You home can be heated this way and your electricity can be produced this way. There are issues however.
1) a lot of electricity is produced from Coal 2) a lot of electricity is produced from hydro 3) a lot of electricity is produced from Nuclear 4) a little electricity is produced from solar and wind
In order to produce your own electricity you need a small genrator that can idle away most of the time probably producing less than a kilowatt and suddenly ramp up to produce up to 25 kilowatts! Most modren homes have 100 amp service and this is at 220 volts. 25 kw is in the vicinity of 20 horsepower so its a little bigger than a lawn mower engine. However most of the time it will be producing less than 1 HP.
It is feasible to feed the excess power into the grid and draw from the grid - using it as a big battery. This will allow the genrator to be sized closer to about 3-5 HP which is the size of a lawn mower engine or a little protable generator.
However - the machine has to have an expected service life of YEARS.
A little turbine with magnetic bearings is probably suitable. One could jury rig a turbo booster from a car engine but that will probably not have that long a life. An industrial turbo booster from a desiel engine might.
Then you need to sync the current with the power line. We can do that today quite easily. Back in the 60's when Natural gas was cheap the electronics were not so cheap. Furthermore if you do this and there is a power outage then the power company personel have to worry about all these little generators feeding excess energy into the grid. It can be a little hazardous.
Now it doesn't make much sense. Yes - many homes are heated with Natural Gas. But we have a North American shortage and the peak of production occured in 2001. Since 2002 the price is up 4 fold. A huge part of the North American fertilizer industry is shut down because they too these price increases on the chin. Expect the pastics industry to follow - but it will be the raw pellets portion that will be shut down. We can ship these in from overseas cheaper than we can make them here.
When we peak out with oil - which will be probably 2005-2007 then we get a double whammy.
This is going to leave homeowners with the dilemma that they can pay through the nose to gain access to a dwindling resource or they can pay to tear apart their poorly designed homes and peoperly insulate them. I know it is possible to design a very livable home that does no require a furnace because I've been in one.
In fact the additional costs for the insulation during construction are probably about the same as the furnace. After construction you basically have to dismantal it and rebuild the walls. You need about R50 in the walls and R70 in the ceilings for a climate in southern Canada or the northern states.
A well designed house in the sun belt would potentially not require A/C but if it does then it should be earth coupled.
So your idea has merit. But we won't have the gas to run the generators and we don't have small enough generators at the present and the distributed system this leads to is not in place. Something like this _could_ come in if we had solar collectors covering our buildings... I think it would be a good idea with potentially attractive returns on investment.
I missed that typo. The USA uses over 20 million barrels of oil per day. THis is about 1/4 of the world's production.
It is widely reported as well that China and India are causing the high demand for oil. The BP reveiw refutes this! While the PERCENTAGE increase in consumption in China and India is high - the absolute increase is not. Check the changes in the importations in the BP review.
IMHO reporting it this way is quite irresponsible because it points the finger in teh wrong direction.
Another dumb moderator on the loose! Damn I had points yesterday.
Yes - we do need to focus on using less energy. The issue is that the North American natural gas supply peaked in 2001. We have already lost at least 1/3 of the Nitrogen fertilizer industry as a result.
We can get hydrogen mind you from the coal gas method that was used around the turn of the century. Essentually we put some coal in a bucket - slap the lid on it - heat it up and inject steam at high pressure and temperature.
We have decent amounts of coal for the present. We have a huge north american shortage of hydrogen with Suncor for instance presently spending billions to design and build hydrogen plants.
This is for the production of liquid fuels from bitumin. Liquid fuels typically have 2 parts hydrogen for each atom of carbon - ie - they follow the parafin series C(n)H(2n+2). N=8 => octane.
Bitumin comes in about 1:1 H:C and coal is about 0.6:1 depending on what grade.
So the issue is that the hydrogen shortage is sort of going to make this uneconomical. That being said I think there is reason to believe that thermal cracking of water (steam electrolysis) has promise from solar or nuclear sources. Many people don't realise that the temperature of the photons from the sun is quite a lot higher than even the hottest nuclear power plants are run at.
Nevertheless one would have to cover their house and out buildings with solar collectors and these would need to be a combination of thermal and electrical. There is some thought towards attaching a thermocouple to a solar cell which might bring the efficiencies up. Any way we look at it however its going to be prohibitably expensive to try to make your own source of hydrogen. It also might actually be dangerous because this is an industrial process and high temperatures and pressures are involved.
Even a large parabolic mirror is dangerous because improperly set up it can light your place on fire.
----------------
If anyone is interested check the BP statistical energy review. This will break down the various energy sources. Since most of the oil is used for transporation it follows that the hydrogen source will have to grow large enough to replace the oil. Currently the USA uses about 10 million barrels of oil per day.
The energy bonds associated with carbon are greater than hydrogen so you need an INCREASE in the hydrogen if we manage to go with this system. However that is offset by greater efficiencies so perhaps it actually will take less hydrogen.
