You do realize they've been measuring solar output (very accurately) for several decades and there are earlier (though less accurate) measurements for almost 200 years? They actually have a lot of data about the solar mins/maximums.
They just need to do what they've done in other western "dry" states and price water on consumption. In my state I pay a normal about $30 a month for the first 7000 gallons, which is enough for most moderately sized households internal uses. But the next 7000 gallons cost me double the $30 and the third set of 7000 costs me triple. In the summer my water bill goes from $30 a month to almost $300. This progressive pricing was introduced during our last big drought and water consumption went down 20% almost immediately and has continued to drop every year. Xeroscaping became very popular.
In fact I'm in the process of ripping up several hundred feet of sod to be replaced with native plants.
As climate change deniers like to frequently post, the sun drives energy input to the planet and we are in the longest, most extreme solar minimum in recorded human history. If temperatures are even holding even in such an event what happens when the sun finally returns to a solar maximum?
The scary thing about climate change isn't sea level increases (at least to people other than the dutch). What's scary is that the breadbasket zones where humanity grows 90% of the worlds food supply are going to move. And where those zones are going to move to is drastically different than the current. To put that in perspective what happens when the Mexican Sonoran desert moves into Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, along with shifting the US breadbasket into Canada?
You'll likely say that we just grow all that food in Canada then. Northern Canada, much like Siberia and most of the northern climate that these bread baskets will move to is frozen swap land. When temperatures reach the point that the US breadbasket moves north it's going to move into a swamp where growing anything will be damn near impossible without trillions of dollars in civil improvements to drain the swamps at which point we have a drained formerly arctic swamp with little to no topsoil and a very short growing season that will have some of the harshest winters on the planet because latitude and because the jet stream has been destabilized by the loss of ice. Instead of the current farming where they have 2 major growing seasons and a slightly risky winter wheat crop you will have one growing season with probably a 10% chance it will freeze in the fall at a total loss. This doesn't even take into account what the changing rainfall patterns will mean to water supplies. See the desert band is going to move north and places like Phoenix that rely on water from the Rockies might not have that water in the future because those mountains might not get winter snow anymore. What happens when they shut down the municipal water in Phoenix because there isn't any water?
When those breadbaskets and rainfall zones move we're going to have what will likely be some of the ugliest war in human history. Wars that ultimately might lead to the extinction of the human species.
Putting a cost to carbon is ultimately going to be relatively cheap (even worst case estimates are less than $100 per person per annum), but the money interests that own that carbon energy are terrified by the prospect of carbon no longer being subsidized and they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince people ignorant of the science that there is some doubt about the reality of climate change. Not only that it will make the US no longer dependent on stabilizing the middle east. We will no longer be beholden to Islamic nations that are engaged in war against the the west. This scares the defense industry which is reliant on the US playing world police. If we subsidized renewable energy even on an equal footing with Oil, Coal and gas we would probably be in a position to displace carbon energy within a couple decades without hardship. Yet even that simple step, of simply providing a level playing field is adamantly opposed by Carbon interests.
There has been a massive reduction in all crime over the last 40 years, which coincidentally started just about the time they widely banned widespread lead use, particularly in paint and gasoline. And that the last generation routinely exposed to lead paint and gasoline during their 0-20 years is the baby boomers who are in the process of retiring.
It will likely be impossible to ever confirm this but I believe the dramatic reduction in crime rates can be attributed to reduction of lead in the environment. Lead is massively disruptive to developing brains and causes long term damage that often results in violent or anti-social behavior (this has been confirmed clinically and was one of the reasons it was banned).
I also believe that we're going to discover in the near future that many of the autism spectrum disorders and other similar disorders whose incidence have been increasing in the developed world are similarly caused by a chemical or range of chemicals that interrupt the brain or hormones during development and which are currently in common use. The significant difference is rates of these disorders between the developed world and the undeveloped world I believe is what will eventually lead to the proof.
This isn't the government. It's a private service with terms that you must obey. If you don't like it don't use it.
Given that there are apparently companies or individuals clearly breaching the steam and valve TOS for money I just have to question why valve doesn't go after these people/groups in court. If they are in a western country you could fairly easily eviscerate them and take all the profits and likely get them in serious trouble. Even if they are outside the west they should be able to use the court to effectively freeze all money conduits which will remove the profit incentive. Without the profit incentive I dare say the ability for the cheat to develop rapid countermeasures would go away. Oh there is still going to be people that develop the cheats for fun but I dare say they wouldn't share the cheats because they run the risk of being banned as a result.
