The link says that one of the intermediate products of methanol combustion is formaldehyde. Who cares if formaldehyde is produced and immediately burned inside the engine? What matters is how much comes out the tailpipe. It seems that alcohol fuels do produce somewhat more aldehyde than gasoline, but they produce somewhat lower amounts of other pollutants.
Well, yeah, there are even human-powered aircraft. But you're not going to power jet aircraft with pedal power, are you? The largest aircraft in your examples seems to be a two-seater prop plane.
I don't know of any alternative to power many of our planes besides carbon-based fuels. We can fly jets with biofuels today. Let me know when there's a large jet that runs off hydrogen, solar, or electric. Until then, we certainly are looking for carbon-based fuels.
We are looking for carbon-based fuels to replace fossil fuels. That's what biofuels are. I don't know of any energy source that can power airplanes other than carbon-based fuels.
When methane is used as a fuel, the waste gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide. If the carbon in the methane recently came from the atmosphere, it will not cause a net increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Their internet sites are completely intertwined because until recently Thunderbird was developed by Mozilla. My point is not that the separation is causing a slowdown of development, but that you're asking the wrong company to speed up development.
Unfortunately a lot of science is dogmatic as well. If I were to claim that I invented a machine that produced more energy than I put in, would I get a fair hearing?
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other inventors who have made the exact same claim, and they have all been wrong. If you make the same claim and are ignored, I think it has less to do with dogmatism and more to do with pragmatically following up on what sounds like useful research instead of crackpottery.
My impression is that AdBlock Plus for Firefox blocks all ads, or at least tries to block all ads. Chrome seems to block popup ads well, and if there were an extension that blocked just Flash ads that would be good enough for me. The simple text and non-animated graphic ads at the sides of web pages don't bother me.
All governments control their economy to some extent. Only the U.S. government can print money. Oh noes! We've been Communist all this time and haven't even known it!
Communism is not about who controls companies. Communism means that the government owns the means of production, takes all profit, and distributes it among everyone. In Communism, no one can own a business or take profit from a company. You can read the definition of Communism. They refer to the government owning all capital property and controlling all economic activity. Even if the government owns all medical companies, controls them completely, and takes all the profit, that still isn't Communism.
Communism is not about abolishing the private ownership of individual companies. It is about abolishing the private ownership of all companies. If the government owns one bank, they do not abolish the right for private ownership of other banks. We're all still free to start our own companies, retain full ownership of them, and pocket the profits. You cannot do that in a Communist country.
I still don't see anyone abolishing private ownership of anything. Anyone is free to open a bank, an auto manufacturer, or hospital, that is privately owned. The government makes all sorts of regulations about what companies can and cannot do all the time. It has even split up companies that abused their monopoly power. That is not Communism.
The press are reporting that Obama's approval rating dropped sharply after his comment that the police "acted stupidly" by arresting Gates. You're obviously wrong that the press will not show Obama in a negative light. Could it be that you have some sort of bias that is clouding your perceptions?
I see. And he decided the previous year that he would write the article on April 17? Or did he see what he wanted on April 16, then rushed to write the article?
If you bother to read the sources I gave a while ago, you'll see that Arctic ice reached its lowest area of coverage in 2007, but the volume is still decreasing.
If Reuters isn't a reputable news source, what is?
The trick in the first article is that he mysteriously picks April 16 as the day uses to compare different years' ice coverages. He obviously picked that specific date after the fact, because it's the date that gives him the conclusion he wants to reach. I can also hit a bulls-eye every time if I'm allowed to draw the target after I throw the dart. As for a reliable source that refutes his claims, I gave three.
Even a one meter rise is sea level will be devestating to many U.S. coastal cities. You can watch this video to see the effects of even a small rise in sea level and jump to 22 minutes into the lecture to see the simulations. And although the sea level is predicted to rise one meter in the next century, it isn't expected to suddenly stop rising after 100 years.
Slashdot Mirror
The link says that one of the intermediate products of methanol combustion is formaldehyde. Who cares if formaldehyde is produced and immediately burned inside the engine? What matters is how much comes out the tailpipe. It seems that alcohol fuels do produce somewhat more aldehyde than gasoline, but they produce somewhat lower amounts of other pollutants.
