Another memorable quote from him is "I'm not an expert on computers".
Well, okay--but how many Senators and Representatives are? Despite that, how many of them insist on making wretched laws about same?
Gore was at least a bit more in touch than most. There is a difference between being an admitted non-expert and being ignorant.
Wouldn't the same people be lambasting him if he did call himself an expert? Speaking for myself, I preach alternative browsers, read Slashdot, write code occasionally in a handful of different languages, and assembled my computer from scratch. I'm highly competent, but I don't call myself an expert. Nevertheless, I feel I can formuate a respectable, reasonable opinion on many technology issues--as could Gore.
When it occurs it is generally accompanied by considerable genetic change, due to a lack of genetic variation, significant inbredding, and a fairly homologous environment (which encourages specialisation).
Not necessarily, in this case. If it were a regular colony that happened to settle near a source of (for example) geothermal warmth, then you're not starting from a specially adapted niche subspecies. Queen bees typically survive and lay eggs for two to three years; some may live up to five years. (Those numbers are for honeybees--I am assuming that the figures for tropical bees aren't too different.) If the world was only suffering from the worst lack of sunlight and heat for a year or three, there might be very little change in the species. (A bit of pressure for slightly hardier variants, but not much else...)
As far as resettling the world, the bee 'generalists' probably also had a significant advantage following the extinction event. Again, this might tend to act against dramatic changes in the species and unusual specializations. I admit that evolutionary biology isn't my specialty, and I'm just brainstorming here.
Leading the retail industry charge to underpay, undertrain and screw over EVERY EMPLOYEE IN THE STORE.
To be fair--and give credit where it is due--I'm pretty sure Wal-mart is actually the leader in this area.
BTW, I never received a $50 rebate from Best Buy; they don't get any business from me anymore. (I moved out of state; it wasn't worth the hassle of going after them. Bastards.)
Yeah, it's a great convenience for me --- for years I've been wishing they'd put an anti-theft gizmo on the shopping cart wheels; it's been such an inconvenience without it.
I don't know; it strikes me as pretty convenient that there actually are carts available, instead of them all having been wheeled away.
Grocery stores usually operate on razor thin margins, too--their profit is maybe one or two percent of sales. To replace a hundred dollar shopping cart blows their profit on ten thousand dollars' worth of merchandise. I find it pretty convenient to not have to pay for replacement carts, too. In areas that suffer significant losses through cart theft--as a customer, I might well appreciate such a system.
You get a copy without compensating the copyright holder.
You're not actually serious, are you?
Yes, I did get a copy without directly compensating the copyright holder. Someone else no longer has the copy for which they already paid the copyright holder.
There originally existed one copy, for which royalties were duly paid. There still remains one and only one copy. Unauthorized file sharing, on the other hand, can produce an unlimited number of copies without payment of royalties.
How can you equate the two? And did you study economics at an RIAA-sponsored institution?
Does Ford deserve a royalty payment if someone sells a used car? No, because the original owner no longer has the use of the property. Sheesh.
If you want to depend on the idea that they won't attack you because they don't want to be attacked, thats fine, but considering Iran's support of the war in Iraq, (and not our side of it), I wouldn't trust them not to 'lose' a shahab 3 and then lightly condemn the terrorists who launched it on some western base in europe.
The United States has been doing everything it possibly can to attack Iran--short of open war--for decades. (To be fair, Iran has not been very neighbourly, either.) Remember when Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally, supplied with arms, training, and biological and chemical weapons, so he could fight a war with Iran on behalf of the United States?
More recently, George W. Bush named three countries as the 'Axis of Evil' (though none of them had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks...). The U.S. has had a war (er, 'police action') with one already, and then launched an invasion of Iraq.
Which side were we expecting Iran to take, exactly?
Of course, given recent U.S. foreign policy, I don't think Iran would be stupid enough to 'lose' a missile in such a way--they know that they'd face an immediate regime change. There would probably follow an invasion of Canada, because the CIA has 'evidence' to suggest that they're supporting the Iranian terrorists, and have WMDs (Weapons of Maple Destruction)....
Also, IF it is true, as contended by many scientists, that the ozone hole is related to the increase in ground ozone caused by human activity (electrical production and photochemical smog, largely) then it MIGHT be that there is only a finite amount of ozone that can be produced (or supported) by the earth's magnetic field, and humanity may fairly be seen as the cause.
