The last thing we need 30 years from now are 10 different types of car fuels cruising around.
Long term, I should think it would be to our advantage to pursue as many different kinds of fuels as we can find.
Because some might be better suited for some applications, and until you have a universal replacement for gasoline, you have no idea of what will be viable.
You're suggesting we decide a winning technology now, and ignore all others. Problem is, we don't yet know what the winning technology is.
A typical modern ammonia-producing plant first converts natural gas (i.e., methane) or LPG (liquefied petroleum gases such as propane and butane) or petroleum naphtha into gaseous hydrogen. The method for producing hydrogen from hydrocarbons is referred to as "Steam Reforming".[2] The hydrogen is then combined with nitrogen to produce ammonia via the Haber-Bosch process.
So, we're going to generate hydrogen, so we can make ammonia, and then we're going to... use the ammonia to make hydrogen?
Either I'm completely not understanding my own link, or there's a magic step in there which eludes me.
If you're already efficiently making hydrogen to make ammonia,and you wanted hydrogen for fuel, why not skip the step of making ammonia?
I guess the obvious conclusion is that it's easier and safer to deal with ammonia, but my dad used to manage refrigeration plants, and ammonia isn't something you fool around with either.
I know you're joking, but the reason I stopped writing in cursive was because I could no longer read my own damned writing, and I could write faster when I printed.
I have a nephew who never learned cursive, and can't read it at all. It was simply never taught in his schools.
Our intrepid hero uncovers evidence of massively illegal things done by the government.
Spends rest of movie running from all seeing big brother, trying to make his revelations public, only to find out nobody cares, and is far more interested in the latest episode of Big Brother.
Because the way we're going, I have little faith any of this will be true by then. Governments are increasingly deciding the law means whatever they decide it means.
If the government has the legal authority (via a warrant) to open a safe, why wouldn't they have the same authority to decrypt your documents?
The difference is they can physically open the safe. They may lack the ability to decrypt your stuff.
This is the difference between what they can get on their own with a warrant, and what they would need to compel you to help them with.
And I have a hard time seeing how compelling you to provide them with information they don't have and can't get on their own isn't going against the intent of the 5th amendment.
Governments don't give a damn about your rights, they care about their rights.
You're just a meat puppet, and what you want is meaningless.
As soon as you decide there is one class of thing where you can't refuse to provide the information to law enforcement, there's pretty much nothing left.
Because sooner or later someone will make the argument that if you can be compelled to enter your password, then you can also be compelled to tell us you're guilty, or testify against your spouse, or pretty much any damned thing.
This whole freedom was an interesting experiment. Now, we move onto the fascism and oligarchy.
Either the hospital goes to the company and says "here's a list of every patient we have, tell us everything you have", or the company brings it to them.
Telling the companies your patient list might be a violation of HIPAA.
If the company comes up the hospital and says "we have data on the following patients you have, want to buy it?", that's also a little shady.
If the hospital just buys data on everybody and sifts out the people they're interested in, well, that's downright creepy.
I just don't see how you can construct a scenario in which private companies are sharing data with hospitals without someone having been in possession of things they're not supposed to have.
To me, this is a huge violation of privacy and the rights of the patient, and is allowing corporations another way to profit from our personal data.
FTW, we're all screwed. Where's Tyler Durden when you need him?
Then there are the species that are fertile across species but aren't turned on by the other species or have different breeding seasons so don't breed.
I see jealous people in this thread, they are all around me. They don't even know they are jealous, but they scored low on an IQ test and need to shit on it ever since....
Or, you know, lots of people have a high enough IQ but don't give a damn about Mensa.
Unless Mensa has the full 2% of the population as members, there are clearly people who qualify but haven't joined.
The largest national groups are American Mensa, with more than 56,000 members, British Mensa, with about 23,500 members, and Mensa Germany, with more than 10,000 members
Doing some rough calculations, the membership in Mensa in the US is about 1% of the total number of people who qualify, because there should be about 6 million people in the US in the top 2% of IQ.
So 99% of all people with a high enough IQ to join Mensa aren't members.
Mensa is a self selected group, but it's hardly representative of the people which would qualify. Of the two percent of the population who qualify, only about 1% of those are members.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, make fuel cells which burn ammonia. Problem solved. :-P
Long term, I should think it would be to our advantage to pursue as many different kinds of fuels as we can find.
Because some might be better suited for some applications, and until you have a universal replacement for gasoline, you have no idea of what will be viable.
You're suggesting we decide a winning technology now, and ignore all others. Problem is, we don't yet know what the winning technology is.
OK, I'm officially confused.
According to wiki:
So, we're going to generate hydrogen, so we can make ammonia, and then we're going to ... use the ammonia to make hydrogen?
Either I'm completely not understanding my own link, or there's a magic step in there which eludes me.
If you're already efficiently making hydrogen to make ammonia,and you wanted hydrogen for fuel, why not skip the step of making ammonia?
I guess the obvious conclusion is that it's easier and safer to deal with ammonia, but my dad used to manage refrigeration plants, and ammonia isn't something you fool around with either.
