The Americans use the NSA to monitor mon american communications because under their laws, foreigners have no rights. The Canadians use CISIS to monitor american communications for the same reasons. Then they trade data.
I once sent and email to Australia when the net was young and in it I used some words that could be interpreted in isolation as suspicious. Then I put a note in the email to the effect I knew it was going to be read by the NSA and I made a comment that if they were worried about what I was "really up to" they should check out www.blah.com.
Within 12 hours the server picked up hits from the NSA. Then they were dumb enough to be using windows machines. For anyone wanting to penetrate their security - its pretty trivia. A simple honeypot is a good start.
There seems to be just no limit to the depths of depravity that paranoia will drive these people. Then they think they are being righteous. Meanwhile as they go off chasing ghosts they are perfectly willing to ignore huge white collar crimes in the way of frauds that are being perpetrated via stock market and other swindles on an almost daily basis. Enron is just one example.
Mushrooms are not a plant. They are much closer to an animal than they are to a plant. Furthermore they can be grown at home.
The average person is not going to be able to grow meat any more than they might grow gormet mushrooms. However with work a small percentage might be able to master this.
In order to do this class 5 clean room conditions will have to be constructed and a degree in microbiology would be helpful. They will need a good microscope and an autocalve. Add to this laminar flow hoods.
It will be more difficult to culture muscle cells than it presently is to culture mushrooms. You need reasonable sterile conditions to grow mushrooms but not absolutly sterile. IE - you really can do it in your kitchen.
Also - the basic cell lines for mushrooms are available in every grocery store. This is a little easier than taking a muscle sample from your favorite cow or pig. The cells in a steak are dead. The cells in a muchroom are alive.
Also - substraits for mushrooms are much easier to come by. You can buy them by the tonne.
All of the world's supply of penicillin comes from a single strain of penicillium mould which was found growing on a catelope. Initially this strain produced very small amounts but through mutation the output had steadily increase so that now over 50,000 IU is produced per CC.
The strain is suitable for liquid culture - which is unusual for Penicllium. The early strains produced very little penicillin and were grown on stainless steel bed pans.
You can check the history of this at Tom Volk's website.
The point is that for 60 years now we have mono culture and there has not been a problem. Thus one would infer that there will not be a problem with the issue of meat cultured from a single strain. What is likely is that the quality will increase and there will be no bones.
The downside of this is what nutrients are required. While the artical does not mention this - meat cells need a very high quality nutrient source which is produced by the animal's digestive system from things like grass. So if we want to produce cultured beef then somone is going to have to build a digestive system.
Note that there has been work in this area as well.
It is very unprofessional to let the PHB make technical decisions. A doctor would not allow his patient to diagnose the disease any more than a lawyer takes legal advice from his client.
Sure you can do this. You just need electricty. This has to come from somewhere - so if you build 1000 nukes - about 1GWe (GW equivalent) - then you can eliminate all coal, all oil and all alternatives and produce 100% of the USA energy needs - all from Uranium.
And while you are at it maybe you want to revist the Integral Fast Reactor that Clinton shut down - designed by Argonne labs by 1994 because then there is 6000 years of fuel already mined and processed and sitting around and its called "spent" uranium and "depleted" uranium. Oh... and what of all the Thorium?
But - how many years for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve? Decades is my guess.
whoring my ass. If you didn't notice - Putin has decided to keep the oil reserves Russia has secret.
There is an energy war happening right now. While hopefully energy issues will not be linked to patent and OSS issues - the idea that Eastern Europe wants to hitch its wagon the the faltering USA economy and legal mess is very unlikely. Quite the opposite.
The US can do whatever it wants to and the rest of the world will put its feet up - grab a beer and vie for the popcorn stand.
It only takes on idjoit who wants to suppress ideas for this to happen. Before the idjoit came along it was at plus 4. However I didn't express the water vapour in the climate models as well as I could.
They still do not know if there is a quantitative change in water vapour. This IMHO is a very significant issue. Also they don't really know if water vapour increases whether the planet will cool for a short while due to increased cloud cover. Tim Patterson addresses this issue mind you and say cosmic rays affect cloud cover enough to force us into an ice age.
Now your comments are well taken. I agree. What you may not know is that there has been a letter written from a number of profs and ex profs to the Canadian government. You can read about it here:
Apparently the communication was scrubbed from the materials the minister was presented with. When you look at the list of who wrote it you will find the credentials are pretty imposing.
But this is what bigots do. If you say something they don't like to hear - rather than address it they attack you or try to suppress what you say.
-------------
One thing we should try to do is compare the climate of the late Cretaceous to now. Or we could chose miocene I guess. Back then the planet was 10C warmer than now with no ice at the poles - at least no glaciation. The humidity of the planet was a lot warmer and many of the young mountain chains we have now didn't exist back then. In addition the atmosphere was considerably thicker than it is now with about 31% O2 in place of the 21% we have now.
The thing is - we are locked into a snowball earth now because partly we have very arid poles and a lot of land at high elevation. The question in my mind is whether there has been enough erosion to remove enough of that high elevation land to place us into a stable hot house phase. I suspect the earth is bistable at this time and I suspect we can be in either a hot house or a snowball earth phase. But when caught in one or the other we stay there.
The thing is that increased CO2 is so small that it isn't going to make any significant difference. You have to add all the greenhouse gasses togather and multiply the concentrations by the efficiency of the gas and when you do this you will see that CO2 is a drop in the ocean.
A quote from the website above:
"97% of greenhouse gases are water vapour by volume. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2
---------------
Changes in CO2 might change the overall absorbancy from 97% by an additional 1% - assuming equal contribution (which it is not) and assuming that H2O is not changed (which is also not true) and assuming a 30% increase in CO2 - Ie a 30% increase in the 3% CO2 presently contributes.
Now look at an El Nino. The increases in H2O are VERY SIGNIFICANT. Surely we should be able to see some temperature response due to the long term effects of an El Nino. I have not seen anyone publish anything - in spite of the fact the H2O quantitative changes are very significant.
There is another factor which people do not talk about.
