I understand the logic. That's not the issue. If the facts are in error, the logic operating on those facts will lead you to a perfectly reasonable conclusion that happens to be dead wrong; i.e. "garbage in, garbage out." Example: There exists a credible body of evidence to the effect that the next Ice Age has already started, and it may well be that all the particulates and greenhouse gases we're dumping into the atmosphere are what's holding back the glaciers. Can everyone living north of about 37 degrees N. latitude agree that this is a Good Thing? If it's true, that is. It's also possible that we really are flirting with a runaway greenhouse effect, and those who don't drown in the coastal cities will shrivel up as the groundwater vanishes. We simply don't know enough about the Earth's ecological dynamics to make predictions that are more than semi-educated guesses, and therefore there is no "safe" assumption because anything we do or don't do could land us in the soup in 50 years, be it boiling or frozen.
Same logic, different conclusion. It's all in the facts.
[sigh] All that being said, I'm to the point of despair over finding credible, unbiased environmental information. It seems as though everyone researching or (especially) reporting ecological issues has an agenda, and they rarely hesitate to cook and/or twist and/or ignore data as necessary to support their POV. SciAm has always been a rare exception to the rule. I found their articles on Lomborg's book to be reasonably balanced, but did anyone else get the impression that the authors would've been delighted if they'd been able to tear it apart?
...Network Associates' attempt to use their EULA fine print to pre-censor independent reviews of their products.
...Microsoft's similar action with the FrontPage 2K license.
...China's "national proxy server," and private web use / e-mail monitoring.
...AOL's mega-anal chat room monitors.
...The ongoing efforts to force libraries to use site blockers on their net PCs.
..."Voluntary" ratings on movies/TV/games.
(Coming Soon: equally "voluntary" web page ratings!)
...Australia's increasingly Draconian net censorship laws.
...France's attempt to force a U.S. company (Yahoo) to deNazify its online content.
...Marketers' rights to advertise their products vs. consumers' rights not to pay to download two dozen "Make $5000/month while enlarging your penis!" ads every day.
(This isn't really a censorship issue, but that's the way the spam wraiths cast it.)
I have a horrible nightmare about sparks and electrical fire leaping up out of my computer from where the water-line broke.
Does anyone know if any OCers have experimented with high dielectric fluids like this? Probably costs arm + leg, but you wouldn't need all that much (unless you're immersing the whole box!), and no kablooey if it leaks.
Possible? Sure; the traction motors don't care where the power comes from.
Practical? A quick browse of TrainWeb revealed that a typical locomotive diesel cranks out about 4500 horsepower, which is about 3.4 megawatts. The DOE expects fuel cell efficiency to reach 75% by 2015, whereas diesels peak at about 45%. So figure a fuel-cell-powered locomotive would require about 2MW. Energy Research Corp. is developing multi-megawatt generators for the Navy, so a rail version isn't too great of a stretch. One of DOE's goals in this same timeframe is to cut the cost of fuel cell energy to two-thirds that of a diesel generator, so a fuel-cell locomotive may even be cost effective before long.
   ddb (who has a vague, grainy-black-and-white childhood memory of seeing a steam-powered freight, ca. 1958)
[nod] That's exactly what scares me about SATS. I've seen entirely too much idiocy in my lousy 70 hours in the air. And now the same people who think that a few hours' instruction means they can drive safely at 80mph with a cel phone in one hand and sandwich in the other will be tailgating me at 6500' while playing with the GPS and IMing their girlfriends. Charming.
DDB (who never seems to have a Sidewinder handy when he really, really needs one)
>Supposedly, it's nearly impossible to get
>the Ercoupe into a spin.
And, unlike conventional aircraft, it's nearly impossible to land the Ercoupe in a stiff crosswind. Safe landings frequently require a degree - sometimes a great degree - of uncoordinated roll/yaw control.
As with everything else in life it's a trade-off, but I'll take the unlinked controls - crosswind operations are routine at small airports, and it's quite difficult to spin a modern light aircraft.
Re:Adams is smug
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's hardly fair to attach labels like "smug", "arrogant", and "scarcely researched" to Adams' "serious" writing when he makes it quite clear that he's only playing with ideas, and YMM (and probably will) V. As with any experiment, the gedanken variety sometimes works, and frequently doesn't. Imho most of that last section of Dilbert Future was ludicrous. Otoh, I consider the last section of Dilbert Principle one of the sanest pieces of business writing ever published. God's Debris (imho again) falls somewhere between these; a mental playground that won't interest the Nobel committee, but will give many of us a refreshing, entertaining cerebral workout. Which is exactly as Adams intended.