There's actually remarkably little relationship between ground-level ozone and stratospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone is the product of ultraviolet photolysis of oxygen. Regular oxygen (O2) is broken into two free oxygen radicals by ultraviolet light. Each may recombine with another O2 molecule to form O3--ozone. This reaction also works the other way--ozone can absorb UV, releasing O2 and an oxygen radical. Ozone is quite good at absorbing UV in this way, which is handy for those of us on the ground.
The depletion of stratospheric ozone is the result of long-lived manmade chlorine compounds--mostly CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). Chlorine radicals result from the ultraviolet photolysis of CFCs. These radicals catalyze the breakdown of O3 into O2. Each chlorine atom can catalyze many such reactions over the course of years.
Meanwhile, ground-level ozone is the result of a photochemical reaction between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx, mostly NO2).
More important here is that neither one is significantly affected by the earth's magnetic field, nor is there a maximum atmospheric load of ozone that is maintained. (The ozone holes are recovering now that CFC use has ended, but ground-level ozone problems have not abated except where efforts have been made to reduce NOx and VOC emissions.)
During lighting strikes to earth, ozone first rises from the ground to the cloud, and only then is a conductive path to earth made, enabling the lighting strike.
I'm afraid that this just isn't accurate. Ozone is the product of a lightning strike, not the cause. It is produced when oxygen molecules are split by the passing current, and some recombine into O3. The conducting path to/from ground is actually made of ionized gas--not ozone--and is formed when the potential (voltage) difference between cloud and ground is large enough to strip electrons from gas molecules to form ions.
This is what's happening on a very small scale when you mention that ozone is 'always' produced by current. Tiny electric arcs through air ionize oxygen molecules, and allow them to react to form ozone. Consequently, you'll only get ozone around high voltage equipment (where there is corona discharge) or where circuits are being opened and closed. (You shouldn't smell ozone from a functioning incandescent lamp, but you might get a whiff when you flip the switch on and off--a little arc forms when the contacts are opened and closed.)
first shot at lucrative private licenses for your technology (a la Branson and Virgin Galactic);
...to offer chicks in bars a ride in the corporate rocket ship.
The prize money just takes the edge off the costs, or perhaps encourages some groups to take a shot that wouldn't otherwise. (The X-Prize covered about a third of SS1's development costs, which is a not-insignificant discount. For some groups, it would have covered all their out-of-pocket expenses.) Plus, it gives the media something to focus on--people love a good race.
Can someone PLEASE explain why all the comments pointing out that this game doesnt nessecarily deserve all the hype it got.. Even the ones that aren't flaiming it, just pointing this out are moderated to 0 or less?
It depends.
If all they point out is that the game doesn't necessarily deserve all the hype, then that makes for a relatively low-content post. I know this is Slashdot, and we set the bar pretty low in that respect...but still.
It's also a sentiment that I see quite a bit of at this point (in many posts earlier than the parent) while browsing at +3. I dare say the majority of comments are offering criticism of some sort. The viewpoint isn't being suppressed--we're just seeing an upmoderation of the comments that are the most detailed, expressive, or pithy. Oddly enough, I think the system might be working.
Actually, that one's pretty easy. The Canadians have it figured out, though they use exclusively paper ballots for their important elections. Their Elections Act outlines the specific conditions under which a recount may (or must) be conducted.
First, a judge-supervised recount is required by law in any race where the margin of victory is less than 0.1% of votes cast. (In practice, that usually means any margin of fewer than fifty to seventy-five votes.)
Second, any elector may request a recount if they are willing to swear an affidavit stating they have reason to believe an error has been made in counting or rejecting ballots, or in recording their numbers, or in tallying the total results. In such a case, the elector must also provide a $250 deposit to the court, out of which costs will be paid to the winner (at the court's discretion) if the recount is found to be spurious.
Presumably that second condition could be modified to include suspected mechanical, electronic, or logic error as legitimate grounds to request a recount.
So a serious challenge is any situation where a) the margin of victory is very small; or b) someone is willing to make a sworn statement that they believe errors occurred--and that person is willing to put his money where his mouth is.
As such, something like the technology not working if the users hand has blood (or grease or dirt...) on it is a show-stopper.
Is it? We need statistics.
How often is a gun used (appropriately) by its owner while his hands are bloody/dirty?
How does this compare to the number of times a gun is taken from the victim and used by a criminal?
If the first case is less common than the second, you get a net improvement in outcomes. Even though there are situations where the authentication device fails it doesn't necessarily represent a dealbreaker if the system still prevents more problems than it causes.
