I wonder if it ever occurred to the well meaning busy-bodies in the government that the professionals in their respective industries might just know a little bit more than they do?
Probably. But they've tried the "let's wait until industry solves it" method for a few decades, and nothing has come out of it, so they're trying something new.
If the particles all moved to the same point at the same time the pressure would drop. That might happen by chance if you have a few dozen. It's incredibly unlikely when you've got millions.
On the other hand, an individual human can rise to power, and organize a mass genocide.
No but having and enforcing rules against loss of life is much more important than having and enforcing rules to stop a bunch of kids downloading movies
I think we all agree, but there's no reason we couldn't do both.
It's not what the article says, but it's not wrong either. Chaos plays a significant role in the real economic and financial world.
Subtle changes, such as whether Alan Greenspan put a comma before or after a word could make the difference between a good day and a bad day on the stock market.
Except that peak oil is hitting us right now, but don't let that you distract you. Production has basically been flat for the last couple of years, and most of the big fields are already in decline.
I'm sure they can come up with better reasons to raise prices if they wanted to. They could say they needed a new coffee machine on the 3rd floor, for instance.
By the way, you must live in a strange place. All the ISPs I know have only lowered the prices in the last couple of years, and have upgraded bandwidth at the same time. The wonders of capitalism, competition and improvements in technology.
There's plenty of surface area that's pretty worthless, like the deserts, and they have a lot of sun. Just those areas combined already capture more solar energy than all the world's potential for geothermal.
Also, setting up a solar plant is a lot easier than drilling 6 km deep underground.
You misunderstand. Geothermal flux from the core to the surface is about 30TW, without any use of geothermal reactors.
Now, imagine we capture a part of that energy, say 3TW, convert it to electricity, and use that electricity for light and motors. Most of that 3TW is going to end up as heat, just as it was before we harvested it.
So, we're not going to change that 30TW heat source in any significant way.
The greenhouse effect dwarfs any direct changes we could make in generating heat. So, if we could replace burning fossil fuels with geothermal, we would slow down the global warming due to CO2 greenhouse effect.
#2: that's already happening. Heat from the core is constantly diffusing into the crust and then the atmosphere. Even with our best efforts, we're not going to change the rate at which that happens by a measurable amount.
This heat is only a small fraction of the heat we get from above, so no worries.
I think it's your own lack of scale that's astounding. There is plenty of heat stored in the earth, but the rock is a very good insulator. Trying to extract too much, and the rock will cool rapidly.
The average geothermal heat flux on the earth is only 0.1 Watt per square meter. That's only 0.1% of the energy that we get from the sun.
Freeway's certainly aren't made to kill anyone directly but why shouldn't they be to blame for the thousands of deaths that happen on them every year.
You said it yourself: because they aren't made to kill. In fact, freeway designers take great care to maximize safety, while still allowing people to travel efficiently.
Pick a better analogy, this one doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's much easier to model something based on physics than something based on the behavior of people.
You didn't need insider knowledge, just a healthy dose of common sense.
Probably. But they've tried the "let's wait until industry solves it" method for a few decades, and nothing has come out of it, so they're trying something new.
On the other hand, an individual human can rise to power, and organize a mass genocide.
In that case, it's still cheaper to buy it.
I think we all agree, but there's no reason we couldn't do both.
Nice analogy, but physicist don't have to worry that the CEO molecule in an apple might die.
It's not what the article says, but it's not wrong either. Chaos plays a significant role in the real economic and financial world.
Subtle changes, such as whether Alan Greenspan put a comma before or after a word could make the difference between a good day and a bad day on the stock market.
Except that peak oil is hitting us right now, but don't let that you distract you. Production has basically been flat for the last couple of years, and most of the big fields are already in decline.
I'm sure they can come up with better reasons to raise prices if they wanted to. They could say they needed a new coffee machine on the 3rd floor, for instance.
By the way, you must live in a strange place. All the ISPs I know have only lowered the prices in the last couple of years, and have upgraded bandwidth at the same time. The wonders of capitalism, competition and improvements in technology.
There's plenty of surface area that's pretty worthless, like the deserts, and they have a lot of sun. Just those areas combined already capture more solar energy than all the world's potential for geothermal.
Also, setting up a solar plant is a lot easier than drilling 6 km deep underground.
You misunderstand. Geothermal flux from the core to the surface is about 30TW, without any use of geothermal reactors.
Now, imagine we capture a part of that energy, say 3TW, convert it to electricity, and use that electricity for light and motors. Most of that 3TW is going to end up as heat, just as it was before we harvested it.
So, we're not going to change that 30TW heat source in any significant way.
Why do you call them solar nut jobs, when solar energy per square meter is several orders of magnitude more than thermal ?
The cost for BT is only 5000 pounds, plus 100 pounds for subsequent updates. It's not going to affect them all that much.
The greenhouse effect dwarfs any direct changes we could make in generating heat. So, if we could replace burning fossil fuels with geothermal, we would slow down the global warming due to CO2 greenhouse effect.
#2: that's already happening. Heat from the core is constantly diffusing into the crust and then the atmosphere. Even with our best efforts, we're not going to change the rate at which that happens by a measurable amount.
This heat is only a small fraction of the heat we get from above, so no worries.
I think it's your own lack of scale that's astounding. There is plenty of heat stored in the earth, but the rock is a very good insulator. Trying to extract too much, and the rock will cool rapidly.
The average geothermal heat flux on the earth is only 0.1 Watt per square meter. That's only 0.1% of the energy that we get from the sun.
The IP address can't change too much, or the users wouldn't be able to find the NewzBin site anymore.
Also, since it only costs BT £100 to update the IP address in their filter, that's not too bad.
Why is the distinction relevant ? Do we only have rules against things that cause loss of life ?
No, google creates an index of the whole internet, while newzbin creates a specific index of Usenet binaries, which are mostly used for piracy.
Then you don't need to. Simply press a button, and a machine will provide everything you need.
You said it yourself: because they aren't made to kill. In fact, freeway designers take great care to maximize safety, while still allowing people to travel efficiently.
Pick a better analogy, this one doesn't make sense.
Both are about breaking the law. Killing people isn't the only thing people get punished for.
Well, we can be thankful that content producers are also mostly generating crap that's not worth downloading anymore.
There's a difference between a few people misbehaving on the freeways, and a site that's mostly made/used to aid in piracy.