It's more interesting if you add CO2 emissions (taken from nationmaster.com):
Popn GWP CO2 emissions China 20.0% 12.5% 15.2% Russia 2.3% 2.5% 6.7% Japan 2.0% 7.0% 5.3% France 0.9% 3.2% 1.6% Germany 1.3% 4.4% 3.7% UK 0.9% 3.2% 2.5% USA 4.6% 21.0% 25.2%
So the USA is high both per capita and per GWP, but not as high as Russia or China in the latter.
I can't RTFA (it's been slashdotted), but this makes lots of sense, and there *are* open source solutions to this, like public/private key pairs in OpenSSH. I do need to know a passphrase to unlock my key, but then I can log in to a number of different machines with it. In fact, I have my machines set up to not accept password logins except at the console, remote users *must* use key pairs.
Currently I keep a key on my desktop machine and another one on my laptop, but if I was worried that those would be stolen I could switch to a USB key.
Apollo went there more or less directly. The SMART mission got there by gradually spiralling out from a low orbit. The total distance travelled was about 200 times further than the Apollo capsules travelled, even though the distance from starting point to ending point was the same.
I'd love to hire a professional, but it's not easy.
For example, I'm looking for a simple icon design now (for the Windows binary build of the R project, www.r-project.org). The project has some money and might pay for a nice design, but I'd want to have the design in hand before I asked for the money, and I can't see approaching a professional to do a little design like this on spec.
The only way I can see that this would happen is if someone happens to know a graphic designer and gets them to do the work as a favour. And I don't know any.
If any graphics designers know a solution to this dilemma, please let all of us know.
Other people have pointed out that the Apollo missions got there in much shorter times.
However, an interesting oddity is that the SMART mission averaged a significantly higher speed than Apollo did: It spiralled out from the Earth, and travelled around 80,000,000 km, according to the Nature article someone posted. Apollo went to the moon pretty much by the shortest route.
Doing the math, I find the SMART average speed was around 8500 km/H, while Apollo averaged around 5500 km/H.
So it should be possible to launch two or three new Hubbles at a cost of $600 million apiece. Instead of one repaired Hubble, why not three new ones?
A lot of the 1.6 billion is going to R&D, because this mission would do things that have never been done before.
Building and launching 2 disposable Hubbles would get you 2 nice telescopes for a while (but not as long as the current one has lasted, since the Hubble design requires periodic servicing); designing a robotic service mission will get you a lot of knowledge about how to do robotics in space, as well as a nice telescope for a few more years (and maybe future robotic service missions can extend its life even further, but those ones won't need all the R&D, so they'll be much cheaper.)
If that's their attitude, they ought to refuse to sell you things instead of refusing to let you return them. Or better yet, tell people before they buy something whether they will be able to return it.
Customers should ask. If the clerk tells you that you can return it, then you can. If they have to do an ID check on you before they answer, that's a pretty big waste of time and a signal that you should cancel the transaction.
Okay, I believe you that I may have miscalculated. However, the last thing you said makes no sense to me:
Note: power factor deals with reactive loading, which means that while the power going through the wire increases, the power *consumed* does not. This is why PF has zero effect on efficiency, but a low PF can require much thicker wiring.
If I need thicker wires, I assume more current is going through the wires. I get charged for the amount of current I use, don't I, even if the charge is given in KwH? So how am I not going to be charged for this extra current? How could it have zero effect on efficiency?
A google search for "ATX 400W specifications" turns up lots of pages, including this one. It says a 400W power supply takes 10A input at 115VAC. That's 1150W. So I guess I exaggerated by 50W.
...a power supply rated at 400 watts does *NOT* use 400 watts. it means the power supply is rated to be able to provide a maximum of 400W.
a '400watt' electric heater, on the other hand, does in fact use 400 watts,
A power supply rated at 400W can provide that as output, it doesn't draw that as input. PC power supplies are typically very inefficient, so at full load it would draw around 1200W. At normal loads it could well draw more than 400W.
A heater, on the other hand, is 100% efficient, so a 400W heater will draw 400W.
While your at it our biggest trading partner China is a dictatorship and Russia is pretty much back to one.
Oops, you're looking as ignorant as GW. China is not your largest trading partner, nor is Mexico (as Bush thought). Your largest trading partner is the democracy just north of you.
Not if you're talking diameter, only if you're talking about thickness. The higher refractive index means you can make the lens thinner. As the grandparent said.
The main thing that determines the diameter of the lens is the sensor in the camera. If it could have more pixels that were more light sensitive in a smaller package, the whole lens could be smaller. (To a point: then diffraction would start to mess things up...)
Furthermore, as there is no birefringence in the ceramics, there is a potential for downsizing and advancement of optical devices with optical elements, such as lenses.
I didn't know what birefringence was, so I looked it up: it's the phenomenon in certain crystals that causes them to have two indices of refraction, so light beams entering are split into two parts.
It's not a problem in glass lenses, but would be if you made a lens out of those crystalline materials.