Compare with seatbelts. Wearing one introduces new failure modes--it might make it more difficult for lifesaving personnel to remove you from a car wreck, and delay medical attention in an emergency. Improperly used, lap belts may damage the kidneys. On the other hand, seatbelts are generally worthwhile to wear anyway, because the problems they solved (ejection from vehicle, smacking into windshield, etc.) were much more frequently fatal. In the case of user recognition for handguns, I'm certainly not qualified to comment on how the outcomes would fall out--but even if there is the potential for failure under some conditions, it still bears investigation.
Or that your spouse/so/friend never has to pick up your weapon to carry on the fight after you are incapacitated.
Are you planning on having a pitched gun battle in your home or office?
What are the odds that you would be incapacitated and your SO would be able to pick it up and use it before the same thing happens to him/her? Is this more or less likely than the case where you're incapacitated and the criminal now has the opportunity to use your gun against your spouse?
Also--why can't you get a second ring for your spouse?
(Incidentally, you're more likely--statistically speaking--to be shot by your spouse than by a stranger. Maybe you don't want your SO to be able to use the gun....)
and apparently about, er... (holds arm out with thumb and index finger about an inch apart) *that* far apart. Don't know what that is in arc units.
For quick and dirty estimation, the width of a finger at arm's length is one to two degrees. The width of a closed fist at arm's length is about ten degrees. For a splayed hand, the distance from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the pinky finger is twenty to twenty-five degrees.
The hand and finger rules of thumb (ahem) hold reasonably well across most people because the size of the hand usually scales with the length of the arm.
The Sun or a full moon are both about half a degree across--roughly the same angular size as an Aspirin tablet at arm's length.
so while the internal combustion engine wastes some energy, and hydrogen wastes some energy, the combustion engine IS A DIRECT CONVERSION OF ENERGY SOURCE TO WORK NEEDED
The internal combustion engine (ICE) is an inefficient conversion of chemical potential energy to work. To correct your emphasized phrase, "the ICE is a direct conversion of energy source to work and waste heat."
A fuel cell is not a heat engine, and its efficiency is not limited to an Otto cycle. It directly taps the electron transfer that takes place in the oxidation of hydrogen to water. The increased energy cost of refining hydrogen (versus a fossil fuel) is offset (and then some) by the increased energy efficiency in use.
Additional environmental benefits accrue because hydrogen is more readily produced from carbon neutral feedstocks and because the tailpipe emissions contain no obnoxious compounds--just water vapour.
It's been fun, but unless you've got any new arguments that are thermodynamically sound, I won't be replying further. Cheers.
and you understand the math, and you still can't grok this?
From the figures in the grandparent post (the conservative end if ranges were cited):
Efficiency of steam reformation of methane: 70%
Energy cost of hydrogen compression: 15%
Fuel cell efficiency: 50%
Net efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicle: (0.70 * 0.85 * 0.50) = 30%
Efficiency of internal combustion engine: 30%.
Even using today's technology, and assuming no improvements in any of the involved technologies and techniques, the overall energy efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is comparable to that of an internal combustion engine.
how the hell can adding an unneeded step, that increases waste and pollution, be good at all, in any scenario?
Simple. Waste and pollution are two separate concepts. Extracting the sulfur from diesel fuels costs energy, which is not recovered in the resulting fuel. In a strict energy conservation sense, this process is therefore wasteful. Nevertheless, the reduction in emission of sulfur oxides is much more important in terms of reducing pollution and its effects. In a similar vein, the use of hydrogen fuel cells over internal combustion engines eliminates the production of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and ground-level ozone. We get cleaner air.
With hydrogen fuel, it's possible to use entirely renewable feedstocks (methanol/ethanol) as source material. With plant-based feedstock, the process becomes carbon neutral (the carbon dioxide released in reformation is precisely equal to that used to synthesize new plants) so we're not putting more net CO2 into the atmosphere. The process is also solar powered, so even at low efficiency, we have lots of energy to drive the system. The 'waste' isn't as important, consequently.
At this point, I'm also going to mention that Hitler would have been opposed to hydrogen as a transportation fuel--so we can invoke Godwin's Law and get on with our lives.
you've just increased your energy waste by about an order magnitude, at LEAST, depending upon the nature of the conversion: it could many orders of magnitude of waste... and if you need more steps in the conversion? please...
Industrial scale steam reforming of methane to extract hydrogen is about 70% efficient. With increased demand and further refinement, we can probably get that to 75 or even 80% before we hit a thermodynamic wall. Similar figures (perhaps 5% lower) apply to steam reformation of methanol, ethanol, or ammonia feedstocks. Compressing the stuff probably costs you another 10 or 15%. It's not ideal by any means, but nowhere near the "orders of magnitude" of loss the parent describes. It should also be noted that fuel cells enjoy a much higher efficiency (50% and up) than internal combustion engines (30% at best).
