Your analysis sounds good, but is quite wrong.
Cars usually use only a small fraction of their maximum available power almost all the time. Unless you do all of your driving on the freeway on-ramp or at the racetrack, you can count on using perhaps 10-20% of the available horsepower on average basis.
Um, no. While it's true that hybrids do offer good low-end torque, great for snappy starts, the existence for a feature is not the same the feature providing a more fuel efficient way to drive. An easy start allows a hybrid to do a mostly-electric motor acceleration, while a faster acceleration requires more gas engine power at higher RPMs, which are less efficient. The whole idea of a hybrid is to avoid inefficient high power operation of the gas engine.
For braking, you're also wrong. While it's true that hybrids do recover some energy through regenerative braking, it's more fuel efficient to not spend the gas to create the energy that needs to be recovered in the first place. You make it sound like the car is a perpetual motion machine, that recovers more energy that was put in with the gas engine.
Unless you were trolling, you have completely confused hybrid features with measures to improve mileage.
. . . and the 23 foot figure isn't right. 630,000 cubic miles works out to about a 2.3 foot rise in global sea level. I think the 23 foot figure is what happens if Antarctica's ice cap melts.
Anyhow, while I think it's a fascinating story, and that the rate of Greenland's ice melting is a really interesting science problem, and that sea level rise is going to continue to accelerate due to human causes *pauses for breath*, it goes to show you that you can't really believe any specific detail in an article, even in the NY times.
That's called "probable cause" (finding the outline of a round of ammo in mail) and enables the law to get a warrant from a judge. See, it works. Bush's idea of dropping the warrant means that the government can open anyone's mail for any reason, without repercussion or recourse for the victims.
Does that sound good to you?
Bush may (in delusion) think that he is acting to protect us all (we all hope his motives are not more sinister, anyhow), but it's readily apparent that these moves are making our country more unsafe, not less. More unsafe from our own government.
. . . so it does look like it will be up to humankind to practice some discretion with the burning of fossil fuels. We may be getting closer to the _halfway_ point for _easily_recoverable_ oil, but we're nowhere near that point for natural gas (much of which goes unrecovered just because we don't have a good way to transport it to where it's needed), and we have ungodly large supplies of coal (centuries' worth). The U.S. is especially well endowed with coal reserves . . . too bad that coal is the worst fossil fuel in terms of CO2 release per unit of energy recovered.
Doesn't seem to get much argument compared to the BSD-GPL argument, but there is a heckuva lot of great Apache Project software under a use-anyway-you-please license. I work on a few open source projects and they are all under Apache-like licenses, using mostly Apache/Jakarta software as their base. It's our first choice, and we avoid introducing any GPL software into the mix, because it would contaminate our license pool. From where I sit, the GPL is just more restrictive, and I'd rather release my software under a totally free license.
I see this as basically good news -- the real problem is the siphoning of all of the money at NASA into this bizarre revival of the manned space program, to go to the Moon and Mars. I know no scientist (I'm a chemical physics PhD) who thinks this a good idea. It is hugely expensive and offers no clear benefits.
So while it's good to see Congress directing NASA to focus on a top science mission (Hubble), I'm skeptical that rescuing Hubble is a good way to spend science mission dollars. We should be making new, better telescopes and instruments and pumping them into space -- we can and will vastly exceed Hubble's capabilities, let's get on with it!
Hubble has served its mission. It was designed to be serviced by humans, already a dated concept. Let it go.
Biodiesel and other biomass technologies are valuable and worth researching; there will be a point in the none-too-distant future when they make sense economically.
But the BIG problem is one of scale. In the US, on average, each person consumes over 10 pounds of gasoline in his/her car each day, and more than that through the other energy we consume. This is a staggeringly large and unsustainable amount of consumption. The US does NOT create enough biomass to match this, even if it were technically feasible to do so.
That said, biomass fuels will help. A little bit. But the scale of our consumption is a big ass problem that we'll have to open our eyes to some day.
I think ripping to ogg is algorithmically more complex, based on the performance of the ogg rippers I've used. So, yeah, it is slower than ripping to mp3. But it doesn't take that long, and I only have to do it once. My hope is that my high quality ogg collection will be useful for the duration of my digital music future.
I wouldn't recommend going from one compressed format directly to another, though, one should always go back to the source data if at all possible.
I re-ripped my entire music collection in 160kps.ogg and now carry it around on my iRiver HP-140 40Gb player. Top quality sound and compression, unencumbered codec, open source software! What more could one ask?
Parent is exactly right -- it turns out that serious chess players are never interested in goofy (i.e., non-Staunton) chess sets that other folks seem to think are nifty. An analog would be goofy fonts, any person who likes to read text in the Latin alphabet probably isn't seeking out works set in Old English Text MT or Magneto.
Which means that non-Staunton chess sets are designed by and for non-chess players.
The description of the hobbits (brain case 1/3 the size of humans, similar to chimps; thick brow ridge; no chin; different proportions of limbs) makes it certain that it's another species, descended in a branch somehow parallel to homo sapiens. They have found many adult specimens (not children).
What I'm wondering is, why would one react so negatively to this rather unavoidable conclusion? It's a really fascinating, exciting find!
I don't see anyone discussing the success of the Apache project, which doesn't use GPL. No problems with forking, getting significant contributions, etc.
I like developing my open source project based on their software because I think it lowers the barrier for adoption of our software. Our users know that investing in our system could lead to commercial opportunities. "Adoptibility" is our credo.
Is there any significant difference between the BSD and Apache licenses?
