Y'see. Most of our fertilizers and pesticides are produced using fossil fuels. The Haber-Bosch process for example.
Which means that when the fossil fuels run out, so will the food.
What is the EROEI on making bio fuels to produce fertilizers to produce bio fuels? Is it even above 1? And how will the cost of food compare against the cost of a tank of gas in that environment? Should we encourage people to starve to feed the Hummer?
Everything I need should be no more than 10 minutes walk. Why should I have to get in a car/bus/train to get the stuff I want. East Kilbride, Cumbernauld... disasters.
Realise that just about everyone has an agenda. They all want something from you, whether it is money, loyalty, work, sacrifice, and simply persuading you is far easier, cheaper and more effective than trying to force you.
What wikipedia should do is aknowledge this fundamental truth about human communication and include a visible propaganda score for each edit and for each article.
Contrary to popular belief, the main purpose of most government spending is simply to create new money. This allows subsequent credit expansion and "growth".
The whole concept of value for money or saving taxes is completely wrong in this regard and simply doesn't fit with our monetary system. Which might help explain why nobody is keen to do anything about over spends.
Credit requires growth to function. People see an initial increase in any random market, borrow and invest in that market, so it booms a little more, paying back the original investors. There is a self reinforcing cycle of borrowing and investing until the resulting exponential growth hits some limit, and the last people into the market lose their shirts when the pyramid (and it IS a pyramid scheme) fails.
This is basically how I manage my portfolio and why I'm 5% up when just about everyone else is 50% down. Look at the exponential bubble and step out when it's getting to it's limit. Timing the completely inevitable crash is crucial of course, but it's mostly a matter of looking at the flow of new loans going into a sector compared with the current debt and interest load. You have to understand what money is, it's amazing how few people do. I recommend you read Mises theory of money and credit, he basically had it pinned 100 years ago.
The essential nature of a free market is still unpredictability.
The toss of one coin is unpredictable. The toss of 100 coins is easy to predict with some certainty. Putting money in any one stock is gambling, putting money in 200 is investing. Couple that with an understanding of what money actually is and you can avoid the worst the governments and banks can do, or even take advantage of the manipulation.
If you have a resource which can be exploited at a certain rate sustainably, then find by for example pouring nitrates and phosphates on to it you can triple production for a few years, then it fails. Is it really sane to exploit it unsustainably?
Our economic system forces perverse results. Sustainable equates with failure. In the above example those who operate sustainably will be forced out of business because they have to compete with others who can simply borrow some money, increase production for a short time flooding the market and crashing the prices, then buy up their competitors at a steep discount before raising prices again.
Actually this is a national security issue, particularly for farming and food production.
We have a problem the size of a swimming pool and think it would be a great idea if we spent our R&D budget investigating thimble efficiency with respect to making it smaller.
Siemens say they have a steam turbine which can run at 48% thermal efficiency which is apparently a world record.
Nuclear gets 95% of it's "nameplate" value because they know fine well that they're going to throw 50-60% of the energy away right at the start. See "Carnot efficiency".
"If you don't get rid of the heat then you don't have such a big temperature difference so you can get a lot of energy in the first place. While you can get a bit from power plants as industrial heat you really need a really reliable heat sink such as evaporative cooling (those big towers) or sea/lake water."
Pretty much all large cities are built near the sea or a large river. And the single largest use for electricity, domestic and commercial, is heat management. With a District Heating and Cooling network, you don't need to use electricity to provide the heating and cooling, so you don't need as much electricity and you can get a better overall efficiency from the fuel.
You can expect per MHz licencing though
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 1
Lets see, 8 cores, 2000MHz each. Why that will be your firstborn sir. How would you like to pay? Blood will do nicely.
The problem with Nuclear plants is they tend to build them in the middle of nowhere, usually on the coast so they can pump the "waste" heat into the ocean. This means they can never really be much more than about 40% efficient. Really you should implement a District Heating and District Cooling systems as well if you're spending billions on new nuclear power plants.
