Do you have the idea that fossil fuels were formed with no energy input?
Hydrocarbons are simply an energy storage mechanism. You put energy in, and then later (a few minutes, a few million years, whatever) you can get some of that energy back out to make your car go vroom or make your feet warm. The energy can come from the sun via photo synthesis (like with fossil fuels) or via solar voltaic, wind, or hydro.
So, in fact, turning atmospheric CO2, water, and energy into fuels makes all the sense in the world, and if we can shorten the process to a few minutes or hours, it can be done at scale until the sun quits working.
The part about CO2 sequestration and fossil fuel extraction seems to be nothing more than large scale journalistic stupidity.
Untested Emergency Automatic Braking systems are incredibly dangerous and require extensive validation. You slam on your brakes and a motorcyclist behind you dies.
This is complete nonsense. That's only true if the motorcyclist behind you is actively looking for the Darwin award. Would it be better to stop even faster than the cycle could under the best of conditions by slamming into a car? Would it be better to flatten an innocent pedestrian than to test the reflexes of a motorcyclist who is following too closely and/or not paying paying attention? I think not.
And as of today vehicles aren't legally required to have one, so disabling the feature doesn't make your vehicle any less safe or less legal than the hundreds of millions of older vehicles on our roads without an EAB.
More nonsense. Disabling that feature may well make your vehicle less safe, if you're not a very attentive driver. In other words, if you're like the average driver.
I'm not arguing that Uber should have had the Volvo EAB active. I'm arguing that Uber's software should have been advanced enough to never need it before being tested on public roads.
Obviously extensive testing on public roads is and should be a requirement before the technology can be put into general use. But closed course testing should have been more than sufficient to iron out whatever bugs were present that could have allowed the car to plow into an obstacle without even a hint of recognition. In this case, a failure to slow down in a smooth manor, or to get a little too close to the pedestrian as it passed, would be the kind of bugs I'd be expecting here. Absolutely not a complete failure to even notice the obstacle.
Yes, they did accept the risk, by crossing the road not at an intersection in the face of oncoming traffic. Did they think it was a likely outcome? No.
The pedestrian certainly shares some of the blame, it would be very hard to argue otherwise. But it simply isn't relevant. Based on the dash cam video, the collision was precisely 100% avoidable.
Wrong; they disabled the manufacturers auto-breaking system and replaced it with one of their lown.
This is the way I understand it as well. I believe Volvo's technology would have stopped the car in plenty of time to avoid the pedestrian. Uber's didn't even try, not even when the pedestrian was only a few feet away. Not even a blip on the radar. It is outrageous that Uber put such blatantly disfunctional technology on a public road at all.
The problem here wasn't that the vehicle was experimental. It was that the safety driver was not doing their job.
Nonsense. The problem here was that the technology was obviously not tested sufficiently to be safe on a public road. Self driving technology that cannot discern, and then stop for or otherwise avoid an obstacle, is absolutely not ready to be operated on a public road, with or without a back up driver. The failure of the back up system is a secondary problem.
Not "what's a bioga", but "what are bioga". Bioga is plural for a number of individual biog. Biogs is singular for a [semi-]autonomous group or community of biog. It is OK to ask "what are bioga", but be careful with such terminology as "what's the matter with you biogs", or "I'm on the prowl for some biog ass."
Yep. You can use it crack certain cryptography problems faster; problem though, the algorithm scales differently and doubling the key size makes it much harder to crack. Whereas, using traditional brute force on regular computers, doubling the key size only helps a little bit.
You're talking about a liquid under pressure. Pressurize liquids store very little energy, because they are largely uncompressable. You may have noticed, no one is talking about pressurizing (liquid) water to store energy.
Well let's see, it's a wind turbine. As such, it is tall, and therefore a lightening magnet. Also as such, it was placed in an area with unusually high wind potential. Not really all that unlucky.
I was referring to atmospheric re-entry. But, yes, if we can figure out how to accelerate a sizable asteroid to a near-collision course with Earth, then we've also figured out how to slow it down. As long as the asteroid has enough resources to pay for all that fuel, we're good.
You're seem to be a monumental [ idiot | troll ], just not sure which.
As was already pointed out, we already have mined small quantities of material on the Moon and shipped it back to Earth. Even if you're not bright enough to see that it is possible, that should convince you. The open questions have nothing to do with possibility, and everything to do with cost effectiveness, which partly depends on the actual make up of the various local bodies. For example, if we found an asteroid made essentially of pure gold, it could quite easily be cost effective right now to drag back a few tons of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have the idea that fossil fuels were formed with no energy input?
Hydrocarbons are simply an energy storage mechanism. You put energy in, and then later (a few minutes, a few million years, whatever) you can get some of that energy back out to make your car go vroom or make your feet warm. The energy can come from the sun via photo synthesis (like with fossil fuels) or via solar voltaic, wind, or hydro.
So, in fact, turning atmospheric CO2, water, and energy into fuels makes all the sense in the world, and if we can shorten the process to a few minutes or hours, it can be done at scale until the sun quits working.
