Users are not gullible if they realize there is a risk of losing their money, and assess that their profit is worth this risk, as AC explained above.
Trade illegal black market items with cash transactions out of a trunk is also risky, and doing it with paypal or credit card can be traced by the authorities. Using bitcoin may still be the most prudent choice, even if it means that there's a chance you'll lose some of your money.
It doesn't really buy you anything to give the job to somebody else, who is equally qualified. It still costs the same amount of federal money, and you still get the same results.
But there's a lot more to it than just launching the satellites. They also have to be designed and manufactured, operated, and then the results need to be analysed. Currently NASA has the expertise to do/oversee all of that, EPA does not, and SpaceX doesn't either.
Most plastic objects I see around my house are not painted (they have been coloured using dissolved pigments), but they'll still last for many years.
UV cured plastics that require an extra coat of paint are not the same. The paint often flakes off, adds poorly controlled thickness, and adds extra cost.
So, improve the design. For instance, in a plant that burns fuel to generate heat to make steam that drives a turbine, you can start with burning fuel, and storing the heat somewhere. When the power is needed, you quickly generate the steam, and run the turbine.
Lets install a $20,000 battery in a house and replace it every ten years.
And lets add a set of wheels and a roof, so we drive the battery around during the day. Sounds like a good plan.
It's odd how it seems that some people solve 50% of the problem and leave the other 50% to other people to solve
That's not odd, that's efficient. Intel wants to make smaller and smaller chips, but only solves 50% of the problems. They let ASML and other companies solve the other 50%.
It appears they think that their technology will replace injection molding
Their technology will replace injection molding for runs smaller than N units, where N depends on numerous other requirements. What's different between this technique, and previous 3D printing techniques, is that N has gotten bigger.
I agree completely but few people are working on storage as it is not sexy. They are content with pointing the finger at conventional plants and saying they will handle it. Sorry but the cost of power from conventional plants will rise if they only produce at night.
Right now, we need less energy at night, so it's not a problem if there's less generated. And as long as solar doesn't cover 100% of daytime use, the same plants also need to run during the day. It's not a huge deal. We can also do a lot more with dynamic real-time pricing, so there will be financial incentive to move consumption around to peak production time. People can put their electric cars on the grid, and buy energy when it's cheap, and sell it back when it's expensive, and make a little bit of profit on the side.
I thought solar was supposed to allow us to use less fossil fuels like natural gas and not more. Any gains by using solar may be wiped out by burning more natural gas to make up for storage problems. I don't think that is a good plan.
These problems are not going to get solved by whining about them. Instead, we should just build the solar panels. At first, storage won't be a problem, because we can use the peak energy for A/C. And when solar power actually grows to a point where storage is a problem, it will be fixed, because there will be money to be made in energy storage.
But there is absolutely ZERO funding to prove the opposite
There's funding to do research, and scientists all over the world are working on it. The fact that the opposite doesn't get any proof is not a problem of funding. It's a problem with reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Users are not gullible if they realize there is a risk of losing their money, and assess that their profit is worth this risk, as AC explained above.
Trade illegal black market items with cash transactions out of a trunk is also risky, and doing it with paypal or credit card can be traced by the authorities. Using bitcoin may still be the most prudent choice, even if it means that there's a chance you'll lose some of your money.
It's hard to pay for something while keeping bitcoin in your own wallet, though.
See also "the tragedy of the commons". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Also, using the same/similar instruments on Earth allows the satellite data to be verified by ground measurements.
This is completely ignoring things such as purchasing power parity. $1 in India is not the same as $1 in US.
Given a median US income in US dollars. Would you rather live in India or in the US ?
NASA need not be involved in that last portion.
It doesn't really buy you anything to give the job to somebody else, who is equally qualified. It still costs the same amount of federal money, and you still get the same results.
But there's a lot more to it than just launching the satellites. They also have to be designed and manufactured, operated, and then the results need to be analysed. Currently NASA has the expertise to do/oversee all of that, EPA does not, and SpaceX doesn't either.
and call it Africa On Line ?
Maybe he realized that this Muslim outreach program wasn't going to cost a bunch of money, so it wouldn't hurt NASA's more important missions.
Oh, I was thinking it referred to the top 1% wealthiest.
Most plastic objects I see around my house are not painted (they have been coloured using dissolved pigments), but they'll still last for many years.
UV cured plastics that require an extra coat of paint are not the same. The paint often flakes off, adds poorly controlled thickness, and adds extra cost.
You can do the same training on 64 VM's running on a single desktop PC.
Your machine does not scale out to 64 processors for $2k.
But in order to make a super computer (according to my definition above), 64 is not enough.
And even less when you connect the grid to the next state.
Solar power is a dead end.
Not as dead as coal and gas.
Nuclear power is the answer.
Great. Now please convince the people of California to install a plant in their back yard.
Pretty safe assumption given the construction of the typical US home.
So, improve the design. For instance, in a plant that burns fuel to generate heat to make steam that drives a turbine, you can start with burning fuel, and storing the heat somewhere. When the power is needed, you quickly generate the steam, and run the turbine.
I'm sure you can get a discount on a $1e12 order.
Lets install a $20,000 battery in a house and replace it every ten years.
And lets add a set of wheels and a roof, so we drive the battery around during the day. Sounds like a good plan.
It's odd how it seems that some people solve 50% of the problem and leave the other 50% to other people to solve
That's not odd, that's efficient. Intel wants to make smaller and smaller chips, but only solves 50% of the problems. They let ASML and other companies solve the other 50%.
It appears they think that their technology will replace injection molding
Their technology will replace injection molding for runs smaller than N units, where N depends on numerous other requirements. What's different between this technique, and previous 3D printing techniques, is that N has gotten bigger.
I agree completely but few people are working on storage as it is not sexy. They are content with pointing the finger at conventional plants and saying they will handle it. Sorry but the cost of power from conventional plants will rise if they only produce at night.
Right now, we need less energy at night, so it's not a problem if there's less generated. And as long as solar doesn't cover 100% of daytime use, the same plants also need to run during the day. It's not a huge deal. We can also do a lot more with dynamic real-time pricing, so there will be financial incentive to move consumption around to peak production time. People can put their electric cars on the grid, and buy energy when it's cheap, and sell it back when it's expensive, and make a little bit of profit on the side.
I thought solar was supposed to allow us to use less fossil fuels like natural gas and not more. Any gains by using solar may be wiped out by burning more natural gas to make up for storage problems. I don't think that is a good plan.
These problems are not going to get solved by whining about them. Instead, we should just build the solar panels. At first, storage won't be a problem, because we can use the peak energy for A/C. And when solar power actually grows to a point where storage is a problem, it will be fixed, because there will be money to be made in energy storage.
Doesn't mean he can't argue to have NASA's budget increased, just like he's arguing now to have it decreased.
But there is absolutely ZERO funding to prove the opposite
There's funding to do research, and scientists all over the world are working on it. The fact that the opposite doesn't get any proof is not a problem of funding. It's a problem with reality.
Manned spaceflight is way more romantic. It's not particularly useful or effective.