So there is some way to combine server resources into a "unit resource" that can be called an "acre".
But the question still remains: How can you be sure that you are receiving all you are paying for? You and me both buy one "acre" of virtual land, how can I be assured that you aren't getting some of the resources I'm paying for? (It is understood that any resources I don't use are not your problem. If I don't use then then it's money wasted on my part). That was question A. Thinking about it in terms of a web hosting company really answers this though.
I mean, when it comes right down to it, it's a fancy name for a webpage. Just like any other web hosting service. The people who are buying and selling this "virtual real estate" are pretty much doing the same as those who buy space on a webserver and resell it. The problem I have with this is that with a web host you can always go directly to the hosting company and bypass the reseller.
In this case it seems almost like the host decided to artificially restrict access by limiting the number of accounts ("acres" of virtual land), either directly ("The virtual world only has x acres available) or indirectly (as another poster pointed out, some accounts may be more valuable due to their "proximity" to others)
In both cases, there seems no logical excuse for this other than to inflate prices. If the world is virtual then both physical limits and proximity are meaningless, and there is no reason for someone to buy an account off of a scalper rather than directly from the host since there is no rasonable way one chunk of hard drive space can have more value than another. That's question B, and I haven't been satisfied with an explaination. Any takers? =Smidge=
a) Know that you are getting what you pay for? $550/acre, how do I confirm that I'm getting a whole acre? This becomes more of an issue with bigger chunks - what if my 100-acre plot is really only 80 acres?
and in a similar vein
b) What does it mean to own an "acre" of "land" that doesn't actually exist? If it's purely virtual, how can there be a shortage of land? Can something with a literally infinate supply be a commodity like REAL land is?
I suppose (b) sorta cancels (a) out to some degree, but it's stupid to pay for something that you cannot verify what you're actually buying, is in infinate supply (at least in theory) and otherwise holds no intrinsic value... =Smidge=
I dunno, being unable to die sounds kinda useful...
=Smidge=
Re:We should all discourage Primus listening
on
Soundproofing a Cubicle?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Or you could just do what I do: don't put them directly on your ears. This will let you hear stuff out in the room (like phone ringing, boss walking in, etc). You can always take them off in a hurry if you need to answer the phone.
Or for a more geeky solution: hook up a mic and enable it as an input source. That way anything the mic picks up will be mixed in with the music. Adjust the volumes to suit and you're good to go. =Smidge=
Both science and "art" require skill, study and practice to perfect. The design of a bridge can be "broken down into pure numbers" but not everybody can grind them out.
The reason I put art in quotes because the word is a little ambiguous here. On one hand, "art" is any skill learned after much study and practice; which is exactly the same as "science". On the other hand, "art" can be used only to the application of skill to realize creativity and self expression; this generally is not considered science, even though good scientist is creative the goal is not the expression of that creativity but a practical result.
Art, in terms of expressing yourself, is a lot more accessible than art as a skill. And I think this is where they say cooking is "more science than art" in a literal sense: Cooking is about applying skill for a practical result (edible food) as opposed to something strictly aesthetic... though that does not exclude the ability to use cooking to express oneself or create something aesthetic as well:) =Smidge=
Not thet there is no point, but what kind of a career can you build off of that and nothing else? Or rather, what kind of a career can you build off of it that was worth four years and thousands of dollars in specialized education for it? You have your BA in English, now what? What employable skills do you have?
Possibly the only thing that's worse than English is Liberal Arts... =Smidge=
35% "overall" efficiency. That's boiler, turbine, condenser, generator, transmission. The boiler itself, can turn 80%+ of the energy released form burning the fuel into usable steam.
And if had read my post, you would have noticed that I ackowledged that they want to condense the flue gasses. But that doesn't make the highly corrosive condensate any less of a problem. You're still going to have acidic vapor rising up your chimney.
The design here seems to scavange heat off of the flue gas. The problem with this is that you can only remove so much energy from the waste gasses before you create problems.
Combustion of either coal or oil procudes carbon dioxide, water, soot (unburnt carbon) and nitrogen and sulphur compounds (From impurities in the fuel).
