We're not talking about replacing all power sources here though just electrical generation run by oil and gas and maybe coal.
Right, so... about 78% of it, then. 77.5% is currently produced by oil, gas and coal and roughly 1% is nuclear. That's still not looking too rosy. Did you happen to notice those were 2000 figures? You think we're using more or less now?
Secondly, your math is lacking. Thorium does not transmute to 99% DU and 1% fissionable Uranium, it transmutes to ~100% fissionable Uranium
I never said otherwise. If you read my post, I even assumed 100% perfect conversion to fissionable Uranium, and added the total Thorium to the total Uranium. Note that I also assumed we could use 100% of the Uranium because of the CANDU style reactors, which is technically incorrect because the only uranium that is used is the U235 (CANDU type reactors only allow you to avoid concentrating the U235, not magically allow you to use U232 as a fuel)
So really, we really CAN use only 1% of the total uranium reserves since the 99% which is U232 is unusable.
One single tonne of Thorium can make close to one hundred tonnes of fuel.
That's a nice trick. How does one make 100 tons of Uranium from 1 ton of Thorium?
And let's not forget that those figures for Uranium and Thorium are only *reserves*.
"Reasonably assured reserves" aka "what we are pretty sure we can get if we dig for it" aka "what's still in the ground needing to be mined." Those are not figures like it's sitting in a warehouse somewhere. That's all this planet's got to offer. Your oil/oil-sand comparison doesn't work because oil sand... well... isn't exactly oil, is it? That's why it's not counted in the reserve figures.
The fact of the matter is that the nuclear option needs some serious exploration.
And I agree, but another fact of the matter is that Nuclear is not a real solution. It is better reserved for applications where other forms of energy are simply not as attractive such as polar regions or space exploration where transporting traditional fuels or using solar-derived energies are not as practical. =Smidge=
Even WITH reprocessing, even if you dilute the fuel with Thorium to stretch it out, you don't have enough.
There is only ~3.3 million tons [pdf] of Uranium on the planet. That's ALL Uranium, not the fissile U235 which makes up less than 1% of it. But let's assume we only use CANDU type reactors which do not need enrichment.
A 1000 MW nuclear plant goes through about 25 tons of fuel per year. As of the year 2000, we need 11.7 trillion watts [pdf] of continuous power to satisfy demand. (350 quadrillion BTUs per year converts to 11.7 trillion joules per second)
So if you were to build 1000MW powerplants, you would need 11,700 of them. Each using 25 tons of fuel a year for a total of 292,500 tons a year. Without reprocessing and thorium additives and other hybrid fuels, you've only got about 12 years worth of Uranium if we are to produce 100% of our energy needs with Nuclear.
Reprocessing can recover 96% of the uranium from spent fuel, so let's say that we can effectively double the usable fuel through reprocessing... now we have 24 years worth of fuel. This would then include the produced fissile Plutonium being reprocessed into the fuel (MOX fuels).
Now, Thorium? There's an estimated 1.4 million tons [pdf] of Thorium. If all of that can be used (thorium creates fissile U233 when used inside reactors, that's why it's useful) then we just add that to the 3.3 million tons we already have.. in other words, about 43% more fuel. We're up to about 34 years!
And this is assuming year 2000 levels of energy usage...
Am I missing anything? If you think any of the above is wrong then please let's discuss it... =Smidge=
I don't think it's fair to call it a 2 cylinder engine, either.
I mean, technically it has no "cylinders" at all:P
Each of two chambers is divided into 3 working volumes by a single rotor, for a total of 6 independent working volumes at any given time. Wouldn't this be more analogous to a 6-cyl engine? =Smidge=
The annoying part is that I never really hear anything from the "non extremists" comdemning acts like this. You would think that if these people go apeshit over a poorly drawn one-panel cartoon, they would be a little more proactive in trying to convince the world not every follower of Islam is a psychopath.
Unless, of course, if the majority of Islamic followers ARE psychopaths... =Smidge=
That's what the "History" tab is for. No information is ever discarded (unless exlpicitly deleted by staff). You can even select any two versions and it will compare them side-by-side, highlighting what is different.
It's actually pretty interesting to see the kinds of changes some people make, and how small changes really effect the meaning of the article. =Smidge=
Volkswagen is confident these NOX levels can be lowered using new technology if the sulfur level in our nation's diesel fuel was reduced.
Luckily, both biodiesel and TDP created diesel both have zero sulfur content. And both are carbon-neutral (or even decrease atmospheric carbon) and fully renewable.