This is one area where I actually agree that court action should be used, cheats in multiplayer can do severe damage to a game and the companies should aggressively go after people/companies developing these cheats. Honestly if the cheats have progressed to the point where people are paying for it and the cheat itself is running DRM then the people involved should be easy to target.
No, they want to treat their customers like dirt, without telling them they are treating them like dirt. Because if they tell them they might book with someone that doesn't treat them like dirt.
See the simple way to solve this is to confiscate cameras on entry to the Bus. The problem is that by doing so and advertising that they will do so they will ensure no one books them. They want to be able to fuck their customers without telling them they've fucked them till after the ride. Much like the owners of payday loan places which are nothing more than legalized loan sharking to the poor I bet the owner is a hard core Tea party republican.
Google doesn't care. They breach their immunity if they don't follow the DMCA process, which involves the counter-notice. He shouldn't tell them anything, he should send in the proper counter-notice and make the denialists sue him then trounce them in court along with counter-suit for damages and legal fees.
If he's not willing to defend what he produced he just doesn't care enough.
Merchants are not liable for fraud in the US as long as they verify that the card given to them is signed (signature line on the card) and they take a signed receipt. If that transaction is fraudulent because the signature is fraudulent the bank eats the transaction, not the merchant. Without these guarantee's credit cards never would have taken off in the US because no merchant would have accepted the cards. Mastercard threatening to make the merchant liable is a significant shift in current policy and a major stick to use against merchants now that not accepting credit is a death sentence to a merchant.
The problem the Republicans have, which is the reason Obama won by a landslide but the Republican party polls were predicting a win for Romney is a problem of demographics. For the first time in history the young are voting, millennial are voting by wide margins. The Republican polls took the view of history that even if the young said they would vote to a poll they actually wouldn't end up voting whereas the other polls predicting Obama's win took their statement at face value. They are the reason Obama was elected in both 2012 and 2008. The bad part for republicans is that the millennial numbers keep growing and by the end of the decade their voter numbers are projected to be higher than both GenX and the Baby boomers.
That is what should scare the every loving bejesus out of Republicans. You have an entire generation that is voting close to 80% democratic, that has larger voting numbers than previous generations and is voting young. There is a real possibility we're going to go into a era of total dominance by the democratic party for the next 30 years not unlike that caused by the great depression.
Linux won because it was GPL. Up until that point no company would contribute to open source because their rivals could take their inventions, improve them and not share them back. This is the same thing that caused UNIX's original fragmentation. GPL prevented that, it gave any company contributing a guarantee that anything they put in that someone else improves they get to use as well.
IMO it's only the success of GPL that showed companies that forking was unprofitable that led some of those same companies to embrace BSD projects. Even with that success I don't think a BSD kernel will ever displace Linux. BSD licensed software has it's place in some of the other stacks where there is little innovation and lots of advantages for cooperation. But anything on the cutting edge is going to be GPL or not open source because of that same risk that split UNIX and handed the PC market to Microsoft.
I see the same UNIX split in the webkit fragmentation. Two companies at odds that don't want to share back certain innovations led to forking webkit. Because of BSD the shared workload is gone, though they will likely watch each others open side and reincorporate improvements the simple fact remains that both forks will likely never re-merge. I like BSD, it's a bit purer of an OSS license IMO, but like Libertarianism and Communism it makes great ideology when you assume everyone has perfect and pure motives and is terrible in practice because there are a lot of people out there that don't know how to work together and are bloody selfish.
I'm not arguing they are good at first strike, simply saying the Russian fear of that is not complete BS.
Even if you did know where every single stationary missile is you don't know where the mobile ones are and there are a LOT of mobile nukes in play. Just the ones in a single SSBN alone could decimate a nation and that's just one nuclear sub and that's doesn't even factor to Russia's mobile launchers that could be literally anywhere in Siberia.
But the Russian argument is along the lines that someone might be foolish enough to attempt nuclear war if they think they can take out 90% of someone else's ICBM's with almost no warning. Hypersonic ICBM type missiles are moving so fast that outside the boost phase you might not even see them coming until something blows up. This would be one of their advantages against terrorist type sites. When Clinton launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan the terrorists actually saw news reports about the missile launches before they arrived and were able to abandon the sites before impact.
Hypersonic missiles are good for long distance precision strikes (this is the US interest in them, the ability to strike a target anywhere in the world within an hour). I doubt they will be good for much else. For one they won't be able to adjust trajectory once fired so they aren't good to hit anything that can move. Because of immense kinetic velocity it's possible that even running into a flying insect or bird could destroy the missile. In fact I perceive it possible to throw something like a net at it have the sheer kinetic energy cause the net to cut the missile into little pieces (a stationary net of small high tensile steel would act like a wire saw to the missile whereas a conventional missile might just fly right between the wires by deflecting them.