Hydrogen can also be produced directly through electrolysis, using electricity generated from solar or wind--energy sources unsuitable for transportation use.
Historically we've been quite willing to accept energy conversions for ease of storage or ease of use. Very few people have a coal-fired oven or kettle in their kitchen--we sacrifice the efficiency of such a system in exchange for the ease of delivering electrons rather than bulk coal to every home.
Further, if the feedstocks are produced from renewable sources--plants--the whole system is carbon neutral and solar powered.
The use of fuel cells eliminates the formation of nitrogen oxides and ground-level ozone. Even burning the hydrogen still cuts nitrogen oxides and produces no particulates or carbon monoxide. Though potentially--but not necessarily--less energy efficient, hydrogen still may have a lower environmental impact.
why don't we use steam engines anymore?
combustible material -> heat -> steam -> motion
Actually, we still do. And you missed a couple of steps.
combustible material -> heat -> steam -> motion -> electricity -> work
That's a coal plant, which ultimately runs your toaster. Substitute fissionable material for combustible, and you have a nuclear plant.
I don't think it's necessary to answer criticism about my inability to do basic science or math. I will note that my undergraduate degree is in physical chemistry, and my graduate studies are in physics--but there's no need to trust me. The figures I have provided are readily available from respectable government agencies and peer-reviewed publications. If the parent is having difficulty with the more challenging aspects of thermodynamics, I would be pleased to refer him to appropriate reference texts.
what is the fucking point of turning gas or coal or sugar or ANY energy medium into hydrogen...
Portability. Solid fuels are a pain to use for transportation fuel. Using coal or sugar in vehicle is difficult because refuelling is much harder. You can't pump them like you can a liquid. (Gases are one better--you don't even need a pump, just a pressure regulator.) It should be noted that we certainly don't use crude oil straight from the ground in our cars. It's viscous, nasty stuff. We do all kinds of catalytic chemistry coupled with heat and pressure to process crude oil into useful gasoline. Those processes cost energy, too, but we do them because the energy penalty is smaller than the economic benefit of the improved ease of use.
Fuel cells. Even if you use carbon-neutral sources of low-sulfur fuel like ethanol or biodiesel, you're still going to get nitrogen oxides and ozone when you burn them in air. By avoiding high temperature combustion, fuel cells give you a truly clean fuel cycle. Sure, you could carry another liquid fuel--even gasoline, though alcohols are probably better--and crack it to hydrogen in the car right before use. There are probably economies of scale if large, dedicated facilities perform the hydrogen production process.
Ok, let me illustrate this in terms that everybody can understand. Take a really powerful fan and set it on "high." That's the sun. Stand in front of it so it's blowing against you. You're the Earth. Now piss into the fan. That's what would happen if we tried to launch nuclear waste into the sun.
That's rather the problem with terms "everybody can understand". They grossly misstate the case.
First, the solar wind isn't that powerful. It's charged, and it's fast, but it's really, really, really thin stuff. You want a better model? Try this.
Take a really powerful fan and set it on "high." That's the sun. Stand in front of it so it's blowing against you. You're the Earth. Now throw a rock at the fan. That's what would happen if we tried to launch nuclear waste into the sun...
...except that the rock wouldn't actually smash the fan.
Read some articles on solar sails. Notice that they talk about having hundreds of square meters of sail, made of the thinnest, lightest material they can get away with, in order to get a tiny, tiny amount of thrust. If you throw a vessel made mostly of dense metals at the sun, sure--it will melt when it gets in close. It will even vapourize. That vapour, however, will tend to get mixed into the solar atmosphere and diluted. Trace amounts of it will be released from the Sun with the solar wind over the course of centuries.
There's another thing missing from your model--scale. If we assume that you're the size of the Earth, then in proportion the Sun would be about fifteen miles away. How much waste actually hits you, versus the quantity that flies right past into space?
For that matter, you can throw the waste around the Sun. Have it pass somewhat close by, so that its orbit curves around and strikes the face that's not towards the Earth. Heck, you might want it to hit the face that is facing Earth, and have Earth's orbit carry us past (the anyway nearly nonexistent) spray.
For obvious reasons, I'm reluctant to say that this isn't rocket science...but what it is is really easy rocket science. The only concern is during initial atmospheric boost. Once you're to orbit or above, there's virtually nothing bad that can happen.
Politically it's also a big win. Nevada has a low population, so it has few Representatives in the House. Plus, it voted for the Dear Leader despite his approval of Yucca Mountain. So if any locals do object, there's no real leverage for them politically.
