Copyright 1996-2001 Dantom International. All Rights Reserved.
BYOND is free, and may be freely distributed, so long as it is distributed in its entirety and free of charge. No parts of BYOND may be distributed individually, nor may extraneous parts be distributed with the package, without written permission from the authors (*email of author was here*).
In no event shall Dantom be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of or related to the usage of the software or information contained within or pertaining to BYOND.
IANAL, But I think that's clear enough to be legally binding. =Smidge=
The problem with that argument is, in a case-insensative language, mixing up the case isn't an "error". Sometimes it actually helps to eliminate errors because when it corrects the case you know you didn't typo it.
I program in both VB and PHP. One of each style. I also use Option Explicit in all my VB modules, which removes the default loose-casting variable types. (I am not aware that PHP has any such feature) This means I explicitly declare each variable with the case I want for readability. I then type out my code without worrying about case and let the IDE "make it pretty". If it fixes the case I know that I'm using the variable I want it to use. (If I'm really careless and I still get a typo in there, then VB will error when compiling because the typoed variable is not declared.)
Unfortunately PHP isn't the same way. Sometimes I might slip and type $MyvAr instead of $MyVar,and the code will compile fine but generate bad output because "$MyvAr" is a perfectly valid variable. Then I have to wade through page after page of code to find it because notepad's "Search" function isn't case sensative!
There's just no justifyable need to have $foo and $Foo in the same scope, except for personal, ingrained preference to coding style. That's really what it comes down to - "this is the way I learned so that's the way I think it should be".
I see a lot of discussion about case-insensative code being ambiguous, but how can you expect someone else to understand code written with $xxx $xXx $Xxx and $XXx all on the same line without developing a drinking problem? With all the billions of possible variable names you have available you can't think of anything unique?
And for the record, VB doesn't "fix" syntax. It'll highlight it, and it will provide syntax help as you type (Tooltips with example syntax and dropdown menus for member lists and such), but you still have to actually type it right. =Smidge=
In fact, a very small portion of embedded devices are even 16bit, and I can't think of any that are 32bit... What's the point of a 64bit embedded device? RAM is at a premium but you still need >4GB of it?
Or maybe what I'm used to calling an "embedded" device isn't the same as the submitter's... =Smidge=
but keep 'em away form the evils (read banging head on ceiling trying to make it work) of stuff such as Visual Basic, or C#
Riiiiiight, like there's absolutely nothing in C that could possible confuse a kid who knows nothing about programming, right? Nothing that could possibly make it difficult and frustrating to get it to work at all?
Like hell.
Everything that a 9 year old that's trying to learn basic game programming can be done in VB with probably less difficulty than C, if for no other reason because the language syntax is almost english.
I won't argue that choosing a first language is important, but I will argue that C is the right choice. Performance and efficiency are simply non-issues when you're first getting started. A first language should encourage structure and teach fundamental concepts like variables, loops and conditional statements. More importantly it should not get in the way of exploring these basics by requiring lots of syntax. If you actually *learn* how to program properly, then switching over to another language is typically pretty easy because the basic concepts are the same.
This is what makes LOGO so great as a first language. =Smidge=
I think that the inability to photocopy the currency is due to how the note was made (special inks) and not so much a mechanism in the copier itself.
I don't think the government is looking to relevie themselves of the responsibility, just taking it to the next logical (?) step... their concern is to make the money hard to duplicate. This is just another mecanism to do that.
...with the middle and index fingers cut off and the metal reinforcing apparently removed.
Man, I was expecting something cool with sensors or fluid filled bladders or teflon wrist guards, or at least something powered by a battery or plugs into your computer's USB port... not a hunk of velcro and elastic:/
If it had a built in heating element to keep your fingers warm then is might be mildly interesting!
Man, I feel cheated and I didn't even buy one! =Smidge=
I had the same reaction, but you know someone is gonna do it anyway.
Too bad they can't solve this by putting a warning label on 'em...
Then again, if you're stupid enough to eat one you deserve what you get. That's just me, though. I mean, you can buy all sorts of dangerous pets and there's no law protecting you if you stick your hand in the cage, right? So what if they're genetically engineered, they're for looking not eating. =Smidge=
I've seen table-monuted devices that yank a cork in one motion of the handle, and reinsert it when you're done! Just clamp the bottle in and pull the lever, out pops the cork. Put the bottle back in and push the lever up to recork it.