This leaves Suncor for instance in a dilemma. They can produce the hydrogen and use it to upgrade the bitumin. Or they can produce the hydrogen and forget about their tar sands mines and put the hydrogen in a pipleline. Which is better? There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than in a gallon of liquid hydrogen and you don't need tanks capable if holding 350 atmospheres. The infrastructure from distribution is in place.
The rain on the parade however is that more than a billion dollars per year are currently flowing into Alberta, Canada in an effort to ramp up tar sands to about 3.3 million barrels per day by 2015. Even with this massive investment the total synthetic crude that is going to be available is going to represent less than 1/5th of what North America burns today.
If we couple this with the fact that world oil production is likely to be well past peak by even 2010 with a conservative (very conservative!) decline rate of say 3%, given that the world oil production is currently about 82 million barrels per day (with the USA burning 1/4 of the world's production) then just two years of decline will wipe out what the Tar Sands ops can make available.
This means we are going to be facing a very severe energy problem in very short order.
As Dave Hughes from the Geological survey of Canada says, the good news is the oil and gas industry is going to make a lot of money. The bad news is that they might have to b
As I recall it was PC chips who produced the fake cache on the 486 motherboards. Look here: http://www.redhill.net.au/b/b-bad.html "PC Chips fake cache 486"
I do have an ecs board but it was before the merger. It was stable for years.
nevertheless - there are reputable manufacturers out their so why would I care about ECS/PC CHIPS?
You should be using potassium met. Also you don't say the amount of water. The citric acid levels are way too high. You can cut to about a 1:5 ratio.
IE. 1 tsp met with about 1/5th tsp acid or acid blend in 1/2 gallor or 2 liters of water is fine. Then for the wine you don't need to rince with water after and you can usually skip the soap / detergent cleaning protocol.
If the carboy is clean to start with just sterilize it. If it is dirty usually a clorine based soap product such as diversol will do a much better cleaning job than dish soap.
If you use diversol make sure you rince 3 x. As stated above: Sterilize with K-met.
For wine don't bother to rince. For beer you need to rince. Also be very careful with beer that you never have any residual soap residue because it will destroy the head. You should ask you wife to mash and make her own wort as well!... she can also sprout the barley and make her own malt if she doesn't do this already.
The RIAA should realise that if their customer base is spending money on lawyers then they probably will not be spending money on CD's. This should eventually be self limiting I think!
People need to wise up and boycott the RIAA and its members. There is other good music around. Check out www.iuma.com for instance.
This is a really really big problem. Australia set up a commission to looking into some of these problems a couple years ago.
What the issue is follows. The Telecomunications business has been built on the idea of big fish being able to control little fish. The concept of who does a service for whom does not seem to exist.
This means that large telecos (who often are an ISP as well) can force smaller players to pay them. Thus a small ISP will find that if one of their customers sends off an email to a friend connected to the large ISP - then the small ISP has to pay the large ISP for the connection and the transfer of the email. On the other hand - if the large ISP's customer replies to the email - then the small ISP still has to pay.
In the case of large Telecom giants like Telstra in Australia and Telus in Canada, both have connections to high speed networks in the USA. They do this because they need access to internet content. The pay a fee for this access and it is a heafty fee. Smaller ISP's pay access charges to Telus and Telstra. So the fish in the middle charges the smaller fish but has to pay the larger fish. Most of this content is probably web content.
Suppose we have a small web hosting service. If that service is locted in say Australia then Telstra will charge access at the point the content hits the Telstra network. It may have traveled through a couple ISPs before then and each will charge the smaller fish - which in this case is the web hosting service. The same will happen in Canada if the server is hosted in Canada.
If the customer resides in the country where the server is located - then the teleco eventually charges the end user as well.
However if that web hosting business is relocated into the USA - then both Telstra and Telus in this example will end up paying for access to the content they need to deliver to their customer.
This leaves both countries in the position that their telecommunications firms will pay foreigners for access to internet content while at the same time these companies steadfastly refuse to offer the same deal to the citizens of the countries that paid for and built these telecomunication systems they maintain.
From the standpoint of the web hosting company - it creates a very unfair playing feild. Money usually travels in the opposite direction as a service for instance. If you take you girlfriend to see a movie - you guys pay the theater - the theater pays the film distributor and eventually the movie house and actors also get paid.
If the movie business were organised like the telecomunications business - then the movie distributor would expect the movie creator to pay them and hand over the movie at a cost - ie - the cost of distribution.
Under acts like the DMCA the telecommunications industry got the grandfathered right to distribute and cache other people's copy righted material with no compensation to the copy right holder. It is argued that the copy right holder (In this case the web masters) agree to this idea when they put material up on the net. The truth is that they were generally not a party to the negotiations that went into making up these laws. Now they are trapped in a system that they often don't understand. Often would be web content businesses just toss in the towel before they start.