This is the fact that H2O operates at ground level. CO2 is dispersed through a much greater elevation range - however it is heavier than air so it should tend to concentrate a bit on the ground. Here mixing and air currents need to be modeled. The IPCC says they are weak in this area.
So if the balnket of water vapour near the surface of the earth is not as thick - then the energy can disperse. OTOH if it is thick then the H2O holds the energy and the CO2 above it doesn't matter because the energy gradient prevents the energy from even reaching out of the lower atmosphere. For this reason I would expect higher H2O at low elevations to warm the lower atmosphere and simultaneously cool the upper atmosp
You are partially correct. The cooling at the top of a mountain is due to the expansion of the air at high elevation. This takes energy and the energy is lost as heat.
However the trapping of the energy at the top of a mountain is what I am talking about. There is a greater amount of solar energy at the top of a mountain that at the sahara dessert for instance. This can easily be seen. The air absorbs solar energy. The solar constant in orbit is about 1.3 kw/m^2 and at sea level it is about 1.0 kw/m^2
The difference is what is absorbed by the atmosphere. And these numbers are from memory.
At the top of a mountain you have two processes working:
1) the energy is reflected back into space 2) there is not much up there to trap it
The lack of water vapour at high elevation is a critical factor. Get rid of the mountains and you have a number of factors that work together to warm up the planet.
What I meant is that quantitative CHANGES in the amount of water vapour is not being modeled. This is in chapter 7 of the report.
They clearly are saying that while they are doing their best they have a ways to go. The GCM assume water vapour changes are short lived in the atmosphere and that water vapour levels themselves are forced by other green house gasses. The paleoclimate record shows that water vapour concentrations will change with mountain building and ocean current changes. Thus the water vapour itself would be expected to drive climate change.
A for instance is that if we were to remove the mountains and high plateaus then both the atmospheric circulation patterns that create rain shawdow desserts would dissaper and the arid conditions would also disappear because the temperture increases over these land masses would allow the air to hold considerably more water than it does now.
Water Vapour has a powerful feedback mechanism. If we melt the poles for instance then the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere keeps these poles melted. If we freeze the whole planet then the loss of water vapour keeps it frozen for millions of years until CO2 levels can build up.
We have had several million years of erosion on the high elevation land areas and it is possible that the earth has passed the point where the next glacial cycle will kick in. If this is the case (which I doubt) then we may well revert back to the hothouse climate that the earth enjoyed over 80% of the last 540 million years.
As for the GCMs. re-read chapter 7. They keep saying positive things on each of the points they have addressed - yet in every instance they point out that they have serious weakneses. Maybe this is because they want to do more research and want more funding. To me it means they don't have the problem licked. In fact - often the GCM's don't even predict the correct direction of change and this is illustrated in many websites that talk about why we are still waiting for greenhouse.
Since the SAR, appraisal of the confidence in simulated water vapour feedback has shifted from a diffuse concern about upper-tropospheric humidity to a more focused concern about the role of microphysical processes in the convection parametrizations, and particularly those affecting tropical deep convection. Further progress will almost certainly require abandoning the artificial diagnostic separation between water vapour and cloud feedbacks."
wrt cloud cover ch 7.2.2.1
Measurements of cloud drop size distribution indicate a significant difference in the total number of drops and drop effective radius in the continental and maritime atmosphere, and some studies indicate that inclusion of more realistic drop size distribution may have a significant impact on the simulation of the present climate (Hahmann and Dickinson, 1997)."
wrt Convection processes ch 7.2.2.2
"The general effects of the convection parametrization on climate sensitivity are difficult to assess because the way a model responds to changes in convection depends on a range of other parametrizations, so results are somewhat inconsistent between models"
wrt Boundry layer mixing and cloudiness ch 7.2.2.3
"This points to the need for new approaches for boundary-layer turbulence, both for clear-sky and cloudy conditions"
wrt rainfall. ch 7.2.3.3
" These aspects have been explored only to a limited extent in climate models. No studies deal with true intensity of rainfall, which requires hourly (or higher resolution) data, and the analysis is typically of daily rainfall amounts."
wrt cloud processes 7.2.2.5
" In spite of these improvements, there has been no apparent narrowing of the uncertainty range associated with cloud feedbacks"
wrt precipitation ch 7.2.3.3
"Accordingly, it is important that much more attention should be devoted to precipita
I have worked from home for over 20 years and I never spanked my kids once!!!
Organise your house so they have their own areas separate from you. Also MOM should be able to help... not that my wife was any help because she wasn't. That is another issue but the sad fact is she couldn't and I had to look after her as well as the kids.
In spite of all of this I was still far more productive then I ever could have been in an office. Furthermore it left me in a situation where I could provide the care my family needed.
Thank gawd I had very understanding clients who loved my work and paid my the big bux so I would build the software they wanted. I will add that they had office space downtown and had programmers in some of that office space. They were willing to pay me over 2x what they paid their own employees and were willing to pay me while I worked at home. So I really think Graham is correct.... but clearly not for all people.
For about 80% of the last 540 million years the earth was about 10C warmer than now. We are presently in an ice age.
The earth was completely frozen over about 1 billion years ago and this ice age lasted probably about 1/2 billion years. Most likely it waxed and waned. When the oceans are completely frozen over they cannot absorb CO2 and the levels build up to over 100x what they are now. This is the change that the paleoclimate shows is required to lift the temperature enough to start thawing the oceans. By looking at this we can see the global warming folks are out to lunch.
In any event - the CO2 is released by volcanizm and these processes continue even though the planet is frozen over. When the levels get high enough to melt the ice then the CO2 starts to be absorbed and ends up in the carbon sinks. This can cause the earth to tip back into an ice age and the oceans can freeze over again.
Mixed into this equation is the role of water vapour. When the earth is fozen over - there is effetively no water vapour in the atmosphere. If one looks at the ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY CURVES one can see that below zero there is effectively no water vapour in the atmosphere. This is why it is so cold at the top of mountains.
So - as the oceans freeze over then the H2O in the atmosphere is also lost which accelerates the cooling of the planet.
At the present moment the earth would have to freeze down to near the tropics in order to flip us into a completely frozen over ice ball. There is enough water vapour especially in the humid sub tropics to trap enough heat that this is quite unlikely.