Honestly we shouldn't be worried about hypersonic. They make interesting fast strike weapons against stationary targets (hence the Russian fear of it being used as a first strike weapon to eliminate nuclear deterrent) but for just about anything else they are just not that interesting until someone can demonstrate something about them that would make them good in battle at something other than what I've listed. You can't turn at those velocities so you can't track or target moving objects. People just don't grasp what those speed are like, you are flying at miles per second at those velocities and at that speed by the time you can see it you don't even have a second before you hit it. In fact only with long distance radar or programmed flight path could you even target something.
I'm not giving them my email address, fuck no. They can read the comments (probably the first time they've actually ever read the site) or not. Once I'm forced onto Beta I'm done with Slashdot completely. I just don't get why they want to fuck it up so bad. They could easily coast on the current system for another decade and still get their SEO and paid advertising work done with the page rank Slashdot provides.
Though I wouldn't mind them fucking/. up, then I wouldn't come here anymore and I recover some time every day.
15 people for 4 hours is thousands of dollars. An average white collar worker makes, (with overhead and benefits) around $100 a hours. 15 * $100 * 4 = $6000 wasted. Even a single person unable to work for a few hours will often FAR exceed the value of the hardware involved,
I'm always amazed at how many people in IT fail to grasp this simple fact.
I large cities with unknown pathogens throughout using human waste on ANY product that humans will eat is a recipe for a massive health epidemic. Pathogens such as hepatitis can survive the treatment process and remain live in the compost. This doesn't even take into account all the other stuff that's in the waste stream, from the soap you used in the shower to the drano you poured down the sink to clear it. Wastewater is dangerous stuff, it should be properly treated and then processed into very fertilizer (at least in my area it's highly expensive) that's sold to parks and farms that grow products not for human consumption.
Construction costs far outweigh the value in the metal. Always have, likely always will. Until you can harvest the copper and replace it with fiber while never digging a hole you aren't going to see anyone other than junkies trying to salvage that copper because to them 2 hours of hard dirty work for $20 is worth it.
Stupid people associate Magma with the Mantle. The Submitter is clearly one of them.
There is no conclusive proof that we've ever obtained a piece of the mantle, fact is we don't know with certainty what's it's even made of (other than fluffy bunnies of course).
The pressures present where the crust and mantle meet are intense. When drilling wells you need a lubricant to assist the drill and prevent the hole form collapsing. Heaving drilling mud is typically used.
At the pressures that exist the mantle the drilling mud would be squeezed out (that is if it wasn't immediately baked solid) and you would need a much heavier denser liquid. It's been proposed that the only lubricant that would be heavy enough would be molten iron. So no, they didn't drill into the mantle.
My personal theory is that the pleistocene has been so cold because of the historically (4 billion years) high oxygen levels and the significant amount of historical carbon that has been sequestered underground.
Humans are changing that, we're sucking all the sequestered carbon out and putting it into the atmosphere where it hasn't been since the dinosaurs. Before all the science deniers reply, this is scary because humanity was born in the ice ages of the Pleistocene we've never experienced a planet as warm as the dinosaurs where there weren't any ice caps and it was 100 degrees in the northern reaches of Canada (yes I know the continents were in different places so Canada was at a lower latitude).
Humans will survive a warmer earth I have no doubt, but the potential for massive disruption to the food supply is there and if that happens there's going to be some really ugly war that humanity might not survive. The reason to be scared of global warming is because of those changing fertile zones, humanity goes batshit crazy when starvation is eminent.
Don't teach anything about Christianity? Are you kidding? Almost 50% a typical history class discusses European history from the roman empire to the reformation and it's ALL about Christianity. The dark ages is almost entirely about the rise in power of the catholic church, the reformation is all about Luther and the rise of Protestantism including Henry and the creation of the church of England. The Renaissance is all about the rise of the nation-state and the reduction in influence and power of the christian church on government and the end of Theocracy in the western world. Combine this with the Spanish inquisition and a 100 other historic events including the 100 years war and others and you have a history class that is almost exclusively discussing the history of religion in Europe.
The rest of the class typically spends 10% at best on other cultures such as Islam, China, Korea, Japan and the world wars. The remainder of a typical class is spent on US history including the impact of those European events on the colonists and the creation of the US.
So as a result the average kid spends almost half their typical history class discussing the impact of Christianity on Europe and the US and you argue it's not even discussed? Are you that uninformed or just deliberately lying?
