The best (newest) coal and gas fired power plants can hit 60% thermal efficiency. This means the actual figure is more like 10 gallons to produce your required steel
Actually, no. Let's just agree we're all a little challenged today...
If we assume we need 35GJ to produce the steel for one car, and the process is 60% efficient, we'll need MORE, not less fuel.
That means we'll need 500 gallons to produce the steel in a process which requires 35GJ and is 60% efficient.
No offense, but I'd like to see some evidence to back up your claim that burning thousands of gallons of gasoline a year is negligible in comparison to the few hours of energy required to melt iron and carbon together into steel and assemble it in a plant with melted sand (silicon) and maybe a couple gallons of oil worth of plastic.
Steel requires 20-25 GJ/tonne to produce. Gasoline has an energy density of around 0.13GJ/gallon (sorry about the mixed units, but I'm converting for the metric-challenged USAians)
Current average US passenger cars weigh in at a bit over 1.5 tonnes or about 35GJ of energy to produce. In direct equivalents, without considering efficiencies, that's about 3,000 gallons worth of gasoline to produce the steel.
Ask that around here and you're bound to get a few hopelessly ignorant responses
Clever use of the "Poisoning the well" logical fallacy. Your Marketing professor would be proud of you.
There are very valid reasons to be suspicious of Gates' new-found generosity. And there are certainly very valid reasons to be wary of the path the Gates Foundation is taking to world health.
According to a report published January 7 in the Los Angeles Times, the Gates foundation invests its assets in companies whose operations induce some of the health problems it seeks to combat.
I doubt exactly, 8,002,530 people installed it and are using it.
Duh. That was the figure for just 24 hours.
Plenty of people have downloaded it since then, but those don't count towards the record. To date, there have been more than 29 million downloads in total.
Indium, for example, is more common than silver, and the only reason for the supposed scarcity on the market is that the Chinese mining companies stopped extracting it from their zinc tailings.
I suspect a large proportion of the fear mongering derives from the way mining companies define resources and reserves. The type of exploration required to turn a mineral resource (what miners expect to find) into an ore reserve (what they have proved to be there) is expensive. It doesn't make sense to prove up more ore than is needed for the immediate continuity of the company.
even as an American who is a Republican party member and admired Howard for being with us militarily,
I think Australia would have been a better friend to the US if it had stayed out of the war and tried to persuade the US to do so as well.
If you go mad and set your house of fire, who's the better friend? The one who brings a can of gasoline and sits in the flames with you, or the one who stays outside with a hose, trying to put the fire out?
But microsoft has managed to hold down a monopoly for 20 years.
Yes, but they've done that by stifling progress in computer operating systems for at least half that time.
Computer users are starting to route around the damage they're causing. That's why Microsoft feels they are under attack from so many fronts - they're a stationary target in a world that wants rapid movement.
Think Maginot line in the blitzkrieg, if you want your Godwin reference back.
I find it hard to believe that an OS that was even further abstracted, by being placed on top of another operating system, could be faster or more stable.
Surprisingly, you're wrong.
Sandboxing an unstable app or OS is a good way of improving the overall stability of the system. Check this out, for example;
Vx32 is a user-mode library that can be linked into arbitrary applications that wish to create secure, isolated execution environments in which to run untrusted extensions or plug-ins implemented as native x86 code. Vx32 is similar in purpose to the Java or.NET virtual machines, but it runs native x86 code, so plug-ins can be written in ANY language, not just Java or C#.
Slashdot Mirror
This child process has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
So if you're an expert taking extraordinary measures, it's _possible_ to make Windows work properly.
For the rest of us, the reboot/reinstall cycle is simpler.
In theory that works, but in practice the device manager is not always successful in cleanly unloading and reloading stream interface drivers.
Yep. A Blue Sky of Death.
Longer uptimes might be good for marketing, but they're no use to users who have to reboot just as frequently to get their peripherals working again.
I know.
It's bad enough when I try to order a pizza online.