It's very hard not to jump on the "Big oil conspiracy" bandwagon, but so far neither of these seems to be cost effective enough to gain a major market share. Shame, really... =Smidge=
While not necessarily "alternative energy", you might try some form of cogeneration.
Take a fuel such as natural gas, propane or even heating oil/biodiesel. Run a generator to supplement your electrical needs.
Take the heat generated by the generator and run it through an absorption chiller to provide some "free" cooling for your datacenter. If you have any extra heat left you might be able to use it for domestic hot water/space heating as well.
If using natural gas, then a fuel cell may be a viable option - they certainly run hot enough!
The only other kit you would need is a smallish cooling tower (help cool water prior to entering the chiller), some pumps and a chilled water coil + fan inside somewhere. This would probably be expensive to set up though. You would have to do some analysis to see if you would recover such an investment in a reasonable amount of time, if at all.
A bonus would be that, if properly designed, you'd have complete independence from the grid and won't be effected by blackouts!
Another approach would be to look into ground-sink heat pumps to reduce cooling costs. Special enclosures for your equipment may also help keep the cooling right where you need it.
Power conditioners on the incoming electrical circuits may also help improve efficiency of the power supplies, which would save on electricity and also a little on cooling costs (more efficient = less heat)
In the end, anything you do to reduce costs will likely be a Good Thing(tm) for both the environment and your bank account. =Smidge=
The President is the President, not the Pope. While it has certaintly gone downhill (and continues to do so), we're not quite at the "what the President says is law" stage yet. Laws are made by Congress, and the President can either ratify them or veto them. If he vetos the law, Congress can override him with another vote.
The problem is exactly as you said: people are brought up to not question authority. What he is trying to do is illegal, but nobody seems to be doing anything about it because they either think it is legal or it is at least justified by the situation (eg: Fightin' ter'ists!!1!)
As an aside, has anyone else noticed that the people who are most afraid of terrorism are the ones who live where there is the absolute lowest chance of being targeted?
EnergyGain would be the energy absorbed from sunlight. EnergyReleased would be energy that is already on the planet is released by some process (eg burning fossil fuels). EnergyLoss would be the heat radiated out into space.
EnergyLoss has supposedly been decreasing because of greenhouse gasses - CO2 inhibits the radiation of heat off of the planet.
EnergyGain may also be decreasing from the effects of pollution, known as Global Dimming.
EnergyReleased has probably been increasing, as the rate of energy production increases to meet demands. When energy is produced from stored sources such as fossil and nuclear fuels, it ends up as heat in the environment. However, we are gradually running out of stored energy sources... so optimistically this trend can't continue forever.
All someone has to do is crunch the numbers and figure out if there is a net increase or decrease in atmospheric energy. =Smidge=
And this has an additional downside: won't all the absorbed CO2 just be re-released when the fuel the process creates is burned? Thus you're back to where you started with the same amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
As opposed to INCREASING atmospheric CO2 by burning fuel you've sucked out of the ground? I'll take it.
Besides, you will not get 100% of the carbon back out of the algae. Even after you've extracted the biodiesel and fermented the remains to make alcohol, you will have goop left over that contains carbon-rich biomass. This can be packed into abandoned coal mines (for example) and thus remove that portion of carbon from the cycle. =Smidge=
I hope that post was a troll. I don't know what's worse... the fact that none of what you said makes sense or the fact that apparently people think it's correct.
For the mods who rated that post "informative" and "interesting":
Microwaves have wavelengths measurable in centimeters. This makes them very bad for data storage. The whole reason the industry is trying to move to Blu-ray and similar technologies is because blue colored light has a much SHORTER wavelength than the traditional red colored lasers used in established data storage devices. The "size" of the bit being stored (and therefore the number of bits you can store in a given area) is directly proportional to this wavelength.
The wavelength of the microwave radiation emitted by the phone is roughly 35 centimeters. The wavelength of light used in CD drives is roughly 0.000078 centimeters. That's nearly 13000 times larger! So you'd think you could store 1/13000th the data in the same spot using microwaves than you could fit using regular CD laser tech.
All this ignores some other very serious technical issues, of course... like how the unfocused microwave energy emitted by the antenna (or anywhere else in the phone) is directed and focused towards the HD platter, and how the microwave energy is able to interact with the platter to read and toggle magnetic bits considering microwaves bounce right off metal surfaces.