As far as your comments about science you are clearly scientifically illiterate. I have no problem with intelligent design, as long as it's taught in PHILOSOPHY class and not science class. Throwing up your hands and saying an outside force we can't measure, can't test and can't even prove exists is the cause of something is NOT science. Science is ONLY about testable and falsifiable truths. If you can't test it or falsify it then it is NOT science.
Oh and BTW the big bang and abiogenesis are two completely different theories and totally unrelated to each other. Maybe you should educate yourself before dismissing that which you know absolutely nothing about. Ignorance shouldn't be something you are proud of.
If you are running a compressor what is the point in using the hot corrosive gasses from the exhaust system? After all if your goal is to just collect the gas what the hell do you need a compressor for?
I assumed you were suggesting that you recover some pressure by collecting the already pressurized gas, but doing so robs the engine of the pressure differential used to maintain the air flow in the engine. I misinterpreted that so I apologize, but at least with that faulty assumption you appeared to be trying to recover energy. Without that your experiment doesn't make any sense at all. The compressor hanging off the engine will soak up energy and you'll either burn more gas to compensate or have a significant loss in output energy. Either way you aren't going to get any more energy out of it than you put in, in fact you will have more losses in the system and will burn more fuel. Which make the comparison with the proposed system impossible.
Your system would be no different than hanging an alternator/generator off the engine and using it to charge batteries that drive an electric motor without a plug-in or energy recovery system to acquire energy from outside the engine doing so just results in MORE energy loss unless you optimize the engine for power generation and use only an electric motor to drive the car (this is how trains work, diesel generator, electric motor). The reason hybrids exist and this system would use less energy is they can recover braking energy which even with only 30% efficiency is a massive boost in recovered energy. Your proposed system would do nothing but increase energy consumption regardless of which air is compressed whereas the proposed system would recover a significant amount of energy that is normally wasted as heat and would in fact displace emissions. Braking during racing is a significant use of energy during a race, recovering even a small portion of that energy could result in significant reductions in fuel use and emissions.
If you are going to compare something at least compare apples to apples. Your "thought experiment" isn't even related to the innovation being discussed.
Ever stuck a banana in the tail pipe? You maintain pressure on the back end (exhaust) and the engine dies. An internal combustion engine runs on pressure differential between pistons and outside air pressure. Eliminate the outside air pressure with a device to maintain the pressure on the back end and the system won't run because the back pressure on the exhaust system prevents the intake manifold from drawing in fresh air (normally the hot exhaust exiting the tailpipe generates the suction necessary to draw fresh air into the combustion chamber. No air drawn into the manifold = No oxygen in combustion chamber = no fuel being burned = a dead engine. This is exactly how a banana in the tail pipe stops a car.
Honestly, do you even know how engines work? Your "thought experiment" indicates a total lack of even basic knowledge about engines that ANY driver should know to operate a vehicle using one.
I went to school in the 70's using 1950 textbooks. We had a chapter in history covering Islam and the 5 pillars of Islam and various cultural aspects of Arab and Islamic culture. It covered nearly everything you listed. Big deal. It's history, should we deny Islam even exists?
Should we refuse to teach our children about cultures and societies outside European history? Just because you're a bigot and hate Islam doesn't mean children don't deserve to know about history including that other cultures and religions exist. Here's how you need to think about it in your bigoted language, if you don't teach kids about Islam and it's history they might get converted later because they know nothing about the religion and have no basis to evaluate it's claims.
As someone that grew up in the 70's I can say with absolute certainty that religion in classrooms, creationism in particular isn't about protecting the children of those who believe in that silliness, it about trying to convert other peoples kids to their way of thinking. This whole drive to put young earth creationism into the school system is all about proselytizing other peoples kids and it always has been. It's so transparent it's not even funny because more than half the people campaigning for it home teach their kids to try to avoid them learning anything about the world that might test their beliefs. Funniest part about it is that sheltering their children in such a manner more often than not backfires horribly when those kids turn away from religion after they realize they've been lied to. Those parents that it backfires on inevitably end up convincing themselves that they need to shelter someone elses kids (gotta save them) even more than they did their own children and they become the principle campaigners for BS like intelligent design. It's all a perfect example of how to teach kids exactly the opposite of what they want and it's beautiful irony when their kids turn their backs on religion entirely as a result of directly misleading them about science.
Google IS a tier 1 network. They own a significant amount of fiber on long term leases. Where they actually selling access (outside their test projects) they would be one of the larger international networks.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize they've been measuring solar output (very accurately) for several decades and there are earlier (though less accurate) measurements for almost 200 years? They actually have a lot of data about the solar mins/maximums.
