It's so sad that you can only resort to pseudo-psychologizing snarkiness when you don't have a point.
The pseudo-psychologizing snarkiness is the point, yo.
Conservatives are all about playing the victim these days: "liberals are such haters!" "the terrorists are out to get us!" "Moore is attacking us!" "The liberal media is trying to drown us out!"
Boo fucking hoo.
All this while they wield unprecedented power, and are trying to gain more. And still they (and you) play the victim.
Finny how people mod down my relevant and informative post as a "troll".
Funny how you reply to your own post, complaining about the injustice of your moderation, when it's currently at 4, Informative. You're only proving your victim complex bona fides.
The guy threatened me because I honked my horn at him.
Yeah. After you followed him. You were stupid enough to leave your home and follow someone who was obviously an asshole. What did you expect, flowers and a kiss?
If a dog shits in the middle of the street, to you walk over and smell it?
Sure, the guy's music was annoying, and his threats uncalled for, but what did you expect? By following him you were hunting for trouble, then you called the police to bail you out. Next time don't get mad, get even. But if you do get mad for chrissakes be able to handle the situation.
Our ability to think and reason was not the product of evolution
I'd like you to prove that.
Our ability to think and reason could easily be a product of evolution. Just because you can see the possibility doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Making such a blanket statement does not show your intelligence or knowledge, it shows your ignorance.
One only has to compare the security woes of Microsoft or Linux with the rock-solid experience of OpenBSD for an example.
Are you saying that these operating systems haven't evolved in an iterative process? Riiiiight... "Release early, release often"
See, this is what happens when you get across the board influence of one political party in government and large private sector businesses. Clear Channel is basically rolling over to give the FCC a great legal precedent for censorship advocates.
Reading that uncanny essay leads me to remember this: until about 40,000 years ago there was one other species of homo sapiens on this planet, neanderthals. Most evidence points to one conclusion: we wiped them off the planet. Maybe there's some instinct left in us that says, "If it looks almost like you, is almost human, and moves... kill it!"
What Sun and Microsoft want is basically corporate based communism: They control all of the private property in the market, the consumer controls none. They get to dictate how the consumer uses the product, controlling every aspect.
you still haven't explained why you think this is thermodynamically impossible.
I don't theink that. I said that they changed their assumptions (among them, their use of the 2nd law) when they were talking about hydrogen vs when they were talking about biodiesel.
The key is this sentence in the third paragraph about electrolosys: "Electrolysis systems are around 60% efficient." They begin their efficiency numbers for hydrogen based on the electrolysis step, not taking the input of solar energy into their calculations.
However, when they talk about soy based biodiesel, they say "The reason for the energy efficiency being greater than 100% is that the growing soybeans turn energy from the sun into chemical energy (oil)."
Therein lies the difference in their assumptions. Get it?
Sure. For hydrogen they're not counting the sun's energy as an input overall. Otherwise they could calculate an "energy efficiency" of greater than 100%, as they do in their calculations for soy based biodiesel. They're considering "energy efficiency" for a closed system when they talk about hydrogen electrolysis. When they talk about biodiesel production from soy they're considering an open system.
Either that or they aren't taking many energy usage factors into account for biodiesel, such as land use and waste, water use and waste, human labor, fertilizer production, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone have some suggestions of writers who come close to Vinge for great sci-fi?
Stephen Baxter. Try the Manifold series, especially the first one, "Manifold: Space"
It's so sad that you can only resort to pseudo-psychologizing snarkiness when you don't have a point.
The pseudo-psychologizing snarkiness is the point, yo.
Conservatives are all about playing the victim these days: "liberals are such haters!" "the terrorists are out to get us!" "Moore is attacking us!" "The liberal media is trying to drown us out!"
Boo fucking hoo.
All this while they wield unprecedented power, and are trying to gain more. And still they (and you) play the victim.
Why? It's a great motivator.
That and you're all pussies.
It disturbs me that there are so many here willing to simply pile on rather than offer more constructive criticism.
The pile on is constructive criticism. Lay down your pride and listen.
And the point is this: don't disturb a beast. Scare it away, befriend it, distract it, or put it down. Just don't piss it off.
Finny how people mod down my relevant and informative post as a "troll".
Funny how you reply to your own post, complaining about the injustice of your moderation, when it's currently at 4, Informative. You're only proving your victim complex bona fides.
Yes, OSX used to be slow, but that's not an issue I've had with Panther.
Judging from the Slashdot crowd's readtion to Java, you'll probably have to keep saying this for...oh...the next ten years or so.
