Programming languages are just tools to help create programs.
Flawed languages in the hands of skilled programmers can still allow for god programs.
And vice versa.
So my answer is: no, they don't.
If you are using a real router, you can check the outbound traffic originating from your things.
Maybe you can throttle it: it'd be in the order of a few KBps and it'd be directed only towards a certain server.
Anything else cound be an ongoing DDOS attack.
If all of this doesn't make any sense to you then, I'd suggest you to disconnect those tin cans.
Courage is to make a real smartwatch with a SIM and use a google glass-like as the user interface.
Anything else is just marketing, aka a way to squeeze money from users.
It is stupidity. We already struggle to keep up with the iPhone battery.
Now we'll struggle also with the wireless earbuds.
Yes, it's stupidity. iPhone 8 will sport back the 3.5mm socket.
Those "scientists" don't say from where the hydrogen is taken, despite this is a key point. Period.
And if it's taken from air water, there should be also plenty of O2 also produced. But this is not mentioned.
So H2 must come from somewhere else. That is not mentioned as well. This is what I am questioning.
Then, you my friendly moderator, please take into consideration if it's more important the moon I am pointing at, or the finger I am using to point.
That's a completely different point. I agree with you about the car scrapping and using that technology (provided that it really works as advised). But the point here is the energy source in general: there are not just cars that need energy.
That's correct. What's wrong is all the mentioning about CO2 sequestration.
Otherwise you can revert to natural wood/bamboo growing as energy source: it sequestrates CO2, stores energy for later use, produces O2 and food...
Well, the original article puts a lot of emphasis on the sequestration process and I am saying that those statements make no sense.
Electricity that's not produced by burning stuff (photovoltaic panels, windmills, nuclear plants) is much better as there is no CO2 emission at all.
The amounts of water in the air is highy variable, so would the amount of fuel produced and the effectivenss of these cells.
For example, in the Sahara desert as close as possible to the equator you have plenty of sun light, but very little water vapor in the air. While photovoltaic would be great there, this solution would be really bad.
So, why not mentioning at all from where the hydrogen is taken?
Slashdot Mirror
I have got into graphics only after 2001, you pixelated insensitive clod!
You all insensitive GUI clods!
This huge enhancement will bring me back to Windows. Paint was the only part to holding me back!
Not to share!
Don't forget It!
Free speech is not free action, in my language at least.
See what I mean? You cannot really have free speech...
Freedom either is 100% or is not. Freedom at 99.99% is not freedom.
Both are sharp and bleeding. You cannot (really) fight for privacy and for control at the same time.
Programming languages are just tools to help create programs.
Flawed languages in the hands of skilled programmers can still allow for god programs.
And vice versa.
So my answer is: no, they don't.
But maybe not the oldest one!
Like wikipedia?
If you are using a real router, you can check the outbound traffic originating from your things.
Maybe you can throttle it: it'd be in the order of a few KBps and it'd be directed only towards a certain server.
Anything else cound be an ongoing DDOS attack.
If all of this doesn't make any sense to you then, I'd suggest you to disconnect those tin cans.
Are here, and scientists don't know why yet!
Which is also science and passion.
Why complaining?
Then it must be the one and only truth!
Courage is to make a real smartwatch with a SIM and use a google glass-like as the user interface. Anything else is just marketing, aka a way to squeeze money from users.
It is stupidity. We already struggle to keep up with the iPhone battery. Now we'll struggle also with the wireless earbuds. Yes, it's stupidity. iPhone 8 will sport back the 3.5mm socket.
Until sunk. Then IP00.
Those "scientists" don't say from where the hydrogen is taken, despite this is a key point. Period.
And if it's taken from air water, there should be also plenty of O2 also produced. But this is not mentioned.
So H2 must come from somewhere else. That is not mentioned as well. This is what I am questioning.
Then, you my friendly moderator, please take into consideration if it's more important the moon I am pointing at, or the finger I am using to point.
That's a completely different point.
I agree with you about the car scrapping and using that technology (provided that it really works as advised).
But the point here is the energy source in general: there are not just cars that need energy.
That's correct. What's wrong is all the mentioning about CO2 sequestration.
Otherwise you can revert to natural wood/bamboo growing as energy source: it sequestrates CO2, stores energy for later use, produces O2 and food...
Well, the original article puts a lot of emphasis on the sequestration process and I am saying that those statements make no sense.
Electricity that's not produced by burning stuff (photovoltaic panels, windmills, nuclear plants) is much better as there is no CO2 emission at all.
The amounts of water in the air is highy variable, so would the amount of fuel produced and the effectivenss of these cells.
For example, in the Sahara desert as close as possible to the equator you have plenty of sun light, but very little water vapor in the air. While photovoltaic would be great there, this solution would be really bad.
So, why not mentioning at all from where the hydrogen is taken?