The boilers of the power plant are typically designed very well to remove as much heat as possible from the fuel and resulting gaseous waste. Easly over 80% efficient. (80% is par for most large commercial boilers as used in schools and office buildings. Some can get up to 90%). So while the temperature may be 450F, remember this is a gas. Temperature is only half the story when you talk about energy.
Attempting to extract this energy causes two big problems: draft and condensation. The whole point of a chimney is to create a draft from the hot waste gas rising up (which uses energy in the process... so the gas is cooling as it rises). This draft helps stoke the fire and prevents the fumes from accumulating inside the plant. Removing too much energy from the stream will DESTROY the draft, which means you will need a fan to make up for it (which will use more energy than you extract!) Remember that the waste is mostly water vapor? Removing too much heat will cause this to condense. Also remember that the gas cools as it rises up the chimney, so there is a minimum temperature at the chimney base that is required to maintain your draft and prevent condensation.
Condensation is a real issue, too. The now liquid water starts to absorb those sulphur and nitrogen compounds to create some very strong acids. If you get this, it won't be long before that chimney rots out. You can line the chimney with stainless steel to help prevent this, but it needs to be a specific alloy (oil and gas burners require different materials because of the different products they create). But you still have to deal with the acid itself and even a stainless steel lining won't last without regular maintenance. They estimate the flue gas will be "a relatively cool 55C", and they correctly state that nearly ALL the water will condense out. At least they plan to treat the waste properly...
So how much energy can you really extract from the flue gasses? Certaintly not 20% of the plant's total output!
The biggest problem I have is the second stage turbine they propose. Supposedly they plan to use the leftover heat from the first propane stage to power a second stage to "capture almost all the remaining energy." Clearly this second stage must operate at a MUCH lower pressure than the first, because if there was enough energy in the propare at outlet of the first turbine to boil more propare, it would still be a gas and not a saturated mix like it should be. Pressure drops, operating temperature drops, efficiency drops, output drops.
I would be extremely impressed if they managed to increase a plant's efficiency by 5%, let alone the 20-35% they are claiming.
"Octane Rating" is a percentage. The name comes from the percentage of the fuel that is hydrocarbons with eight carbon atoms.
Gasoline is a mix of Octane, Heptane and a few others, usually in the 4 to 10 hydrocarbon range. Octane is stable and will resist igniting when compressed. Heptane is not as stable and ignites more easily. When a gasoline has a "83 Octane" rating, that means it performs as if it had 83% Octane and 17% Heptane. This is why higher Octane fuels resist knocking.
Diesel is a soup of hydrocarbons in the 10 to 22 carbon range. As such, diesel fuel has no Octane rating! Instead it has a "Cetane" rating with is sort of the opposite of Octane. (Higher = Explodes more easily when compressed, which is what you want to happen in a Diesel engine)
By the same logic, NG (mostly methane, 1 carbon atom) doesn't have an "Octane rating" either.
Other debunking about Octane: It does not give you more power or have any cleaning effect on your engine. It does not "burn hotter" or at an efficiency different enough to effect your gas mileage. If your car was built for "regular" Octane fuel, using anything higher is a waste of money unless you have a genuine pre-ignition problem. (Usually a sign of a larger problem like a fouled injector or sensor)
You are right, however, that NG is "more difficult to ignite" than gasoline, at least in terms of temperature. But as you said, NG ignites more easily because it's already airborne (Boiling point of -260F), and that makes it more dangerous if there is a leak. Gasoline is also difficult to ignite if it's not in the proper mixture with air, and at atmospheric temperature will not evaporate that much if the temperature is below 85F. What you smell is actually completely different chemicals in the gasoline that evaporate more readily. The bulk of what comprises gasoline evaporates between 85 and 400F. =Smidge=
CNG requires fairly substantial infastructure improvements, though admittedly not as drastic as, say, hydrogen power would.