However it is very likely that we will see the advancing of another period of glaciation because there have been about 20 or so in the last 2+ million years.
This being said - eventually our current ice age will end and the planet will warm up about 10C. When this happens the poles will lose their ice caps - water vapour will form at high latitudes and lock the planet into a warm period which in the past has lasted typically for million of years.
The reasons for this are not completely clear. Dr. Tim Paterson from Carlton University has published that the orbit of the solar system in the galaxy may be the driving factor. The theory is that cosmic radiation increases the cloud cover which reflects energy thus cooling the planet.
It is also likely that the amount of land at high elevation is a significant factor. The earth was much warmer 30 million years ago than now. At that time we did not have the high Denver Plateau - the Tibetain plateau and most of our modern mountains such as the Rockies, Pyrenees, Alps, Andes, Himilaian and hellenic ranges were not formed.
Land at high elevation reflects energy into space - which is why you can freeze to death at the top of mount Everest for instance in spite of the fact it is in the subtropics and it is the middle of May. Furthermore the cold scrubs the water vapour.
At low elevation water vapour functions as a fairly effective blanket and furthermore in the tropics for instance at 40C it will be in concentrations of over 70,000 parts per million (eg 7%).
Water Vapour in fact is the 3rd most abundant atmospheric gas.
Compare this to the CO2 levels of 370 PPM.
If we were to increase CO2 levels by over 100x then we get CO2 into the range of 37,000 ppm and that this level it can do the job that water vapour is doing now. Note that at 19x it cannot. This is proven by the Ordovician ice age where in spite of CO2 levels between 13x and 19x greater than now - the earth cooled by about 10C and an ice age similar to what we have now developed.
At this time we also had a period of mountain building: The Taconic Orogeny.
One last point. Most of our global warming folks are looking at data that goes back no longer than human history. While this may seem to be a long time - it is not significant.
If one were to map the pages of the Encyclopeadia Britannica to the last 540 million years
I glanced through the essay and while there are some good suggestions the suggestions are inadequate.
Lets look at the function call for instance.
1) the data type of the parameters is not given and the method how these parameters are passed is not given.
2) we do not know if data is sent into the function via certain parameters or if the function returns data via certain parameters. We have no idea of the valid range of values and what units the parameters are expressed in. With (1) above - we have no idea how to call the function.
For instance suppose the function is to check the depth of something. We might expect the depth to be passed in as float, but what precision? Is the depth in inches, cm's, meters, feet, KM's? Nasa lost multi-million dollar probes because of this.
3) there should be a description of the function and any limitations, exceptions etc. in its operation.
4) preferably there should be some outline of the algorithm used so we know if the function has a chance of performing satisfactorally.
5) there should be date created and last revision information and a note why and by whom.
6) we should be able to extract the function documentation in a printed form - preferably with a decompiled call sequence and a list of all functions our function may call - system generated - and suitable for a manual with PAGE FORMATING inserted as requited by the utility that does the extract.
In this way if an up-to-date manual is required of our library then we can generate it simply and completely and instantly from one source: the code. Look at Doxygen for ideas in this area.
----------------
Consider what would happen if a carpenter documented a house. Would it be appropriate to write notes like:/* Install window frame */ just before the hammer strokes? Well - this is why the analogy between a technical writer's world and a carpenter's world is weak at best even though it is overused.
However - the construction of a house is usually documented and its called the blue prints. Most carpenters do not dive into the construction of a house without a blueprint (although some can do a masterful job even if this step is skipped). Unfortunately most programmers are too optimistic.
The best program documentation is done BEFORE the program is written and takes the form of the skeleton I described about. With this skeleton in the form of comments in the sources - the library manual(s) can be printed off and reviewed and it becomes apparent to all what the library is going to do and how it is going to do it. Weaknesses can be easily corrected often before any significant amount of code has been committed.
Also with the code in the sources we are left with the situation that inconsistancies can be corrected easily.
BTW - I have written the vast majority of my code in this fashion for the last 20 years and it has saved my bacon many times. Also being in the position to tell management that a fully up-to-date manual can be printed off at any time with an hour's notice seems to instill a lot of confidence.
They are waterproof so moisture should not be a problem. Goose fat can be used for this.
They have excellent thermal properties
They are lightweight and don't form chucks.
They were made for flying and have been tested for millions of years.
The birds that provide the feathers can be used for other purposes - IE - we can eat em!
One way to attach the feathers might be to use skin. Maybe they can be tanned then sewn together like a giant touque. If NASA puts a zipper then at lift off perhaps the zipper can be unzipped and all the feathers can fall away.
An insulating system like this should be reuseable - all NASA has to do is wisk it away from the fire at the bottom.;-)
This printer has been gone over several times and its always the same story. After a few copies the printer seems to print "dirty" copies. Could the "dirt" be these yellow dots?
If anyone can shed light on the problems I'd really like to get some information. A solution would be even better because Okidata did not seem to have one - the result being the printer is considered junk and could never be put into service.
This incorrect study has been making the rounds for a long time now. It has been thoroughly discredited many times over. I am suprised that it shows up in./ but given the crap factor that has been rearing its head in here... well - you all get the message.
----------
Ethanol is a decent source of energy - however the amount needed is such that it cannot be a solution. It can however help. Over the period of the next 10 years there probably isn't any solution other than to get the SUV's off the road.
Unfortunately the population of N.A. is not likely to do this willingly. In all liklihood the first few fords (found on road dead) will be towed off and this process will continue as long as tow truck operators can find fuel.
When the tow trucks run out of fuel then I suspect the solution will be to push them into the ditches - at least this will work until the ditches are filled. After that who knows.
There is a crisis comming - the issue is when. Some say by 2010 and some say before 2007. Wildly optimistic estimates say 2037. Frankly those estimates make me laugh - but I do hope they are correct.
Best estimates are that petroleum supplies will start to contract worldwide at 2% or more per year starting as soon as maybe 2007-2008 (and possibly before then - but there is hope into the 2008++ range).