They just need to do what they've done in other western "dry" states and price water on consumption. In my state I pay a normal about $30 a month for the first 7000 gallons, which is enough for most moderately sized households internal uses. But the next 7000 gallons cost me double the $30 and the third set of 7000 costs me triple. In the summer my water bill goes from $30 a month to almost $300. This progressive pricing was introduced during our last big drought and water consumption went down 20% almost immediately and has continued to drop every year. Xeroscaping became very popular.
In fact I'm in the process of ripping up several hundred feet of sod to be replaced with native plants.
As climate change deniers like to frequently post, the sun drives energy input to the planet and we are in the longest, most extreme solar minimum in recorded human history. If temperatures are even holding even in such an event what happens when the sun finally returns to a solar maximum?
The scary thing about climate change isn't sea level increases (at least to people other than the dutch). What's scary is that the breadbasket zones where humanity grows 90% of the worlds food supply are going to move. And where those zones are going to move to is drastically different than the current. To put that in perspective what happens when the Mexican Sonoran desert moves into Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, along with shifting the US breadbasket into Canada?
You'll likely say that we just grow all that food in Canada then. Northern Canada, much like Siberia and most of the northern climate that these bread baskets will move to is frozen swap land. When temperatures reach the point that the US breadbasket moves north it's going to move into a swamp where growing anything will be damn near impossible without trillions of dollars in civil improvements to drain the swamps at which point we have a drained formerly arctic swamp with little to no topsoil and a very short growing season that will have some of the harshest winters on the planet because latitude and because the jet stream has been destabilized by the loss of ice. Instead of the current farming where they have 2 major growing seasons and a slightly risky winter wheat crop you will have one growing season with probably a 10% chance it will freeze in the fall at a total loss. This doesn't even take into account what the changing rainfall patterns will mean to water supplies. See the desert band is going to move north and places like Phoenix that rely on water from the Rockies might not have that water in the future because those mountains might not get winter snow anymore. What happens when they shut down the municipal water in Phoenix because there isn't any water?
When those breadbaskets and rainfall zones move we're going to have what will likely be some of the ugliest war in human history. Wars that ultimately might lead to the extinction of the human species.
Putting a cost to carbon is ultimately going to be relatively cheap (even worst case estimates are less than $100 per person per annum), but the money interests that own that carbon energy are terrified by the prospect of carbon no longer being subsidized and they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince people ignorant of the science that there is some doubt about the reality of climate change. Not only that it will make the US no longer dependent on stabilizing the middle east. We will no longer be beholden to Islamic nations that are engaged in war against the the west. This scares the defense industry which is reliant on the US playing world police. If we subsidized renewable energy even on an equal footing with Oil, Coal and gas we would probably be in a position to displace carbon energy within a couple decades without hardship. Yet even that simple step, of simply providing a level playing field is adamantly opposed by Carbon interests.
There has been a massive reduction in all crime over the last 40 years, which coincidentally started just about the time they widely banned widespread lead use, particularly in paint and gasoline. And that the last generation routinely exposed to lead paint and gasoline during their 0-20 years is the baby boomers who are in the process of retiring.
It will likely be impossible to ever confirm this but I believe the dramatic reduction in crime rates can be attributed to reduction of lead in the environment. Lead is massively disruptive to developing brains and causes long term damage that often results in violent or anti-social behavior (this has been confirmed clinically and was one of the reasons it was banned).
I also believe that we're going to discover in the near future that many of the autism spectrum disorders and other similar disorders whose incidence have been increasing in the developed world are similarly caused by a chemical or range of chemicals that interrupt the brain or hormones during development and which are currently in common use. The significant difference is rates of these disorders between the developed world and the undeveloped world I believe is what will eventually lead to the proof.
This isn't the government. It's a private service with terms that you must obey. If you don't like it don't use it.
Given that there are apparently companies or individuals clearly breaching the steam and valve TOS for money I just have to question why valve doesn't go after these people/groups in court. If they are in a western country you could fairly easily eviscerate them and take all the profits and likely get them in serious trouble. Even if they are outside the west they should be able to use the court to effectively freeze all money conduits which will remove the profit incentive. Without the profit incentive I dare say the ability for the cheat to develop rapid countermeasures would go away. Oh there is still going to be people that develop the cheats for fun but I dare say they wouldn't share the cheats because they run the risk of being banned as a result.
