with calling Hydrogen "renewable fuel"? It still has to be generated - and most of the energy we use to extract Hydrogen comes from burning fossil fuels.
Now, if we could get electric generation down to solar/wind/geothermal/nuclear (and we NEED nuclear, because there's no way solar/wind/geothermal can equate to even 25% of our current use, let alone what increased population will need), maybe. But it's still lossy as fuck making hydrogen.
I believe what you have to show is damage to reputation, which means you have to show that you had a reputation to damage
How the fuck has Tom Cruise managed to succeed then? His only reputation is that of an insane, fucked-up loser who joined a criminal scam cult.
I mean ok, sure, he could descend to the level of Mohammed or Warren Jeffs or his current cult's founder L-Ron and try to start his own religion too, but...
Like I said - your mirrors are probably better than 90% reflective (maybe even above 99%). Aluminum foil is at best 55% reflective. Your testing shows the difference in power.
A 12-foot dish (which he says is getting approx. 1300 watts) has a rough circular area of 113 square feet (if it were flat). A 10-foot dish is only 78 square feet (if it were flat).
In addition, he's using glass mirrors, probably above 90% reflective. The best you're going to get out of tinfoil is 55%.
So, back of the napkin calculations, the 10-ft unit with tinfoil probably is giving at best (presuming ideal sun conditions) around 5000 watts of power. Assume even more loss once you set up a heating plate, lose power to a less than "sealed" cooking area, and shadows cast by your cooking surface/area. You're not going to superheat a watermelon with that, though you may need to add a bit of venting if you think it's getting "too" hot and scorching something.
As with any oven, a little foresight in preparation - visible thermometer, adjustable venting - does wonders.
First, the focal point isn't so much a "point" as a reasonably sized zone. Second, the tinfoil itself isn't going to sit precisely flat and perfect; you're going to double or triple the size of the zone, easily. Third, you're going to get some loss to wrinkling. Fourth, you'll lose a good amount of energy to whatever shadow your cooking object casts.
A highly wet object (brined/marinated meat) is going to cook for quite a bit in that spot without "bursting into flames."
What you'll get is going to look a lot like this. Given that one is actually mirrored and is maybe 5-6ft diameter, back-of-the-napkin math says a 10-ft aluminum foil slapdash job should be in the right ballpark.
Because the market evolution has run from a "give away the razor, sell the blades" perspective for so long.
The printer companies are addicted to the money from overcharging on ink and toner. They can't imagine doing it any other way. Right now the goal is to make every other consumable part as shitty and broken as possible.
Fusers? I've seen models from Sharp that last maybe 5,000 pages. Transfer units? I've seen them blowing out at 5k as well.
We get more idiots insisting "something is wrong with my printer" when the problem turns out to be they stuck in a 5 year old expired, dried up ink cartridge because they "stocked up" years ago. Wasted money.
What amazes me more is that you can patent the business model of making incredibly shitty, slapshod products with pickup rollers that invariably break by the 250th page.
Next they'll have a business model patent on convincing companies like Dell to throw their reputation down the toilet by rebranding the aforementioned shitty products and selling them with their own brand name slapped on.
The MafiAA bribed so many legislators and judges that they thought they had things all sewed up. It was bad enough that it reminded me of the ChiggerBurger franchise idea (from Legends of the Ferengi) - no matter what you do, the MafiAA would find some way to make you "pay" for somehow interacting with something they produced.
It's like when they bribed the shit out of Canada and got an extra tax put on blank tapes and CD's, which supposedly "pays back" the MafiAA for any songs/music that might possibly be recorded to them later (despite the fact that, you know, actual DATA or your OWN compositions or interviews or any other content could be recorded to them which wouldn't be copyrighted to the MafiAA) and still screamed about people "downloading" afterwards.
The answer is, any politician who's ever received money from the MafiAA should be thrown out of office, and Cary Sherman should be run out of the country too. Pity it'll never happen.