I'm sure North Americans for instance think they can buy their way out of this. I kinda doubt it. Already we hear rumblings from certain exporting nations that they have no intention of increasing exports to North America.
At the present moment (2005) we can expect that Indoneasia is becomming a net oil importer along with the UK. This means that Australia needs to look for another source of supply for its imports since Indoneasia use to supply much of Australia's imports.
So we have the beginnings of the shortages happening right now. I expect the U.K. will be the bellweather and lead the world onto the petroleum diet that is waiting for us all.
During 2006 we can expect the 2nd largest feild (Canterral - measured from a production standpoint - not reserves) to go into terminal decline and the rate has been announced to be about 14% per year. This is about the decline rate the North Sea experianced.
Canterral produces about 2.1 million BOPD so we're going to lose about 300,000 BOPD starting within a year or so from this source.
It is an open question at this point if the largest field in the world (Ghawar) is in decline. The Saudis say no. Many experts are not so optimistic. Many experts say we will be in a crunch by Q4 this year.
At this point the North Sea has been in decline since about 1999 and production has dropped about 3 million BOPD. This decline will continue unless some new discoveries are found. So far there is drilling - but little success.
--------------
This leaves alternate fuels such as ethanol. It is not an energy loss as has been reported and in fact it is obvious this is the case. Any farmer who has sat on his tractor in the hot sun while tilling a field of barley wishing he had a cold beer in his hand (and who knows how to brew it) can do the arithmetic required.
However on the flip side.
The reality of the situation is that the best source of liquid fuel in North America (and in fact world wide) is from the Fischer-Tropche reaction. This is involved in Tar Sands production for instance as well is many stranded natural gas projects.
The investments in Alberta for instance are in the range of about $10 billion per year and these will continue into the foreseeable future.
Even with investments like this the projects will not be able to supply much more than 2-3 million BOPD by 2015. At a 2% world decline we can expect worldwide oil production to drop by a minimum of about 20% in the decade following Peak Oil.
Since we currently produce about 84 million BOPD thi
Gee, if so then if we get space based energy collection systems going where they beam the energy down as microwaves - then a stroll through the park might do it.
Specifically Lentinula Edodes (Shitaki), some Pleurotus species including P. Ostreatus (oyster), Grifola frondosa (which has strong anti HIV properties as well), Hericium erinaceous and many others have been shown to have medicinal properties including anti cancer - anti-tumour, and anti-colesterol. Not all species are effective for all ailments of course. Some of these mushrooms are available in the supermarket.
If you cannot buy them it is feasible to grow them... They make nice pets. They don't bark - they don't bite people - you don't need to take them for a walk and you sure don't need to clean up after them. Also - they only need to be fed once.
There is good information on the net and seminars are available.
OpenBSD is free. See www.openBSD.org and you can D/L boot media and install from the net.
This is an excellent f/w solution with several capabilities such as if you run dual redundant paths and one f/w dies then the other will smootly pick up the traffic.
I would suggest running windows servers on the net is a bit crasy. But then I suppose Microsoft would not agree with what I might say.
I have to agree with this ruling even though XEROX may not have been able to pass the smell test.
Clearly XEROX purpose in building a copier was so that people can make legitimate copies of documents.
In the digital world this also can be the objective of file sharing. Please have a look at www.irtc.org
We are now at the point where individuals and groups can create their own copyrighted material. IE. We don't need hollywood or the RIAA. A for instance is the Greatful Dead would gladly have glombed on to a system that file shares.
So - I do not see this ruling as being much of a problem. I
1) we don't have reactor technology for Deuterium or Tritium so at this point He3 is so far off that there is little use even thinking about it.
2) we don't have the space transportation systems running reliably yet.
What we do have is a fully designed Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) designed by Argonne labs and shut down in 1994 by the CLinton Administration. This reactor will burn 100% of the actinides. Thus it produces no long term waste.
Furthermore it can burn natural uranium, depleated uranium and spent uranium.
Instead of the enriched reactors using less than 1% of the fuel per year (3 year cycle) after enrichment which wastes over 80% of the fuel - we end up with a 100% burn rate. Furthermore I expect it can run on a Thorium cycle.
By this measure - there is about a 60,000 year supply of uranium on hand without mining a single gram of new uranium - for a fleet of about 100 reactors in the Gwe capacity range. Of course the tank bullets would need to be reclaimbed.
Just think: 60,000 years supply (or 6,000 for a fleet of 1000 reactors which can power 100% of USA energy requirments) and no long term wastes and it uses a technology that actually exists.
Actually I agree with you. I think computers are being cheapened beyond beleif and this is one reason I'm not buying a new one.
I have optical drives that cost over $1000 bux and they have been running reliably for years. Now cdrom drives are fast and cheap and die fast too.
Next - when it comes to backups I shudder to entrust $100's thousands worth of data to a drive that costs only a few dollars. In the past we use to spend upwards of $30,000-70,000 for a 1/2" drive. They ran beautifully and the tapes they recorded can still be read 40 years alter - and I know where there are warehouses full of them and many companies reading them - its a nitch industry that Ihave been quite close to.
I wonder if the precious data stored on a DVD will be around in 5 years much less 40.
Reliability is much more important than cost. Fortunatley the amount of data Ihave is small enough that I can store it onto a reliable optical that I already own and which is advertized to have a minimum 50 year life... but these drives cost $1000 and up.
I personally have a 200 mHz ASUS MB with 64MB ram running now for over 12 months with no reboot and it cost me under $100 bux.
For my desktop I have a ASUS w/ BX440 chipset upgraded to a 1.3mHx tualatin core and I had to reboot it after upgrading from woody to sarge - but it ran without reboot for over a year as well.
Even on cheap hardware Linux is rather solid. But I run OpenBSD on the servers and OpenBSD is more secure and perhaps even more reliable than Linux.
Sure - good hardware is important but you don't necessarily need to spend alot of money to get good hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps - but you will also have to shut in all teh volcanos... Do you have some big bung's in mind?
The Americans use the NSA to monitor mon american communications because under their laws, foreigners have no rights. The Canadians use CISIS to monitor american communications for the same reasons. Then they trade data.
