Do Voyager I and II still count as "satellites" given that they have achieved escape velocity from the solar system? That's an interesting question! For all you youngsters who don't know this, the word satellite originally meant a body circling a planet. I think the meanings of these words have shifted, so that nowadays a body circling a planet is called a moon, and the word satellite stands for a more-or-less autonomous machine in space.
But I think both words are sometimes used in this new sense and sometimes in their old sense.
Not everywhere on this planet journalists enjoy the right to keep their sources secret. Here in Sweden he would certainly be well protected. We have strong laws about these things. Not only in the direct relationship with the papers. For instance, a whistleblower in public employ is so well protected that his boss can't even make innocent comments during a break at the coffee table trying to guess who it might be. Any attempt to try to identify a whistleblower, no matter how innocent it might seem, would land the boss in trouble. And the papers of course guard this protection with great fervor, making lots of publicity when any attempt is made.
hacking the iPhone to run additional problems, I think you're getting confused here. We're talking about the iPhone, so it's a matter of running additional programs. On Windows it would be a matter of running additional problems.
really really bad form to reply again to my on post No it isn't. You can reply to your own posts all you like. Where do people get this weird notion that it's bad form?
Lots of things are worse than swapping out drives; swapping out motherboards for starters, all the way up to cancer, torture or oppresive fascist rule. Nothing sucks more than people taking hyperbole literally.
OMG, I should have looked it up. Then I could have said British. I thought your measurement systems were the same. Out of ignorance I spoiled a perfectly good joke.
Logic path B --> possessive = add apostrophe-s [therefore] the property pertaining to it = it's! Listen to this guy, hi's reasoning makes sense! (Or is it he'r's?)
Then you have to disclose how you did it, no? They want to disclose this.
The military people can already make predictions. They need others to make predictions too. They're sick and tired of propagandists and politicians who can't make even the simplest and most evident predictions.
The military people know, for example, that adventures like the invasion of Iraq only serve to fuel terrorism and make everything a hundred times worse. That's simple common sense. But since the propaganda machinery and the politicians lack all common sense, the military people want this predictive technology to become widespread, so that maybe someday common sense will prevail over craziness.
She probably shouldn't nod and shake her head to signal yes and no, as that may strain her spine. Propose some other signal. The easiest of all is probably that she make the same movements with her fist that she would otherwise make with her head, imitating nod and head-shake with her fist.
Or better, give her a chart of the Sign Language Alphabet. With that she can say anything, if she and her listener both have enough patience. With that she could sign "Y" for yes and "N" for no, and in many cases choose among alternatives with just an initial letter.
Are you thinking a forest of insulated two-foot steam pipes running all around town? Sounds pretty ugly, noisy, expensive and environmentally disruptive. Here in Sweden we've had this in the cities forever. It's not ugly, noisy, expensive and environmentally disruptive. Instead it's underground.
Generally they don't transport steam, they transport hot but liquid water.
See, engineers are not idiots. You must be new here.
If some/most of it isn't left in place, the ecosystem we've come to love and enjoy might just collapse around us. I'm not proposing that we sap such inconceivably fantastic amounts that only "some/most of it" is left. That would certainly be catastrophic. Not just "might", it would be catastrophic. But I'm not advocating any such unbridled excess.
Moderation and care will be necessary in any case, regardless what solutions we use. No solution is sustainable if taken to horrific excess.
My point is that taking out just the tiniest fraction of the energy would be quite enough to give us quite fantastic amounts of energy. If individual molecules in the currents arrive at their endpoints one second later than they otherwise would, that would mean we got inconceivably large amounts of energy, and still the cooling and warming would be delayed by just a single second.
We do need energy. I think a tiny fraction of this ocean-current energy can be an extremely low-impact source, compared to the alternatives that we have.
I do agree with you that caution is necessary at all times.
This is the best proposal so far, because in order to keep the gears turning we'd have to connect it also to some other body, like the moon or the sun, and this means that as a by-product it could double as a space elevator, meaning we'd kill two stones with one bird.
If you installed a program and it crashed every few minutes, would you call it successful? No, if it was marketed as finished, and yet crashed every few minutes, I would indeed call it unsuccessfull. But if I'm writing a program, and it crashes every few minutes while I'm writing it, I'd call it unfinished. Whether it's successful or not is at that stage not defined by whether it crashes or not.
I suppose we have different impressions about what stage of development they are in. I do see your point, and you could be right, but I'm not convinced, not with the information I've seen so far.