Let's just make some wild-ass assumptions here. I have a 15,000 BTU air-con unit in my house, which runs at 15 amps/120V, or 1.8 KW/hr. During the summer it runs 24 hours a day, let's say that makes 120 days out of the year times 24 hours times 1.8KW/hr. That means I've not only consumed about 5.2 MegaWatts of energy, I've also moved over that time 43.2 million BTU's of heat from my house into the atmosphere.
You got the units wrong. If your current consumption is correct, your air-con consumes 1.8 KW. In 120 days of 24 hour use it would consume 5.2 MWh of energy, not 5.2 MW.
Now let's say you're in NY. Then you receive an average of about 150 W per square meter in solar radiation averaged over the year, so 12 square meters would receive the same amount of incident solar radiation as your air-con puts out.
There isn't an air conditioner or equivalent in every 12 square meters of the USA (that would require about 100 billion air conditioners), so I think it's safe to say that the effect of your heat output is small compared to that of the sun.
It clearly shows each rise in global temperature levels *precedes* the rise in CO2 levels.
Huh? I don't see that, and the authors of that web page didn't either: "... because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously."
It also shows wild swings in CO2 and temperature levels over the eons -- clearly not human-related -- prior to the latest levels.
But notice the CO2 levels at the very right of the plot (closest to the present time): there was never an increase that high or that fast in the previous record.
It may be anti-Bush, but it's generally a reasonably good paper. (Maybe those are effect and cause?)
Unfortunately, like other newspapers, it's not very good on science. They don't even provide a plot of the CO2 levels, or the history of the year-over-year rises. If you plot the data (available online, as another reader posted), it's clear that the last two years aren't particularly unusual.
the possibility that the increases will have permanently changed from 1-2 PPM/year to 4PPM/year or more.
Read the article, or look at the table. The worry is that there were two years which totalled over 4 PPM. There has never been a single year increase of that size.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more interesting if you add CO2 emissions (taken from nationmaster.com):
Popn GWP CO2 emissions
China 20.0% 12.5% 15.2%
Russia 2.3% 2.5% 6.7%
Japan 2.0% 7.0% 5.3%
France 0.9% 3.2% 1.6%
Germany 1.3% 4.4% 3.7%
UK 0.9% 3.2% 2.5%
USA 4.6% 21.0% 25.2%
So the USA is high both per capita and per GWP, but not as high as Russia or China in the latter.
Interestingly, the USA has 1/3rd of the world's total economy,
Not according to the CIA World Factbook. The USA has a GDP of around $11 trillion, around 1/5th of the world's $51 trillion.
But you were right that it emits 1/4 of the pollution, if you're counting CO2.
Pivot tables were originally developed in Lotus Improv,
They're a lot older than that -- they're just cross-tabulations with a GUI. SAS "proc tabulate" had these in the 80s (without the GUI).
I can't RTFA (it's been slashdotted), but this makes lots of sense, and there *are* open source solutions to this, like public/private key pairs in OpenSSH. I do need to know a passphrase to unlock my key, but then I can log in to a number of different machines with it. In fact, I have my machines set up to not accept password logins except at the console, remote users *must* use key pairs.
Currently I keep a key on my desktop machine and another one on my laptop, but if I was worried that those would be stolen I could switch to a USB key.
Apollo went there more or less directly. The SMART mission got there by gradually spiralling out from a low orbit. The total distance travelled was about 200 times further than the Apollo capsules travelled, even though the distance from starting point to ending point was the same.
I'd love to hire a professional, but it's not easy.
For example, I'm looking for a simple icon design now (for the Windows binary build of the R project, www.r-project.org). The project has some money and might pay for a nice design, but I'd want to have the design in hand before I asked for the money, and I can't see approaching a professional to do a little design like this on spec.
The only way I can see that this would happen is if someone happens to know a graphic designer and gets them to do the work as a favour. And I don't know any.
If any graphics designers know a solution to this dilemma, please let all of us know.
Read the Nature article someone posted. They went 80 million kilometres in 13 months.
That's actually faster than the Apollo missions.
Other people have pointed out that the Apollo missions got there in much shorter times.
However, an interesting oddity is that the SMART mission averaged a significantly higher speed than Apollo did: It spiralled out from the Earth, and travelled around 80,000,000 km, according to the Nature article someone posted. Apollo went to the moon pretty much by the shortest route.
Doing the math, I find the SMART average speed was around 8500 km/H, while Apollo averaged around 5500 km/H.
So it should be possible to launch two or three new Hubbles at a cost of $600 million apiece. Instead of one repaired Hubble, why not three new ones?
A lot of the 1.6 billion is going to R&D, because this mission would do things that have never been done before.
Building and launching 2 disposable Hubbles would get you 2 nice telescopes for a while (but not as long as the current one has lasted, since the Hubble design requires periodic servicing); designing a robotic service mission will get you a lot of knowledge about how to do robotics in space, as well as a nice telescope for a few more years (and maybe future robotic service missions can extend its life even further, but those ones won't need all the R&D, so they'll be much cheaper.)
we also have a lot more than 4.6% of the land.