From this standpoint, the best location would actually be Washington D.C.
D.C. is the only part of the States without any Senators, and their lone House Representative is non-voting. Sure, they have one electoral college vote for President, but the District votes so overwhelmingly (80%) Democratic that it's a lost cause for the Republicans anyway.
As an added bonus, D.C. has been the focus of a tremendous security effort since 9/11, so it would be extremely closely monitored and highly secure.
Consequently, the most politically sound course of action must be to locate any storage facility in Washington, D.C.
Minor nitpick--uranium fission is carried out using fuel that's been around since before the Sun formed. True, it came from a star, but not the Sun. If we ever get commercial hydrogen fusion going, that fuel mostly dates back to not long after the Big Bang.
Really, locally produced nuclear power is the only energy source we have that doesn't come from the Sun. Of course, as you say, it's all nuclear.
I suppose we could eventually do something with gravitational energy--dropping stuff into black holes or the like. Then we could get away from nuclear power. On the other hand, we're a long way from even a prototype or research demo of that technology. And if you think people whine about having a nuclear plant in their back yard, wait until you tell them you're putting in a black hole....
Slashdot Mirror
Well, okay--but how many Senators and Representatives are? Despite that, how many of them insist on making wretched laws about same?
Gore was at least a bit more in touch than most. There is a difference between being an admitted non-expert and being ignorant.
Wouldn't the same people be lambasting him if he did call himself an expert? Speaking for myself, I preach alternative browsers, read Slashdot, write code occasionally in a handful of different languages, and assembled my computer from scratch. I'm highly competent, but I don't call myself an expert. Nevertheless, I feel I can formuate a respectable, reasonable opinion on many technology issues--as could Gore.
Not necessarily, in this case. If it were a regular colony that happened to settle near a source of (for example) geothermal warmth, then you're not starting from a specially adapted niche subspecies. Queen bees typically survive and lay eggs for two to three years; some may live up to five years. (Those numbers are for honeybees--I am assuming that the figures for tropical bees aren't too different.) If the world was only suffering from the worst lack of sunlight and heat for a year or three, there might be very little change in the species. (A bit of pressure for slightly hardier variants, but not much else...)
As far as resettling the world, the bee 'generalists' probably also had a significant advantage following the extinction event. Again, this might tend to act against dramatic changes in the species and unusual specializations. I admit that evolutionary biology isn't my specialty, and I'm just brainstorming here.
It does if that cart was being stolen every six months...obviously, this type of system only makes sense in areas where carts are frequently taken.
To be fair--and give credit where it is due--I'm pretty sure Wal-mart is actually the leader in this area.
BTW, I never received a $50 rebate from Best Buy; they don't get any business from me anymore. (I moved out of state; it wasn't worth the hassle of going after them. Bastards.)
Only someone dumb enough to buy the extended warranty wouldn't think to tape the receipt to the back of the television.
Yes, I know the parent was kidding. :D
I don't know; it strikes me as pretty convenient that there actually are carts available, instead of them all having been wheeled away.
Grocery stores usually operate on razor thin margins, too--their profit is maybe one or two percent of sales. To replace a hundred dollar shopping cart blows their profit on ten thousand dollars' worth of merchandise. I find it pretty convenient to not have to pay for replacement carts, too. In areas that suffer significant losses through cart theft--as a customer, I might well appreciate such a system.
You're not actually serious, are you?
Yes, I did get a copy without directly compensating the copyright holder. Someone else no longer has the copy for which they already paid the copyright holder.
There originally existed one copy, for which royalties were duly paid. There still remains one and only one copy. Unauthorized file sharing, on the other hand, can produce an unlimited number of copies without payment of royalties.
How can you equate the two? And did you study economics at an RIAA-sponsored institution?
Does Ford deserve a royalty payment if someone sells a used car? No, because the original owner no longer has the use of the property. Sheesh.
The United States has been doing everything it possibly can to attack Iran--short of open war--for decades. (To be fair, Iran has not been very neighbourly, either.) Remember when Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally, supplied with arms, training, and biological and chemical weapons, so he could fight a war with Iran on behalf of the United States?
More recently, George W. Bush named three countries as the 'Axis of Evil' (though none of them had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks...). The U.S. has had a war (er, 'police action') with one already, and then launched an invasion of Iraq.
Which side were we expecting Iran to take, exactly?
Of course, given recent U.S. foreign policy, I don't think Iran would be stupid enough to 'lose' a missile in such a way--they know that they'd face an immediate regime change. There would probably follow an invasion of Canada, because the CIA has 'evidence' to suggest that they're supporting the Iranian terrorists, and have WMDs (Weapons of Maple Destruction)....