This is one area where I actually agree that court action should be used, cheats in multiplayer can do severe damage to a game and the companies should aggressively go after people/companies developing these cheats. Honestly if the cheats have progressed to the point where people are paying for it and the cheat itself is running DRM then the people involved should be easy to target.
No, they want to treat their customers like dirt, without telling them they are treating them like dirt. Because if they tell them they might book with someone that doesn't treat them like dirt.
See the simple way to solve this is to confiscate cameras on entry to the Bus. The problem is that by doing so and advertising that they will do so they will ensure no one books them. They want to be able to fuck their customers without telling them they've fucked them till after the ride. Much like the owners of payday loan places which are nothing more than legalized loan sharking to the poor I bet the owner is a hard core Tea party republican.
Google doesn't care. They breach their immunity if they don't follow the DMCA process, which involves the counter-notice. He shouldn't tell them anything, he should send in the proper counter-notice and make the denialists sue him then trounce them in court along with counter-suit for damages and legal fees.
If he's not willing to defend what he produced he just doesn't care enough.
Merchants are not liable for fraud in the US as long as they verify that the card given to them is signed (signature line on the card) and they take a signed receipt. If that transaction is fraudulent because the signature is fraudulent the bank eats the transaction, not the merchant. Without these guarantee's credit cards never would have taken off in the US because no merchant would have accepted the cards. Mastercard threatening to make the merchant liable is a significant shift in current policy and a major stick to use against merchants now that not accepting credit is a death sentence to a merchant.
The problem the Republicans have, which is the reason Obama won by a landslide but the Republican party polls were predicting a win for Romney is a problem of demographics. For the first time in history the young are voting, millennial are voting by wide margins. The Republican polls took the view of history that even if the young said they would vote to a poll they actually wouldn't end up voting whereas the other polls predicting Obama's win took their statement at face value. They are the reason Obama was elected in both 2012 and 2008. The bad part for republicans is that the millennial numbers keep growing and by the end of the decade their voter numbers are projected to be higher than both GenX and the Baby boomers.
That is what should scare the every loving bejesus out of Republicans. You have an entire generation that is voting close to 80% democratic, that has larger voting numbers than previous generations and is voting young. There is a real possibility we're going to go into a era of total dominance by the democratic party for the next 30 years not unlike that caused by the great depression.
Linux won because it was GPL. Up until that point no company would contribute to open source because their rivals could take their inventions, improve them and not share them back. This is the same thing that caused UNIX's original fragmentation. GPL prevented that, it gave any company contributing a guarantee that anything they put in that someone else improves they get to use as well.
IMO it's only the success of GPL that showed companies that forking was unprofitable that led some of those same companies to embrace BSD projects. Even with that success I don't think a BSD kernel will ever displace Linux. BSD licensed software has it's place in some of the other stacks where there is little innovation and lots of advantages for cooperation. But anything on the cutting edge is going to be GPL or not open source because of that same risk that split UNIX and handed the PC market to Microsoft.
I see the same UNIX split in the webkit fragmentation. Two companies at odds that don't want to share back certain innovations led to forking webkit. Because of BSD the shared workload is gone, though they will likely watch each others open side and reincorporate improvements the simple fact remains that both forks will likely never re-merge. I like BSD, it's a bit purer of an OSS license IMO, but like Libertarianism and Communism it makes great ideology when you assume everyone has perfect and pure motives and is terrible in practice because there are a lot of people out there that don't know how to work together and are bloody selfish.
I'm not arguing they are good at first strike, simply saying the Russian fear of that is not complete BS.
Even if you did know where every single stationary missile is you don't know where the mobile ones are and there are a LOT of mobile nukes in play. Just the ones in a single SSBN alone could decimate a nation and that's just one nuclear sub and that's doesn't even factor to Russia's mobile launchers that could be literally anywhere in Siberia.
But the Russian argument is along the lines that someone might be foolish enough to attempt nuclear war if they think they can take out 90% of someone else's ICBM's with almost no warning. Hypersonic ICBM type missiles are moving so fast that outside the boost phase you might not even see them coming until something blows up. This would be one of their advantages against terrorist type sites. When Clinton launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan the terrorists actually saw news reports about the missile launches before they arrived and were able to abandon the sites before impact.
Hypersonic missiles are good for long distance precision strikes (this is the US interest in them, the ability to strike a target anywhere in the world within an hour). I doubt they will be good for much else. For one they won't be able to adjust trajectory once fired so they aren't good to hit anything that can move. Because of immense kinetic velocity it's possible that even running into a flying insect or bird could destroy the missile. In fact I perceive it possible to throw something like a net at it have the sheer kinetic energy cause the net to cut the missile into little pieces (a stationary net of small high tensile steel would act like a wire saw to the missile whereas a conventional missile might just fly right between the wires by deflecting them.