(Most of) the keys have scratch-off numbers which can be entered on the BreaKeys web site.
Which, in turn, acts as a raffle ticket of sorts to get prizes. The "breaking" part is just a gimmick to add some element of interactivity and make it seem less like a lottery than it actually is:)
Kinda like Pogs, but without the chance to win anything. It'll probably die just as fast, though. (If you don't know what Pogs are, that's because they lasted a whole month before disappearing overnight. A fad at it's finest!) =Smidge=
I fail to see how your exmaple question has anything to do with a person's overall competency. That's rather specific knowledge.
How about setting up a dummy voting machine, and making sure the person is at least familiar with it (Or ideally, actually knows how to use it) before they can register? That would be a better method. Then they have all the time in the world to read the instructions, ask questions and play around (and screw up, that's part of learning) without scewing election results.
Now, to further refute your argument: The white racists were already in power, and their system was designed to make sure it stayed that way. "Elitist ranting Slashdotters" (ERSD'ers), for the most part, probably don't have any influential government positions. I know I don't...
The white racists did more than create a "litmus test". They created a system whereby they could put enourmous pressure - often with threat of physical violence or death - to not even try to register. It was quite clear that if any Black person tried to register under that system, there stood a very good chance that they and their family would lose their job, home, and possibly their lives.
Think of it this way: Do you thnik you should be required to take a test before getting your driver's license?
The test is designed to make sure the person had at least a very minimal understanding of the rules and how to safely operate a vehicle. If they don't know the rules and/or can't operate the vehicle properly, they can seriously hurt or kill themselves and the people around them.
Operating a voting machine isn't as bad as that, but it can be argued that it's damaging to the democratic system and therefore the country as a whole. =Smidge=
In fairness to the grandparent post, the article you linked to his suggestion have pretty much nothing in common.
His suggestion, at face value, suggests that if you can't figure out how to use the machine then you probably shouldn't be allowed to even try. You can always mail in your ballot. A more literal interpretation says that if you're too friggin' dumb to press two or three buttons then you're probably not qualified to decide who gets to be the leader of the country. (And in principle, I agree)
What your link talks about is a system of socio-economic pressures to discourage people from registering to vote based on race, set up by a bigoted administration to perpetuate itself. That's not quite the same sport, let alone in the same ballpark.
I would not be opposed to qualifying individuals to vote during registration if there was a 100% guarantee that the system would be impartial and error-free. Of course that'll never happen, so I don't feel it's such a good idea.
I haven't seen any of the new e-voting machines, so I am not familiar with their operation. I'm willing to bet it's not terribly complicated.
If somehow you can't wrap your head around "Touch here to vote for ???" then it makes me wonder how you got yourself to the polling place to begin with.
That's just the way the country works, though, and it's not going to change without a lot of kicking and screaming.
A good example of how messed up the system is:
I attended a town meeting about 6 years ago regarding the development of some land for condos (right up the block from where I live). Part of the deal was the construction of a "senior care and housing center", which was the land owner's centerpiece for getting the zoning downgraded from single to multifamily residences.
The people from the pro-development side were allowed to talk first. Fair enough...
Shortly before the meeting officially began, a couple of busses pulled up and offloaded about four dozen senior citizens.
They employed a filibuster-esque tactic. Fifty seniors ranting well over their 10-minute time allotment about how wonderful this new development would be. By the time they were done, half the citizens (and one of the board members!) had started to nod-off, since it was pushing 10PM at this point (it was also VERY warm in that building).
Then it was time for the people against the development to speak. The seniors got back on their buses and left before the first guy even got to the podium.
A few days later it was revealed that the developer chartered the busses. No surprize there, eh?
Think that happens at polling places too? =Smidge=
That was a very interesting post. Thanks for sharing!
It's 100% true that teachers have no power. Part of the problem is that teachers (most of the ones I had anyway) don't exactly hae an air of authority around them, and really don't command respect.
Another part is that, frankly, the kids don't care about anything most of the time. I know I didn't!