Do not confused legitimate loss of faith in mankind and disillusionment with karma whoring.
They're not the same thing.
It may well be nonsense about authoritarianism. But it's sincere nonsense. I sound like this in real life too.
Objective reality.
I don't think that changes the GPs point, merely reinforces it. ;-)
And, then they use even more negative language.
Maybe what we're seeing is that people prefer to read happy things, instead of human language being biased towards saying them.
Feed it Hemmingway, and watch the computer melt into a puddle of despair.
Well, it wasn't accidental.
I know you're joking, but the reason I stopped writing in cursive was because I could no longer read my own damned writing, and I could write faster when I printed.
I have a nephew who never learned cursive, and can't read it at all. It was simply never taught in his schools.
Except, compliance with DMCA and the like is a requirement to have safe harbor provisions.
So it is more in the interests of companies to say "we don't give a damn", than it is for them to determine if something is true or false.
That was how the law was written by the corporations who wanted it -- "comply with us, and you're OK. Don't and we'll have the government hurt you".
There's simply no incentive for Google et al to give a damn if the claims are true or not -- that is for your lawyer to determine at your expense.
Well, we shall see I guess. There's still plenty of time.
And analytics which keep track of what you've bought and predict what you might buy. That way you buy more down the road.
One stop shopping. While you're ordering whatever else you order from Amazon, you can also order a pizza.
And then subsequently, Amazon will give you recommendations for other places.
They'll break into it by offering it. And if people use it, they're in.
No no no. You're doing it wrong.
Our intrepid hero uncovers evidence of massively illegal things done by the government.
Spends rest of movie running from all seeing big brother, trying to make his revelations public, only to find out nobody cares, and is far more interested in the latest episode of Big Brother.
Tell me this again in 10-15 years.
Because the way we're going, I have little faith any of this will be true by then. Governments are increasingly deciding the law means whatever they decide it means.
Would I love to be wrong? Absolutely.
The difference is they can physically open the safe. They may lack the ability to decrypt your stuff.
This is the difference between what they can get on their own with a warrant, and what they would need to compel you to help them with.
And I have a hard time seeing how compelling you to provide them with information they don't have and can't get on their own isn't going against the intent of the 5th amendment.
You don't get to take the 5th, apparently. The cops have the computer in their possession.
So, they will detain you until you provide the information they require to convict you.
But if they have to, they'll convict you of failing to provide the information they need to convict you, and then continue to detain you.
"Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem " (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)
Except when we don't.
Papers please, comrade. Cooperation is mandatory.
You have no constitutionally protected rights.
Governments don't give a damn about your rights, they care about their rights.
You're just a meat puppet, and what you want is meaningless.
As soon as you decide there is one class of thing where you can't refuse to provide the information to law enforcement, there's pretty much nothing left.
Because sooner or later someone will make the argument that if you can be compelled to enter your password, then you can also be compelled to tell us you're guilty, or testify against your spouse, or pretty much any damned thing.
This whole freedom was an interesting experiment. Now, we move onto the fascism and oligarchy.
Let the dystopian future begin.
Either the hospital goes to the company and says "here's a list of every patient we have, tell us everything you have", or the company brings it to them.
Telling the companies your patient list might be a violation of HIPAA.
If the company comes up the hospital and says "we have data on the following patients you have, want to buy it?", that's also a little shady.
If the hospital just buys data on everybody and sifts out the people they're interested in, well, that's downright creepy.
I just don't see how you can construct a scenario in which private companies are sharing data with hospitals without someone having been in possession of things they're not supposed to have.
To me, this is a huge violation of privacy and the rights of the patient, and is allowing corporations another way to profit from our personal data.
FTW, we're all screwed. Where's Tyler Durden when you need him?
LOL, well, you did say "we" in regards to all of that belly fat.
Which means, at least implicitly, you were in the category of people who wouldn't do so well in a survival situation.
So, the opposite of James T. Kirk then?
Hmmm .... I'm no geneticist, but doesn't everybody? Since they're our collective ancestors, how could you not?
Or are all of the non-Europeans somehow descended from something else but ended up being exactly the same?
Unless there's running involved. Or climbing. Or anything physical.
I don't need to outrun the bear, I need to outrun you.
And if it comes to it, the fattest guy will feed more people.
So, the survival strategy is to make sure you're around at least 2 people who are fatter than you. That's what I do.
Or, you know, lots of people have a high enough IQ but don't give a damn about Mensa.
Unless Mensa has the full 2% of the population as members, there are clearly people who qualify but haven't joined.
So, from Wikipedia:
Doing some rough calculations, the membership in Mensa in the US is about 1% of the total number of people who qualify, because there should be about 6 million people in the US in the top 2% of IQ.
So 99% of all people with a high enough IQ to join Mensa aren't members.
Mensa is a self selected group, but it's hardly representative of the people which would qualify. Of the two percent of the population who qualify, only about 1% of those are members.
I assume you mean rhetorical?
Also, a rhetorical question. ;-)
Sounds very oedipal.
How does that make you feel? Does it make you resent your father? What are your first memories of your mother?