I was personally involved in such a project and we just didn't even bother to try. In our case we were looking to stream flash based content and at that time most was via dial up. Our line costs for bandwidth would have wiped out many times over any revenue stream we could have created. In effect we would have been subsidizing the telco who at that time was bringing in high speed access. The content would have been of interest to them of course. If we could have served it via an Akami style system - maybe. But we said to hell with it and shut down the company.
What these unfair perring arrangments did was to create a powerful incentive for part of the content creatio
Ratio of carbon to hydrogen in liquid fuels is about 1:2. The ratio in coal is about 0.6:1. Since carbon weighs 12 and hydrogen weighs 1 we get 12/14 of liquid fuel is carbon by weight and (0.6*12)/(0.6*12+1) of coal is carbon by weight.
CO2 has an atomic weight of 44 so we get one tonne of oil * 44/14 makes 3.1428 tonnes of CO2. This is almost pi tonnes I guess. In addtion we get 18/14 = 1.2857 tonnes of water.
---------------
Now what needs to be recognized is that CO2 levels during the Ordovician were 13x to 19x higher than now and the earth cooled by about an average of 22C. This demonstrates that the CO2 levels at over 5000 PPM are not enough to warm the planet out of an ice age. In fact CO2 levels of 5000++ PPM are not enough to KEEP the planet from going into an ice age. When we go into an ice age we lose large amounts of water vapour and thus it is much easier to keep the planet out of an ice age than to lift it from an ice age.
Water vapour in the tropics literally is 80,000 PPM and it really is many times more powerful as a green house gas than CO2. Water vapour levels over a ice sheet are practically zero.
So CO2 is being given a bad name by people who know very little and do bad science.
About all an increase in CO2 will render on the planet is the ability for plants to grow a little faster. If course there are biologists such as David Suzuki who have suggested the increase in CO2 will overwhelm the ability of the plant life on the earth to absorb it.
How stupid. He must have done at least some plant physiology in his undergraduate years and if so he will know that standard green house practice is to increase CO2 levels to increase growth rates.
The truth is that photosynthesis evolved about 3 billion years ago and at that time the CO2 levels were about 20% of the atmosphere. 20% is about 200,000 PPM
I can remember looking at and workign with a similar system in the 80's. In fact I looked at using something like this for data back up. This would have turned your laser printer into a backup device. Typically you don't need to reload data - but a 300 DPI printer and 300 DPI scanner would have provided reasonable capacity and at reasonable speeds.
It has been so long now that I cannot recall what the MB's per sheet would have been. At the time I personally had a 40 MB HDD and that was feasible to back up via such a method. But within a couple years capacity was much greater. I do know this was not a particularly novel idea at the time. In fact I can remember seeing an example of such a blob pattern that was in fact an encoding.
No - it is not a new idea. I think I'll boycott Amazon. I'm sick of this legal crap.
I made the mistake of installing Flash in Forefox on my Debian machine. To date Ihave not found a way to get rid of it. To be honest - its a pain in the ass!
AFAIK there has never been an IFR built. This doesn't mean the nuclear community does not know about it. France has the Penix and the Super Penix. But they shut down the Super.
This is about as far as breeder and alternative fuel cycles have gone.
India is working on developing the Thorium cycle via its Candu technology. At this point I do not know how advanced they are. The Thorium cycle on the surface looks like a really good one because Thorium transmuts easily into U233. This is just as good as Pu.
IMHO the biggest reason these reactors have not been built is political. Texas oil would not have been worth very much if there were an advanced viable nuclear industry. Thus it was necessary to launch a combined many faceted campaign to discredit a whole industry. Since radiation can not be seen - Ghosts and mis-information and dis-information work quite well.
Reusing code is only a timesaver when you can plug it in and not have to worry about it which is why I'd personally rather write it myself than be stuck with code I don't fully trust.
I think this phrase says so much! Every programmer who undertook to re-invent the wheel has felt he could do a better job and of course he trusted his work.
Then they quit and leave the problem for a maintenance programmer to deal with.
Your points are quite valid mind you. But one day you will realise you have become your own maintenance programmer. Then you will wish you used more opensource code. But I'm not talking about the shitty stuff. I'm talking about the really top quality code we find in Glibc for instance - and in WxWidgets.
If you can find professional caliber code under a LGPL style license then you have done rather well.
If you have to roll your own so to speak, then consider releasing under the LGPL. A library owned by an individual consultant has little market value. (Unfortunately). A library created by an employee is both expensive and if he quits he loses all his work. In both cases - opensourcing solves a lot of problems.
The strong nuclear force holding the atom together is then converted to kinetic energy as the atom disintegrates.
NO IT DOESN'T!
The strong nuclear force holds the nucleus together and is opposed by the electrical force. It is the electrical force that causes the atom to fly apart and some of this force is converted into free energy.
