Perot didn't rescue anything. They just found a few panels and wired them up with blinky lights, Hollywood style.
Here's a list of the ENIAC parts and their locations (from Wikipedia): The School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Pennsylvania (where the ENIAC was built in 1943 and operated until 1947) has four of the original forty panels and one of the three function tables of ENIAC (on loan from the Smithsonian). The Smithsonian has five panels in the National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. The Science Museum in London has a receiver unit on display. The Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California has three panels and a function table on display (on loan from the Smithsonian). The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor has four panels, salvaged by Arthur Burks. The U.S. Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, where ENIAC was used, has one of the function tables. The Perot Group in Plano, Texas has also seven panels and detailed history and explanation of ENIAC functions using text, graphics, photographs and interactive touch screen. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY has one of the data entry terminals from the ENIAC.
That's true but nobody has been able to solve these problems. The EIR and lawsuits are the result of demanding perfection for what is inherently a very dangerous process with catastrophic consequences for any mishap and this is technically not possible. So it is a technical failure. You can design a system that will work perfectly most of the time. You can't design a system that will work perfectly all of the time.
Sounds like you are proposing heavy government intervention and at the same time proposing that the government stay out of the way. Not sure how this would work. The problem remains that nuclear power plants have a high cost which keeps getting higher (negative learning curve). Nobody, not government, not free enterprise has been able to reverse that trend. Currently, nuclear costs more than 2x any other source of power. Also... very long lead time... minimum 10 to 15 years to get a plant running whereas solar and wind are 1 to 2 years and fossil fuel plants are about 5 years. Theoretically, nuclear is a great option... practically, it's a failure with just too many difficult problems which are probably not solvable.
From the IEEE article: "As Hansen has shown, if all power plants and industrial facilities switch over to zero-carbon energy sources right now, we’ll still be left with a ruinous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would take centuries for atmospheric levels to return to normal, which means centuries of warming and instability. "
Their main problem was that fossil fuels are cheaper because the infrastructure is already built and they can dump CO2 into the atmosphere without any cost. The easiest way to address this problem is with a carbon tax which uses the money to build renewable infrastructure.
Actually, 80% of farm land goes to animals and raising feed for animals. This also contributes 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. If we stopped eating meat, there would be surplus food for everyone, we could take a lot of land out of production and we would be half-way to reducing the 2050 target for greenhouse emissions.
Interesting article: Climatic Change (2009) 95:83–102 DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6 Climate benefits of changing diet Elke Stehfest Lex Bouwman Detlef P. van Vuuren Michel G. J. den Elzen Bas Eickhout Pavel Kabat
Abstract: Climate change mitigation policies tend to focus on the energy sector, while the livestock sector receives surprisingly little attention, despite the fact that it ac- counts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use. From a dietary perspective, new insights in the adverse health effects of beef and pork have lead to a revision of meat consumption recommendations. Here, we explored the potential impact of dietary changes on achieving ambitious climate stabilization levels. By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced substantially. A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2-eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case. Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies.
I've tried both and the Just Mayo is much better. I found the Vegenaise to have a weird consistency like poorly set up custard and the flavor wasn't great. Just Mayo has a great consistency and flavor... as good as "real" mayonnaise. (This is just my opinion, YMMV)
Just a few facts: Toyota fuel cell car has a range of 300 miles... same as the electric Tesla. Tesla can recharge in 20 minutes at a SuperCharger, not "hours". Electric outlets are everywhere... hydrogen refuel stations are... where? (I think there might be one in California).
A lot more places have electricity than natural gas pipelines. It's cheap to install an electric socket to charge an electric car. Everyone could easily do this at their house or business. I have friends who have Nissan Leaf cars and they just plug them into the garage outlet.
Much cheaper and easier to just install an electric plug for your electric car. Electricity is available just about everywhere (and a lot more places than natural gas).
These people were all obese and had metabolic syndrome to start:
Sixteen overweight/obese men and women 30-66 years old, with a BMI between 27–50 kg/m2 participated in this controlled dietary intervention (Table 1). Participants had metabolic syndrome defined as having three or more of the following criteria: waist circumference (101.6 cm men, 88.9 cm women), blood pressure (130/85 mm Hg) or current use of antihypertensive medication, and fasting plasma glucose (100 mg/dL), triglycerides (150 mg/dL), and HDL-C (40 mg/dL men, 50 mg/dL women).
Hard to draw any conclusions from this study for normal people. If you're fat, you have bad numbers and you need to lose weight and going on a high fat or low fat diet doesn't make much difference.
We've been conducting a geo-engineering experiment by increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere and, so far, it isn't going well. What makes anyone believe that any further meddling with the climate would not have severe unintended consequences?