The part about CO2 sequestration and fossil fuel extraction seems to be nothing more than large scale journalistic stupidity.
The article is so badly written, it's no wonder GP is confused.
The fact that you think this is pointless would appear to indicate that you don't know what a working brain actually does.
Untested Emergency Automatic Braking systems are incredibly dangerous and require extensive validation. You slam on your brakes and a motorcyclist behind you dies.
This is complete nonsense. That's only true if the motorcyclist behind you is actively looking for the Darwin award. Would it be better to stop even faster than the cycle could under the best of conditions by slamming into a car? Would it be better to flatten an innocent pedestrian than to test the reflexes of a motorcyclist who is following too closely and/or not paying paying attention? I think not.
And as of today vehicles aren't legally required to have one, so disabling the feature doesn't make your vehicle any less safe or less legal than the hundreds of millions of older vehicles on our roads without an EAB.
More nonsense. Disabling that feature may well make your vehicle less safe, if you're not a very attentive driver. In other words, if you're like the average driver.
I'm not arguing that Uber should have had the Volvo EAB active. I'm arguing that Uber's software should have been advanced enough to never need it before being tested on public roads.
Obviously extensive testing on public roads is and should be a requirement before the technology can be put into general use. But closed course testing should have been more than sufficient to iron out whatever bugs were present that could have allowed the car to plow into an obstacle without even a hint of recognition. In this case, a failure to slow down in a smooth manor, or to get a little too close to the pedestrian as it passed, would be the kind of bugs I'd be expecting here. Absolutely not a complete failure to even notice the obstacle.
Yes, they did accept the risk, by crossing the road not at an intersection in the face of oncoming traffic. Did they think it was a likely outcome? No.
The pedestrian certainly shares some of the blame, it would be very hard to argue otherwise. But it simply isn't relevant. Based on the dash cam video, the collision was precisely 100% avoidable.
Wrong; they disabled the manufacturers auto-breaking system and replaced it with one of their lown.
This is the way I understand it as well. I believe Volvo's technology would have stopped the car in plenty of time to avoid the pedestrian. Uber's didn't even try, not even when the pedestrian was only a few feet away. Not even a blip on the radar. It is outrageous that Uber put such blatantly disfunctional technology on a public road at all.
The problem here wasn't that the vehicle was experimental. It was that the safety driver was not doing their job.
Nonsense. The problem here was that the technology was obviously not tested sufficiently to be safe on a public road. Self driving technology that cannot discern, and then stop for or otherwise avoid an obstacle, is absolutely not ready to be operated on a public road, with or without a back up driver. The failure of the back up system is a secondary problem.
But that's solar energy, so it must be bad.
So is print/sign/scan/email. Or better yet, sign/scan/save, and then just paste your signature image into documents, then email. Paper sucks.
Not "what's a bioga", but "what are bioga". Bioga is plural for a number of individual biog. Biogs is singular for a [semi-]autonomous group or community of biog. It is OK to ask "what are bioga", but be careful with such terminology as "what's the matter with you biogs", or "I'm on the prowl for some biog ass."
Yep. You can use it crack certain cryptography problems faster; problem though, the algorithm scales differently and doubling the key size makes it much harder to crack. Whereas, using traditional brute force on regular computers, doubling the key size only helps a little bit.
Is it opposite day? I must have missed the tweet.
What the hell was wrong with "common sense shows"? It's a hell of a lot cheaper.
I love black coffee, radishes, bitter-sweet chocolate, and gin and tonic. And I hope everyone involved in this study dies in a fire.
You're talking about a liquid under pressure. Pressurize liquids store very little energy, because they are largely uncompressable. You may have noticed, no one is talking about pressurizing (liquid) water to store energy.
Washington State has lots of hydro power, and quite a bit of wind power, so Seattle wouldn't be such a bad area in that regard.
Nice example of how to do something completely wrong.
MS-DOS got interesting? Clearly I missed the memo.
Gravity.
Well let's see, it's a wind turbine. As such, it is tall, and therefore a lightening magnet. Also as such, it was placed in an area with unusually high wind potential. Not really all that unlucky.
Thanks, I'm logging into retarded's account right now.
dd if=/dev/zero of=StupidDropbox.fs bs=4096 count=
mke2fs -t ext4 StupidDropbox.fs
mkdir StupidDropbox
mount StupidDropbox.fs StupidDropbox
I was referring to atmospheric re-entry. But, yes, if we can figure out how to accelerate a sizable asteroid to a near-collision course with Earth, then we've also figured out how to slow it down. As long as the asteroid has enough resources to pay for all that fuel, we're good.
You're seem to be a monumental [ idiot | troll ], just not sure which.
As was already pointed out, we already have mined small quantities of material on the Moon and shipped it back to Earth. Even if you're not bright enough to see that it is possible, that should convince you. The open questions have nothing to do with possibility, and everything to do with cost effectiveness, which partly depends on the actual make up of the various local bodies. For example, if we found an asteroid made essentially of pure gold, it could quite easily be cost effective right now to drag back a few tons of it.
Luckily we've also got the slowing down part pretty well figure out, too.