As for the fusion bomb - the high pressure causes a number of the hydrogen - deturium pairs to fuse. This releases neutrons which transmute lithium into deturium. Some of these neutrons run into the uranium tampers around the compressed cores causing further fission to take place. This releases more neutrons. A chain reaction builds up until the materials are thrown far enough apart that the density drops below that which can sustain the chain reaction. Then it dies out.
Well - actually I have done the calculations on how much power is available. The present "spent" fuel sitting in swimming pools on reactor sites can be stuffed into CANDU reactors and will power about as big a fleet as the USA currently has of the light water pressure reactors (114 in the 1GWe range). There is enough fuel from this source to provide power for decades.
Then if we built the Integral fast reactor which was designed by Argonne labs and shut down in 1994 by the Clinton Administration - there is enough uranium already mined (its usually called "depleated") to run over 1000reactors for 6,000 years. This is without producing any long term wastes because the IFR burns the actinides. In this senerio we can also use the thorium cycle with fuel reserves in the 200,000 year range.
If we get this up to 1000 reactors then we have no need to look at coal, gas, oil, wind or anything else. But - in this senerio we would have to use a substancial amount of the power to produce hydrogen which can be tied to Carbon to produce liquid fuels. This is essentually what Germany and South Africa have done - its called the Fisher Tropsche reaction and it is well proven. By doing this North America becomes self sufficient in energy. Also this is probably the ONLY way... well - all vehicals could be banned and only bicycles and horse drawn wagons allowed and then I guess yes - the USA would be self suffcient.
So yes - I actually have done the calcs.
Also - the liklihood of fusion being useful other than as a neutron source (IE - it can be a breader) is unlikly any time over the next 20 years.
Maybe the same can be said about the extinction of the Dinosaurs. Could it be they triggered a re-balencing of the Gia because they were so successful and lived for so many millions of years?
The licensing issues themselves are interesting. One of the things copyright does is allow you to control derivative copies. However there is always the fair use doctrine and the right to use material in a parody.
I think the Pilsbury dough boy was caught up in this a few years ago and I have not heard what came of Pilsbury's attempts to stop the "XXX" version(s).
Then there is the issue of adoption. Why would a developer choose to lock himself (herself) into any closed source product if there is a better solution. I'll illustrate this as follows.
When you develop against a class library you tie yourself to the library. For this reason I personally have abandoned IBM's Visual age compiler, Microsoft's Visual compiler and indeed Borland's Builder series, even thought I bought them.
Abandoning Borland hurts. They have a good product. But it looks as if Borland is abandoning support for C++ at the moment. They may change their minds.
While I looked at QT and note it is excellent - my choice has to be WxWidgets. The licencing is a MAJOR issue. I can use WxWidgets in open source, closed source and proprietary products.
I do know that many people think the QT license is fine. Perhaps for them it is. One weighs the strengths of a license against its restrictions.
Now as a developer I have faced the same problem many times. If one developes a library one can become far more productive. The problem is most employers want to own what their employees produce and most consultants are not willing to spend literally years trying to develop a custom library for each client. Its a no win situation for several reasons: (1) Its a waste of time and (2) it creates a maintenance nightmare.
This being said. The opensource soulution neatly addresses both issues. So what happens in the specifics of the requirnments posted above is quite interesting!
However I do know that there is a very large percentage of programmers who do not think about this. In my career, I have seen at least 8 duplicated "sort" routines. This does not include the ones which are simply cut-paste-hack. To me it is amasing so many programmers are willing to justify creating literally dozens of virtually identical functions - but each with a different tweak and each of which next needs to be maintained... and what if a bug is found in the original?
I'm also amased that managment puts up with this.
Furthermore I am amased that programmers who do this often use some of the worst algorithms available - and then justify this by saying its "good enuf".
Now consider. In the case of a "sort" - under the LGPL is an excellent implementation of both a quick sort and a red-black tree which can also be used to sort. So why would ANY programmer worth his salt waste his time re-inventing the wheel. And why would an employer spend literally $1000's of bux to pay a programmer to debug an inferior algorithm when there is already a fully debugged ready to use general purpose implementation available? It certainly isn't a licensing issue.
When we get answers to these questions then maybe I'll have an answer both how to address your issues and how the developer community is going to receive any license you manage to come up with.
All you confirm is that scanners are not safe enough because they are in reaction mode.
Also - I sort of doubt they got the real black hats who did this. Most likely they got some script kiddies. However - who knows. I kinda doubt whoever wrote this would be so dumb as to get caught. But if they were - then next time I suspect the black-hats will be smarter.
You know its the white-hats that run more risk because when they point out the problem they do become a target. The black-hats are actually quite safe if they are smart and keep a low profile - or - if they are supported by an enemy goverment.
Slashdot Mirror
You home can be heated this way and your electricity can be produced this way. There are issues however.