The other thing is the current generation of plants (and AP1000 is such) are basically once through designs. The fuel is enriched, left in the reactor till the poisons build up, then removed and... well, left lying around for 10,000 years till they figure out what to do with it. They're really pretty inefficient with the fuel as well as being inefficient with the heat produced.
The most efficient Nuclear plant would be.
1: In the middle of a city. 2: Attached to District Heating and District Cooling networks as well as the electrical grid. 3: Of a design which breeds it's own fuel and burns the radioactive waste within the reactor. (Thorium cycle, molten salt reactor or integral fast reactor).
So they're basically 3 times more expensive and much dirtier than they should be.
Most 30 minute commutes could be eliminated by having a simple and useable rail system.
Nope. Have a look at France or Germany. Traffic congestion just as bad as the USA. A rail line typically only reduces traffic congestion by a few percent, and that slack is simply picked up again.
You see if you do not live very near a station and are not traveling exactly along the rail corridor, rail turns a 30 minute commute into a 2 hour commute.
Slashdot Mirror
Y'see. Most of our fertilizers and pesticides are produced using fossil fuels. The Haber-Bosch process for example.
Which means that when the fossil fuels run out, so will the food.
What is the EROEI on making bio fuels to produce fertilizers to produce bio fuels? Is it even above 1? And how will the cost of food compare against the cost of a tank of gas in that environment? Should we encourage people to starve to feed the Hummer?
VPN'd to all your friends and family.
Cruciall feature being trivial vpn config support.
Y'know, like a few kg of coke.
You can run just as hard and fast as you like. Doesn't do you much good if it's in the wrong direction.
1: Walkable cities; http://www.newurbanism.org/
Everything I need should be no more than 10 minutes walk. Why should I have to get in a car/bus/train to get the stuff I want. East Kilbride, Cumbernauld ... disasters.
2: PRT: http://www.atsltd.co.uk/media/
Solves much of the traffic and logistic problems for those areas you can't walk to.
3: Reform of the monetary system; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxdPIOUTd2k
Lending money into existence is the cause of a lot of our existing problems.
Don't hold your breath on any of it.
The executive summary please.
Hand the problem over to the DBA...
Yes it would be faster than by car.
It would? From where to where?
Last time I looked, trains could only travel on tracks.
Trains run to schedules, which means you have to wait for them.
Trains only stop at stations which means you have to travel to and from the station.
Trains are only faster than a car under the conditions that
1: you live near a station and
2: want to travel near to another station,
3: without having to change between lines or other modes of transport.
There's a very good reason people have embraced the car with open arms.
For fonts anyway. You want font hinting.
Antialiasing is horribly slow and is one of the things which makes Gnome in particular seem so sluggish. Go on, turn it off and watch those menus fly.
Realise that just about everyone has an agenda. They all want something from you, whether it is money, loyalty, work, sacrifice, and simply persuading you is far easier, cheaper and more effective than trying to force you.
What wikipedia should do is aknowledge this fundamental truth about human communication and include a visible propaganda score for each edit and for each article.
Contrary to popular belief, the main purpose of most government spending is simply to create new money. This allows subsequent credit expansion and "growth".
The whole concept of value for money or saving taxes is completely wrong in this regard and simply doesn't fit with our monetary system. Which might help explain why nobody is keen to do anything about over spends.
http://www.anxietyinsights.info/common_salt__natures_antidepressant.htm
e.g.
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v6/n10/abs/nmat2007.html
The same as cosmetics.
Without the drugs you can't do whatever, otherwise you wouldn't be dependent on them.
Credit requires growth to function. People see an initial increase in any random market, borrow and invest in that market, so it booms a little more, paying back the original investors. There is a self reinforcing cycle of borrowing and investing until the resulting exponential growth hits some limit, and the last people into the market lose their shirts when the pyramid (and it IS a pyramid scheme) fails.