From TFA: On the left, many of the once independent bloggers are now employed by, or receive money from, liberal organizations like Media Matters, the Center for American Progress and Campaign for America's Future.
See also: pot, kettle, shitty political party 1, shitty political party 2.
The lefties have long had a "bury brigade" organization on Slashdot. If you ever post anything truthful or insightful that casts a bad light on them, expect the claws to come out.
For example, rightly questioning whether this is unique to the "right wing", when well-funded groups like Moron(moveon?).org and DailyKissass(kos?) get a ton of money from people like George Soros and various left-wing slush funds will probably get attacked as "flamebait" and "offtopic" by the organized left-wingers.
I for one find it humorous that the left-wing blogs constantly have to spend massive amounts of time cleaning up their commentariat lest someone let slip what they really think - the vitriol of screaming "those evil jews" posters at Dailykos, for instance, is frightening, as is the constant drumbeat of hate and lies at the schizophrenically crazy Little Green footballs, now directed at the very same people Charles Johnson made most of his money stealing stories from.
If you outlawed coffee tables, then people who own coffee tables are criminals by definition.
The difference is that a gun - or a sword, or a knife, or any other weapon - is designed to change the balance of power in a fight.
If you outlaw guns (or swords, or knives), then the vast majority of the population becomes UNARMED. This makes it that much easier for an armed criminal - already a scofflaw - to commit crimes. The statistics bear it out; in Britain, police outlawed guns, and outlawed any knife which could possibly be drawable and usable in a fight. The result? Massively increased knife crime. Their low numbers of gun crime are related to a general disdain for guns societally (hunting with guns having been an "elite" occupation), but gun crime is now on the rise there despite the incredibly restrictive laws.
Washington, DC outlawed guns, and during the period when they were outlawed, they spent several years as the gun-crime capital of the US.
Perhaps we should rephrase it for people like you. Does "If you outlaw weapons, you disarm the populace while doing precisely Jack Crap to prevent criminals who don't give a shit about the law from getting weapons" work better for you?
The Japanese outlawed carrying swords during the Meiji Restoration (1860s).
The police still had swords. So did the military. The commoners no longer had swords. Which sucked for them, since the yakuza and other criminals simply started carrying concealable knives, or else started carrying around shit like this.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Insert the name of your favorite weapon in place of "guns" and it's still the same.
You forget - Iran has specifically said that they are perfectly ok nuking the Palestinians. They're expendable.
Both the Ayatollah Assaholla and Iranian President Ahmafuckingnutjob have made statements to the effect that "the jews" should worry because if Israel is nuked, even if an equal number of Palestinians have to die, there are still plenty of Muslims elsewhere in the world (like Iran) ready to wipe out whatever survives the nuclear strike.
On a jury, the other jurors can go to the judge and say, "This woman isn't considering the evidence and isn't following the law." It takes a lot more chutzpah to do something that brazen.
Actually, short of getting into a major fistfight, it's very rare and difficult for anyone to get tossed off of a jury, even if there is an alternate still available. Most of the time it requires someone getting physically violent. Only in the most rare circumstances - a juror sits in the corner, states something that should have been enough to have them removed before trial began but which they failed to bring up when the Judge asked the standard "is there any other reason you feel you cannot render a fair verdict?" - can a judge remove the juror otherwise. So as odd as it sounds, as long as the juror who was deliberately there to rig the verdict for Blagojevich kept talking, there's nothing that could be done once she'd managed to slip into the jury.
Once you are down to 12 jurors, the judge doesn't have room to toss anyone - should a juror need to be removed (major illness req. hospitalization, physical violence, etc) the only other option is to declare a mistrial without reaching any verdict at all.
The only thing that can come up with that explains Michael Steele's continued tenure at the helm of the GOP after strippergate and all the other scandals is that he's got the key to a closet full of skeletons.
You're forgetting the heyday the NAACP/Democrat Party's cronies in the mainstream broadcast media would have with the headline "GOP fires black guy."