Honestly we shouldn't be worried about hypersonic. They make interesting fast strike weapons against stationary targets (hence the Russian fear of it being used as a first strike weapon to eliminate nuclear deterrent) but for just about anything else they are just not that interesting until someone can demonstrate something about them that would make them good in battle at something other than what I've listed. You can't turn at those velocities so you can't track or target moving objects. People just don't grasp what those speed are like, you are flying at miles per second at those velocities and at that speed by the time you can see it you don't even have a second before you hit it. In fact only with long distance radar or programmed flight path could you even target something.
I'm not giving them my email address, fuck no. They can read the comments (probably the first time they've actually ever read the site) or not. Once I'm forced onto Beta I'm done with Slashdot completely. I just don't get why they want to fuck it up so bad. They could easily coast on the current system for another decade and still get their SEO and paid advertising work done with the page rank Slashdot provides.
Though I wouldn't mind them fucking /. up, then I wouldn't come here anymore and I recover some time every day.
15 people for 4 hours is thousands of dollars. An average white collar worker makes, (with overhead and benefits) around $100 a hours. 15 * $100 * 4 = $6000 wasted. Even a single person unable to work for a few hours will often FAR exceed the value of the hardware involved,
I'm always amazed at how many people in IT fail to grasp this simple fact.
I large cities with unknown pathogens throughout using human waste on ANY product that humans will eat is a recipe for a massive health epidemic. Pathogens such as hepatitis can survive the treatment process and remain live in the compost. This doesn't even take into account all the other stuff that's in the waste stream, from the soap you used in the shower to the drano you poured down the sink to clear it. Wastewater is dangerous stuff, it should be properly treated and then processed into very fertilizer (at least in my area it's highly expensive) that's sold to parks and farms that grow products not for human consumption.
Construction costs far outweigh the value in the metal. Always have, likely always will. Until you can harvest the copper and replace it with fiber while never digging a hole you aren't going to see anyone other than junkies trying to salvage that copper because to them 2 hours of hard dirty work for $20 is worth it.
Stupid people associate Magma with the Mantle. The Submitter is clearly one of them.
There is no conclusive proof that we've ever obtained a piece of the mantle, fact is we don't know with certainty what's it's even made of (other than fluffy bunnies of course).
The pressures present where the crust and mantle meet are intense. When drilling wells you need a lubricant to assist the drill and prevent the hole form collapsing. Heaving drilling mud is typically used.
At the pressures that exist the mantle the drilling mud would be squeezed out (that is if it wasn't immediately baked solid) and you would need a much heavier denser liquid. It's been proposed that the only lubricant that would be heavy enough would be molten iron. So no, they didn't drill into the mantle.
But they only took 27 images. He demands they do 100.
Because you know he's smart and stuff.
My personal theory is that the pleistocene has been so cold because of the historically (4 billion years) high oxygen levels and the significant amount of historical carbon that has been sequestered underground.
Humans are changing that, we're sucking all the sequestered carbon out and putting it into the atmosphere where it hasn't been since the dinosaurs. Before all the science deniers reply, this is scary because humanity was born in the ice ages of the Pleistocene we've never experienced a planet as warm as the dinosaurs where there weren't any ice caps and it was 100 degrees in the northern reaches of Canada (yes I know the continents were in different places so Canada was at a lower latitude).
Humans will survive a warmer earth I have no doubt, but the potential for massive disruption to the food supply is there and if that happens there's going to be some really ugly war that humanity might not survive. The reason to be scared of global warming is because of those changing fertile zones, humanity goes batshit crazy when starvation is eminent.
Don't teach anything about Christianity? Are you kidding? Almost 50% a typical history class discusses European history from the roman empire to the reformation and it's ALL about Christianity. The dark ages is almost entirely about the rise in power of the catholic church, the reformation is all about Luther and the rise of Protestantism including Henry and the creation of the church of England. The Renaissance is all about the rise of the nation-state and the reduction in influence and power of the christian church on government and the end of Theocracy in the western world. Combine this with the Spanish inquisition and a 100 other historic events including the 100 years war and others and you have a history class that is almost exclusively discussing the history of religion in Europe.
The rest of the class typically spends 10% at best on other cultures such as Islam, China, Korea, Japan and the world wars. The remainder of a typical class is spent on US history including the impact of those European events on the colonists and the creation of the US.