Indeed, today's game was a fine example of eight-pawn chess. The computer played abysmally, worse than anyone would expect, choosing to shuffle pieces pointless back and forth rather than opening up the game the only way it could (along the f-file). Garry could have won this with one parietal lobe tied behind his back -- which must be super frustrating for him after losing the previous game.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analysis sounds good, but is quite wrong. Cars usually use only a small fraction of their maximum available power almost all the time. Unless you do all of your driving on the freeway on-ramp or at the racetrack, you can count on using perhaps 10-20% of the available horsepower on average basis.
Or use both sides of the tape? Wait . . . how bout this for an idea . . . an EIGHT-TRACK tape!
This is worth $50B? Experiments that could have been performed in unmanned spacecraft for a couple hundred million dollars?
I use a purple crayon.
For braking, you're also wrong. While it's true that hybrids do recover some energy through regenerative braking, it's more fuel efficient to not spend the gas to create the energy that needs to be recovered in the first place. You make it sound like the car is a perpetual motion machine, that recovers more energy that was put in with the gas engine.
Unless you were trolling, you have completely confused hybrid features with measures to improve mileage.
. . . and the 23 foot figure isn't right. 630,000 cubic miles works out to about a 2.3 foot rise in global sea level. I think the 23 foot figure is what happens if Antarctica's ice cap melts. Anyhow, while I think it's a fascinating story, and that the rate of Greenland's ice melting is a really interesting science problem, and that sea level rise is going to continue to accelerate due to human causes *pauses for breath*, it goes to show you that you can't really believe any specific detail in an article, even in the NY times.
That's called "probable cause" (finding the outline of a round of ammo in mail) and enables the law to get a warrant from a judge. See, it works. Bush's idea of dropping the warrant means that the government can open anyone's mail for any reason, without repercussion or recourse for the victims. Does that sound good to you? Bush may (in delusion) think that he is acting to protect us all (we all hope his motives are not more sinister, anyhow), but it's readily apparent that these moves are making our country more unsafe, not less. More unsafe from our own government.
Pi is a mathematical constant, not a physical one. There is no way it can vary, just like the number "2" can't vary.
. . . so it does look like it will be up to humankind to practice some discretion with the burning of fossil fuels. We may be getting closer to the _halfway_ point for _easily_recoverable_ oil, but we're nowhere near that point for natural gas (much of which goes unrecovered just because we don't have a good way to transport it to where it's needed), and we have ungodly large supplies of coal (centuries' worth). The U.S. is especially well endowed with coal reserves . . . too bad that coal is the worst fossil fuel in terms of CO2 release per unit of energy recovered.
Doesn't seem to get much argument compared to the BSD-GPL argument, but there is a heckuva lot of great Apache Project software under a use-anyway-you-please license. I work on a few open source projects and they are all under Apache-like licenses, using mostly Apache/Jakarta software as their base. It's our first choice, and we avoid introducing any GPL software into the mix, because it would contaminate our license pool. From where I sit, the GPL is just more restrictive, and I'd rather release my software under a totally free license.
So while it's good to see Congress directing NASA to focus on a top science mission (Hubble), I'm skeptical that rescuing Hubble is a good way to spend science mission dollars. We should be making new, better telescopes and instruments and pumping them into space -- we can and will vastly exceed Hubble's capabilities, let's get on with it!
Hubble has served its mission. It was designed to be serviced by humans, already a dated concept. Let it go.
But the BIG problem is one of scale. In the US, on average, each person consumes over 10 pounds of gasoline in his/her car each day, and more than that through the other energy we consume. This is a staggeringly large and unsustainable amount of consumption. The US does NOT create enough biomass to match this, even if it were technically feasible to do so.
That said, biomass fuels will help. A little bit. But the scale of our consumption is a big ass problem that we'll have to open our eyes to some day.
I think ripping to ogg is algorithmically more complex, based on the performance of the ogg rippers I've used. So, yeah, it is slower than ripping to mp3. But it doesn't take that long, and I only have to do it once. My hope is that my high quality ogg collection will be useful for the duration of my digital music future. I wouldn't recommend going from one compressed format directly to another, though, one should always go back to the source data if at all possible.
I re-ripped my entire music collection in 160kps .ogg and now carry it around on my iRiver HP-140 40Gb player. Top quality sound and compression, unencumbered codec, open source software! What more could one ask?
Which means that non-Staunton chess sets are designed by and for non-chess players.
The description of the hobbits (brain case 1/3 the size of humans, similar to chimps; thick brow ridge; no chin; different proportions of limbs) makes it certain that it's another species, descended in a branch somehow parallel to homo sapiens. They have found many adult specimens (not children). What I'm wondering is, why would one react so negatively to this rather unavoidable conclusion? It's a really fascinating, exciting find!
I don't see anyone discussing the success of the Apache project, which doesn't use GPL. No problems with forking, getting significant contributions, etc. I like developing my open source project based on their software because I think it lowers the barrier for adoption of our software. Our users know that investing in our system could lead to commercial opportunities. "Adoptibility" is our credo. Is there any significant difference between the BSD and Apache licenses?
In the dot.com boom days, biz plan spielers thought that a valid email address was worth $1-$10.
I'm just thinking, if Phoebe is the probe, I am very concerned about learning what aperture it was designed for.
. . . with dark energy causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, it might be more apt to say that "The Universe Blows".
One word: Thunderpants.
Indeed, today's game was a fine example of eight-pawn chess. The computer played abysmally, worse than anyone would expect, choosing to shuffle pieces pointless back and forth rather than opening up the game the only way it could (along the f-file). Garry could have won this with one parietal lobe tied behind his back -- which must be super frustrating for him after losing the previous game.