Most of the GMO seeds from big agribusiness (Monsanto, etc.) are engineered to be resistant to the chemicals which you must apply to get the high yields. The chemicals kill everything else. You must buy the seeds and the chemicals together to get the high yields. This makes economic sense (if not environmental sense) in developed countries but completely fails in less developed economies. This is the problem with foisting developed country "solutions" on developing countries. They end up with high cost, unsustainable agriculture.
Iridium ran out of money before they could get enough satellites up to make the service viable and lost billions. It was also very expensive compared to ground based networks so was only viable in isolated areas, giving them a very limited market. But post bankruptcy is still operational and will start launching it's next generation of satellites (with better data capacity) next year. Elon Musk's SpaceX has been contracted to launch the satellites. Now, twenty years later it is a viable business.
Right now they are constrained by the supply of batteries. They are building a factory to make enough batteries for 500,000 cars a year so in a few years they will not have this constraint. Currently their gross margin on cars is 30%... much higher than any other car company. They also have a 2-4 month backlog of orders without doing any advertising and having a very limited distribution network. They are projecting 50%+ growth for the next few years. The competition has so far only produced pathetic electric cars (limited range using old designs and chassis from their ICE cars). These are equivalent to what a weekend mechanic could build in his garage. None of the established car companies has attempted to make the investment required to build a real electric car from the ground up like Tesla has... they could do it but they are at least 5 years behind the curve so it will take them a long time to come out with something equivalent to today's Tesla... and by then, Tesla will have moved on to something better.
In the past I've had a Porsche and a Land Rover that were each more expensive (adjusted for inflation) than my Tesla as well as a bunch of less expensive German cars. The Tesla is by far the best car I've ever owned. The whole driving experience (power, handling, comfort, etc.) is incredible... an order of magnitude better than anything I've ever owned. The fact that it is environmentally friendly is just icing on the cake (but was the primary reason I bought it).
And if it's a medical device, by the time the doctors get hold of it and charge their "special" markup (because we can), it will be no cheaper (and probably more expensive) than existing ultrasound.
Slashdot Mirror
Perot didn't rescue anything. They just found a few panels and wired them up with blinky lights, Hollywood style.
Here's a list of the ENIAC parts and their locations (from Wikipedia):
The School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Pennsylvania (where the ENIAC was built in 1943 and operated until 1947) has four of the original forty panels and one of the three function tables of ENIAC (on loan from the Smithsonian).
The Smithsonian has five panels in the National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C.
The Science Museum in London has a receiver unit on display.
The Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California has three panels and a function table on display (on loan from the Smithsonian).
The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor has four panels, salvaged by Arthur Burks.
The U.S. Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, where ENIAC was used, has one of the function tables.
The Perot Group in Plano, Texas has also seven panels and detailed history and explanation of ENIAC functions using text, graphics, photographs and interactive touch screen.
The U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY has one of the data entry terminals from the ENIAC.
That's true but nobody has been able to solve these problems. The EIR and lawsuits are the result of demanding perfection for what is inherently a very dangerous process with catastrophic consequences for any mishap and this is technically not possible. So it is a technical failure. You can design a system that will work perfectly most of the time. You can't design a system that will work perfectly all of the time.
Sounds like you are proposing heavy government intervention and at the same time proposing that the government stay out of the way. Not sure how this would work.
The problem remains that nuclear power plants have a high cost which keeps getting higher (negative learning curve). Nobody, not government, not free enterprise has been able to reverse that trend. Currently, nuclear costs more than 2x any other source of power. Also... very long lead time... minimum 10 to 15 years to get a plant running whereas solar and wind are 1 to 2 years and fossil fuel plants are about 5 years.
Theoretically, nuclear is a great option... practically, it's a failure with just too many difficult problems which are probably not solvable.
I have a 15 year old car which still works just fine... be interesting to see if I can keep it running for another 15 years.
From the IEEE article:
"As Hansen has shown, if all power plants and industrial facilities switch over to zero-carbon energy sources right now, we’ll still be left with a ruinous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would take centuries for atmospheric levels to return to normal, which means centuries of warming and instability. "
Their main problem was that fossil fuels are cheaper because the infrastructure is already built and they can dump CO2 into the atmosphere without any cost.
The easiest way to address this problem is with a carbon tax which uses the money to build renewable infrastructure.
Even with this, we may be toast.
Eggs contain whatever antibiotics and hormones they feed the chickens plus the superbugs that survive the antibiotics.
The egg industry has funded a few studies which purport to show that eggs are healthy. I'd be very skeptical of these results.
Actually, 80% of farm land goes to animals and raising feed for animals. This also contributes 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.
If we stopped eating meat, there would be surplus food for everyone, we could take a lot of land out of production and we would be half-way to reducing the 2050 target for greenhouse emissions.
