So when does calling the president an unsavory name get you exiled?
I believe it was Reagan who banned the Canadian authur Farley Mowat over his threat to shoot down any US ICBM's passing overhead *with his personal gun*.
You're saying the same thing I am. Which is that if the driving force was to create biodegradable landing lights the statement is fine.
It says that the goal is to create biodegradable landing lights that can be seen through flying dirt.
I see 3 possible reads of the statement:
1. It's quite redundant since as you say *any* luminenscence can be seen through the flying dirt.
2. It is implying that non-biodegradable lights can't be seen. Which we agree is false.
3. It actually means that one of the driving forces is to create biodegradable lights that somehow have 'additional' features of being seen through flying dirt.
Comments further down suggest that perhaps '3' is the answer in that the biodegradable lights might emit infrared light, which can be seen through the dirt, perhaps even better than visible light.
That was never implied. All that was implied was that it could be a more convenient and biodegradable that other ways of putting luminous markers. As for seeing through the dust, it helps because it is luminous....doesn't matter that it is biological.
No it wasn't implied, it was directly mentioned as a feature.
From the article:
A possible military use of bio-luminescence would be creating biodegradable landing zone markers that helicopters can spot even as wind from their rotors kicks up dirt.
emphasis mine.
If the statement ended with "that helicopters can spot." I would agree, but they added the additional reason that they could be seen through the flying dirt. I'm pretty sure that regular markers are capable of being seen through flying dirt because they are 'luminous' as you mention. So the inclusion of the 'see through dirt' means it was a reason they want them. Which is a ridiculous statement for the reporter to make.
having played both sides of this particular fence, I find that developers quickly gain production access when the prod support and mgmt teams realizes what mimicing the production environment *exactly* in test and dev environments would actually cost.
obviously not unfettered access, and monitored as well, but you just can't fix things you can't reproduce without oodles and oodles of time and expense that is much easier rectified by just letting them access the prod environment.
Likewise building a program capable of completely logging it's exact environment and conditions so that any unknown future bug can be properly troubleshot just isn't going to be approved as part of the budget. Give them the access and verify *everything* they do.
Yep. I used to think the sun was not a good source of power. I then looked at the data. Most solar panels suck but the sun does not.
As has been said, oil, gas, coal are *all* products of solar. They have just concentrated millions of years worth of sunlight into something we can burn. Unfortunately that simply won't last. They won't be replenished as fast as we are using them.
Now add in the fact that burning these fuels is causing significant and measurable changes in the world today.
Why not skip the unsustainable middleman and invest in technology and research to increase those 'horrible' solar panels.
Any other industry would *FUCKING LOVE* a free fuel source and would gladly make as many production units as necessary to harness that free fuel.
Why we can't see this as the way of the future I just don't comprehend. Oil/coal/gas will only get more expensive, solar will never get more expensive because the fuel is free.
The difference is that by running the public transit continually, empty or not, you have a base energy usage load that doesn't change too terribly much regardless of ridership. The more riders the better the efficiency of the system.
Using individual cars the energy usage scales linearly with the amount of riders.
The base load comparison is what needs to be made, not whether you run buses empty or not.
Using reservoirs for energy storage is certainly not a new thing, but it requires very significant amounts of land that may or may not be available or geographically suitable. Many of the best hydro locations have already been used or are being used already by people for other purposes.
I dunno how much energy you could store if, say, everyone had a large water tank on their roof and a small generator/pump to store energy for use later. Just a wild guess at a less 'intrusive' solution than massive water reservoirs.
Partly by having a widely enough dispersed supply of wind farm, it actually produces a base load capacity. i.e. the wind is always blowing somewhere.
Likewise it is technically possible to use the whole system as a battery itself, some people are putting in while others are taking out so that it becomes a psuedo type battery.
Obviously these things are dependent on fairly specific details of the system, the geography and the usage needs of the user base. It may not be 'practical' on a large scale but it is certainly 'possible'.
Using this fact in conjunction with more efficiency and multiple input sources it may very well be possible to do this.
CO2 is a pollutant in enough concentration, just as is oxygen and anything else.
the eras with the greatest abundance and diversity of life (plant and animal) have had CO2 levels several times higher than what we currently have
you know what else they had? a lack of 'us'. Just because a specific environment existed at one time does *not* mean it is meant to exist now, nor that we can survive in it.
even if those as of yet unproven claims against CO2 are somehow proven true
like say a chunk of glacier 4 times the size of Manhatten breaking off of Greenland today? or the fact that at Glacier National Park, you can't even *see* the glaciers from the main viewing point anymore? or the fact that rate of sea level rise has doubled in the last 50 years? or that the last decade is the warmest on record?