This is basically how I manage my portfolio and why I'm 5% up when just about everyone else is 50% down. Look at the exponential bubble and step out when it's getting to it's limit. Timing the completely inevitable crash is crucial of course, but it's mostly a matter of looking at the flow of new loans going into a sector compared with the current debt and interest load. You have to understand what money is, it's amazing how few people do. I recommend you read Mises theory of money and credit, he basically had it pinned 100 years ago.
The essential nature of a free market is still unpredictability.
The toss of one coin is unpredictable. The toss of 100 coins is easy to predict with some certainty. Putting money in any one stock is gambling, putting money in 200 is investing. Couple that with an understanding of what money actually is and you can avoid the worst the governments and banks can do, or even take advantage of the manipulation.
Mostly used for connecting to various online services. Though it was really nice to have something which didn't crash on an hourly basis.
If you have a resource which can be exploited at a certain rate sustainably, then find by for example pouring nitrates and phosphates on to it you can triple production for a few years, then it fails. Is it really sane to exploit it unsustainably?
Our economic system forces perverse results. Sustainable equates with failure. In the above example those who operate sustainably will be forced out of business because they have to compete with others who can simply borrow some money, increase production for a short time flooding the market and crashing the prices, then buy up their competitors at a steep discount before raising prices again.
Actually this is a national security issue, particularly for farming and food production.
We have a problem the size of a swimming pool and think it would be a great idea if we spent our R&D budget investigating thimble efficiency with respect to making it smaller.
We should be trying to create hurricanes, not stop them. Then put... Wind turbines in the way to harvest the energy.
Only 40% eh? even with that number you picked out of a hat.
Nuclear reactors use steam turbines to produce electricity and 40% is ballpark for a steam turbine.
e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine
Siemens say they have a steam turbine which can run at 48% thermal efficiency which is apparently a world record.
Nuclear gets 95% of it's "nameplate" value because they know fine well that they're going to throw 50-60% of the energy away right at the start. See "Carnot efficiency".
And you are right, energy is cheap. Today.
"If you don't get rid of the heat then you don't have such a big temperature difference so you can get a lot of energy in the first place. While you can get a bit from power plants as industrial heat you really need a really reliable heat sink such as evaporative cooling (those big towers) or sea/lake water."
Pretty much all large cities are built near the sea or a large river. And the single largest use for electricity, domestic and commercial, is heat management. With a District Heating and Cooling network, you don't need to use electricity to provide the heating and cooling, so you don't need as much electricity and you can get a better overall efficiency from the fuel.
Lets see, 8 cores, 2000MHz each. Why that will be your firstborn sir. How would you like to pay? Blood will do nicely.
$2.35 per watt.
The problem with Nuclear plants is they tend to build them in the middle of nowhere, usually on the coast so they can pump the "waste" heat into the ocean. This means they can never really be much more than about 40% efficient. Really you should implement a District Heating and District Cooling systems as well if you're spending billions on new nuclear power plants.
The other thing is the current generation of plants (and AP1000 is such) are basically once through designs. The fuel is enriched, left in the reactor till the poisons build up, then removed and ... well, left lying around for 10,000 years till they figure out what to do with it. They're really pretty inefficient with the fuel as well as being inefficient with the heat produced.
The most efficient Nuclear plant would be.
1: In the middle of a city.
2: Attached to District Heating and District Cooling networks as well as the electrical grid.
3: Of a design which breeds it's own fuel and burns the radioactive waste within the reactor. (Thorium cycle, molten salt reactor or integral fast reactor).
So they're basically 3 times more expensive and much dirtier than they should be.
Most 30 minute commutes could be eliminated by having a simple and useable rail system.
Nope. Have a look at France or Germany. Traffic congestion just as bad as the USA. A rail line typically only reduces traffic congestion by a few percent, and that slack is simply picked up again.
You see if you do not live very near a station and are not traveling exactly along the rail corridor, rail turns a 30 minute commute into a 2 hour commute.
Tell them they are personally killing the planet when they complain about long login times.