Essentially, each side only gets so many challenges. They can try to challenge for cause, but they get only a few "peremptory challenges" (removing someone they are worried about without saying why). Further, the peremptory challenges are restricted because you have to be extremely careful about striking certain people lest someone scream about "racism", "sexism", "ageism", etc.
Most likely, since the woman was not a "direct employee of Blagojevich", the judge ruled that she couldn't be struck from the jury with cause even though she was one of his former campaign workers, since campaign work is often a paid position and they could argue that it was "just a job." That would have meant that it would burn a peremptory challenge to get her removed, and there were probably some people the prosecution wanted on the jury even less that they'd already used all their peremptories on.
The other thing that potential tampered/"ringer" jurors trying to slip into a case like this will pull is trying to put themselves at the back of the line. Remember, voir dire works in sequential order, either one juror at a time or banks-of-twelve at a time. If the prosecution had already used up all their peremptories by the time she came up in the process, they were stuck with her.
Did you read the comments from the lone juror holdout? Who "just happened" to be a state employee, "just happened" to have worked on Blago's campaign, and was probably guaranteed a spot on someone else's campaign staff in the future as payoff for hanging the jury?
Slashdot Mirror
cbs, nbc, and abc are traditional fact based news sources
Wanna buy some oceanfront Kansas property cheap?
with calling Hydrogen "renewable fuel"? It still has to be generated - and most of the energy we use to extract Hydrogen comes from burning fossil fuels.
Now, if we could get electric generation down to solar/wind/geothermal/nuclear (and we NEED nuclear, because there's no way solar/wind/geothermal can equate to even 25% of our current use, let alone what increased population will need), maybe. But it's still lossy as fuck making hydrogen.
I believe what you have to show is damage to reputation, which means you have to show that you had a reputation to damage
How the fuck has Tom Cruise managed to succeed then? His only reputation is that of an insane, fucked-up loser who joined a criminal scam cult.
I mean ok, sure, he could descend to the level of Mohammed or Warren Jeffs or his current cult's founder L-Ron and try to start his own religion too, but...
I think a cross-dressing Jabba the Hutt would be nice for the next "Director's Edition", don't you think?
Too late. He put one in the "Clone Wars" computimated tv/movie craps.
but what i don't like currently in the usa though is this melding of opinion and "news" organization, such as with fox news
Actually, it's no different than what CBS, NBC, ABC, etc have been doing for decades.
You only go after Fox because it happens to be contrary (some of the time) to what you've been spoon-fed most of your life.
Of course, don't take my word for it. Especially when even left-wing investigators from such "hard-right bastions" as UCLA have fessed up about it.
Like I said - your mirrors are probably better than 90% reflective (maybe even above 99%). Aluminum foil is at best 55% reflective. Your testing shows the difference in power.
A 12-foot dish (which he says is getting approx. 1300 watts) has a rough circular area of 113 square feet (if it were flat).
A 10-foot dish is only 78 square feet (if it were flat).
In addition, he's using glass mirrors, probably above 90% reflective. The best you're going to get out of tinfoil is 55%.
So, back of the napkin calculations, the 10-ft unit with tinfoil probably is giving at best (presuming ideal sun conditions) around 5000 watts of power. Assume even more loss once you set up a heating plate, lose power to a less than "sealed" cooking area, and shadows cast by your cooking surface/area. You're not going to superheat a watermelon with that, though you may need to add a bit of venting if you think it's getting "too" hot and scorching something.
As with any oven, a little foresight in preparation - visible thermometer, adjustable venting - does wonders.
I think you're overstating the case.
First, the focal point isn't so much a "point" as a reasonably sized zone.
Second, the tinfoil itself isn't going to sit precisely flat and perfect; you're going to double or triple the size of the zone, easily.
Third, you're going to get some loss to wrinkling.
Fourth, you'll lose a good amount of energy to whatever shadow your cooking object casts.