I'm pretty sure I can 'format' my current hard drive by shaking it vigorously, too.
Yeah--why can't they use a standard unit like football fields?
There's actually remarkably little relationship between ground-level ozone and stratospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone is the product of ultraviolet photolysis of oxygen. Regular oxygen (O2) is broken into two free oxygen radicals by ultraviolet light. Each may recombine with another O2 molecule to form O3--ozone. This reaction also works the other way--ozone can absorb UV, releasing O2 and an oxygen radical. Ozone is quite good at absorbing UV in this way, which is handy for those of us on the ground.
The depletion of stratospheric ozone is the result of long-lived manmade chlorine compounds--mostly CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). Chlorine radicals result from the ultraviolet photolysis of CFCs. These radicals catalyze the breakdown of O3 into O2. Each chlorine atom can catalyze many such reactions over the course of years.
Meanwhile, ground-level ozone is the result of a photochemical reaction between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx, mostly NO2).
More important here is that neither one is significantly affected by the earth's magnetic field, nor is there a maximum atmospheric load of ozone that is maintained. (The ozone holes are recovering now that CFC use has ended, but ground-level ozone problems have not abated except where efforts have been made to reduce NOx and VOC emissions.)
During lighting strikes to earth, ozone first rises from the ground to the cloud, and only then is a conductive path to earth made, enabling the lighting strike.
I'm afraid that this just isn't accurate. Ozone is the product of a lightning strike, not the cause. It is produced when oxygen molecules are split by the passing current, and some recombine into O3. The conducting path to/from ground is actually made of ionized gas--not ozone--and is formed when the potential (voltage) difference between cloud and ground is large enough to strip electrons from gas molecules to form ions.
This is what's happening on a very small scale when you mention that ozone is 'always' produced by current. Tiny electric arcs through air ionize oxygen molecules, and allow them to react to form ozone. Consequently, you'll only get ozone around high voltage equipment (where there is corona discharge) or where circuits are being opened and closed. (You shouldn't smell ozone from a functioning incandescent lamp, but you might get a whiff when you flip the switch on and off--a little arc forms when the contacts are opened and closed.)
$50 million in cash;
millions in free advertising and goodwill;
first shot at lucrative private licenses for your technology (a la Branson and Virgin Galactic);
...to offer chicks in bars a ride in the corporate rocket ship.
The prize money just takes the edge off the costs, or perhaps encourages some groups to take a shot that wouldn't otherwise. (The X-Prize covered about a third of SS1's development costs, which is a not-insignificant discount. For some groups, it would have covered all their out-of-pocket expenses.) Plus, it gives the media something to focus on--people love a good race.
Is it a large enough reward? Yes!
It depends.
If all they point out is that the game doesn't necessarily deserve all the hype, then that makes for a relatively low-content post. I know this is Slashdot, and we set the bar pretty low in that respect...but still.
It's also a sentiment that I see quite a bit of at this point (in many posts earlier than the parent) while browsing at +3. I dare say the majority of comments are offering criticism of some sort. The viewpoint isn't being suppressed--we're just seeing an upmoderation of the comments that are the most detailed, expressive, or pithy. Oddly enough, I think the system might be working.
Actually, that one's pretty easy. The Canadians have it figured out, though they use exclusively paper ballots for their important elections. Their Elections Act outlines the specific conditions under which a recount may (or must) be conducted.
First, a judge-supervised recount is required by law in any race where the margin of victory is less than 0.1% of votes cast. (In practice, that usually means any margin of fewer than fifty to seventy-five votes.)
Second, any elector may request a recount if they are willing to swear an affidavit stating they have reason to believe an error has been made in counting or rejecting ballots, or in recording their numbers, or in tallying the total results. In such a case, the elector must also provide a $250 deposit to the court, out of which costs will be paid to the winner (at the court's discretion) if the recount is found to be spurious.
Presumably that second condition could be modified to include suspected mechanical, electronic, or logic error as legitimate grounds to request a recount.
So a serious challenge is any situation where a) the margin of victory is very small; or b) someone is willing to make a sworn statement that they believe errors occurred--and that person is willing to put his money where his mouth is.
Is it? We need statistics.
How often is a gun used (appropriately) by its owner while his hands are bloody/dirty?
How does this compare to the number of times a gun is taken from the victim and used by a criminal?
If the first case is less common than the second, you get a net improvement in outcomes. Even though there are situations where the authentication device fails it doesn't necessarily represent a dealbreaker if the system still prevents more problems than it causes.