"High pressure" gas, as it pertains to fuel gas that you use in your home, is generally no more than 20psi in the larger mains. To be used as a vehicle fuel, it must be compressed further. This means you will need special compressors and storage tanks. For something like a gas station you would nede a good deal of on-site storage and/or large compressors to handle the demand. Leak and "spill" problems would also need to be addressed, since NG is a lot more volitile than gasoline!
CNG: Good for fleet aplications, not so hot for general public use. =Smidge=
When someone says "American", they generally mean the country of "The United States of America", or a citizen thereof. If they mean another country, they will usually use a more specific name, eg "Canadian", "Mexican", "Brazilian", etc.
If refering to the continent, generally they will specify "North", "Central" or "South" America, and it will be apparent they are talking about a continent based on context.
While it may be technically correct to refer someone living in Canada as an "American" because that's the name of the general continent they're on, it is generally not something you do unless you want to be a total sh*thead and want to start a symantics argument.;-) =Smidge=
Well yes, I understand that each state is different. That's why I make it clear which state I'm from, so it's clear I'm not talking about the whole country in general. =Smidge=
Indeed, targeting fleet vehicles seems like a good way to convince the public that HEV technology is a viable solution. People drive them on the job, and if they have a good experience will see that it's not so bad. Then when it comes time to buy a new car they might consider a HEV of their own.
As for propane, here in NY my company just finished a job converting a school bus garage to be "explosion proof" as they were getting new busses that run off of compressed natural gas. The district is buying 20 busses a year until their entire fleet is replaced with the new CNG busses.
The advantage of HEVs, though, is that they still burn gasoline, and as such the fuel supply infastructure is already widely established. Going with CNG or Propane requires a whole new infastructure. =Smidge=
Did I saw it was okay to do stuff illegally because you didn't know better? No. I don't think I did...
What I did say is that John Q Homeowner, should he decide to do something himself, likely understands that there are building codes - but he simply doesn't care about complying with them. This does not make it okay, but that is what happens.
The codes are not even prohibitively expensive, either. They are actually rather cheap for a book of their size and detailed content. A softcover copy of the 2005 NEC goes for about $60. A complete set of codes for New York State can be had for about $300, including Building code, Residential code, Fire code, Mechanical code, Plumbing code, Fuel Gas code, Energy Conservation code, and Property Maintenance Code. (Of course you can buy these seperately). A copy of the local zoning codes costs $20 around here. Clearly, they are not trying to dissuade people by charging a small fortune for them.
I suppose you also complain that having your car inspected every year costs $35 even though the state forces you to do it by law? In fact, there's a lot of things the government requires you to do by law that you have to pay for... which is actually worse, because at least you can learn about the law and comply with it without paying even if a hard copy costs you a modest fee (It's called "asking"). In these cases they tell you up front what the law is and you pay a third party to comply! =Smidge=
The public is not being denied access to the law, there is simply a fee for obtaining a copy of it. There is a very important difference. The law IS free (as in speech), just not gratis. If it was gratis, as Patry points out, the overall cost would likely be much higher for everyone.
Of course, John Q Homeowner can't do squat with building codes anyway. At least in NY, you need to have a state license (PE, RA, licensed contractor/installer, etc) to get any kind of valid construction permit. If you're not licensed (or have not retained someone who is), then what you will be building is basically illegal anyway and chances are you won't give a hoot about codes. For example: Erecting a shed, putting a small addition on your house, building a deck, installing a pool, putting up a fence, etc.
Maybe you browse too many overclocker/performance freak forums...
Anyway, fans are only half the problem. You can run a thousand CFM through your coputer case and it could still overheat. Heat sinks are required to transfer the heat to the air effectively.
You can't have a heat sink larger than the computer itself. Not if you expect to sell them to anyone but a performance freak or machine farm. There are also practical limitations to the design of heat sinks that limit their size and shape. Heat sinks are typically made of aluminum or copper. Depending on the quality of construction, the cost to produce them can be pretty high. Copper outperforms Aluminum but at a higher cost.
If you want an active chilling system, then you have to worry about power consuption and humidity (condensation). Cost would be astronomical, and it would also be heavy and large compared to a heat sink and fan.