Yet another part of the problem is that the parents don't do anything. And if they do, they usually make it worse. (As per your example, which is the worst case I've ever heard of... but I sure believe it.) I'd love to hear how that was handled... I would have either explained that it was more of a racist thing to assume only white people eat apples, or suggest writing an essay on cotton... depending on if I had tenure or not.:P
Now here's the question for the big prize... what can be done about it? =Smidge=
...because the people in charge (Teachers, parents, school board, etc) don't understand what's going on.
It's just that simple. Whenever someone does something with a computer that they don't understand, it's hacking. A High School friend of mine got accused of 'hacking' by downloading Netscape once.
Fear and ignorance, ignorance and fear... =Smidge=
Why, I did in fact read the article. Both of them. While they were lax on specifics, here's what I gathered te process was:
1) Intense burst of light is absorbed by nanotubes 2) Absorbed energy cannot be dissipated, so temperature rises to 1500C 3) High temperature disrupts molecular configuration, nanotubes becomes susceptible to chemical reactions 4) Nanotubes react with atmospheric oxygen, burst into flames
Based on that, High temps are required for the combustion to take place. So yes, combustion does happen *while* the nanotubes are at 1500C, at least within the context of the linked article. =Smidge=
Did you even read the article you linked to? In order for that to happen, you need to fill a laundary list of rather specific criteria:
1) Single walled nanotubes 2) Presence of oxygen 3) Temperatures in excess of 1,500 C 4) Only intense light seems to effect it (photons are absorbed by the nanotubes directly)
We can let #1 slide since I do not know if there is any specific requirement if nanotubes can (or must be) single or multi walled for use in electronics. Since there hasn't been any real development of nanotube electronics yet, I don't think anyone really knows. The linked article is about tool to analize nanotubes, not no much build electronic devices that incorperate them. It does make a good proof-of-concept though.
#2 is easily remedied because the devices would be hermetically sealed in opaque packages. That also takes care of #4...
And I don't think anyone will have to worry about the 1500 degree temperatures so far as electronics are concerned. At least nobody in the private sector...
I mean damn, it's one thing to not RTFA, but you didn't even read your own sources! =Smidge=
Well I'm willing to admit a mistake if you can point it out. Let's go through my math a little more carefully and see if we can find the problem...
Given: -1 Bushel of corn (shelled) = 56 pounds (Now sure how corn would be measured in gallons...) (source) -High-oil corn yeilds 7.25% oil by weight. (source) -Corn oil has a specific gravity of 0.92 (source -Water weighs 8.33 pounds per gallon (accepted value) -An acre of corn can yeild 150 bushels (source)
56 pounds times 7.25% is 4.2 pounds of oil.
The oil weights 7.66 pounds per gallon. (8.33 * 0.92)
Therefore, one bushel of corn yields (4.2/7.66) = 0.55 gallons of oil.
At 150 bushels of corn per acre, that amounts to 82 gallons of oil.
----- Hmm. Wonder how I messed THAT up!:P Seems I multiplied by density instead of divided... *scratches head* =Smidge=
One acre yeilds 150 bushels of corn. 1 bushel of high-oil (56 pounds) corn yeilds about 7.25% oil, or 4.2 pounds (32 gallons).
You can convert corn oil to biodiesel in an almost 1:1 ratio. All you do is add small amounts of mythyl alcohol and lye to seperate out the glycerin.
So an acre of corn can produce roughly 4,500 gallons of biodiesel and 7,500 pounds of stalk, husk and meal - all of which can be processed into other forms of energy (electricity or oil from TDP)
Now tell me it takes more than 4,500 gallons of fuel to grow a single acre of corn, even if we ignore the rest of the available energy we can get.
Ethanol production is, by itself, a poor way to extract energy. But you could use it as an auxilary source to squeeze out every drop you can. (The main benefit being that ethanol can be used in fuel cells directly). Making ethanol as a primary fuel is a waste of time and money.
Efficiency doesn't matter if your source (sunlight) is free. Harvest it on a big enough scale and you still end up with a substantial output.
If you're going to complain about the energy required to actually work the land (Equipment fuel), remember that you're making fuel. Recycling some of your product to perpetuate the process is all part of the package. =Smidge=
It doesn't matter, because the plants are "new growth".
Burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2 by releasing carbon that was trapped millions of years ago. Our climate has adjusted since, and by releasing this ancient carbon into the atmosphere we're starting to mess it up.