I once sent and email to Australia when the net was young and in it I used some words that could be interpreted in isolation as suspicious. Then I put a note in the email to the effect I knew it was going to be read by the NSA and I made a comment that if they were worried about what I was "really up to" they should check out www.blah.com.
Within 12 hours the server picked up hits from the NSA. Then they were dumb enough to be using windows machines. For anyone wanting to penetrate their security - its pretty trivia. A simple honeypot is a good start.
There seems to be just no limit to the depths of depravity that paranoia will drive these people. Then they think they are being righteous. Meanwhile as they go off chasing ghosts they are perfectly willing to ignore huge white collar crimes in the way of frauds that are being perpetrated via stock market and other swindles on an almost daily basis. Enron is just one example.
Mushrooms are not a plant. They are much closer to an animal than they are to a plant. Furthermore they can be grown at home.
The average person is not going to be able to grow meat any more than they might grow gormet mushrooms. However with work a small percentage might be able to master this.
In order to do this class 5 clean room conditions will have to be constructed and a degree in microbiology would be helpful. They will need a good microscope and an autocalve. Add to this laminar flow hoods.
It will be more difficult to culture muscle cells than it presently is to culture mushrooms. You need reasonable sterile conditions to grow mushrooms but not absolutly sterile. IE - you really can do it in your kitchen.
Also - the basic cell lines for mushrooms are available in every grocery store. This is a little easier than taking a muscle sample from your favorite cow or pig. The cells in a steak are dead. The cells in a muchroom are alive.
Also - substraits for mushrooms are much easier to come by. You can buy them by the tonne.
All of the world's supply of penicillin comes from a single strain of penicillium mould which was found growing on a catelope. Initially this strain produced very small amounts but through mutation the output had steadily increase so that now over 50,000 IU is produced per CC.
The strain is suitable for liquid culture - which is unusual for Penicllium. The early strains produced very little penicillin and were grown on stainless steel bed pans.
You can check the history of this at Tom Volk's website.
The point is that for 60 years now we have mono culture and there has not been a problem. Thus one would infer that there will not be a problem with the issue of meat cultured from a single strain. What is likely is that the quality will increase and there will be no bones.
The downside of this is what nutrients are required. While the artical does not mention this - meat cells need a very high quality nutrient source which is produced by the animal's digestive system from things like grass. So if we want to produce cultured beef then somone is going to have to build a digestive system.
Note that there has been work in this area as well.
Just quit.
It is very unprofessional to let the PHB make technical decisions. A doctor would not allow his patient to diagnose the disease any more than a lawyer takes legal advice from his client.
Sure you can do this. You just need electricty. This has to come from somewhere - so if you build 1000 nukes - about 1GWe (GW equivalent) - then you can eliminate all coal, all oil and all alternatives and produce 100% of the USA energy needs - all from Uranium.
And while you are at it maybe you want to revist the Integral Fast Reactor that Clinton shut down - designed by Argonne labs by 1994 because then there is 6000 years of fuel already mined and processed and sitting around and its called "spent" uranium and "depleted" uranium. Oh... and what of all the Thorium?
But - how many years for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve? Decades is my guess.
whoring my ass. If you didn't notice - Putin has decided to keep the oil reserves Russia has secret.
There is an energy war happening right now. While hopefully energy issues will not be linked to patent and OSS issues - the idea that Eastern Europe wants to hitch its wagon the the faltering USA economy and legal mess is very unlikely. Quite the opposite.
The US can do whatever it wants to and the rest of the world will put its feet up - grab a beer and vie for the popcorn stand.
It only takes on idjoit who wants to suppress ideas for this to happen. Before the idjoit came along it was at plus 4. However I didn't express the water vapour in the climate models as well as I could.
They still do not know if there is a quantitative change in water vapour. This IMHO is a very significant issue. Also they don't really know if water vapour increases whether the planet will cool for a short while due to increased cloud cover. Tim Patterson addresses this issue mind you and say cosmic rays affect cloud cover enough to force us into an ice age.
Now your comments are well taken. I agree. What you may not know is that there has been a letter written from a number of profs and ex profs to the Canadian government. You can read about it here:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php
Apparently the communication was scrubbed from the materials the minister was presented with. When you look at the list of who wrote it you will find the credentials are pretty imposing.
But this is what bigots do. If you say something they don't like to hear - rather than address it they attack you or try to suppress what you say.
-------------
One thing we should try to do is compare the climate of the late Cretaceous to now. Or we could chose miocene I guess. Back then the planet was 10C warmer than now with no ice at the poles - at least no glaciation. The humidity of the planet was a lot warmer and many of the young mountain chains we have now didn't exist back then. In addition the atmosphere was considerably thicker than it is now with about 31% O2 in place of the 21% we have now.
The thing is - we are locked into a snowball earth now because partly we have very arid poles and a lot of land at high elevation. The question in my mind is whether there has been enough erosion to remove enough of that high elevation land to place us into a stable hot house phase. I suspect the earth is bistable at this time and I suspect we can be in either a hot house or a snowball earth phase. But when caught in one or the other we stay there.
The thing is that increased CO2 is so small that it isn't going to make any significant difference. You have to add all the greenhouse gasses togather and multiply the concentrations by the efficiency of the gas and when you do this you will see that CO2 is a drop in the ocean.
A quote from the website above:
"97% of greenhouse gases are water vapour by volume. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2
---------------
Changes in CO2 might change the overall absorbancy from 97% by an additional 1% - assuming equal contribution (which it is not) and assuming that H2O is not changed (which is also not true) and assuming a 30% increase in CO2 - Ie a 30% increase in the 3% CO2 presently contributes.
Now look at an El Nino. The increases in H2O are VERY SIGNIFICANT. Surely we should be able to see some temperature response due to the long term effects of an El Nino. I have not seen anyone publish anything - in spite of the fact the H2O quantitative changes are very significant.
There is another factor which people do not talk about.
This is the fact that H2O operates at ground level. CO2 is dispersed through a much greater elevation range - however it is heavier than air so it should tend to concentrate a bit on the ground. Here mixing and air currents need to be modeled. The IPCC says they are weak in this area.