A highly wet object (brined/marinated meat) is going to cook for quite a bit in that spot without "bursting into flames."
What you'll get is going to look a lot like this. Given that one is actually mirrored and is maybe 5-6ft diameter, back-of-the-napkin math says a 10-ft aluminum foil slapdash job should be in the right ballpark.
Line with tinfoil. Hang a grill over the focal point. Point at sun.
Cook sun-dried beef jerky.
If only most of us could do that, rather than having shitty pointy-haired micromanager bosses who insist on minute-by-minute "productivity" scales.
The day the 'worker productivity index' was invented was the day society started going to hell.
Because the market evolution has run from a "give away the razor, sell the blades" perspective for so long.
The printer companies are addicted to the money from overcharging on ink and toner. They can't imagine doing it any other way. Right now the goal is to make every other consumable part as shitty and broken as possible.
Fusers? I've seen models from Sharp that last maybe 5,000 pages.
Transfer units? I've seen them blowing out at 5k as well.
We get more idiots insisting "something is wrong with my printer" when the problem turns out to be they stuck in a 5 year old expired, dried up ink cartridge because they "stocked up" years ago. Wasted money.
What amazes me more is that you can patent the business model of making incredibly shitty, slapshod products with pickup rollers that invariably break by the 250th page.
Next they'll have a business model patent on convincing companies like Dell to throw their reputation down the toilet by rebranding the aforementioned shitty products and selling them with their own brand name slapped on.
Not only that.
The MafiAA bribed so many legislators and judges that they thought they had things all sewed up. It was bad enough that it reminded me of the ChiggerBurger franchise idea (from Legends of the Ferengi) - no matter what you do, the MafiAA would find some way to make you "pay" for somehow interacting with something they produced.
It's like when they bribed the shit out of Canada and got an extra tax put on blank tapes and CD's, which supposedly "pays back" the MafiAA for any songs/music that might possibly be recorded to them later (despite the fact that, you know, actual DATA or your OWN compositions or interviews or any other content could be recorded to them which wouldn't be copyrighted to the MafiAA) and still screamed about people "downloading" afterwards.
The answer is, any politician who's ever received money from the MafiAA should be thrown out of office, and Cary Sherman should be run out of the country too. Pity it'll never happen.
Oh please.
From TFA: On the left, many of the once independent bloggers are now employed by, or receive money from, liberal organizations like Media Matters, the Center for American Progress and Campaign for America's Future.
See also: pot, kettle, shitty political party 1, shitty political party 2.
The lefties have long had a "bury brigade" organization on Slashdot. If you ever post anything truthful or insightful that casts a bad light on them, expect the claws to come out.
For example, rightly questioning whether this is unique to the "right wing", when well-funded groups like Moron(moveon?).org and DailyKissass(kos?) get a ton of money from people like George Soros and various left-wing slush funds will probably get attacked as "flamebait" and "offtopic" by the organized left-wingers.
I for one find it humorous that the left-wing blogs constantly have to spend massive amounts of time cleaning up their commentariat lest someone let slip what they really think - the vitriol of screaming "those evil jews" posters at Dailykos, for instance, is frightening, as is the constant drumbeat of hate and lies at the schizophrenically crazy Little Green footballs, now directed at the very same people Charles Johnson made most of his money stealing stories from.
Really?
How much of George Soros' money (and other slush-fund types) has gone to bankroll Moron.org and DailyKissass again?
link 1.
link 2.
link 3.
link 4.
You're a fucking idiot, you know that?
"What a moronic statement."
Oh really? Funny how it always comes back up.
If you outlawed coffee tables, then people who own coffee tables are criminals by definition.
The difference is that a gun - or a sword, or a knife, or any other weapon - is designed to change the balance of power in a fight.