If you're burning "new growth" plant matter, though, then we won't be changing the total CO2 levels. You can't possibly be adding more CO2 than you're removing because there's noplace else for the carbon to come from! You're not decreasing it either, but I never claimed that. Simply that the net CO2 emission from the cycle is zero. =Smidge=
First, I'd like to apologize even though I don't think I have to.
My post was not anti-farmer. I made no assertion about who gets it or wheather or not they deserve it. I'm sorry if your grandfather is busting his ass to make ends meet (at it sure sounds like it from your post, anyway...) but that is neither here nor there.
Farm subsidies are primerily used to keep food cheap by paying the growers the difference. If market pressures were allowed to control it, then a lot of smaller growers (and thus, the farmers who work the land) would go out of business because the larger ones would be able to beat them hands-down.
But all is not lost, because I'm sure you know that subsidies kill small farmers by driving up land prices. So I fail to see what part of my pro-abolish-subidization sentament you found to be "anti-farmer". Energy crops would both reduce government porkbarrel spending and give farmers a very valuable crop to sell. Sounds win-win to me. You don't have to worry about overproducing energy, either - demand for it always grows just as fast (and usually faster) than supply. No so with food products.
As for the "sensationalist" site I linked to, I only used it for that one particular page - which is pretty neutral inof itself. It mentions undermining 3rd world growers, but that's about it. (Further support for my argument against subsidies...)
Since I am not talking about global warming, I don't care what that site has to say about it. I didn't even bother to look for such information. But since you brought it up, would you care to share what you found so "sensational" about it? =Smidge=
Biomass burning emits carbon dioxide. Hence promoting global warming. Same thing for burning alcohol and, I suppose, biodiesel as well.
True. But where did the carbon come from? The plants. Where did the plants get it from? The air.
Try as you might, conservation of mass says that the net increase of atmospheric carbon from this cycle is zero. So whatever net C02 increase there might be, it will be from the use of resources outside of the cycle.
Sugar is also a relatively difficult crop to deal with, and alcohol is not a very high-yeild fuel. I'm not surprized that it flunked. You would be better off growing rapeseed or peanuts for their oil (both of which grow very quickly, are robust and suited for a very wide range of climates).
And I do not have a fear of nuclear power. It's a great source of relatively clean, relatively safe energy - but it has it's fair share of problems, and it's kinda hard to put a nuclear reactor in a car:) (Electric vehicles still have a long way to go and would require a big shift in infastructure and social habit. Manufactured fuels would not - just gas up as usual!) =Smidge=
Absoultely true, but nobody ever claimed that is was a "perfect" solution. (After all, it's not a perfect world!)
But when you add it all up, at the end of the day you've made a pretty minimal impact on the environment for the amount of energy you produced.
Any CO2 you produce was from the plants you've burned, which got it from the air to begin with, so there's essentially no net CO2 increase -- unlike fossil fuels which are dumping extra CO2 without any compensation.
As for argricultural pollution: run the farm equipment and make any required fertilizers from the products you're making from the plants. Pesticides would be very minimal, since insect damage would not be as much a concern -- the crops aren't being used for food so more damage is acceptable.
As for space, the US has LOTS of space. (No pun intended!). Montana has roughly 150,000 square miles of land and a population less than 900,000. Sure it's a pretty cold climate, but I'm sure you can find (or engineer?) a crop that will grow nicely.
Then you might do a little terraforming in the deserts. I wonder how well cactuses burn...:P =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
=Smidge=
The problem with that argument is, in a case-insensative language, mixing up the case isn't an "error". Sometimes it actually helps to eliminate errors because when it corrects the case you know you didn't typo it.
I program in both VB and PHP. One of each style. I also use Option Explicit in all my VB modules, which removes the default loose-casting variable types. (I am not aware that PHP has any such feature) This means I explicitly declare each variable with the case I want for readability. I then type out my code without worrying about case and let the IDE "make it pretty". If it fixes the case I know that I'm using the variable I want it to use. (If I'm really careless and I still get a typo in there, then VB will error when compiling because the typoed variable is not declared.)
Unfortunately PHP isn't the same way. Sometimes I might slip and type $MyvAr instead of $MyVar,and the code will compile fine but generate bad output because "$MyvAr" is a perfectly valid variable. Then I have to wade through page after page of code to find it because notepad's "Search" function isn't case sensative!