So if the balnket of water vapour near the surface of the earth is not as thick - then the energy can disperse. OTOH if it is thick then the H2O holds the energy and the CO2 above it doesn't matter because the energy gradient prevents the energy from even reaching out of the lower atmosphere. For this reason I would expect higher H2O at low elevations to warm the lower atmosphere and simultaneously cool the upper atmosp
You are partially correct. The cooling at the top of a mountain is due to the expansion of the air at high elevation. This takes energy and the energy is lost as heat.
However the trapping of the energy at the top of a mountain is what I am talking about. There is a greater amount of solar energy at the top of a mountain that at the sahara dessert for instance. This can easily be seen. The air absorbs solar energy. The solar constant in orbit is about 1.3 kw/m^2 and at sea level it is about 1.0 kw/m^2
The difference is what is absorbed by the atmosphere. And these numbers are from memory.
At the top of a mountain you have two processes working:
1) the energy is reflected back into space
2) there is not much up there to trap it
The lack of water vapour at high elevation is a critical factor. Get rid of the mountains and you have a number of factors that work together to warm up the planet.
What I meant is that quantitative CHANGES in the amount of water vapour is not being modeled. This is in chapter 7 of the report.
They clearly are saying that while they are doing their best they have a ways to go. The GCM assume water vapour changes are short lived in the atmosphere and that water vapour levels themselves are forced by other green house gasses. The paleoclimate record shows that water vapour concentrations will change with mountain building and ocean current changes. Thus the water vapour itself would be expected to drive climate change.
A for instance is that if we were to remove the mountains and high plateaus then both the atmospheric circulation patterns that create rain shawdow desserts would dissaper and the arid conditions would also disappear because the temperture increases over these land masses would allow the air to hold considerably more water than it does now.
Water Vapour has a powerful feedback mechanism. If we melt the poles for instance then the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere keeps these poles melted. If we freeze the whole planet then the loss of water vapour keeps it frozen for millions of years until CO2 levels can build up.
We have had several million years of erosion on the high elevation land areas and it is possible that the earth has passed the point where the next glacial cycle will kick in. If this is the case (which I doubt) then we may well revert back to the hothouse climate that the earth enjoyed over 80% of the last 540 million years.
As for the GCMs. re-read chapter 7. They keep saying positive things on each of the points they have addressed - yet in every instance they point out that they have serious weakneses. Maybe this is because they want to do more research and want more funding. To me it means they don't have the problem licked. In fact - often the GCM's don't even predict the correct direction of change and this is illustrated in many websites that talk about why we are still waiting for greenhouse.
eg http://www.john-daly.com/
wrt water vapour itself 7.2.1.3
Since the SAR, appraisal of the confidence in simulated water vapour feedback has shifted from a diffuse concern about upper-tropospheric humidity to a more focused concern about the role of microphysical processes in the convection parametrizations, and particularly those affecting tropical deep convection. Further progress will almost certainly require abandoning the artificial diagnostic separation between water vapour and cloud feedbacks."
wrt cloud cover ch 7.2.2.1
Measurements of cloud drop size distribution indicate a significant difference in the total number of drops and drop effective radius in the continental and maritime atmosphere, and some studies indicate that inclusion of more realistic drop size distribution may have a significant impact on the simulation of the present climate (Hahmann and Dickinson, 1997)."
wrt Convection processes ch 7.2.2.2
"The general effects of the convection parametrization on climate sensitivity are difficult to assess because the way a model responds to changes in convection depends on a range of other parametrizations, so results are somewhat inconsistent between models"
wrt Boundry layer mixing and cloudiness ch 7.2.2.3
"This points to the need for new approaches for boundary-layer turbulence, both for clear-sky and cloudy conditions"
wrt rainfall. ch 7.2.3.3
" These aspects have been explored only to a limited extent in climate models. No studies deal with true intensity of rainfall, which requires hourly (or higher resolution) data, and the analysis is typically of daily rainfall amounts."
wrt cloud processes 7.2.2.5
" In spite of these improvements, there has been no apparent narrowing of the uncertainty range associated with cloud feedbacks"
wrt precipitation ch 7.2.3.3
"Accordingly, it is important that much more attention should be devoted to precipita
I have worked from home for over 20 years and I never spanked my kids once!!!
Organise your house so they have their own areas separate from you. Also MOM should be able to help... not that my wife was any help because she wasn't. That is another issue but the sad fact is she couldn't and I had to look after her as well as the kids.
In spite of all of this I was still far more productive then I ever could have been in an office. Furthermore it left me in a situation where I could provide the care my family needed.
Thank gawd I had very understanding clients who loved my work and paid my the big bux so I would build the software they wanted. I will add that they had office space downtown and had programmers in some of that office space. They were willing to pay me over 2x what they paid their own employees and were willing to pay me while I worked at home. So I really think Graham is correct.... but clearly not for all people.
For about 80% of the last 540 million years the earth was about 10C warmer than now. We are presently in an ice age.
The earth was completely frozen over about 1 billion years ago and this ice age lasted probably about 1/2 billion years. Most likely it waxed and waned. When the oceans are completely frozen over they cannot absorb CO2 and the levels build up to over 100x what they are now. This is the change that the paleoclimate shows is required to lift the temperature enough to start thawing the oceans. By looking at this we can see the global warming folks are out to lunch.
In any event - the CO2 is released by volcanizm and these processes continue even though the planet is frozen over. When the levels get high enough to melt the ice then the CO2 starts to be absorbed and ends up in the carbon sinks. This can cause the earth to tip back into an ice age and the oceans can freeze over again.
Mixed into this equation is the role of water vapour. When the earth is fozen over - there is effetively no water vapour in the atmosphere. If one looks at the ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY CURVES one can see that below zero there is effectively no water vapour in the atmosphere. This is why it is so cold at the top of mountains.
So - as the oceans freeze over then the H2O in the atmosphere is also lost which accelerates the cooling of the planet.
At the present moment the earth would have to freeze down to near the tropics in order to flip us into a completely frozen over ice ball. There is enough water vapour especially in the humid sub tropics to trap enough heat that this is quite unlikely.