------------------
The size of the R/W heads is NOT a limiting factor.It is easy enough to use MEMS technology to make them only a few billions of a meter wide, so they can be built plenty small enough. The real limiting factor is how closely you can back the magnetic regions that encode the data before they interfere with each other and lose the ability to retain their state.
I have had some experience with Pimsleur language learning materials (Japanese though). I found the material started out pretty easy and got more difficult in later lessons, but was not unmanagable.
It's also a tad expensive, but if you are serious about learning then combining this with other sources reading websites or other publications in the desired language, etc) would probably be a great start.
(I personally wouldn't pay that much for it, though.) =Smidge=
Except all of those deal with physical products that no one entity could control anyway. Anyone can make a burger, build an outlet store or make a shoe.
With telecom things, there is only a limited number of wires, a limited number of antennas and a limited number of satellites. If you and I were two telecom companies in competition in the same area, and I owned the lines, it would be a cold day in hell before I let you send your data over them. Why should I? Those are my customers!
The alternative is for you to put up your own copper, towers and sats. Good luck! You can't use my poles or trenches to string your wires and fiber, and you'll have to wade through bureaucracy at every level of government to get your own infrastructure set up.
I understand what you are saying, but that is a pretty bad example. If you want to know something statistical (such as population of an area) then it's best to go to the source anyway because such statistics would change frequently.
And besides, if you are using the information for any non-trivial purpose (research paper, etc) then it's just good practice to use more than one source no matter what. =Smidge=
311 Dialing, 911 Dialing, and Vonage Service DO NOT function during an electrical power or broadband provider outage. While you cannot control a power outage that actually disrupts the broadband Internet service, one method Vonage has found is to use an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)to continue to provide AC power to the cable/DSL modem, phone adapter and the cordless phone base station. A Uninterruptible Power Supply can be purchased at an electronics store near you.
Vonage also offers the free option of having a Network Availability Number. Now you don't have to be inconvenienced if your Internet connection fails. Your calls will be automatically forwarded to the phone number of your choice in the event your Internet connection is disrupted or your telephone adapter is disconnected. To set up your Network Availability Number, log in to your web account, and click on the "Features" tab on your Dashboard.
Say we have a Thermal Depolymerization Plant (which is what the article seems to talk about). Into the plant I dump animal wastes (offal, bones, skin, etc.) I add a little energy to run the process. Out the other side I get a hydrocarbon soup which is essentially light crude oil (technically not BioDiesel) as well as some other goodies like methane gas, nearly pure carbon (as a solid) and clean water.
Lo and behold, the energy I can get from burning the oil product is greater than the energy I put into the perocess! We can litterally take a portion of our output (usually the methane) and feed it back into the plant to keep it running. How can this be?!
Answer: There is energy in the animal wastes that you are not taking into consideration. Energy that otherwise would be completely wasted. Energy in the animal wastes + energy added to process < energy available as fuel product. This satisfies the laws of thermo just fine. But your USEFUL energy has increased. Looking only at the useful energy, your efficiency is up around 560% (see wiki article). If you consider the energy in the waste as part of the balance, the real efficiency is closer to 85%
Also, since pure carbon solids is a byproduct, you are actually removing carbon from the atmosphere. All of that carbon was once CO2, absorbed by plants and then eaten by animals which you then processed into fuel. Even if you burn all that carbon again there is a net zero change in CO2 levels. Thus, carbon-neutral.
What I find most interesting is how the process could possibly be tweaked to work on nearly anything carbon-based, like plastics. Imagine digging up old landfills and recycling the contents as fuel (organics and plastics) and materials (metals, glass, etc.) =Smidge=
No, an unconditional jump is breazed right over. A CONDITIONAL jump is a problem, because you can't optomize for both possible machine states that might occur after the condition is tested.
But what do I know, I'm just a "dogmatic asshole"..
But there is no justifiable rason to not use it. Like all other programming syntax and structure, one simply has to be careful about how it is used to maintain readability.
There is no performance-related reason to avoid it and the only aestetic reason falls squarely on the programmer's coding style and habits. Under the right circumstances, using GOTO can actually improve performance by reducing logic.
Therefore, statements like "you should never use GOTO" are bullshit. That's all I'm saying.
The rest of the stuff we already agreed on, it seems. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking about replacing all power sources here though just electrical generation run by oil and gas and maybe coal.