Interesting article:
Climatic Change (2009) 95:83–102 DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6
Climate benefits of changing diet
Elke Stehfest Lex Bouwman Detlef P. van Vuuren
Michel G. J. den Elzen Bas Eickhout Pavel Kabat
Abstract: Climate change mitigation policies tend to focus on the energy sector, while the livestock sector receives surprisingly little attention, despite the fact that it ac- counts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use. From a dietary perspective, new insights in the adverse health effects of beef and pork have lead to a revision of meat consumption recommendations. Here, we explored the potential impact of dietary changes on achieving ambitious climate stabilization levels. By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced substantially. A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2-eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case. Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies.
I've tried both and the Just Mayo is much better. I found the Vegenaise to have a weird consistency like poorly set up custard and the flavor wasn't great.
Just Mayo has a great consistency and flavor... as good as "real" mayonnaise.
(This is just my opinion, YMMV)
Just a few facts:
Toyota fuel cell car has a range of 300 miles... same as the electric Tesla.
Tesla can recharge in 20 minutes at a SuperCharger, not "hours".
Electric outlets are everywhere... hydrogen refuel stations are... where? (I think there might be one in California).
A lot more places have electricity than natural gas pipelines. It's cheap to install an electric socket to charge an electric car. Everyone could easily do this at their house or business. I have friends who have Nissan Leaf cars and they just plug them into the garage outlet.
Gas would have to go below $0.40 cents a gallon to be competitive with electricity... not going to happen.
Much cheaper and easier to just install an electric plug for your electric car. Electricity is available just about everywhere (and a lot more places than natural gas).
If it only works on Windows, it can't be that "highly advanced"... probably just some teens in their basement. Windows is not that hard to compromise.
Linux is one price (free) and you get a server and tools and all the features.... bonus, you are not a target for malware!
These people were all obese and had metabolic syndrome to start:
Sixteen overweight/obese men and women 30-66 years old, with a BMI between 27–50 kg/m2 participated in this controlled dietary intervention (Table 1). Participants had metabolic syndrome defined as having three or more of the following criteria: waist circumference (101.6 cm men, 88.9 cm women), blood pressure (130/85 mm Hg) or current use of antihypertensive medication, and fasting plasma glucose (100 mg/dL), triglycerides (150 mg/dL), and HDL-C (40 mg/dL men, 50 mg/dL women).
Hard to draw any conclusions from this study for normal people. If you're fat, you have bad numbers and you need to lose weight and going on a high fat or low fat diet doesn't make much difference.
We've been conducting a geo-engineering experiment by increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere and, so far, it isn't going well.
What makes anyone believe that any further meddling with the climate would not have severe unintended consequences?
I have a subscription to the NY Times.
I still get loads of ads on my tablet with no adblock.
Adblock is your friend.
OMG... call the engineers! I bet they never thought of that. A big mistake. You are a true genius who will save us from the folly of renewable energy.
Most of the GMO seeds from big agribusiness (Monsanto, etc.) are engineered to be resistant to the chemicals which you must apply to get the high yields. The chemicals kill everything else. You must buy the seeds and the chemicals together to get the high yields.
This makes economic sense (if not environmental sense) in developed countries but completely fails in less developed economies. This is the problem with foisting developed country "solutions" on developing countries. They end up with high cost, unsustainable agriculture.
Yes, you are an old fuddy-duddy.
They have... it's called the model A+
Iridium ran out of money before they could get enough satellites up to make the service viable and lost billions. It was also very expensive compared to ground based networks so was only viable in isolated areas, giving them a very limited market. But post bankruptcy is still operational and will start launching it's next generation of satellites (with better data capacity) next year. Elon Musk's SpaceX has been contracted to launch the satellites. Now, twenty years later it is a viable business.
Right now they are constrained by the supply of batteries. They are building a factory to make enough batteries for 500,000 cars a year so in a few years they will not have this constraint.
Currently their gross margin on cars is 30%... much higher than any other car company. They also have a 2-4 month backlog of orders without doing any advertising and having a very limited distribution network. They are projecting 50%+ growth for the next few years.
The competition has so far only produced pathetic electric cars (limited range using old designs and chassis from their ICE cars). These are equivalent to what a weekend mechanic could build in his garage. None of the established car companies has attempted to make the investment required to build a real electric car from the ground up like Tesla has... they could do it but they are at least 5 years behind the curve so it will take them a long time to come out with something equivalent to today's Tesla... and by then, Tesla will have moved on to something better.
In the past I've had a Porsche and a Land Rover that were each more expensive (adjusted for inflation) than my Tesla as well as a bunch of less expensive German cars. The Tesla is by far the best car I've ever owned. The whole driving experience (power, handling, comfort, etc.) is incredible... an order of magnitude better than anything I've ever owned.
The fact that it is environmentally friendly is just icing on the cake (but was the primary reason I bought it).
And if it's a medical device, by the time the doctors get hold of it and charge their "special" markup (because we can), it will be no cheaper (and probably more expensive) than existing ultrasound.