There's just no justifyable need to have $foo and $Foo in the same scope, except for personal, ingrained preference to coding style. That's really what it comes down to - "this is the way I learned so that's the way I think it should be".
I see a lot of discussion about case-insensative code being ambiguous, but how can you expect someone else to understand code written with $xxx $xXx $Xxx and $XXx all on the same line without developing a drinking problem? With all the billions of possible variable names you have available you can't think of anything unique?
And for the record, VB doesn't "fix" syntax. It'll highlight it, and it will provide syntax help as you type (Tooltips with example syntax and dropdown menus for member lists and such), but you still have to actually type it right.
=Smidge=
The truth of the matter is that your everyday user just has no need to handle numbers of that size or data of those quantities.
Now where have we heard that before...
=Smidge=
In fact, a very small portion of embedded devices are even 16bit, and I can't think of any that are 32bit... What's the point of a 64bit embedded device? RAM is at a premium but you still need >4GB of it?
Or maybe what I'm used to calling an "embedded" device isn't the same as the submitter's...
=Smidge=
but keep 'em away form the evils (read banging head on ceiling trying to make it work) of stuff such as Visual Basic, or C#
Riiiiiight, like there's absolutely nothing in C that could possible confuse a kid who knows nothing about programming, right? Nothing that could possibly make it difficult and frustrating to get it to work at all?
Like hell.
Everything that a 9 year old that's trying to learn basic game programming can be done in VB with probably less difficulty than C, if for no other reason because the language syntax is almost english.
I won't argue that choosing a first language is important, but I will argue that C is the right choice. Performance and efficiency are simply non-issues when you're first getting started. A first language should encourage structure and teach fundamental concepts like variables, loops and conditional statements. More importantly it should not get in the way of exploring these basics by requiring lots of syntax. If you actually *learn* how to program properly, then switching over to another language is typically pretty easy because the basic concepts are the same.
This is what makes LOGO so great as a first language.
=Smidge=
I think that the inability to photocopy the currency is due to how the note was made (special inks) and not so much a mechanism in the copier itself.
I don't think the government is looking to relevie themselves of the responsibility, just taking it to the next logical (?) step... their concern is to make the money hard to duplicate. This is just another mecanism to do that.
Doesn't mean I like it, though.
=Smidge=
...with the middle and index fingers cut off and the metal reinforcing apparently removed.
:/
Man, I was expecting something cool with sensors or fluid filled bladders or teflon wrist guards, or at least something powered by a battery or plugs into your computer's USB port... not a hunk of velcro and elastic
If it had a built in heating element to keep your fingers warm then is might be mildly interesting!
Man, I feel cheated and I didn't even buy one!
=Smidge=
I had the same reaction, but you know someone is gonna do it anyway.
Too bad they can't solve this by putting a warning label on 'em...
Then again, if you're stupid enough to eat one you deserve what you get. That's just me, though. I mean, you can buy all sorts of dangerous pets and there's no law protecting you if you stick your hand in the cage, right? So what if they're genetically engineered, they're for looking not eating.
=Smidge=
No. but it does explain why they're always complaining about being cold...
=Smidge=
I've seen table-monuted devices that yank a cork in one motion of the handle, and reinsert it when you're done! Just clamp the bottle in and pull the lever, out pops the cork. Put the bottle back in and push the lever up to recork it.
=Smidge=
(Most of) the keys have scratch-off numbers which can be entered on the BreaKeys web site.
:)
Which, in turn, acts as a raffle ticket of sorts to get prizes. The "breaking" part is just a gimmick to add some element of interactivity and make it seem less like a lottery than it actually is
Kinda like Pogs, but without the chance to win anything. It'll probably die just as fast, though. (If you don't know what Pogs are, that's because they lasted a whole month before disappearing overnight. A fad at it's finest!)
=Smidge=
I'll just wait for them to issue the special, limited edition carbon steel breakey... ..then the day shall be mine!
=Smidge=
I fail to see how your exmaple question has anything to do with a person's overall competency. That's rather specific knowledge.
How about setting up a dummy voting machine, and making sure the person is at least familiar with it (Or ideally, actually knows how to use it) before they can register? That would be a better method. Then they have all the time in the world to read the instructions, ask questions and play around (and screw up, that's part of learning) without scewing election results.