You might get away with a system as an after market product, but I can't imagine it being a factory direct installation. =Smidge=
It is also the responsibility of teh engineer to have a little bit of foresight into what they're designing. How it will be used, where it will be used, and who will be using it. You can never, ever underestimate the end user. This is why they include instruction sheets for toasters and remote controls.
Not to understate the other influences you mentioned, which certaintly are problems, but the guys building this aren't exactly blame free either. They seem to have dropped teh ball just as much as everyone else. =Smidge=
The particular area they mention was very close to the pacific ocean. I'm betting it wouldn't be hard to build the a facility there below sea level (Only needs to be by a few feet, since you just want to create standing ponds for growing alge), and put in a gate to let water flow in on it's own accord. =Smidge=
Can't see why the cow poop couldn't be thrown into the TDP directly, along with the turkey guts. I'm sure there's a use for the methane obtained from letting it rot, but it seems it would be more useful being processed into a higher energy-density fuel like diesel.
Do you have any evidence that the results are wrong, or do you just contradict everything blindly without considering the possibility it isn't as bias as you'ld like it to be?
Or, to pose the same question in a different manner:
If the article had concluded the opposite (specifically, a point of view that agrees with your own), would you take everything it claimed blindly without considering the source?
I think it's a fair question. One which you will no doubt avoid. I made my claim ("FOX News isn't fair and balanced") and offered evidence of my claim. You (and several others) have done nothing to refute the claim other than trying to change the subject. If you think FOX News is doing a great job, please provide evidence that directly refutes mine. Do not distract the issue. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough.
So there is some way to combine server resources into a "unit resource" that can be called an "acre".
But the question still remains: How can you be sure that you are receiving all you are paying for? You and me both buy one "acre" of virtual land, how can I be assured that you aren't getting some of the resources I'm paying for? (It is understood that any resources I don't use are not your problem. If I don't use then then it's money wasted on my part). That was question A. Thinking about it in terms of a web hosting company really answers this though.
I mean, when it comes right down to it, it's a fancy name for a webpage. Just like any other web hosting service. The people who are buying and selling this "virtual real estate" are pretty much doing the same as those who buy space on a webserver and resell it. The problem I have with this is that with a web host you can always go directly to the hosting company and bypass the reseller.
In this case it seems almost like the host decided to artificially restrict access by limiting the number of accounts ("acres" of virtual land), either directly ("The virtual world only has x acres available) or indirectly (as another poster pointed out, some accounts may be more valuable due to their "proximity" to others)
In both cases, there seems no logical excuse for this other than to inflate prices. If the world is virtual then both physical limits and proximity are meaningless, and there is no reason for someone to buy an account off of a scalper rather than directly from the host since there is no rasonable way one chunk of hard drive space can have more value than another. That's question B, and I haven't been satisfied with an explaination. Any takers?
=Smidge=
Since the "real estate" is virtual, how do you:
a) Know that you are getting what you pay for? $550/acre, how do I confirm that I'm getting a whole acre? This becomes more of an issue with bigger chunks - what if my 100-acre plot is really only 80 acres?
and in a similar vein
b) What does it mean to own an "acre" of "land" that doesn't actually exist? If it's purely virtual, how can there be a shortage of land? Can something with a literally infinate supply be a commodity like REAL land is?
I suppose (b) sorta cancels (a) out to some degree, but it's stupid to pay for something that you cannot verify what you're actually buying, is in infinate supply (at least in theory) and otherwise holds no intrinsic value...
=Smidge=
Phase 1: Release software that has been deliberately (but discreetly) crippled in performance
Phase 2: Re-release same software under a different name or version, only uncrippled. Claim massive performance improvements.
Phase 3: Profit as everyone upgrades/migrates to your product because of the great performance reviews
Hey, it seems to work for AOL, and I bet it could work for Microsoft!
=Smidge=
I dunno, being unable to die sounds kinda useful...
=Smidge=
Or you could just do what I do: don't put them directly on your ears. This will let you hear stuff out in the room (like phone ringing, boss walking in, etc). You can always take them off in a hurry if you need to answer the phone.