Compare with seatbelts. Wearing one introduces new failure modes--it might make it more difficult for lifesaving personnel to remove you from a car wreck, and delay medical attention in an emergency. Improperly used, lap belts may damage the kidneys. On the other hand, seatbelts are generally worthwhile to wear anyway, because the problems they solved (ejection from vehicle, smacking into windshield, etc.) were much more frequently fatal. In the case of user recognition for handguns, I'm certainly not qualified to comment on how the outcomes would fall out--but even if there is the potential for failure under some conditions, it still bears investigation.
Are you planning on having a pitched gun battle in your home or office?
What are the odds that you would be incapacitated and your SO would be able to pick it up and use it before the same thing happens to him/her? Is this more or less likely than the case where you're incapacitated and the criminal now has the opportunity to use your gun against your spouse?
Also--why can't you get a second ring for your spouse?
(Incidentally, you're more likely--statistically speaking--to be shot by your spouse than by a stranger. Maybe you don't want your SO to be able to use the gun....)
For quick and dirty estimation, the width of a finger at arm's length is one to two degrees. The width of a closed fist at arm's length is about ten degrees. For a splayed hand, the distance from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the pinky finger is twenty to twenty-five degrees.
The hand and finger rules of thumb (ahem) hold reasonably well across most people because the size of the hand usually scales with the length of the arm.
The Sun or a full moon are both about half a degree across--roughly the same angular size as an Aspirin tablet at arm's length.
The internal combustion engine (ICE) is an inefficient conversion of chemical potential energy to work. To correct your emphasized phrase, "the ICE is a direct conversion of energy source to work and waste heat."
A fuel cell is not a heat engine, and its efficiency is not limited to an Otto cycle. It directly taps the electron transfer that takes place in the oxidation of hydrogen to water. The increased energy cost of refining hydrogen (versus a fossil fuel) is offset (and then some) by the increased energy efficiency in use.
Additional environmental benefits accrue because hydrogen is more readily produced from carbon neutral feedstocks and because the tailpipe emissions contain no obnoxious compounds--just water vapour.
It's been fun, but unless you've got any new arguments that are thermodynamically sound, I won't be replying further. Cheers.
From the figures in the grandparent post (the conservative end if ranges were cited):
Efficiency of steam reformation of methane: 70%
Energy cost of hydrogen compression: 15%
Fuel cell efficiency: 50% Net efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicle: (0.70 * 0.85 * 0.50) = 30%
Efficiency of internal combustion engine: 30%.
Even using today's technology, and assuming no improvements in any of the involved technologies and techniques, the overall energy efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is comparable to that of an internal combustion engine.
how the hell can adding an unneeded step, that increases waste and pollution, be good at all, in any scenario?
Simple. Waste and pollution are two separate concepts. Extracting the sulfur from diesel fuels costs energy, which is not recovered in the resulting fuel. In a strict energy conservation sense, this process is therefore wasteful. Nevertheless, the reduction in emission of sulfur oxides is much more important in terms of reducing pollution and its effects. In a similar vein, the use of hydrogen fuel cells over internal combustion engines eliminates the production of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and ground-level ozone. We get cleaner air.
With hydrogen fuel, it's possible to use entirely renewable feedstocks (methanol/ethanol) as source material. With plant-based feedstock, the process becomes carbon neutral (the carbon dioxide released in reformation is precisely equal to that used to synthesize new plants) so we're not putting more net CO2 into the atmosphere. The process is also solar powered, so even at low efficiency, we have lots of energy to drive the system. The 'waste' isn't as important, consequently.
At this point, I'm also going to mention that Hitler would have been opposed to hydrogen as a transportation fuel--so we can invoke Godwin's Law and get on with our lives.
tidal?
Oops. You're right. Totally slipped my mind.
Industrial scale steam reforming of methane to extract hydrogen is about 70% efficient. With increased demand and further refinement, we can probably get that to 75 or even 80% before we hit a thermodynamic wall. Similar figures (perhaps 5% lower) apply to steam reformation of methanol, ethanol, or ammonia feedstocks. Compressing the stuff probably costs you another 10 or 15%. It's not ideal by any means, but nowhere near the "orders of magnitude" of loss the parent describes. It should also be noted that fuel cells enjoy a much higher efficiency (50% and up) than internal combustion engines (30% at best).
Hydrogen can also be produced directly through electrolysis, using electricity generated from solar or wind--energy sources unsuitable for transportation use.
Historically we've been quite willing to accept energy conversions for ease of storage or ease of use. Very few people have a coal-fired oven or kettle in their kitchen--we sacrifice the efficiency of such a system in exchange for the ease of delivering electrons rather than bulk coal to every home.
Further, if the feedstocks are produced from renewable sources--plants--the whole system is carbon neutral and solar powered.
The use of fuel cells eliminates the formation of nitrogen oxides and ground-level ozone. Even burning the hydrogen still cuts nitrogen oxides and produces no particulates or carbon monoxide. Though potentially--but not necessarily--less energy efficient, hydrogen still may have a lower environmental impact.
why don't we use steam engines anymore?
combustible material -> heat -> steam -> motion
Actually, we still do. And you missed a couple of steps.
combustible material -> heat -> steam -> motion -> electricity -> work
That's a coal plant, which ultimately runs your toaster. Substitute fissionable material for combustible, and you have a nuclear plant.
I don't think it's necessary to answer criticism about my inability to do basic science or math. I will note that my undergraduate degree is in physical chemistry, and my graduate studies are in physics--but there's no need to trust me. The figures I have provided are readily available from respectable government agencies and peer-reviewed publications. If the parent is having difficulty with the more challenging aspects of thermodynamics, I would be pleased to refer him to appropriate reference texts.
Portability. Solid fuels are a pain to use for transportation fuel. Using coal or sugar in vehicle is difficult because refuelling is much harder. You can't pump them like you can a liquid. (Gases are one better--you don't even need a pump, just a pressure regulator.) It should be noted that we certainly don't use crude oil straight from the ground in our cars. It's viscous, nasty stuff. We do all kinds of catalytic chemistry coupled with heat and pressure to process crude oil into useful gasoline. Those processes cost energy, too, but we do them because the energy penalty is smaller than the economic benefit of the improved ease of use.
Fuel cells. Even if you use carbon-neutral sources of low-sulfur fuel like ethanol or biodiesel, you're still going to get nitrogen oxides and ozone when you burn them in air. By avoiding high temperature combustion, fuel cells give you a truly clean fuel cycle. Sure, you could carry another liquid fuel--even gasoline, though alcohols are probably better--and crack it to hydrogen in the car right before use. There are probably economies of scale if large, dedicated facilities perform the hydrogen production process.
That's rather the problem with terms "everybody can understand". They grossly misstate the case.
First, the solar wind isn't that powerful. It's charged, and it's fast, but it's really, really, really thin stuff. You want a better model? Try this.
Read some articles on solar sails. Notice that they talk about having hundreds of square meters of sail, made of the thinnest, lightest material they can get away with, in order to get a tiny, tiny amount of thrust. If you throw a vessel made mostly of dense metals at the sun, sure--it will melt when it gets in close. It will even vapourize. That vapour, however, will tend to get mixed into the solar atmosphere and diluted. Trace amounts of it will be released from the Sun with the solar wind over the course of centuries.
There's another thing missing from your model--scale. If we assume that you're the size of the Earth, then in proportion the Sun would be about fifteen miles away. How much waste actually hits you, versus the quantity that flies right past into space?
For that matter, you can throw the waste around the Sun. Have it pass somewhat close by, so that its orbit curves around and strikes the face that's not towards the Earth. Heck, you might want it to hit the face that is facing Earth, and have Earth's orbit carry us past (the anyway nearly nonexistent) spray.
For obvious reasons, I'm reluctant to say that this isn't rocket science...but what it is is really easy rocket science. The only concern is during initial atmospheric boost. Once you're to orbit or above, there's virtually nothing bad that can happen.
From this standpoint, the best location would actually be Washington D.C.
D.C. is the only part of the States without any Senators, and their lone House Representative is non-voting. Sure, they have one electoral college vote for President, but the District votes so overwhelmingly (80%) Democratic that it's a lost cause for the Republicans anyway.
As an added bonus, D.C. has been the focus of a tremendous security effort since 9/11, so it would be extremely closely monitored and highly secure.
Consequently, the most politically sound course of action must be to locate any storage facility in Washington, D.C.
Please?
Minor nitpick--uranium fission is carried out using fuel that's been around since before the Sun formed. True, it came from a star, but not the Sun. If we ever get commercial hydrogen fusion going, that fuel mostly dates back to not long after the Big Bang.
Really, locally produced nuclear power is the only energy source we have that doesn't come from the Sun. Of course, as you say, it's all nuclear.
I suppose we could eventually do something with gravitational energy--dropping stuff into black holes or the like. Then we could get away from nuclear power. On the other hand, we're a long way from even a prototype or research demo of that technology. And if you think people whine about having a nuclear plant in their back yard, wait until you tell them you're putting in a black hole....