The guy threatened me because I honked my horn at him.
Yeah. After you followed him. You were stupid enough to leave your home and follow someone who was obviously an asshole. What did you expect, flowers and a kiss?
If a dog shits in the middle of the street, to you walk over and smell it?
Sure, the guy's music was annoying, and his threats uncalled for, but what did you expect? By following him you were hunting for trouble, then you called the police to bail you out. Next time don't get mad, get even. But if you do get mad for chrissakes be able to handle the situation.
I later went back to look at the laws in my state governing self-defense. They are totally impractical.
Oh, you mean they say you can't shoot someone for playing loud annoying music? How impractical!
Nor does it mean you should walk out onto a field in a lightning storm, wearing armor and a carrying a metal javelin.
Dunno. I've played a sousaphone during a Texas thunderstorm in the middle of a football field. It's pretty fun. You should try it.
But that's about all of your post that was a reply to mine. The rest might have well been an argument with a mannequin...or a straw man...
Then go looking for news articles about kids being lured to their death by people in chat rooms, etc. You'll find plenty.
Then go looking for news articles about people dying in freak accidents, like being struck by lightning. You'll find plenty.
Doesn't mean you should avoid the outdoors, or cower in the basement every time you hear thunder.
Only government would pull a paradox out of its ass as an excuse.
Really?
They must have computers that use that most elusive of beasts: Write Only Memory.
Our ability to think and reason was not the product of evolution
I'd like you to prove that.
Our ability to think and reason could easily be a product of evolution. Just because you can see the possibility doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Making such a blanket statement does not show your intelligence or knowledge, it shows your ignorance.
One only has to compare the security woes of Microsoft or Linux with the rock-solid experience of OpenBSD for an example.
Are you saying that these operating systems haven't evolved in an iterative process? Riiiiight... "Release early, release often"
To the far left, nature and humanity is god. To the far right, God is god.
Take your pick.
I pick neither.
Nice logic, everyone.
Well, considering that you're talking about two completely different products in two completely different markets, it very well could be nice logic.
Duh.
Being right justifies being an asshole - as I demonstrate here.
Amendment: Thinking you're right justifies the rationalization behind being an asshole - as you demonstrate here.
SCO has been acting like a student that professes to be smart, but never does a bit of their assignments.
Funny, I did this all through college and still got B's. I just aced the tests.
Homework is boring.
See, this is what happens when you get across the board influence of one political party in government and large private sector businesses. Clear Channel is basically rolling over to give the FCC a great legal precedent for censorship advocates.
Reading that uncanny essay leads me to remember this: until about 40,000 years ago there was one other species of homo sapiens on this planet, neanderthals. Most evidence points to one conclusion: we wiped them off the planet. Maybe there's some instinct left in us that says, "If it looks almost like you, is almost human, and moves... kill it!"
What Sun and Microsoft want is basically corporate based communism: They control all of the private property in the market, the consumer controls none. They get to dictate how the consumer uses the product, controlling every aspect.
AC, you said it much more eloquently than I could. Thanks bunches. :)
That's not direct - they're a separate source with their own lifetime efficiency
And a soybean plant IS direct?
you still haven't explained why you think this is thermodynamically impossible.
I don't theink that. I said that they changed their assumptions (among them, their use of the 2nd law) when they were talking about hydrogen vs when they were talking about biodiesel.
The key is this sentence in the third paragraph about electrolosys: "Electrolysis systems are around 60% efficient." They begin their efficiency numbers for hydrogen based on the electrolysis step, not taking the input of solar energy into their calculations.
However, when they talk about soy based biodiesel, they say "The reason for the energy efficiency being greater than 100% is that the growing soybeans turn energy from the sun into chemical energy (oil)."
Therein lies the difference in their assumptions. Get it?
Could you be a little more specific?
Sure. For hydrogen they're not counting the sun's energy as an input overall. Otherwise they could calculate an "energy efficiency" of greater than 100%, as they do in their calculations for soy based biodiesel. They're considering "energy efficiency" for a closed system when they talk about hydrogen electrolysis. When they talk about
biodiesel production from soy they're considering an open system.
Either that or they aren't taking many energy usage factors into account for biodiesel, such as land use and waste, water use and waste, human labor, fertilizer production, etc.
you said it broke (or would have to) the 2nd law of thermodynamics... which isn't implied.
Claiming an "energy efficiency of 320%" does break the 2nd law. Claiming an energy efficiency of anything >=100% would break the 2nd law.