A lot more?? According to the CIA, you have 6.1% of the world's land. You've got a pretty high proportion of the nice bits, though.
Well, I've never been asked for an ID when making a return, so... I don't know what to say. Maybe people just trust me?
Sure, that's great. By returning things as an Anonymous Coward you miss out on any chances of earning karma for a good return.
If that's their attitude, they ought to refuse to sell you things instead of refusing to let you return them. Or better yet, tell people before they buy something whether they will be able to return it.
Customers should ask. If the clerk tells you that you can return it, then you can. If they have to do an ID check on you before they answer, that's a pretty big waste of time and a signal that you should cancel the transaction.
If this catches on and does away with Powerpoint transitions, doing away with video and animation would be a small price to pay.
Okay, I believe you that I may have miscalculated. However, the last thing you said makes no sense to me:
Note: power factor deals with reactive loading, which means that while the power going through the wire increases, the power *consumed* does not. This is why PF has zero effect on efficiency, but a low PF can require much thicker wiring.
If I need thicker wires, I assume more current is going through the wires. I get charged for the amount of current I use, don't I, even if the charge is given in KwH? So how am I not going to be charged for this extra current? How could it have zero effect on efficiency?
A google search for "ATX 400W specifications" turns up lots of pages, including this one. It says a 400W power supply takes 10A input at 115VAC. That's 1150W. So I guess I exaggerated by 50W.
...a power supply rated at 400 watts does *NOT* use 400 watts. it means the power supply is rated to be able to provide a maximum of 400W.
a '400watt' electric heater, on the other hand, does in fact use 400 watts,
A power supply rated at 400W can provide that as output, it doesn't draw that as input. PC power supplies are typically very inefficient, so at full load it would draw around 1200W. At normal loads it could well draw more than 400W.
A heater, on the other hand, is 100% efficient, so a 400W heater will draw 400W.
While your at it our biggest trading partner China is a dictatorship and Russia is pretty much back to one.
Oops, you're looking as ignorant as GW. China is not your largest trading partner, nor is Mexico (as Bush thought). Your largest trading partner is the democracy just north of you.
Ceramic = smaller.
Not if you're talking diameter, only if you're talking about thickness. The higher refractive index means you can make the lens thinner. As the grandparent said.
The main thing that determines the diameter of the lens is the sensor in the camera. If it could have more pixels that were more light sensitive in a smaller package, the whole lens could be smaller. (To a point: then diffraction would start to mess things up...)
Furthermore, as there is no birefringence in the ceramics, there is a potential for downsizing and advancement of optical devices with optical elements, such as lenses.
I didn't know what birefringence was, so I looked it up: it's the phenomenon in certain crystals that causes them to have two indices of refraction, so light beams entering are split into two parts.
It's not a problem in glass lenses, but would be if you made a lens out of those crystalline materials.
Nice try, AC.
The typical year has a swing from winter to summer of around 5 or 6 ppm. Didn't you plot the series and see that?
Let's just make some wild-ass assumptions here. I have a 15,000 BTU air-con unit in my house, which runs at 15 amps/120V, or 1.8 KW/hr. During the summer it runs 24 hours a day, let's say that makes 120 days out of the year times 24 hours times 1.8KW/hr. That means I've not only consumed about 5.2 MegaWatts of energy, I've also moved over that time 43.2 million BTU's of heat from my house into the atmosphere.
You got the units wrong. If your current consumption is correct, your air-con consumes 1.8 KW. In 120 days of 24 hour use it would consume 5.2 MWh of energy, not 5.2 MW.
Now let's say you're in NY. Then you receive an average of about 150 W per square meter in solar radiation averaged over the year, so 12 square meters would receive the same amount of incident solar radiation as your air-con puts out.
There isn't an air conditioner or equivalent in every 12 square meters of the USA (that would require about 100 billion air conditioners), so I think it's safe to say that the effect of your heat output is small compared to that of the sun.
It clearly shows each rise in global temperature levels *precedes* the rise in CO2 levels.
Huh? I don't see that, and the authors of that web page didn't either: "... because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously."
It also shows wild swings in CO2 and temperature levels over the eons -- clearly not human-related -- prior to the latest levels.
But notice the CO2 levels at the very right of the plot (closest to the present time): there was never an increase that high or that fast in the previous record.
It may be anti-Bush, but it's generally a reasonably good paper. (Maybe those are effect and cause?)
Unfortunately, like other newspapers, it's not very good on science. They don't even provide a plot of the CO2 levels, or the history of the year-over-year rises. If you plot the data (available online, as another reader posted), it's clear that the last two years aren't particularly unusual.
the possibility that the increases will have permanently changed from 1-2 PPM/year to 4PPM/year or more.
Read the article, or look at the table. The worry is that there were two years which totalled over 4 PPM. There has never been a single year increase of that size.