What *would* be proof to you that it is happening?
I still produce less pollution and CO2 by driving the car, than I would trading it in on a new car that would get double or even triple the gas mileage, since producing a car, particularly a hybrid, produces so much pollution.
Using an existing resource is somewhat better than constructing a new one, but only marginally since you have to replace the vehicle at some point regardless. And again, if the costs of CO2 release are factored in the equation gets a lot more in favor of lower CO2 cars than even existing high CO2 ones.
as for hybrids being so much more polluting, it can very much depend on the batteries. Take lead acid batteries for instance. They are one of the most recycled materials on the planet. Hybrid batteries will likewise be valuable for their reconditioning into new batteries.
Which as you say about your car is better than making a whole new battery right?
I'd rather just burn petrol with the proven exhaust filters
BS alert! Please provide proof that there exist 'filters' that can stop CO2 from being produced from an ICE that can scale to billions of vehicles.
Changing the cars is the first step. Once cars are electric, changing the power supply is easy in comparison to trying to 'clean' up billions of mobile emission points.
It seems clear we are within a year or two of a new headline, "non-hybrids fail to provide savings."
closer than you think, the newly revamped Ford Explorer 4 cyl actually costs *more* than the 6-cyl engine. Granted its some high falootin 'eco 4cyl' type dohickey that they are probably vastly over charging for, but the principle just ticks me off;-)
Slashdot Mirror
He must have fallen for the pre-launch hype
really?
Unless your tunnel extends into space, going from significantly reduced pressure into higher pressure is going to be like a bug and a windshield.
Yeah but going mach 10 at ground level isn't exactly rainbows and ponies either...
So when does calling the president an unsavory name get you exiled?
I believe it was Reagan who banned the Canadian authur Farley Mowat over his threat to shoot down any US ICBM's passing overhead *with his personal gun*.
Talk about overreacting.
A fair reading, but I would still say that the original statement is misleading.
By your reasonable definition, they should have said "create biodegradable lights [that are strong enough] to be seen through flying dirt".
the relevant question though, is does Android have similar 'features'?
You're saying the same thing I am. Which is that if the driving force was to create biodegradable landing lights the statement is fine.
It says that the goal is to create biodegradable landing lights that can be seen through flying dirt.
I see 3 possible reads of the statement:
1. It's quite redundant since as you say *any* luminenscence can be seen through the flying dirt.
2. It is implying that non-biodegradable lights can't be seen. Which we agree is false.
3. It actually means that one of the driving forces is to create biodegradable lights that somehow have 'additional' features of being seen through flying dirt.
Comments further down suggest that perhaps '3' is the answer in that the biodegradable lights might emit infrared light, which can be seen through the dirt, perhaps even better than visible light.
That was never implied. All that was implied was that it could be a more convenient and biodegradable that other ways of putting luminous markers. As for seeing through the dust, it helps because it is luminous....doesn't matter that it is biological.
No it wasn't implied, it was directly mentioned as a feature.
From the article:
A possible military use of bio-luminescence would be creating biodegradable landing zone markers that helicopters can spot even as wind from their rotors kicks up dirt.
emphasis mine. If the statement ended with "that helicopters can spot." I would agree, but they added the additional reason that they could be seen through the flying dirt. I'm pretty sure that regular markers are capable of being seen through flying dirt because they are 'luminous' as you mention. So the inclusion of the 'see through dirt' means it was a reason they want them. Which is a ridiculous statement for the reporter to make.
that's why you always ask the dog, they'll do anything if you give them bacon ;-)
you obviously don't watch enough hollywood geek thriller movies. Someone is *always* going to die if the information isn't found right fscking now!
"Colbert" is in fact a persona not a real person,
and the single best part of this is the Bush Administrations complete idoicy when they booked him for the White House Correspondents Dinner.
That was pure gold.
having played both sides of this particular fence, I find that developers quickly gain production access when the prod support and mgmt teams realizes what mimicing the production environment *exactly* in test and dev environments would actually cost.
obviously not unfettered access, and monitored as well, but you just can't fix things you can't reproduce without oodles and oodles of time and expense that is much easier rectified by just letting them access the prod environment.
Likewise building a program capable of completely logging it's exact environment and conditions so that any unknown future bug can be properly troubleshot just isn't going to be approved as part of the budget. Give them the access and verify *everything* they do.
What if they finish their wall first? ;-)
You bet! We'll get right on that right after we finish the wall on the border.