Or for a more geeky solution: hook up a mic and enable it as an input source. That way anything the mic picks up will be mixed in with the music. Adjust the volumes to suit and you're good to go.
=Smidge=
Both science and "art" require skill, study and practice to perfect. The design of a bridge can be "broken down into pure numbers" but not everybody can grind them out.
:)
The reason I put art in quotes because the word is a little ambiguous here. On one hand, "art" is any skill learned after much study and practice; which is exactly the same as "science". On the other hand, "art" can be used only to the application of skill to realize creativity and self expression; this generally is not considered science, even though good scientist is creative the goal is not the expression of that creativity but a practical result.
Art, in terms of expressing yourself, is a lot more accessible than art as a skill. And I think this is where they say cooking is "more science than art" in a literal sense: Cooking is about applying skill for a practical result (edible food) as opposed to something strictly aesthetic... though that does not exclude the ability to use cooking to express oneself or create something aesthetic as well
=Smidge=
Not thet there is no point, but what kind of a career can you build off of that and nothing else? Or rather, what kind of a career can you build off of it that was worth four years and thousands of dollars in specialized education for it? You have your BA in English, now what? What employable skills do you have?
Possibly the only thing that's worse than English is Liberal Arts...
=Smidge=
35% "overall" efficiency. That's boiler, turbine, condenser, generator, transmission. The boiler itself, can turn 80%+ of the energy released form burning the fuel into usable steam.
=Smidge=
Thanks for the link to the slideshow. The original article was delightfully lax in details. I'll give this a good looking over.
:P
I like the note on slide #19
=Smidge=
And if had read my post, you would have noticed that I ackowledged that they want to condense the flue gasses. But that doesn't make the highly corrosive condensate any less of a problem. You're still going to have acidic vapor rising up your chimney.
=Smidge=
*puts on skeptic's hat and steps up on soapbox*
The design here seems to scavange heat off of the flue gas. The problem with this is that you can only remove so much energy from the waste gasses before you create problems.
Combustion of either coal or oil procudes carbon dioxide, water, soot (unburnt carbon) and nitrogen and sulphur compounds (From impurities in the fuel).
The boilers of the power plant are typically designed very well to remove as much heat as possible from the fuel and resulting gaseous waste. Easly over 80% efficient. (80% is par for most large commercial boilers as used in schools and office buildings. Some can get up to 90%). So while the temperature may be 450F, remember this is a gas. Temperature is only half the story when you talk about energy.
Attempting to extract this energy causes two big problems: draft and condensation. The whole point of a chimney is to create a draft from the hot waste gas rising up (which uses energy in the process... so the gas is cooling as it rises). This draft helps stoke the fire and prevents the fumes from accumulating inside the plant. Removing too much energy from the stream will DESTROY the draft, which means you will need a fan to make up for it (which will use more energy than you extract!) Remember that the waste is mostly water vapor? Removing too much heat will cause this to condense. Also remember that the gas cools as it rises up the chimney, so there is a minimum temperature at the chimney base that is required to maintain your draft and prevent condensation.
Condensation is a real issue, too. The now liquid water starts to absorb those sulphur and nitrogen compounds to create some very strong acids. If you get this, it won't be long before that chimney rots out. You can line the chimney with stainless steel to help prevent this, but it needs to be a specific alloy (oil and gas burners require different materials because of the different products they create). But you still have to deal with the acid itself and even a stainless steel lining won't last without regular maintenance. They estimate the flue gas will be "a relatively cool 55C", and they correctly state that nearly ALL the water will condense out. At least they plan to treat the waste properly...
So how much energy can you really extract from the flue gasses? Certaintly not 20% of the plant's total output!
The biggest problem I have is the second stage turbine they propose. Supposedly they plan to use the leftover heat from the first propane stage to power a second stage to "capture almost all the remaining energy." Clearly this second stage must operate at a MUCH lower pressure than the first, because if there was enough energy in the propare at outlet of the first turbine to boil more propare, it would still be a gas and not a saturated mix like it should be. Pressure drops, operating temperature drops, efficiency drops, output drops.