Right, so... about 78% of it, then. 77.5% is currently produced by oil, gas and coal and roughly 1% is nuclear. That's still not looking too rosy. Did you happen to notice those were 2000 figures? You think we're using more or less now?
Secondly, your math is lacking. Thorium does not transmute to 99% DU and 1% fissionable Uranium, it transmutes to ~100% fissionable Uranium
I never said otherwise. If you read my post, I even assumed 100% perfect conversion to fissionable Uranium, and added the total Thorium to the total Uranium. Note that I also assumed we could use 100% of the Uranium because of the CANDU style reactors, which is technically incorrect because the only uranium that is used is the U235 (CANDU type reactors only allow you to avoid concentrating the U235, not magically allow you to use U232 as a fuel)
So really, we really CAN use only 1% of the total uranium reserves since the 99% which is U232 is unusable.
One single tonne of Thorium can make close to one hundred tonnes of fuel.
That's a nice trick. How does one make 100 tons of Uranium from 1 ton of Thorium?
And let's not forget that those figures for Uranium and Thorium are only *reserves*.
"Reasonably assured reserves" aka "what we are pretty sure we can get if we dig for it" aka "what's still in the ground needing to be mined." Those are not figures like it's sitting in a warehouse somewhere. That's all this planet's got to offer. Your oil/oil-sand comparison doesn't work because oil sand... well... isn't exactly oil, is it? That's why it's not counted in the reserve figures.
The fact of the matter is that the nuclear option needs some serious exploration.
And I agree, but another fact of the matter is that Nuclear is not a real solution. It is better reserved for applications where other forms of energy are simply not as attractive such as polar regions or space exploration where transporting traditional fuels or using solar-derived energies are not as practical.
=Smidge=
Even WITH reprocessing, even if you dilute the fuel with Thorium to stretch it out, you don't have enough.
There is only ~3.3 million tons [pdf] of Uranium on the planet. That's ALL Uranium, not the fissile U235 which makes up less than 1% of it. But let's assume we only use CANDU type reactors which do not need enrichment.
A 1000 MW nuclear plant goes through about 25 tons of fuel per year. As of the year 2000, we need 11.7 trillion watts [pdf] of continuous power to satisfy demand. (350 quadrillion BTUs per year converts to 11.7 trillion joules per second)
So if you were to build 1000MW powerplants, you would need 11,700 of them. Each using 25 tons of fuel a year for a total of 292,500 tons a year. Without reprocessing and thorium additives and other hybrid fuels, you've only got about 12 years worth of Uranium if we are to produce 100% of our energy needs with Nuclear.
Reprocessing can recover 96% of the uranium from spent fuel, so let's say that we can effectively double the usable fuel through reprocessing... now we have 24 years worth of fuel. This would then include the produced fissile Plutonium being reprocessed into the fuel (MOX fuels).
Now, Thorium? There's an estimated 1.4 million tons [pdf] of Thorium. If all of that can be used (thorium creates fissile U233 when used inside reactors, that's why it's useful) then we just add that to the 3.3 million tons we already have.. in other words, about 43% more fuel. We're up to about 34 years!
And this is assuming year 2000 levels of energy usage...
Am I missing anything? If you think any of the above is wrong then please let's discuss it...
=Smidge=
There isn't enough Uranium in the planet to fill the gap for more than a few decades.
=Smidge=
I don't think it's fair to call it a 2 cylinder engine, either.
:P
I mean, technically it has no "cylinders" at all
Each of two chambers is divided into 3 working volumes by a single rotor, for a total of 6 independent working volumes at any given time. Wouldn't this be more analogous to a 6-cyl engine?
=Smidge=
Well this is hardly a peaceful protest.
The annoying part is that I never really hear anything from the "non extremists" comdemning acts like this. You would think that if these people go apeshit over a poorly drawn one-panel cartoon, they would be a little more proactive in trying to convince the world not every follower of Islam is a psychopath.
Unless, of course, if the majority of Islamic followers ARE psychopaths...
=Smidge=
That's what the "History" tab is for. No information is ever discarded (unless exlpicitly deleted by staff). You can even select any two versions and it will compare them side-by-side, highlighting what is different.
It's actually pretty interesting to see the kinds of changes some people make, and how small changes really effect the meaning of the article.
=Smidge=
I made so many grammatical errors in that last post, I can hardly believe I wrote it... *facepalms*
=Smidge=
Volkswagen is confident these NOX levels can be lowered using new technology if the sulfur level in our nation's diesel fuel was reduced.
Luckily, both biodiesel and TDP created diesel both have zero sulfur content. And both are carbon-neutral (or even decrease atmospheric carbon) and fully renewable.
It's very hard not to jump on the "Big oil conspiracy" bandwagon, but so far neither of these seems to be cost effective enough to gain a major market share. Shame, really...
=Smidge=
That looks like it's made by Fisher-Price...
=Smidge=
While not necessarily "alternative energy", you might try some form of cogeneration.
Take a fuel such as natural gas, propane or even heating oil/biodiesel. Run a generator to supplement your electrical needs.
Take the heat generated by the generator and run it through an absorption chiller to provide some "free" cooling for your datacenter. If you have any extra heat left you might be able to use it for domestic hot water/space heating as well.
If using natural gas, then a fuel cell may be a viable option - they certainly run hot enough!
The only other kit you would need is a smallish cooling tower (help cool water prior to entering the chiller), some pumps and a chilled water coil + fan inside somewhere. This would probably be expensive to set up though. You would have to do some analysis to see if you would recover such an investment in a reasonable amount of time, if at all.
A bonus would be that, if properly designed, you'd have complete independence from the grid and won't be effected by blackouts!
Another approach would be to look into ground-sink heat pumps to reduce cooling costs. Special enclosures for your equipment may also help keep the cooling right where you need it.
Power conditioners on the incoming electrical circuits may also help improve efficiency of the power supplies, which would save on electricity and also a little on cooling costs (more efficient = less heat)
In the end, anything you do to reduce costs will likely be a Good Thing(tm) for both the environment and your bank account.
=Smidge=
The President is the President, not the Pope. While it has certaintly gone downhill (and continues to do so), we're not quite at the "what the President says is law" stage yet. Laws are made by Congress, and the President can either ratify them or veto them. If he vetos the law, Congress can override him with another vote.
The problem is exactly as you said: people are brought up to not question authority. What he is trying to do is illegal, but nobody seems to be doing anything about it because they either think it is legal or it is at least justified by the situation (eg: Fightin' ter'ists!!1!)
As an aside, has anyone else noticed that the people who are most afraid of terrorism are the ones who live where there is the absolute lowest chance of being targeted?
=Smidge=
(Ter'ists ter'ists ter'ists 9/11 9/11 mission accomplished!)
Never played it. The concept, though, is valid and workable... I just don't have the numbers to do the calculations.
=Smidge=
Don't forget that the earth is not a closed system.
dEnergy = EnergyGain + EnergyReleased - EnergyLoss
EnergyGain would be the energy absorbed from sunlight. EnergyReleased would be energy that is already on the planet is released by some process (eg burning fossil fuels). EnergyLoss would be the heat radiated out into space.
EnergyLoss has supposedly been decreasing because of greenhouse gasses - CO2 inhibits the radiation of heat off of the planet.
EnergyGain may also be decreasing from the effects of pollution, known as Global Dimming.
EnergyReleased has probably been increasing, as the rate of energy production increases to meet demands. When energy is produced from stored sources such as fossil and nuclear fuels, it ends up as heat in the environment. However, we are gradually running out of stored energy sources... so optimistically this trend can't continue forever.
All someone has to do is crunch the numbers and figure out if there is a net increase or decrease in atmospheric energy.
=Smidge=
...and I thought the floating-point math errors were bad!
=Smidge=
And this has an additional downside: won't all the absorbed CO2 just be re-released when the fuel the process creates is burned? Thus you're back to where you started with the same amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
As opposed to INCREASING atmospheric CO2 by burning fuel you've sucked out of the ground? I'll take it.
Besides, you will not get 100% of the carbon back out of the algae. Even after you've extracted the biodiesel and fermented the remains to make alcohol, you will have goop left over that contains carbon-rich biomass. This can be packed into abandoned coal mines (for example) and thus remove that portion of carbon from the cycle.
=Smidge=
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/peripherals/real-th umb-drive-025407.php
Been there, done that...
=Smidge=
I hope that post was a troll. I don't know what's worse... the fact that none of what you said makes sense or the fact that apparently people think it's correct.
For the mods who rated that post "informative" and "interesting":
Microwaves have wavelengths measurable in centimeters. This makes them very bad for data storage. The whole reason the industry is trying to move to Blu-ray and similar technologies is because blue colored light has a much SHORTER wavelength than the traditional red colored lasers used in established data storage devices. The "size" of the bit being stored (and therefore the number of bits you can store in a given area) is directly proportional to this wavelength.