1) a lot of electricity is produced from Coal
2) a lot of electricity is produced from hydro
3) a lot of electricity is produced from Nuclear
4) a little electricity is produced from solar and wind
In order to produce your own electricity you need a small genrator that can idle away most of the time probably producing less than a kilowatt and suddenly ramp up to produce up to 25 kilowatts! Most modren homes have 100 amp service and this is at 220 volts. 25 kw is in the vicinity of 20 horsepower so its a little bigger than a lawn mower engine. However most of the time it will be producing less than 1 HP.
It is feasible to feed the excess power into the grid and draw from the grid - using it as a big battery. This will allow the genrator to be sized closer to about 3-5 HP which is the size of a lawn mower engine or a little protable generator.
However - the machine has to have an expected service life of YEARS.
A little turbine with magnetic bearings is probably suitable. One could jury rig a turbo booster from a car engine but that will probably not have that long a life. An industrial turbo booster from a desiel engine might.
Then you need to sync the current with the power line. We can do that today quite easily. Back in the 60's when Natural gas was cheap the electronics were not so cheap. Furthermore if you do this and there is a power outage then the power company personel have to worry about all these little generators feeding excess energy into the grid. It can be a little hazardous.
Now it doesn't make much sense. Yes - many homes are heated with Natural Gas. But we have a North American shortage and the peak of production occured in 2001. Since 2002 the price is up 4 fold. A huge part of the North American fertilizer industry is shut down because they too these price increases on the chin. Expect the pastics industry to follow - but it will be the raw pellets portion that will be shut down. We can ship these in from overseas cheaper than we can make them here.
When we peak out with oil - which will be probably 2005-2007 then we get a double whammy.
This is going to leave homeowners with the dilemma that they can pay through the nose to gain access to a dwindling resource or they can pay to tear apart their poorly designed homes and peoperly insulate them. I know it is possible to design a very livable home that does no require a furnace because I've been in one.
In fact the additional costs for the insulation during construction are probably about the same as the furnace. After construction you basically have to dismantal it and rebuild the walls. You need about R50 in the walls and R70 in the ceilings for a climate in southern Canada or the northern states.
A well designed house in the sun belt would potentially not require A/C but if it does then it should be earth coupled.
So your idea has merit. But we won't have the gas to run the generators and we don't have small enough generators at the present and the distributed system this leads to is not in place. Something like this _could_ come in if we had solar collectors covering our buildings... I think it would be a good idea with potentially attractive returns on investment.
I missed that typo. The USA uses over 20 million barrels of oil per day. THis is about 1/4 of the world's production.
It is widely reported as well that China and India are causing the high demand for oil. The BP reveiw refutes this! While the PERCENTAGE increase in consumption in China and India is high - the absolute increase is not. Check the changes in the importations in the BP review.
IMHO reporting it this way is quite irresponsible because it points the finger in teh wrong direction.
Another dumb moderator on the loose! Damn I had points yesterday.
Yes - we do need to focus on using less energy. The issue is that the North American natural gas supply peaked in 2001. We have already lost at least 1/3 of the Nitrogen fertilizer industry as a result.
We can get hydrogen mind you from the coal gas method that was used around the turn of the century. Essentually we put some coal in a bucket - slap the lid on it - heat it up and inject steam at high pressure and temperature.
We have decent amounts of coal for the present. We have a huge north american shortage of hydrogen with Suncor for instance presently spending billions to design and build hydrogen plants.
This is for the production of liquid fuels from bitumin. Liquid fuels typically have 2 parts hydrogen for each atom of carbon - ie - they follow the parafin series C(n)H(2n+2). N=8 => octane.
Bitumin comes in about 1:1 H:C and coal is about 0.6:1 depending on what grade.
So the issue is that the hydrogen shortage is sort of going to make this uneconomical. That being said I think there is reason to believe that thermal cracking of water (steam electrolysis) has promise from solar or nuclear sources. Many people don't realise that the temperature of the photons from the sun is quite a lot higher than even the hottest nuclear power plants are run at.
Nevertheless one would have to cover their house and out buildings with solar collectors and these would need to be a combination of thermal and electrical. There is some thought towards attaching a thermocouple to a solar cell which might bring the efficiencies up. Any way we look at it however its going to be prohibitably expensive to try to make your own source of hydrogen. It also might actually be dangerous because this is an industrial process and high temperatures and pressures are involved.
Even a large parabolic mirror is dangerous because improperly set up it can light your place on fire.
----------------
If anyone is interested check the BP statistical energy review. This will break down the various energy sources. Since most of the oil is used for transporation it follows that the hydrogen source will have to grow large enough to replace the oil. Currently the USA uses about 10 million barrels of oil per day.
The energy bonds associated with carbon are greater than hydrogen so you need an INCREASE in the hydrogen if we manage to go with this system. However that is offset by greater efficiencies so perhaps it actually will take less hydrogen.
This leaves Suncor for instance in a dilemma. They can produce the hydrogen and use it to upgrade the bitumin. Or they can produce the hydrogen and forget about their tar sands mines and put the hydrogen in a pipleline. Which is better? There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than in a gallon of liquid hydrogen and you don't need tanks capable if holding 350 atmospheres. The infrastructure from distribution is in place.