I would be extremely impressed if they managed to increase a plant's efficiency by 5%, let alone the 20-35% they are claiming.
*takes off hat, steps down*
=Smidge=
"Octane Rating" is a percentage. The name comes from the percentage of the fuel that is hydrocarbons with eight carbon atoms.
Gasoline is a mix of Octane, Heptane and a few others, usually in the 4 to 10 hydrocarbon range. Octane is stable and will resist igniting when compressed. Heptane is not as stable and ignites more easily. When a gasoline has a "83 Octane" rating, that means it performs as if it had 83% Octane and 17% Heptane. This is why higher Octane fuels resist knocking.
Diesel is a soup of hydrocarbons in the 10 to 22 carbon range. As such, diesel fuel has no Octane rating! Instead it has a "Cetane" rating with is sort of the opposite of Octane. (Higher = Explodes more easily when compressed, which is what you want to happen in a Diesel engine)
By the same logic, NG (mostly methane, 1 carbon atom) doesn't have an "Octane rating" either.
Other debunking about Octane: It does not give you more power or have any cleaning effect on your engine. It does not "burn hotter" or at an efficiency different enough to effect your gas mileage. If your car was built for "regular" Octane fuel, using anything higher is a waste of money unless you have a genuine pre-ignition problem. (Usually a sign of a larger problem like a fouled injector or sensor)
You are right, however, that NG is "more difficult to ignite" than gasoline, at least in terms of temperature. But as you said, NG ignites more easily because it's already airborne (Boiling point of -260F), and that makes it more dangerous if there is a leak. Gasoline is also difficult to ignite if it's not in the proper mixture with air, and at atmospheric temperature will not evaporate that much if the temperature is below 85F. What you smell is actually completely different chemicals in the gasoline that evaporate more readily. The bulk of what comprises gasoline evaporates between 85 and 400F.
=Smidge=
CNG requires fairly substantial infastructure improvements, though admittedly not as drastic as, say, hydrogen power would.
"High pressure" gas, as it pertains to fuel gas that you use in your home, is generally no more than 20psi in the larger mains. To be used as a vehicle fuel, it must be compressed further. This means you will need special compressors and storage tanks. For something like a gas station you would nede a good deal of on-site storage and/or large compressors to handle the demand. Leak and "spill" problems would also need to be addressed, since NG is a lot more volitile than gasoline!
CNG: Good for fleet aplications, not so hot for general public use.
=Smidge=
When someone says "American", they generally mean the country of "The United States of America", or a citizen thereof. If they mean another country, they will usually use a more specific name, eg "Canadian", "Mexican", "Brazilian", etc.
;-)
If refering to the continent, generally they will specify "North", "Central" or "South" America, and it will be apparent they are talking about a continent based on context.
While it may be technically correct to refer someone living in Canada as an "American" because that's the name of the general continent they're on, it is generally not something you do unless you want to be a total sh*thead and want to start a symantics argument.
=Smidge=
Well yes, I understand that each state is different. That's why I make it clear which state I'm from, so it's clear I'm not talking about the whole country in general.
=Smidge=
Indeed, targeting fleet vehicles seems like a good way to convince the public that HEV technology is a viable solution. People drive them on the job, and if they have a good experience will see that it's not so bad. Then when it comes time to buy a new car they might consider a HEV of their own.
As for propane, here in NY my company just finished a job converting a school bus garage to be "explosion proof" as they were getting new busses that run off of compressed natural gas. The district is buying 20 busses a year until their entire fleet is replaced with the new CNG busses.
The advantage of HEVs, though, is that they still burn gasoline, and as such the fuel supply infastructure is already widely established. Going with CNG or Propane requires a whole new infastructure.
=Smidge=
Did I saw it was okay to do stuff illegally because you didn't know better? No. I don't think I did...
What I did say is that John Q Homeowner, should he decide to do something himself, likely understands that there are building codes - but he simply doesn't care about complying with them. This does not make it okay, but that is what happens.