The wavelength of the microwave radiation emitted by the phone is roughly 35 centimeters. The wavelength of light used in CD drives is roughly 0.000078 centimeters. That's nearly 13000 times larger! So you'd think you could store 1/13000th the data in the same spot using microwaves than you could fit using regular CD laser tech.
All this ignores some other very serious technical issues, of course... like how the unfocused microwave energy emitted by the antenna (or anywhere else in the phone) is directed and focused towards the HD platter, and how the microwave energy is able to interact with the platter to read and toggle magnetic bits considering microwaves bounce right off metal surfaces.
------------------
The size of the R/W heads is NOT a limiting factor.It is easy enough to use MEMS technology to make them only a few billions of a meter wide, so they can be built plenty small enough. The real limiting factor is how closely you can back the magnetic regions that encode the data before they interfere with each other and lose the ability to retain their state.
I need another cup of coffee...
=Smidge=
Yeah, the answer is usually at the bottom of the bottle, not the glass!
=Smidge=
I have had some experience with Pimsleur language learning materials (Japanese though). I found the material started out pretty easy and got more difficult in later lessons, but was not unmanagable.
It's also a tad expensive, but if you are serious about learning then combining this with other sources reading websites or other publications in the desired language, etc) would probably be a great start.
(I personally wouldn't pay that much for it, though.)
=Smidge=
Except all of those deal with physical products that no one entity could control anyway. Anyone can make a burger, build an outlet store or make a shoe.
With telecom things, there is only a limited number of wires, a limited number of antennas and a limited number of satellites. If you and I were two telecom companies in competition in the same area, and I owned the lines, it would be a cold day in hell before I let you send your data over them. Why should I? Those are my customers!
The alternative is for you to put up your own copper, towers and sats. Good luck! You can't use my poles or trenches to string your wires and fiber, and you'll have to wade through bureaucracy at every level of government to get your own infrastructure set up.
=Smidge=
I understand what you are saying, but that is a pretty bad example. If you want to know something statistical (such as population of an area) then it's best to go to the source anyway because such statistics would change frequently.
And besides, if you are using the information for any non-trivial purpose (research paper, etc) then it's just good practice to use more than one source no matter what.
=Smidge=
Exept we really haven't.
Say we have a Thermal Depolymerization Plant (which is what the article seems to talk about). Into the plant I dump animal wastes (offal, bones, skin, etc.) I add a little energy to run the process. Out the other side I get a hydrocarbon soup which is essentially light crude oil (technically not BioDiesel) as well as some other goodies like methane gas, nearly pure carbon (as a solid) and clean water.
Lo and behold, the energy I can get from burning the oil product is greater than the energy I put into the perocess! We can litterally take a portion of our output (usually the methane) and feed it back into the plant to keep it running. How can this be?!
Answer: There is energy in the animal wastes that you are not taking into consideration. Energy that otherwise would be completely wasted. Energy in the animal wastes + energy added to process < energy available as fuel product. This satisfies the laws of thermo just fine. But your USEFUL energy has increased. Looking only at the useful energy, your efficiency is up around 560% (see wiki article). If you consider the energy in the waste as part of the balance, the real efficiency is closer to 85%
Also, since pure carbon solids is a byproduct, you are actually removing carbon from the atmosphere. All of that carbon was once CO2, absorbed by plants and then eaten by animals which you then processed into fuel. Even if you burn all that carbon again there is a net zero change in CO2 levels. Thus, carbon-neutral.
What I find most interesting is how the process could possibly be tweaked to work on nearly anything carbon-based, like plastics. Imagine digging up old landfills and recycling the contents as fuel (organics and plastics) and materials (metals, glass, etc.)
=Smidge=
No, an unconditional jump is breazed right over. A CONDITIONAL jump is a problem, because you can't optomize for both possible machine states that might occur after the condition is tested.
:)
But what do I know, I'm just a "dogmatic asshole"..
Not a hell of a lot it seems!
=Smidge=
But there is no justifiable rason to not use it. Like all other programming syntax and structure, one simply has to be careful about how it is used to maintain readability.
There is no performance-related reason to avoid it and the only aestetic reason falls squarely on the programmer's coding style and habits. Under the right circumstances, using GOTO can actually improve performance by reducing logic.
Therefore, statements like "you should never use GOTO" are bullshit. That's all I'm saying.
The rest of the stuff we already agreed on, it seems.
=Smidge=