Now, to further refute your argument: The white racists were already in power, and their system was designed to make sure it stayed that way. "Elitist ranting Slashdotters" (ERSD'ers), for the most part, probably don't have any influential government positions. I know I don't...
The white racists did more than create a "litmus test". They created a system whereby they could put enourmous pressure - often with threat of physical violence or death - to not even try to register. It was quite clear that if any Black person tried to register under that system, there stood a very good chance that they and their family would lose their job, home, and possibly their lives.
Think of it this way: Do you thnik you should be required to take a test before getting your driver's license?
The test is designed to make sure the person had at least a very minimal understanding of the rules and how to safely operate a vehicle. If they don't know the rules and/or can't operate the vehicle properly, they can seriously hurt or kill themselves and the people around them.
Operating a voting machine isn't as bad as that, but it can be argued that it's damaging to the democratic system and therefore the country as a whole.
=Smidge=
In fairness to the grandparent post, the article you linked to his suggestion have pretty much nothing in common.
His suggestion, at face value, suggests that if you can't figure out how to use the machine then you probably shouldn't be allowed to even try. You can always mail in your ballot. A more literal interpretation says that if you're too friggin' dumb to press two or three buttons then you're probably not qualified to decide who gets to be the leader of the country. (And in principle, I agree)
What your link talks about is a system of socio-economic pressures to discourage people from registering to vote based on race, set up by a bigoted administration to perpetuate itself. That's not quite the same sport, let alone in the same ballpark.
I would not be opposed to qualifying individuals to vote during registration if there was a 100% guarantee that the system would be impartial and error-free. Of course that'll never happen, so I don't feel it's such a good idea.
I haven't seen any of the new e-voting machines, so I am not familiar with their operation. I'm willing to bet it's not terribly complicated.
If somehow you can't wrap your head around "Touch here to vote for ???" then it makes me wonder how you got yourself to the polling place to begin with.
That's just the way the country works, though, and it's not going to change without a lot of kicking and screaming.
A good example of how messed up the system is:
I attended a town meeting about 6 years ago regarding the development of some land for condos (right up the block from where I live). Part of the deal was the construction of a "senior care and housing center", which was the land owner's centerpiece for getting the zoning downgraded from single to multifamily residences.
The people from the pro-development side were allowed to talk first. Fair enough...
Shortly before the meeting officially began, a couple of busses pulled up and offloaded about four dozen senior citizens.
They employed a filibuster-esque tactic. Fifty seniors ranting well over their 10-minute time allotment about how wonderful this new development would be. By the time they were done, half the citizens (and one of the board members!) had started to nod-off, since it was pushing 10PM at this point (it was also VERY warm in that building).
Then it was time for the people against the development to speak. The seniors got back on their buses and left before the first guy even got to the podium.
A few days later it was revealed that the developer chartered the busses. No surprize there, eh?
Think that happens at polling places too?
=Smidge=
That was a very interesting post. Thanks for sharing!
:P
It's 100% true that teachers have no power. Part of the problem is that teachers (most of the ones I had anyway) don't exactly hae an air of authority around them, and really don't command respect.
Another part is that, frankly, the kids don't care about anything most of the time. I know I didn't!
Yet another part of the problem is that the parents don't do anything. And if they do, they usually make it worse. (As per your example, which is the worst case I've ever heard of... but I sure believe it.) I'd love to hear how that was handled... I would have either explained that it was more of a racist thing to assume only white people eat apples, or suggest writing an essay on cotton... depending on if I had tenure or not.
Now here's the question for the big prize... what can be done about it?
=Smidge=
...because the people in charge (Teachers, parents, school board, etc) don't understand what's going on.
It's just that simple. Whenever someone does something with a computer that they don't understand, it's hacking. A High School friend of mine got accused of 'hacking' by downloading Netscape once.
Fear and ignorance, ignorance and fear...
=Smidge=
Why, I did in fact read the article. Both of them. While they were lax on specifics, here's what I gathered te process was:
1) Intense burst of light is absorbed by nanotubes
2) Absorbed energy cannot be dissipated, so temperature rises to 1500C
3) High temperature disrupts molecular configuration, nanotubes becomes susceptible to chemical reactions
4) