "Spaceship Earth" and all that.
The other two ethical/political things would be improve everyone's standard of living (which will require a change in energy usage patterns) and encouraging frugality.
Probably should just use it for hot water - people demand enough hot water that a rooftop combining PV and SDHW will offset a large chunk of the total energy demand of the house. (And much cheaper than some complex mechanical system)
The technical term for this is EROEI (Energy returned on energy invested) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI). Every energy source has this. For fossil oil it is currently around 5:1, for PV it is at least 6:1 (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/clean_energy_pa yback.html). Converting oil into solar panels is thus a sensible thing to do - certainly better than burning, which is what you seem to be advocating? The same is true for biofuels - biodiesel produces 2l of fuel for every litre invested, so it is a good investment if you want to multiply the value of that fossil energy. Clearly once bootstrapped any net positive EROEI can be self-powering, as long as the energy is in a suitable form.
Solar panel manufacture needs chemical energy to convert SiO2 into Si (electrolysis is not cost effective AFAIK) and oil/gas/coal is a reasonable way to achieve this. In a solar power future the reduction might be done by solar-thermal electrolysis of water to hydrogen, and use the hydrogen to produce silane.
The reason people don't solar panels everywhere is simply because they are too expensive. There are many reasons for this, but from a purely energy physics point of view there is nothing wrong with the current production.
Slashdot Mirror
We're working on it: Inkscape If you're handy with a compiler, or can wield a gtkmm, give us a hand!
I can play any standard format (mpeg, avi, quicktime, ogg) in the browser window. Been able to for at least a few years. Perhaps you could use a more modern browser/OS? MPEG is certainly not proprietary! (If you think flash isn't you are very confused indeed).
You could make a super computer out of DOS 6.1 given enough computers. Most of what makes a supercomputer is the libraries and hardware. For many single task runs you don't even need an OS.
Sorry, but you're confused. These are a set of differential equations and have 'nothing' to do with turing machines.
There are plenty of LiBr absorbtion airconditioners out there, you don't really need a tracking dish, those evacuated tube collectors would be quite adequate, able to get to at least 140C even in freezing conditions. They are cheap too - I bought some for about $30au each. And they are mass produced in china.
The real problem is that there is little practical reason to make such a system, as in 99% of the places where people live a simple two-stage indirect evaporative cooler provides a cheaper, simpler and well tested way to keep houses cool. Very little plumbing, no vacuums to maintain, no 'unsightly' solar collectors. They waste some water, but most of the waste water could actually be collected and reused as greywater (the rest is 'turned into cooling energy').
I have partially built a solar absorbtion cooler as you suggest, but after analysing the problem more closely I found that there really isn't any good reason to use that technology for air conditioning. For cooling fridges and freezers in hot, sunny places with unreliable power, there you might have a market. But the rest of us can use simpler technology.
My work switched all the printers over from windows to linux running cups and samba. It was easier to get them working and keep them working.
I've never had a problem with a shop bought printer under CUPS either.
(an anecdote isn't data)
You've missed my point - if we got all those naive users to use any new operating system the blackhats would switch to whatever they were using and fool them just like they fool them now.
My personal experience in a large department with around 500 machines, 30% macs, 30% windows and 30% linux, is that although macosx is more reliable than windows, it is less reliable than ubuntu (and before that, debian), the macosx users tend to stand around in the tea room complaining about how their compiler was generating the wrong instructions, or whatever latest hardware failure has got them. Our linux machines generally operate until they are no longer useful, 5 years later. My workmate's machine was finally replaced last month - he had a 400 MHz pentium II from around 99; it was still running the original debian install. Macs last until their warranty period ends. XP is the majority of tech support.
So why don't you run linux?
Joe sixpack is easy to fool with social engineering. MacOSX will not save him from that. Thus, if your world came true, he would still pay $80 every now and then to get the spyware removed. (Thus, he may as well stay with the devil he knows)
Yeah, you can burn hydrogen in an ordinary engine if the compression ratio is raised, too. However, extremely high compression ratios cause their own problems. My '81 MBZ 300SD has a battery and a starter that would be more at home on a full-size truck even though it has only a 3 liter, because it's got a 22:1 compression ratio.
This can be solved using hybrid technology, where your generator can be used as a serious starter motor.
The fact that you don't even mention cellulosic ethanol makes me suspect that you are lying about your employment.
Yeah, I had a laugh about that. And if you actually offered people $283 when they sent you $500 you might not even be committing fraud, legally.
How can a black hole have a magnetic field when the mediators of magnetic fields, namely photons, cannot escape the black hole?
It's be nice if google followed their own advice.
Sure and one packer learns how to stack the fruit so it takes up more space. Is he working better? At least with mass you can detect cheating (putting rocks in perhaps) after the fact. The fact that volume can be changed considerably without changing the product makes it more risky. (Much like cheap shampoo being diluted with more water.)
Here we measure fruit by weighing (and estimating mass from that), but we use the same sized baskets as everywhere else.
People don't still use angular degrees do they?! I thought the world at least agreed on radians for angles. What next? Base 10 for logarithms?
actually, cc is not SI, and it's 1mL = 1g of H2O...
Charging batteries also involves electrolysis.
There is no such thing as an Australian cane toad. Bufo marinus might eat kudzu, but more likely it would go for idiot internet trolls.
Well my house is already using less than half national average footprint, and we're comfortable, so we can certainly make some progress. I agree there are lots of problems. My big gripe is that outside technical forums like this nobody is willing to talk about the problem carefully.
(Thanks for the chat)
Again, not advocating, just noting.
If I were to advocate anything it would be contraception. Scarcity is relative to the population. Fewer people, more "stuff" per capita. Not too little oil. Too many damned rats in the cage. "Spaceship Earth" and all that.
The other two ethical/political things would be improve everyone's standard of living (which will require a change in energy usage patterns) and encouraging frugality.
By compressing the gas.
Probably should just use it for hot water - people demand enough hot water that a rooftop combining PV and SDHW will offset a large chunk of the total energy demand of the house. (And much cheaper than some complex mechanical system)
The technical term for this is EROEI (Energy returned on energy invested) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI). Every energy source has this. For fossil oil it is currently around 5:1, for PV it is at least 6:1 (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/clean_energy_pa yback.html). Converting oil into solar panels is thus a sensible thing to do - certainly better than burning, which is what you seem to be advocating? The same is true for biofuels - biodiesel produces 2l of fuel for every litre invested, so it is a good investment if you want to multiply the value of that fossil energy. Clearly once bootstrapped any net positive EROEI can be self-powering, as long as the energy is in a suitable form.
Solar panel manufacture needs chemical energy to convert SiO2 into Si (electrolysis is not cost effective AFAIK) and oil/gas/coal is a reasonable way to achieve this. In a solar power future the reduction might be done by solar-thermal electrolysis of water to hydrogen, and use the hydrogen to produce silane.
The reason people don't solar panels everywhere is simply because they are too expensive. There are many reasons for this, but from a purely energy physics point of view there is nothing wrong with the current production.
Your solar panels are also artificially subsidised by your government.
/all/ the variables.
So is the petrol, electricity, natural gas, diesel, heating oil, biodiesel etc.
Next time, consider