The rain on the parade however is that more than a billion dollars per year are currently flowing into Alberta, Canada in an effort to ramp up tar sands to about 3.3 million barrels per day by 2015. Even with this massive investment the total synthetic crude that is going to be available is going to represent less than 1/5th of what North America burns today.
If we couple this with the fact that world oil production is likely to be well past peak by even 2010 with a conservative (very conservative!) decline rate of say 3%, given that the world oil production is currently about 82 million barrels per day (with the USA burning 1/4 of the world's production) then just two years of decline will wipe out what the Tar Sands ops can make available.
This means we are going to be facing a very severe energy problem in very short order.
As Dave Hughes from the Geological survey of Canada says, the good news is the oil and gas industry is going to make a lot of money. The bad news is that they might have to b
Another dumb moderator on the loose! Damn I had points yesterday.
Oh - this is easy. Because a lot of women cheat! Some studies put the cheat rate over 20% in fact!
As I recall it was PC chips who produced the fake cache on the 486 motherboards. Look here:
http://www.redhill.net.au/b/b-bad.html "PC Chips fake cache 486"
I do have an ecs board but it was before the merger. It was stable for years.
nevertheless - there are reputable manufacturers out their so why would I care about ECS/PC CHIPS?
You should be using potassium met. Also you don't say the amount of water. The citric acid levels are way too high. You can cut to about a 1:5 ratio.
... she can also sprout the barley and make her own malt if she doesn't do this already.
IE. 1 tsp met with about 1/5th tsp acid or acid blend in 1/2 gallor or 2 liters of water is fine. Then for the wine you don't need to rince with water after and you can usually skip the soap / detergent cleaning protocol.
If the carboy is clean to start with just sterilize it. If it is dirty usually a clorine based soap product such as diversol will do a much better cleaning job than dish soap.
If you use diversol make sure you rince 3 x. As stated above: Sterilize with K-met.
For wine don't bother to rince. For beer you need to rince. Also be very careful with beer that you never have any residual soap residue because it will destroy the head. You should ask you wife to mash and make her own wort as well!
The RIAA should realise that if their customer base is spending money on lawyers then they probably will not be spending money on CD's. This should eventually be self limiting I think!
People need to wise up and boycott the RIAA and its members. There is other good music around. Check out www.iuma.com for instance.
This is a really really big problem. Australia set up a commission to looking into some of these problems a couple years ago.
What the issue is follows. The Telecomunications business has been built on the idea of big fish being able to control little fish. The concept of who does a service for whom does not seem to exist.
This means that large telecos (who often are an ISP as well) can force smaller players to pay them. Thus a small ISP will find that if one of their customers sends off an email to a friend connected to the large ISP - then the small ISP has to pay the large ISP for the connection and the transfer of the email. On the other hand - if the large ISP's customer replies to the email - then the small ISP still has to pay.
In the case of large Telecom giants like Telstra in Australia and Telus in Canada, both have connections to high speed networks in the USA. They do this because they need access to internet content. The pay a fee for this access and it is a heafty fee. Smaller ISP's pay access charges to Telus and Telstra. So the fish in the middle charges the smaller fish but has to pay the larger fish. Most of this content is probably web content.
Suppose we have a small web hosting service. If that service is locted in say Australia then Telstra will charge access at the point the content hits the Telstra network. It may have traveled through a couple ISPs before then and each will charge the smaller fish - which in this case is the web hosting service. The same will happen in Canada if the server is hosted in Canada.
If the customer resides in the country where the server is located - then the teleco eventually charges the end user as well.
However if that web hosting business is relocated into the USA - then both Telstra and Telus in this example will end up paying for access to the content they need to deliver to their customer.
This leaves both countries in the position that their telecommunications firms will pay foreigners for access to internet content while at the same time these companies steadfastly refuse to offer the same deal to the citizens of the countries that paid for and built these telecomunication systems they maintain.
From the standpoint of the web hosting company - it creates a very unfair playing feild. Money usually travels in the opposite direction as a service for instance. If you take you girlfriend to see a movie - you guys pay the theater - the theater pays the film distributor and eventually the movie house and actors also get paid.
If the movie business were organised like the telecomunications business - then the movie distributor would expect the movie creator to pay them and hand over the movie at a cost - ie - the cost of distribution.
Under acts like the DMCA the telecommunications industry got the grandfathered right to distribute and cache other people's copy righted material with no compensation to the copy right holder. It is argued that the copy right holder (In this case the web masters) agree to this idea when they put material up on the net. The truth is that they were generally not a party to the negotiations that went into making up these laws. Now they are trapped in a system that they often don't understand. Often would be web content businesses just toss in the towel before they start.