Wait what do you mean no 'Americans' wants to work minimum wage in hazardous conditions?
figured probably as much. Just a WAG anyways ;-) appreciate the info.
f you expand your renewable power production, there is nothing that stops you from repurposing the stations you already have
Where do you put the water those repurposed stations would use to store/generate the power?
If you're talking about storing enough energy to power the grid, you most definitely are going to need new facilities.
Yep. I used to think the sun was not a good source of power. I then looked at the data. Most solar panels suck but the sun does not.
As has been said, oil, gas, coal are *all* products of solar. They have just concentrated millions of years worth of sunlight into something we can burn. Unfortunately that simply won't last. They won't be replenished as fast as we are using them.
Now add in the fact that burning these fuels is causing significant and measurable changes in the world today.
Why not skip the unsustainable middleman and invest in technology and research to increase those 'horrible' solar panels.
Any other industry would *FUCKING LOVE* a free fuel source and would gladly make as many production units as necessary to harness that free fuel.
Why we can't see this as the way of the future I just don't comprehend. Oil/coal/gas will only get more expensive, solar will never get more expensive because the fuel is free.
The difference is that by running the public transit continually, empty or not, you have a base energy usage load that doesn't change too terribly much regardless of ridership. The more riders the better the efficiency of the system.
Using individual cars the energy usage scales linearly with the amount of riders.
The base load comparison is what needs to be made, not whether you run buses empty or not.
Using reservoirs for energy storage is certainly not a new thing, but it requires very significant amounts of land that may or may not be available or geographically suitable. Many of the best hydro locations have already been used or are being used already by people for other purposes.
I dunno how much energy you could store if, say, everyone had a large water tank on their roof and a small generator/pump to store energy for use later. Just a wild guess at a less 'intrusive' solution than massive water reservoirs.
Partly by having a widely enough dispersed supply of wind farm, it actually produces a base load capacity. i.e. the wind is always blowing somewhere.
Likewise it is technically possible to use the whole system as a battery itself, some people are putting in while others are taking out so that it becomes a psuedo type battery.
Obviously these things are dependent on fairly specific details of the system, the geography and the usage needs of the user base. It may not be 'practical' on a large scale but it is certainly 'possible'.
Using this fact in conjunction with more efficiency and multiple input sources it may very well be possible to do this.
CO2 is not pollution.
CO2 is a pollutant in enough concentration, just as is oxygen and anything else.
the eras with the greatest abundance and diversity of life (plant and animal) have had CO2 levels several times higher than what we currently have
you know what else they had? a lack of 'us'. Just because a specific environment existed at one time does *not* mean it is meant to exist now, nor that we can survive in it.
even if those as of yet unproven claims against CO2 are somehow proven true
like say a chunk of glacier 4 times the size of Manhatten breaking off of Greenland today? or the fact that at Glacier National Park, you can't even *see* the glaciers from the main viewing point anymore? or the fact that rate of sea level rise has doubled in the last 50 years? or that the last decade is the warmest on record?
What *would* be proof to you that it is happening?
I still produce less pollution and CO2 by driving the car, than I would trading it in on a new car that would get double or even triple the gas mileage, since producing a car, particularly a hybrid, produces so much pollution.
Using an existing resource is somewhat better than constructing a new one, but only marginally since you have to replace the vehicle at some point regardless. And again, if the costs of CO2 release are factored in the equation gets a lot more in favor of lower CO2 cars than even existing high CO2 ones.
as for hybrids being so much more polluting, it can very much depend on the batteries. Take lead acid batteries for instance. They are one of the most recycled materials on the planet. Hybrid batteries will likewise be valuable for their reconditioning into new batteries.
Which as you say about your car is better than making a whole new battery right?
but fairly clean, since gasoline burns cleanly these days
Really, you've managed to not emit CO2 while running your ICE? do tell....because Thermodynamics Laws everywhere want to know why they are wrong....
I'd rather just burn petrol with the proven exhaust filters
BS alert! Please provide proof that there exist 'filters' that can stop CO2 from being produced from an ICE that can scale to billions of vehicles.
Changing the cars is the first step. Once cars are electric, changing the power supply is easy in comparison to trying to 'clean' up billions of mobile emission points.
That tax rebate basically means that the rest of us are paying for part of your car.
It also means hybrid owners are paying way more in subsidies to big oil when they aren't using as much of it. Linky
Nothing like 12 times as much subsidy for big oil as for 'green' tech.
It seems clear we are within a year or two of a new headline, "non-hybrids fail to provide savings."
closer than you think, the newly revamped Ford Explorer 4 cyl actually costs *more* than the 6-cyl engine. Granted its some high falootin 'eco 4cyl' type dohickey that they are probably vastly over charging for, but the principle just ticks me off ;-)