If you outlaw guns (or swords, or knives), then the vast majority of the population becomes UNARMED. This makes it that much easier for an armed criminal - already a scofflaw - to commit crimes. The statistics bear it out; in Britain, police outlawed guns, and outlawed any knife which could possibly be drawable and usable in a fight. The result? Massively increased knife crime. Their low numbers of gun crime are related to a general disdain for guns societally (hunting with guns having been an "elite" occupation), but gun crime is now on the rise there despite the incredibly restrictive laws.
Washington, DC outlawed guns, and during the period when they were outlawed, they spent several years as the gun-crime capital of the US.
Perhaps we should rephrase it for people like you. Does "If you outlaw weapons, you disarm the populace while doing precisely Jack Crap to prevent criminals who don't give a shit about the law from getting weapons" work better for you?
The Japanese outlawed carrying swords during the Meiji Restoration (1860s).
The police still had swords. So did the military. The commoners no longer had swords. Which sucked for them, since the yakuza and other criminals simply started carrying concealable knives, or else started carrying around shit like this.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Insert the name of your favorite weapon in place of "guns" and it's still the same.
You forget - Iran has specifically said that they are perfectly ok nuking the Palestinians. They're expendable.
Both the Ayatollah Assaholla and Iranian President Ahmafuckingnutjob have made statements to the effect that "the jews" should worry because if Israel is nuked, even if an equal number of Palestinians have to die, there are still plenty of Muslims elsewhere in the world (like Iran) ready to wipe out whatever survives the nuclear strike.
I'm confused.
Are you referring to Bush or to Clinton?
On a jury, the other jurors can go to the judge and say, "This woman isn't considering the evidence and isn't following the law." It takes a lot more chutzpah to do something that brazen.
Actually, short of getting into a major fistfight, it's very rare and difficult for anyone to get tossed off of a jury, even if there is an alternate still available. Most of the time it requires someone getting physically violent. Only in the most rare circumstances - a juror sits in the corner, states something that should have been enough to have them removed before trial began but which they failed to bring up when the Judge asked the standard "is there any other reason you feel you cannot render a fair verdict?" - can a judge remove the juror otherwise. So as odd as it sounds, as long as the juror who was deliberately there to rig the verdict for Blagojevich kept talking, there's nothing that could be done once she'd managed to slip into the jury.
Once you are down to 12 jurors, the judge doesn't have room to toss anyone - should a juror need to be removed (major illness req. hospitalization, physical violence, etc) the only other option is to declare a mistrial without reaching any verdict at all.
The only thing that can come up with that explains Michael Steele's continued tenure at the helm of the GOP after strippergate and all the other scandals is that he's got the key to a closet full of skeletons.
You're forgetting the heyday the NAACP/Democrat Party's cronies in the mainstream broadcast media would have with the headline "GOP fires black guy."
Welcome to the land of "jury selection."
Essentially, each side only gets so many challenges. They can try to challenge for cause, but they get only a few "peremptory challenges" (removing someone they are worried about without saying why). Further, the peremptory challenges are restricted because you have to be extremely careful about striking certain people lest someone scream about "racism", "sexism", "ageism", etc.
Most likely, since the woman was not a "direct employee of Blagojevich", the judge ruled that she couldn't be struck from the jury with cause even though she was one of his former campaign workers, since campaign work is often a paid position and they could argue that it was "just a job." That would have meant that it would burn a peremptory challenge to get her removed, and there were probably some people the prosecution wanted on the jury even less that they'd already used all their peremptories on.
The other thing that potential tampered/"ringer" jurors trying to slip into a case like this will pull is trying to put themselves at the back of the line. Remember, voir dire works in sequential order, either one juror at a time or banks-of-twelve at a time. If the prosecution had already used up all their peremptories by the time she came up in the process, they were stuck with her.
Did you read the comments from the lone juror holdout? Who "just happened" to be a state employee, "just happened" to have worked on Blago's campaign, and was probably guaranteed a spot on someone else's campaign staff in the future as payoff for hanging the jury?
This is just typical Chicago corruption as usual.