Well, yeah, there are even human-powered aircraft. But you're not going to power jet aircraft with pedal power, are you? The largest aircraft in your examples seems to be a two-seater prop plane.
I don't know of any alternative to power many of our planes besides carbon-based fuels. We can fly jets with biofuels today. Let me know when there's a large jet that runs off hydrogen, solar, or electric. Until then, we certainly are looking for carbon-based fuels.
We are looking for carbon-based fuels to replace fossil fuels. That's what biofuels are. I don't know of any energy source that can power airplanes other than carbon-based fuels.
When methane is used as a fuel, the waste gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide. If the carbon in the methane recently came from the atmosphere, it will not cause a net increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Their internet sites are completely intertwined because until recently Thunderbird was developed by Mozilla. My point is not that the separation is causing a slowdown of development, but that you're asking the wrong company to speed up development.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other inventors who have made the exact same claim, and they have all been wrong. If you make the same claim and are ignored, I think it has less to do with dogmatism and more to do with pragmatically following up on what sounds like useful research instead of crackpottery.
More importantly, it creates a "controversy," and then they can teach the controversy.
Of course he was trolling. Everyone knows that the gnomes collect underpants!
What is JavaScript rendering?
Thunderbird development got handed off to the spinoff company Mozilla Messaging.
That problem affected only a small percentage of users, and was fixed in Firefox 3.5.1.
If you want Adblock, I think I heard somewhere that SRWare Iron supports it.
My impression is that AdBlock Plus for Firefox blocks all ads, or at least tries to block all ads. Chrome seems to block popup ads well, and if there were an extension that blocked just Flash ads that would be good enough for me. The simple text and non-animated graphic ads at the sides of web pages don't bother me.
All governments control their economy to some extent. Only the U.S. government can print money. Oh noes! We've been Communist all this time and haven't even known it!
So all countries with socialized medicine have had a Communist take over? Canada? England? Australia?
Communism is not about who controls companies. Communism means that the government owns the means of production, takes all profit, and distributes it among everyone. In Communism, no one can own a business or take profit from a company. You can read the definition of Communism. They refer to the government owning all capital property and controlling all economic activity. Even if the government owns all medical companies, controls them completely, and takes all the profit, that still isn't Communism.
Communism is not about abolishing the private ownership of individual companies. It is about abolishing the private ownership of all companies. If the government owns one bank, they do not abolish the right for private ownership of other banks. We're all still free to start our own companies, retain full ownership of them, and pocket the profits. You cannot do that in a Communist country.
I still don't see anyone abolishing private ownership of anything. Anyone is free to open a bank, an auto manufacturer, or hospital, that is privately owned. The government makes all sorts of regulations about what companies can and cannot do all the time. It has even split up companies that abused their monopoly power. That is not Communism.
Who is discussing abolishing private ownership?
Obama has been called a communist on Fox News. There you go again!
The press are reporting that Obama's approval rating dropped sharply after his comment that the police "acted stupidly" by arresting Gates. You're obviously wrong that the press will not show Obama in a negative light. Could it be that you have some sort of bias that is clouding your perceptions?
Yeah, you're right! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on, uh, you can't get fooled again!
It's a joke, son.
I see. And he decided the previous year that he would write the article on April 17? Or did he see what he wanted on April 16, then rushed to write the article?
If you bother to read the sources I gave a while ago, you'll see that Arctic ice reached its lowest area of coverage in 2007, but the volume is still decreasing.
If Reuters isn't a reputable news source, what is?
The trick in the first article is that he mysteriously picks April 16 as the day uses to compare different years' ice coverages. He obviously picked that specific date after the fact, because it's the date that gives him the conclusion he wants to reach. I can also hit a bulls-eye every time if I'm allowed to draw the target after I throw the dart. As for a reliable source that refutes his claims, I gave three.
Even a one meter rise is sea level will be devestating to many U.S. coastal cities. You can watch this video to see the effects of even a small rise in sea level and jump to 22 minutes into the lecture to see the simulations. And although the sea level is predicted to rise one meter in the next century, it isn't expected to suddenly stop rising after 100 years.