However it is very likely that we will see the advancing of another period of glaciation because there have been about 20 or so in the last 2+ million years.
This being said - eventually our current ice age will end and the planet will warm up about 10C. When this happens the poles will lose their ice caps - water vapour will form at high latitudes and lock the planet into a warm period which in the past has lasted typically for million of years.
The reasons for this are not completely clear. Dr. Tim Paterson from Carlton University has published that the orbit of the solar system in the galaxy may be the driving factor. The theory is that cosmic radiation increases the cloud cover which reflects energy thus cooling the planet.
It is also likely that the amount of land at high elevation is a significant factor. The earth was much warmer 30 million years ago than now. At that time we did not have the high Denver Plateau - the Tibetain plateau and most of our modern mountains such as the Rockies, Pyrenees, Alps, Andes, Himilaian and hellenic ranges were not formed.
Land at high elevation reflects energy into space - which is why you can freeze to death at the top of mount Everest for instance in spite of the fact it is in the subtropics and it is the middle of May. Furthermore the cold scrubs the water vapour.
At low elevation water vapour functions as a fairly effective blanket and furthermore in the tropics for instance at 40C it will be in concentrations of over 70,000 parts per million (eg 7%).
Water Vapour in fact is the 3rd most abundant atmospheric gas.
Compare this to the CO2 levels of 370 PPM.
If we were to increase CO2 levels by over 100x then we get CO2 into the range of 37,000 ppm and that this level it can do the job that water vapour is doing now. Note that at 19x it cannot. This is proven by the Ordovician ice age where in spite of CO2 levels between 13x and 19x greater than now - the earth cooled by about 10C and an ice age similar to what we have now developed.
At this time we also had a period of mountain building: The Taconic Orogeny.
One last point. Most of our global warming folks are looking at data that goes back no longer than human history. While this may seem to be a long time - it is not significant.
If one were to map the pages of the Encyclopeadia Britannica to the last 540 million years
I glanced through the essay and while there are some good suggestions the suggestions are inadequate.
/* Install window frame */ just before the hammer strokes? Well - this is why the analogy between a technical writer's world and a carpenter's world is weak at best even though it is overused.
Lets look at the function call for instance.
1) the data type of the parameters is not given and the method how these parameters are passed is not given.
2) we do not know if data is sent into the function via certain parameters or if the function returns data via certain parameters. We have no idea of the valid range of values and what units the parameters are expressed in. With (1) above - we have no idea how to call the function.
For instance suppose the function is to check the depth of something. We might expect the depth to be passed in as float, but what precision? Is the depth in inches, cm's, meters, feet, KM's? Nasa lost multi-million dollar probes because of this.
3) there should be a description of the function and any limitations, exceptions etc. in its operation.
4) preferably there should be some outline of the algorithm used so we know if the function has a chance of performing satisfactorally.
5) there should be date created and last revision information and a note why and by whom.
6) we should be able to extract the function documentation in a printed form - preferably with a decompiled call sequence and a list of all functions our function may call - system generated - and suitable for a manual with PAGE FORMATING inserted as requited by the utility that does the extract.
In this way if an up-to-date manual is required of our library then we can generate it simply and completely and instantly from one source: the code. Look at Doxygen for ideas in this area.
----------------
Consider what would happen if a carpenter documented a house. Would it be appropriate to write notes like:
However - the construction of a house is usually documented and its called the blue prints. Most carpenters do not dive into the construction of a house without a blueprint (although some can do a masterful job even if this step is skipped). Unfortunately most programmers are too optimistic.
The best program documentation is done BEFORE the program is written and takes the form of the skeleton I described about. With this skeleton in the form of comments in the sources - the library manual(s) can be printed off and reviewed and it becomes apparent to all what the library is going to do and how it is going to do it. Weaknesses can be easily corrected often before any significant amount of code has been committed.
Also with the code in the sources we are left with the situation that inconsistancies can be corrected easily.
BTW - I have written the vast majority of my code in this fashion for the last 20 years and it has saved my bacon many times. Also being in the position to tell management that a fully up-to-date manual can be printed off at any time with an hour's notice seems to instill a lot of confidence.
Yup - use goose feathers.
;-)
They are waterproof so moisture should not be a problem. Goose fat can be used for this.
They have excellent thermal properties
They are lightweight and don't form chucks.
They were made for flying and have been tested for millions of years.
The birds that provide the feathers can be used for other purposes - IE - we can eat em!
One way to attach the feathers might be to use skin. Maybe they can be tanned then sewn together like a giant touque. If NASA puts a zipper then at lift off perhaps the zipper can be unzipped and all the feathers can fall away.
An insulating system like this should be reuseable - all NASA has to do is wisk it away from the fire at the bottom.
This printer has been gone over several times and its always the same story. After a few copies the printer seems to print "dirty" copies. Could the "dirt" be these yellow dots?
If anyone can shed light on the problems I'd really like to get some information. A solution would be even better because Okidata did not seem to have one - the result being the printer is considered junk and could never be put into service.
David P. should have stayed with his bugs.
./ but given the crap factor that has been rearing its head in here... well - you all get the message.
This incorrect study has been making the rounds for a long time now. It has been thoroughly discredited many times over. I am suprised that it shows up in
----------
Ethanol is a decent source of energy - however the amount needed is such that it cannot be a solution. It can however help. Over the period of the next 10 years there probably isn't any solution other than to get the SUV's off the road.
Unfortunately the population of N.A. is not likely to do this willingly. In all liklihood the first few fords (found on road dead) will be towed off and this process will continue as long as tow truck operators can find fuel.
When the tow trucks run out of fuel then I suspect the solution will be to push them into the ditches - at least this will work until the ditches are filled. After that who knows.
There is a crisis comming - the issue is when. Some say by 2010 and some say before 2007. Wildly optimistic estimates say 2037. Frankly those estimates make me laugh - but I do hope they are correct.
Best estimates are that petroleum supplies will start to contract worldwide at 2% or more per year starting as soon as maybe 2007-2008 (and possibly before then - but there is hope into the 2008++ range).