Slashdot Mirror
Example: There exists a credible body of evidence to the effect that the next Ice Age has already started, and it may well be that all the particulates and greenhouse gases we're dumping into the atmosphere are what's holding back the glaciers. Can everyone living north of about 37 degrees N. latitude agree that this is a Good Thing? If it's true, that is. It's also possible that we really are flirting with a runaway greenhouse effect, and those who don't drown in the coastal cities will shrivel up as the groundwater vanishes. We simply don't know enough about the Earth's ecological dynamics to make predictions that are more than semi-educated guesses, and therefore there is no "safe" assumption because anything we do or don't do could land us in the soup in 50 years, be it boiling or frozen.
Same logic, different conclusion. It's all in the facts.
[sigh] All that being said, I'm to the point of despair over finding credible, unbiased environmental information. It seems as though everyone researching or (especially) reporting ecological issues has an agenda, and they rarely hesitate to cook and/or twist and/or ignore data as necessary to support their POV. SciAm has always been a rare exception to the rule. I found their articles on Lomborg's book to be reasonably balanced, but did anyone else get the impression that the authors would've been delighted if they'd been able to tear it apart?
DDB (42d 29m N, 83d 2m W)
...Network Associates' attempt to use their EULA fine print to pre-censor independent reviews of their products.
...Microsoft's similar action with the FrontPage 2K license.
...China's "national proxy server," and private web use / e-mail monitoring.
...AOL's mega-anal chat room monitors.
...The ongoing efforts to force libraries to use site blockers on their net PCs.
..."Voluntary" ratings on movies/TV/games.
(Coming Soon: equally "voluntary" web page ratings!)
...Australia's increasingly Draconian net censorship laws.
...France's attempt to force a U.S. company (Yahoo) to deNazify its online content.
...Marketers' rights to advertise their products vs. consumers' rights not to pay to download two dozen "Make $5000/month while enlarging your penis!" ads every day.
(This isn't really a censorship issue, but that's the way the spam wraiths cast it.)
DDB (...{chime}...make that two dozen + three...)
Does anyone know if any OCers have experimented with high dielectric fluids like this? Probably costs arm + leg, but you wouldn't need all that much (unless you're immersing the whole box!), and no kablooey if it leaks.
Practical? A quick browse of TrainWeb revealed that a typical locomotive diesel cranks out about 4500 horsepower, which is about 3.4 megawatts. The DOE expects fuel cell efficiency to reach 75% by 2015, whereas diesels peak at about 45%. So figure a fuel-cell-powered locomotive would require about 2MW. Energy Research Corp. is developing multi-megawatt generators for the Navy, so a rail version isn't too great of a stretch. One of DOE's goals in this same timeframe is to cut the cost of fuel cell energy to two-thirds that of a diesel generator, so a fuel-cell locomotive may even be cost effective before long.
   ddb (who has a vague, grainy-black-and-white childhood memory of seeing a steam-powered freight, ca. 1958)
b/a = complete recirculation of the water in just under 10 seconds. Sounds more like the piscean equivalent of a wind tunnel...
[nod] That's exactly what scares me about SATS. I've seen entirely too much idiocy in my lousy 70 hours in the air. And now the same people who think that a few hours' instruction means they can drive safely at 80mph with a cel phone in one hand and sandwich in the other will be tailgating me at 6500' while playing with the GPS and IMing their girlfriends. Charming.
DDB (who never seems to have a Sidewinder handy when he really, really needs one)
>Supposedly, it's nearly impossible to get
>the Ercoupe into a spin.
And, unlike conventional aircraft, it's nearly impossible to land the Ercoupe in a stiff crosswind. Safe landings frequently require a degree - sometimes a great degree - of uncoordinated roll/yaw control.
As with everything else in life it's a trade-off, but I'll take the unlinked controls - crosswind operations are routine at small airports, and it's quite difficult to spin a modern light aircraft.
It's hardly fair to attach labels like "smug", "arrogant", and "scarcely researched" to Adams' "serious" writing when he makes it quite clear that he's only playing with ideas, and YMM (and probably will) V. As with any experiment, the gedanken variety sometimes works, and frequently doesn't. Imho most of that last section of Dilbert Future was ludicrous. Otoh, I consider the last section of Dilbert Principle one of the sanest pieces of business writing ever published. God's Debris (imho again) falls somewhere between these; a mental playground that won't interest the Nobel committee, but will give many of us a refreshing, entertaining cerebral workout. Which is exactly as Adams intended.