By your reasoning we should stop deploying wind turbines. They have far more effect than any ocean-current turbines can ever have. Note that air is far lighter than water, and moves temperatures around far faster than water.
I don't want to imply that we should be careless, and just blindly deploy new technology without considering the consequences. But with your reasoning we couldn't do anything at all. Almost anything you can think of will have far more effect than turbines in deep ocean currents. Note that the masses of moving water really are much larger than entire countries.
Of course at some point in the far future we could reach a point where the number of turbines is getting too large. But we're not there yet. We're very, very far from there.
The alternatives that are now actively deployed, like wind and geothermal and ethanol, have far more impact. I don't think that sitting back and waiting is a good solution. We need to explore and develop alternatives. This is one alternative worth evaluating.
by turning the turbines, you're taking some energy from the current. Yes, of course, that's my point, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are vast amounts of energy there, and we should use some fraction of it. I'm saying we should tap a thousand-billionth of it, or whatever. Even a tiny fraction would be a tremendous amount of energy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the science community will be rather surprised when the Voyager spacecraft smash into the huge black sphere with the painted stars.
But I think both words are sometimes used in this new sense and sometimes in their old sense.
More likely a warranty.
*Sigh!* Never mind.
If it's any consolation, the hole is in the constellation Eridanus.
Think of a hole in cheese. A hole in cheese is a bubble on the inside, not a hole on a surface.
In most places the universe is swarming with galaxies. This is a huge region with almost no galaxies.
OMG, I should have looked it up. Then I could have said British. I thought your measurement systems were the same. Out of ignorance I spoiled a perfectly good joke.
[therefore] the property pertaining to it = it's! Listen to this guy, hi's reasoning makes sense! (Or is it he'r's?)
The military people can already make predictions. They need others to make predictions too. They're sick and tired of propagandists and politicians who can't make even the simplest and most evident predictions.
The military people know, for example, that adventures like the invasion of Iraq only serve to fuel terrorism and make everything a hundred times worse. That's simple common sense. But since the propaganda machinery and the politicians lack all common sense, the military people want this predictive technology to become widespread, so that maybe someday common sense will prevail over craziness.
That depends on how you communicate.
Of course this is the submitter's grandmother. You're not supposed to communicate with your grandmother in ways that can give you AIDS.
A better chart, a little clearer.
She probably shouldn't nod and shake her head to signal yes and no, as that may strain her spine. Propose some other signal. The easiest of all is probably that she make the same movements with her fist that she would otherwise make with her head, imitating nod and head-shake with her fist.
Or better, give her a chart of the Sign Language Alphabet. With that she can say anything, if she and her listener both have enough patience. With that she could sign "Y" for yes and "N" for no, and in many cases choose among alternatives with just an initial letter.
Generally they don't transport steam, they transport hot but liquid water. See, engineers are not idiots. You must be new here.
Moderation and care will be necessary in any case, regardless what solutions we use. No solution is sustainable if taken to horrific excess.
My point is that taking out just the tiniest fraction of the energy would be quite enough to give us quite fantastic amounts of energy. If individual molecules in the currents arrive at their endpoints one second later than they otherwise would, that would mean we got inconceivably large amounts of energy, and still the cooling and warming would be delayed by just a single second.
We do need energy. I think a tiny fraction of this ocean-current energy can be an extremely low-impact source, compared to the alternatives that we have.
I do agree with you that caution is necessary at all times.
This is the best proposal so far, because in order to keep the gears turning we'd have to connect it also to some other body, like the moon or the sun, and this means that as a by-product it could double as a space elevator, meaning we'd kill two stones with one bird.
I suppose we have different impressions about what stage of development they are in. I do see your point, and you could be right, but I'm not convinced, not with the information I've seen so far.
By your reasoning we should stop deploying wind turbines. They have far more effect than any ocean-current turbines can ever have. Note that air is far lighter than water, and moves temperatures around far faster than water.
I don't want to imply that we should be careless, and just blindly deploy new technology without considering the consequences. But with your reasoning we couldn't do anything at all. Almost anything you can think of will have far more effect than turbines in deep ocean currents. Note that the masses of moving water really are much larger than entire countries.
Of course at some point in the far future we could reach a point where the number of turbines is getting too large. But we're not there yet. We're very, very far from there.
The alternatives that are now actively deployed, like wind and geothermal and ethanol, have far more impact. I don't think that sitting back and waiting is a good solution. We need to explore and develop alternatives. This is one alternative worth evaluating.