So as a result the average kid spends almost half their typical history class discussing the impact of Christianity on Europe and the US and you argue it's not even discussed? Are you that uninformed or just deliberately lying?
As far as your comments about science you are clearly scientifically illiterate. I have no problem with intelligent design, as long as it's taught in PHILOSOPHY class and not science class. Throwing up your hands and saying an outside force we can't measure, can't test and can't even prove exists is the cause of something is NOT science. Science is ONLY about testable and falsifiable truths. If you can't test it or falsify it then it is NOT science.
Oh and BTW the big bang and abiogenesis are two completely different theories and totally unrelated to each other. Maybe you should educate yourself before dismissing that which you know absolutely nothing about. Ignorance shouldn't be something you are proud of.
If you are running a compressor what is the point in using the hot corrosive gasses from the exhaust system? After all if your goal is to just collect the gas what the hell do you need a compressor for?
I assumed you were suggesting that you recover some pressure by collecting the already pressurized gas, but doing so robs the engine of the pressure differential used to maintain the air flow in the engine. I misinterpreted that so I apologize, but at least with that faulty assumption you appeared to be trying to recover energy. Without that your experiment doesn't make any sense at all. The compressor hanging off the engine will soak up energy and you'll either burn more gas to compensate or have a significant loss in output energy. Either way you aren't going to get any more energy out of it than you put in, in fact you will have more losses in the system and will burn more fuel. Which make the comparison with the proposed system impossible.
Your system would be no different than hanging an alternator/generator off the engine and using it to charge batteries that drive an electric motor without a plug-in or energy recovery system to acquire energy from outside the engine doing so just results in MORE energy loss unless you optimize the engine for power generation and use only an electric motor to drive the car (this is how trains work, diesel generator, electric motor). The reason hybrids exist and this system would use less energy is they can recover braking energy which even with only 30% efficiency is a massive boost in recovered energy. Your proposed system would do nothing but increase energy consumption regardless of which air is compressed whereas the proposed system would recover a significant amount of energy that is normally wasted as heat and would in fact displace emissions. Braking during racing is a significant use of energy during a race, recovering even a small portion of that energy could result in significant reductions in fuel use and emissions.
If you are going to compare something at least compare apples to apples. Your "thought experiment" isn't even related to the innovation being discussed.
Ever stuck a banana in the tail pipe? You maintain pressure on the back end (exhaust) and the engine dies. An internal combustion engine runs on pressure differential between pistons and outside air pressure. Eliminate the outside air pressure with a device to maintain the pressure on the back end and the system won't run because the back pressure on the exhaust system prevents the intake manifold from drawing in fresh air (normally the hot exhaust exiting the tailpipe generates the suction necessary to draw fresh air into the combustion chamber. No air drawn into the manifold = No oxygen in combustion chamber = no fuel being burned = a dead engine. This is exactly how a banana in the tail pipe stops a car.
Honestly, do you even know how engines work? Your "thought experiment" indicates a total lack of even basic knowledge about engines that ANY driver should know to operate a vehicle using one.
I went to school in the 70's using 1950 textbooks. We had a chapter in history covering Islam and the 5 pillars of Islam and various cultural aspects of Arab and Islamic culture. It covered nearly everything you listed. Big deal. It's history, should we deny Islam even exists?
Should we refuse to teach our children about cultures and societies outside European history? Just because you're a bigot and hate Islam doesn't mean children don't deserve to know about history including that other cultures and religions exist. Here's how you need to think about it in your bigoted language, if you don't teach kids about Islam and it's history they might get converted later because they know nothing about the religion and have no basis to evaluate it's claims.
As someone that grew up in the 70's I can say with absolute certainty that religion in classrooms, creationism in particular isn't about protecting the children of those who believe in that silliness, it about trying to convert other peoples kids to their way of thinking. This whole drive to put young earth creationism into the school system is all about proselytizing other peoples kids and it always has been. It's so transparent it's not even funny because more than half the people campaigning for it home teach their kids to try to avoid them learning anything about the world that might test their beliefs. Funniest part about it is that sheltering their children in such a manner more often than not backfires horribly when those kids turn away from religion after they realize they've been lied to. Those parents that it backfires on inevitably end up convincing themselves that they need to shelter someone elses kids (gotta save them) even more than they did their own children and they become the principle campaigners for BS like intelligent design. It's all a perfect example of how to teach kids exactly the opposite of what they want and it's beautiful irony when their kids turn their backs on religion entirely as a result of directly misleading them about science.
Google IS a tier 1 network. They own a significant amount of fiber on long term leases. Where they actually selling access (outside their test projects) they would be one of the larger international networks.