You need both science and engineering, hopefully in a collaborative atmosphere where they are willing to talk about the challenges to make a piratical solution, then figure out how to overcome them. Basic research is more pure science, and applied research becomes more engineering. If they already have some basic research products that they intend to move in applied research, then they'll need engineers. It appears they have some basic technological approach in mind.
I have a few CDs burned with MP3s in my travel bag, which I find useful in rental cars that don't have a USB media input. Most will play data discs. Other than that, my blank DVDs and CDs have been collecting dust for years.
But not more flooding everywhere. Warming also changes weather patterns which can result in less precipitation in some regions. The truth is we don't have the modeling capability to predict the result in any particular region, only the ability to generalize the impact. So, no, it is not hand waving, it is a very real possibility, even if considered unlikely.
Not a single attack anywhere in there, nobody reasonable would consider the quote you provided to be an attack, nor my other discusuions which, if they had any real attacking statements you would have quoted them. Just discussion of the challenges for particular apllications. . I see your problem now, it is inability to exit your super defensive posture when discussing anything that YOU place in your green bucket.
It must be frustrating getting called out on your accusation, and then only having that weak response to back it up. A response that is more your words than mine. Your a funny guy.
Your personal agenda driven interperetation of my post is meaningless. I never said anything was impossible. But that is what you do, put words in others mouths, another example of how disingenuous you are.
Just as I thought, you are unable to demonstrate a single quote from me attacking windmills or batteries. Just generalized accusations with no basis. This is a great example of what you do......
I see you ignore the points about more effective use of money, thats what you do....ignore what doesn't fit. You care more about the symbolism of erecting windmills than actual CO2 reduction or clean air. You fail to even acknowledge that cost matters.
Only I've never done anything but point out facts, backed by sources, regarding the challenges of wind. You just can't seem to address or dispute any, so instaed attack me.
Slashdot Mirror
Look what a bunch of very young engineers pulled off almost 50 years ago (apollo)
Here is a picture of those young engineers; http://history.nasa.gov/SP-410...
Then how come most major advances come from older, more experienced engineers and scientists?
You need both science and engineering, hopefully in a collaborative atmosphere where they are willing to talk about the challenges to make a piratical solution, then figure out how to overcome them. Basic research is more pure science, and applied research becomes more engineering. If they already have some basic research products that they intend to move in applied research, then they'll need engineers. It appears they have some basic technological approach in mind.
Just like rationing food is the same as farming.
Analogy of the day award.
The one impact that robot babies don't have is financial. They might take up a lot of your time, but they don't take your money as well.
We must make these robot babies uglier, more colicky, & stinkier.
I have a few CDs burned with MP3s in my travel bag, which I find useful in rental cars that don't have a USB media input. Most will play data discs. Other than that, my blank DVDs and CDs have been collecting dust for years.
Wow, that's a nice, 1 level deep point.
But not more flooding everywhere. Warming also changes weather patterns which can result in less precipitation in some regions. The truth is we don't have the modeling capability to predict the result in any particular region, only the ability to generalize the impact. So, no, it is not hand waving, it is a very real possibility, even if considered unlikely.
Not a single attack anywhere in there, nobody reasonable would consider the quote you provided to be an attack, nor my other discusuions which, if they had any real attacking statements you would have quoted them. Just discussion of the challenges for particular apllications. . I see your problem now, it is inability to exit your super defensive posture when discussing anything that YOU place in your green bucket.
It must be frustrating getting called out on your accusation, and then only having that weak response to back it up. A response that is more your words than mine. Your a funny guy.
I watched the video. The only thing this robot will be doing any time soon is jiggling. Its a soft bodied jiggle-bot.
Please, quote the words, if I attacked either, please quote it, or STFU. I somehow think you are not capable of either.
Like I said, you can't back up your assertion by quoting any alleged attack from me. Just another empty response...
sigh, pointless responses with no meat.
And that reminds of the 'two times less' and 'two times fewer' I see here all two often.
Its not that hard to give out your coordinates if needed. That's a small issue for self driving cars, they have much harder challenges.
Maybe they should use 'The Purge' method. Lock em in the building and see who survives the night. That'll weed em out.
Of course, it is also entirely possible that these storms were less severe due to global warming. But that wouldn't get any headlines.
If X is 50% slower than Y, and Z is 100% faster than X, Z=Y
And 50% as slow as means?
Actually, you don't. You make a joke of a comparison to gas turbines, in an attempt to justify high cost.
Your personal agenda driven interperetation of my post is meaningless. I never said anything was impossible. But that is what you do, put words in others mouths, another example of how disingenuous you are.
Just as I thought, you are unable to demonstrate a single quote from me attacking windmills or batteries. Just generalized accusations with no basis. This is a great example of what you do......
Quote one single attack, please, prove yourself.
I see you ignore the points about more effective use of money, thats what you do....ignore what doesn't fit. You care more about the symbolism of erecting windmills than actual CO2 reduction or clean air. You fail to even acknowledge that cost matters.
Only I've never done anything but point out facts, backed by sources, regarding the challenges of wind. You just can't seem to address or dispute any, so instaed attack me.