I was personally involved in such a project and we just didn't even bother to try. In our case we were looking to stream flash based content and at that time most was via dial up. Our line costs for bandwidth would have wiped out many times over any revenue stream we could have created. In effect we would have been subsidizing the telco who at that time was bringing in high speed access. The content would have been of interest to them of course. If we could have served it via an Akami style system - maybe. But we said to hell with it and shut down the company.
What these unfair perring arrangments did was to create a powerful incentive for part of the content creatio
Ratio of carbon to hydrogen in liquid fuels is about 1:2. The ratio in coal is about 0.6:1. Since carbon weighs 12 and hydrogen weighs 1 we get 12/14 of liquid fuel is carbon by weight and (0.6*12)/(0.6*12+1) of coal is carbon by weight.
CO2 has an atomic weight of 44 so we get one tonne of oil * 44/14 makes 3.1428 tonnes of CO2. This is almost pi tonnes I guess. In addtion we get 18/14 = 1.2857 tonnes of water.
---------------
Now what needs to be recognized is that CO2 levels during the Ordovician were 13x to 19x higher than now and the earth cooled by about an average of 22C. This demonstrates that the CO2 levels at over 5000 PPM are not enough to warm the planet out of an ice age. In fact CO2 levels of 5000++ PPM are not enough to KEEP the planet from going into an ice age. When we go into an ice age we lose large amounts of water vapour and thus it is much easier to keep the planet out of an ice age than to lift it from an ice age.
Water vapour in the tropics literally is 80,000 PPM and it really is many times more powerful as a green house gas than CO2. Water vapour levels over a ice sheet are practically zero.
So CO2 is being given a bad name by people who know very little and do bad science.
About all an increase in CO2 will render on the planet is the ability for plants to grow a little faster. If course there are biologists such as David Suzuki who have suggested the increase in CO2 will overwhelm the ability of the plant life on the earth to absorb it.
How stupid. He must have done at least some plant physiology in his undergraduate years and if so he will know that standard green house practice is to increase CO2 levels to increase growth rates.
The truth is that photosynthesis evolved about 3 billion years ago and at that time the CO2 levels were about 20% of the atmosphere. 20% is about 200,000 PPM
That rag is full of the worst spin doctoring in the industry. So why is this posted here?
I can remember looking at and workign with a similar system in the 80's. In fact I looked at using something like this for data back up. This would have turned your laser printer into a backup device. Typically you don't need to reload data - but a 300 DPI printer and 300 DPI scanner would have provided reasonable capacity and at reasonable speeds.
It has been so long now that I cannot recall what the MB's per sheet would have been. At the time I personally had a 40 MB HDD and that was feasible to back up via such a method. But within a couple years capacity was much greater. I do know this was not a particularly novel idea at the time. In fact I can remember seeing an example of such a blob pattern that was in fact an encoding.
No - it is not a new idea. I think I'll boycott Amazon. I'm sick of this legal crap.
I made the mistake of installing Flash in Forefox on my Debian machine. To date Ihave not found a way to get rid of it. To be honest - its a pain in the ass!
AFAIK there has never been an IFR built. This doesn't mean the nuclear community does not know about it. France has the Penix and the Super Penix. But they shut down the Super.
This is about as far as breeder and alternative fuel cycles have gone.
India is working on developing the Thorium cycle via its Candu technology. At this point I do not know how advanced they are. The Thorium cycle on the surface looks like a really good one because Thorium transmuts easily into U233. This is just as good as Pu.
IMHO the biggest reason these reactors have not been built is political. Texas oil would not have been worth very much if there were an advanced viable nuclear industry. Thus it was necessary to launch a combined many faceted campaign to discredit a whole industry. Since radiation can not be seen - Ghosts and mis-information and dis-information work quite well.
Reusing code is only a timesaver when you can plug it in and not have to worry about it which is why I'd personally rather write it myself than be stuck with code I don't fully trust.
I think this phrase says so much! Every programmer who undertook to re-invent the wheel has felt he could do a better job and of course he trusted his work.
Then they quit and leave the problem for a maintenance programmer to deal with.
Your points are quite valid mind you. But one day you will realise you have become your own maintenance programmer. Then you will wish you used more opensource code. But I'm not talking about the shitty stuff. I'm talking about the really top quality code we find in Glibc for instance - and in WxWidgets.
If you can find professional caliber code under a LGPL style license then you have done rather well.
If you have to roll your own so to speak, then consider releasing under the LGPL. A library owned by an individual consultant has little market value. (Unfortunately). A library created by an employee is both expensive and if he quits he loses all his work. In both cases - opensourcing solves a lot of problems.
The strong nuclear force holding the atom together is then converted to kinetic energy as the atom disintegrates.
NO IT DOESN'T!
The strong nuclear force holds the nucleus together and is opposed by the electrical force. It is the electrical force that causes the atom to fly apart and some of this force is converted into free energy.
As for the fusion bomb - the high pressure causes a number of the hydrogen - deturium pairs to fuse. This releases neutrons which transmute lithium into deturium. Some of these neutrons run into the uranium tampers around the compressed cores causing further fission to take place. This releases more neutrons. A chain reaction builds up until the materials are thrown far enough apart that the density drops below that which can sustain the chain reaction. Then it dies out.