Started breathing.
Actually, no. Let's just agree we're all a little challenged today...
If we assume we need 35GJ to produce the steel for one car, and the process is 60% efficient, we'll need MORE, not less fuel.
That means we'll need 500 gallons to produce the steel in a process which requires 35GJ and is 60% efficient.
Whoops, you're right. Shifted a decimal in there converting to gallons.
Should've stuck to metric units...
I will send you a piece of paper to sign.
It already has a little writing and some numbers on it, but don't worry about those. Just sign on the line in the bottom right corner.
Ray Bradbury has to be there somewhere. He, Arthur C. Clarke and John Wyndham would be my picks.
Steel requires 20-25 GJ/tonne to produce. Gasoline has an energy density of around 0.13GJ/gallon (sorry about the mixed units, but I'm converting for the metric-challenged USAians)
Current average US passenger cars weigh in at a bit over 1.5 tonnes or about 35GJ of energy to produce. In direct equivalents, without considering efficiencies, that's about 3,000 gallons worth of gasoline to produce the steel.
Clever use of the "Poisoning the well" logical fallacy. Your Marketing professor would be proud of you.
There are very valid reasons to be suspicious of Gates' new-found generosity. And there are certainly very valid reasons to be wary of the path the Gates Foundation is taking to world health.
Their close financial ties to large pharmaceutical companies is another example.
According to a report published January 7 in the Los Angeles Times, the Gates foundation invests its assets in companies whose operations induce some of the health problems it seeks to combat.
Duh. That was the figure for just 24 hours.
Plenty of people have downloaded it since then, but those don't count towards the record. To date, there have been more than 29 million downloads in total.
Very clear, except for the bit which says;
The Mount Pleasant mine is a very significant indium resource and one of the few in the world which could form a stand-alone indium mine.
There's also a couple of shows in Australia which look to be feasible as well.
There are no indium mines because there's always been enough indium available as a byproduct of zinc mining.
Indium does occur in high concentration lodes. The increase in price has made it likely that stand-alone indium mines will be established.
It seems that way.
Indium, for example, is more common than silver, and the only reason for the supposed scarcity on the market is that the Chinese mining companies stopped extracting it from their zinc tailings.
I suspect a large proportion of the fear mongering derives from the way mining companies define resources and reserves. The type of exploration required to turn a mineral resource (what miners expect to find) into an ore reserve (what they have proved to be there) is expensive. It doesn't make sense to prove up more ore than is needed for the immediate continuity of the company.
This is the internet. You can visit .au domains without a visa.
Actually, it would have been a good idea to get started in 2002.
Your government hasn't given up on the idea that any worker with access to your privacy should inform them of your activities.
Join the Citizen Corps. Protect your country from terrorism now!
How did you get Firefox to do that?
I think Australia would have been a better friend to the US if it had stayed out of the war and tried to persuade the US to do so as well.
If you go mad and set your house of fire, who's the better friend? The one who brings a can of gasoline and sits in the flames with you, or the one who stays outside with a hose, trying to put the fire out?
Yes, but they've done that by stifling progress in computer operating systems for at least half that time.
Computer users are starting to route around the damage they're causing. That's why Microsoft feels they are under attack from so many fronts - they're a stationary target in a world that wants rapid movement.
Think Maginot line in the blitzkrieg, if you want your Godwin reference back.
Though I didn't find this argument quite so convincing...
People working in Microsoft are relly very smart and skillful.
It's about distribution.
Surprisingly, you're wrong.
Sandboxing an unstable app or OS is a good way of improving the overall stability of the system. Check this out, for example;
Vx32 is a user-mode library that can be linked into arbitrary applications that wish to create secure, isolated execution environments in which to run untrusted extensions or plug-ins implemented as native x86 code. Vx32 is similar in purpose to the Java or .NET virtual machines, but it runs native x86 code, so plug-ins can be written in ANY language, not just Java or C#.
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~baford/vm/