The codes are not even prohibitively expensive, either. They are actually rather cheap for a book of their size and detailed content. A softcover copy of the 2005 NEC goes for about $60. A complete set of codes for New York State can be had for about $300, including Building code, Residential code, Fire code, Mechanical code, Plumbing code, Fuel Gas code, Energy Conservation code, and Property Maintenance Code. (Of course you can buy these seperately). A copy of the local zoning codes costs $20 around here. Clearly, they are not trying to dissuade people by charging a small fortune for them.
I suppose you also complain that having your car inspected every year costs $35 even though the state forces you to do it by law? In fact, there's a lot of things the government requires you to do by law that you have to pay for... which is actually worse, because at least you can learn about the law and comply with it without paying even if a hard copy costs you a modest fee (It's called "asking"). In these cases they tell you up front what the law is and you pay a third party to comply!
=Smidge=
To play devil's advocate:
The public is not being denied access to the law, there is simply a fee for obtaining a copy of it. There is a very important difference. The law IS free (as in speech), just not gratis. If it was gratis, as Patry points out, the overall cost would likely be much higher for everyone.
Of course, John Q Homeowner can't do squat with building codes anyway. At least in NY, you need to have a state license (PE, RA, licensed contractor/installer, etc) to get any kind of valid construction permit. If you're not licensed (or have not retained someone who is), then what you will be building is basically illegal anyway and chances are you won't give a hoot about codes. For example: Erecting a shed, putting a small addition on your house, building a deck, installing a pool, putting up a fence, etc.
=Smidge=
Maybe you browse too many overclocker/performance freak forums...
Anyway, fans are only half the problem. You can run a thousand CFM through your coputer case and it could still overheat. Heat sinks are required to transfer the heat to the air effectively.
You can't have a heat sink larger than the computer itself. Not if you expect to sell them to anyone but a performance freak or machine farm. There are also practical limitations to the design of heat sinks that limit their size and shape. Heat sinks are typically made of aluminum or copper. Depending on the quality of construction, the cost to produce them can be pretty high. Copper outperforms Aluminum but at a higher cost.
If you want an active chilling system, then you have to worry about power consuption and humidity (condensation). Cost would be astronomical, and it would also be heavy and large compared to a heat sink and fan.
You might get away with a system as an after market product, but I can't imagine it being a factory direct installation.
=Smidge=
It is also the responsibility of teh engineer to have a little bit of foresight into what they're designing. How it will be used, where it will be used, and who will be using it. You can never, ever underestimate the end user. This is why they include instruction sheets for toasters and remote controls.
Not to understate the other influences you mentioned, which certaintly are problems, but the guys building this aren't exactly blame free either. They seem to have dropped teh ball just as much as everyone else.
=Smidge=
The particular area they mention was very close to the pacific ocean. I'm betting it wouldn't be hard to build the a facility there below sea level (Only needs to be by a few feet, since you just want to create standing ponds for growing alge), and put in a gate to let water flow in on it's own accord.
=Smidge=
So how would you grow alge... in the basement?
=Smidge=
Can't see why the cow poop couldn't be thrown into the TDP directly, along with the turkey guts. I'm sure there's a use for the methane obtained from letting it rot, but it seems it would be more useful being processed into a higher energy-density fuel like diesel.
=Smidge=
Fish, plankton, sea-greens, and protein from the sea!
</Obscure reference>
=Smidge=
Do you have any evidence that the results are wrong, or do you just contradict everything blindly without considering the possibility it isn't as bias as you'ld like it to be?
Or, to pose the same question in a different manner:
If the article had concluded the opposite (specifically, a point of view that agrees with your own), would you take everything it claimed blindly without considering the source?
I think it's a fair question. One which you will no doubt avoid. I made my claim ("FOX News isn't fair and balanced") and offered evidence of my claim. You (and several others) have done nothing to refute the claim other than trying to change the subject. If you think FOX News is doing a great job, please provide evidence that directly refutes mine. Do not distract the issue.
=Smidge=