Well - actually I have done the calculations on how much power is available. The present "spent" fuel sitting in swimming pools on reactor sites can be stuffed into CANDU reactors and will power about as big a fleet as the USA currently has of the light water pressure reactors (114 in the 1GWe range). There is enough fuel from this source to provide power for decades.
Then if we built the Integral fast reactor which was designed by Argonne labs and shut down in 1994 by the Clinton Administration - there is enough uranium already mined (its usually called "depleated") to run over 1000reactors for 6,000 years. This is without producing any long term wastes because the IFR burns the actinides. In this senerio we can also use the thorium cycle with fuel reserves in the 200,000 year range.
If we get this up to 1000 reactors then we have no need to look at coal, gas, oil, wind or anything else. But - in this senerio we would have to use a substancial amount of the power to produce hydrogen which can be tied to Carbon to produce liquid fuels. This is essentually what Germany and South Africa have done - its called the Fisher Tropsche reaction and it is well proven. By doing this North America becomes self sufficient in energy. Also this is probably the ONLY way... well - all vehicals could be banned and only bicycles and horse drawn wagons allowed and then I guess yes - the USA would be self suffcient.
So yes - I actually have done the calcs.
Also - the liklihood of fusion being useful other than as a neutron source (IE - it can be a breader) is unlikly any time over the next 20 years.
Maybe the same can be said about the extinction of the Dinosaurs. Could it be they triggered a re-balencing of the Gia because they were so successful and lived for so many millions of years?
The licensing issues themselves are interesting. One of the things copyright does is allow you to control derivative copies. However there is always the fair use doctrine and the right to use material in a parody.
I think the Pilsbury dough boy was caught up in this a few years ago and I have not heard what came of Pilsbury's attempts to stop the "XXX" version(s).
Then there is the issue of adoption. Why would a developer choose to lock himself (herself) into any closed source product if there is a better solution. I'll illustrate this as follows.
When you develop against a class library you tie yourself to the library. For this reason I personally have abandoned IBM's Visual age compiler, Microsoft's Visual compiler and indeed Borland's Builder series, even thought I bought them.
Abandoning Borland hurts. They have a good product. But it looks as if Borland is abandoning support for C++ at the moment. They may change their minds.
While I looked at QT and note it is excellent - my choice has to be WxWidgets. The licencing is a MAJOR issue. I can use WxWidgets in open source, closed source and proprietary products.
I do know that many people think the QT license is fine. Perhaps for them it is. One weighs the strengths of a license against its restrictions.
Now as a developer I have faced the same problem many times. If one developes a library one can become far more productive. The problem is most employers want to own what their employees produce and most consultants are not willing to spend literally years trying to develop a custom library for each client. Its a no win situation for several reasons: (1) Its a waste of time and (2) it creates a maintenance nightmare.
This being said. The opensource soulution neatly addresses both issues. So what happens in the specifics of the requirnments posted above is quite interesting!
However I do know that there is a very large percentage of programmers who do not think about this. In my career, I have seen at least 8 duplicated "sort" routines. This does not include the ones which are simply cut-paste-hack. To me it is amasing so many programmers are willing to justify creating literally dozens of virtually identical functions - but each with a different tweak and each of which next needs to be maintained... and what if a bug is found in the original?
I'm also amased that managment puts up with this.
Furthermore I am amased that programmers who do this often use some of the worst algorithms available - and then justify this by saying its "good enuf".
Now consider. In the case of a "sort" - under the LGPL is an excellent implementation of both a quick sort and a red-black tree which can also be used to sort. So why would ANY programmer worth his salt waste his time re-inventing the wheel. And why would an employer spend literally $1000's of bux to pay a programmer to debug an inferior algorithm when there is already a fully debugged ready to use general purpose implementation available? It certainly isn't a licensing issue.
When we get answers to these questions then maybe I'll have an answer both how to address your issues and how the developer community is going to receive any license you manage to come up with.
As a matter of fact it has actually done both. Cars are far better designed now and cops are far more concious of the risks inherant in their jobs.
Deal with reality or reality will deal with you!
All you confirm is that scanners are not safe enough because they are in reaction mode.
Also - I sort of doubt they got the real black hats who did this. Most likely they got some script kiddies. However - who knows. I kinda doubt whoever wrote this would be so dumb as to get caught. But if they were - then next time I suspect the black-hats will be smarter.
You know its the white-hats that run more risk because when they point out the problem they do become a target. The black-hats are actually quite safe if they are smart and keep a low profile - or - if they are supported by an enemy goverment.
Mod this up more. Very good point.
I wonder if the judge can recommend the administration be charged with abuse of process?
Actually I run my own company and have so for over 20 years.
A "computer Science" Student? Having such few resources and so little problem solving ability?
I would never hire you.