I'm sure North Americans for instance think they can buy their way out of this. I kinda doubt it. Already we hear rumblings from certain exporting nations that they have no intention of increasing exports to North America.
At the present moment (2005) we can expect that Indoneasia is becomming a net oil importer along with the UK. This means that Australia needs to look for another source of supply for its imports since Indoneasia use to supply much of Australia's imports.
So we have the beginnings of the shortages happening right now. I expect the U.K. will be the bellweather and lead the world onto the petroleum diet that is waiting for us all.
During 2006 we can expect the 2nd largest feild (Canterral - measured from a production standpoint - not reserves) to go into terminal decline and the rate has been announced to be about 14% per year. This is about the decline rate the North Sea experianced.
Canterral produces about 2.1 million BOPD so we're going to lose about 300,000 BOPD starting within a year or so from this source.
It is an open question at this point if the largest field in the world (Ghawar) is in decline. The Saudis say no. Many experts are not so optimistic. Many experts say we will be in a crunch by Q4 this year.
At this point the North Sea has been in decline since about 1999 and production has dropped about 3 million BOPD. This decline will continue unless some new discoveries are found. So far there is drilling - but little success.
--------------
This leaves alternate fuels such as ethanol. It is not an energy loss as has been reported and in fact it is obvious this is the case. Any farmer who has sat on his tractor in the hot sun while tilling a field of barley wishing he had a cold beer in his hand (and who knows how to brew it) can do the arithmetic required.
However on the flip side.
The reality of the situation is that the best source of liquid fuel in North America (and in fact world wide) is from the Fischer-Tropche reaction. This is involved in Tar Sands production for instance as well is many stranded natural gas projects.
The investments in Alberta for instance are in the range of about $10 billion per year and these will continue into the foreseeable future.
Even with investments like this the projects will not be able to supply much more than 2-3 million BOPD by 2015. At a 2% world decline we can expect worldwide oil production to drop by a minimum of about 20% in the decade following Peak Oil.
Since we currently produce about 84 million BOPD thi
So do we get a packed decimal datatype yet? WHat of Zoned decimal?
Nuke em with a microwave?
Gee, if so then if we get space based energy collection systems going where they beam the energy down as microwaves - then a stroll through the park might do it.
Specifically Lentinula Edodes (Shitaki), some Pleurotus species including P. Ostreatus (oyster), Grifola frondosa (which has strong anti HIV properties as well), Hericium erinaceous and many others have been shown to have medicinal properties including anti cancer - anti-tumour, and anti-colesterol. Not all species are effective for all ailments of course. Some of these mushrooms are available in the supermarket.
If you cannot buy them it is feasible to grow them... They make nice pets. They don't bark - they don't bite people - you don't need to take them for a walk and you sure don't need to clean up after them. Also - they only need to be fed once.
There is good information on the net and seminars are available.
OpenBSD is free. See www.openBSD.org and you can D/L boot media and install from the net.
This is an excellent f/w solution with several capabilities such as if you run dual redundant paths and one f/w dies then the other will smootly pick up the traffic.
I would suggest running windows servers on the net is a bit crasy. But then I suppose Microsoft would not agree with what I might say.
I have to agree with this ruling even though XEROX may not have been able to pass the smell test.
Clearly XEROX purpose in building a copier was so that people can make legitimate copies of documents.
In the digital world this also can be the objective of file sharing. Please have a look at www.irtc.org
We are now at the point where individuals and groups can create their own copyrighted material. IE. We don't need hollywood or the RIAA. A for instance is the Greatful Dead would gladly have glombed on to a system that file shares.
So - I do not see this ruling as being much of a problem.
I
Oh crap! This garbage keeps circulating.
1) we don't have reactor technology for Deuterium or Tritium so at this point He3 is so far off that there is little use even thinking about it.
2) we don't have the space transportation systems running reliably yet.
What we do have is a fully designed Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) designed by Argonne labs and shut down in 1994 by the CLinton Administration. This reactor will burn 100% of the actinides. Thus it produces no long term waste.
Furthermore it can burn natural uranium, depleated uranium and spent uranium.
Instead of the enriched reactors using less than 1% of the fuel per year (3 year cycle) after enrichment which wastes over 80% of the fuel - we end up with a 100% burn rate. Furthermore I expect it can run on a Thorium cycle.
By this measure - there is about a 60,000 year supply of uranium on hand without mining a single gram of new uranium - for a fleet of about 100 reactors in the Gwe capacity range. Of course the tank bullets would need to be reclaimbed.
Just think: 60,000 years supply (or 6,000 for a fleet of 1000 reactors which can power 100% of USA energy requirments) and no long term wastes and it uses a technology that actually exists.
Actually I agree with you. I think computers are being cheapened beyond beleif and this is one reason I'm not buying a new one.
I have optical drives that cost over $1000 bux and they have been running reliably for years. Now cdrom drives are fast and cheap and die fast too.
Next - when it comes to backups I shudder to entrust $100's thousands worth of data to a drive that costs only a few dollars. In the past we use to spend upwards of $30,000-70,000 for a 1/2" drive. They ran beautifully and the tapes they recorded can still be read 40 years alter - and I know where there are warehouses full of them and many companies reading them - its a nitch industry that Ihave been quite close to.
I wonder if the precious data stored on a DVD will be around in 5 years much less 40.
Reliability is much more important than cost. Fortunatley the amount of data Ihave is small enough that I can store it onto a reliable optical that I already own and which is advertized to have a minimum 50 year life... but these drives cost $1000 and up.
Under the DMCA I beleive that would be illegal.
Better to stay with Linux and avoid the issues.
I personally have a 200 mHz ASUS MB with 64MB ram running now for over 12 months with no reboot and it cost me under $100 bux.
For my desktop I have a ASUS w/ BX440 chipset upgraded to a 1.3mHx tualatin core and I had to reboot it after upgrading from woody to sarge - but it ran without reboot for over a year as well.
Even on cheap hardware Linux is rather solid. But I run OpenBSD on the servers and OpenBSD is more secure and perhaps even more reliable than Linux.
Sure - good hardware is important but you don't necessarily need to spend alot of money to get good hardware.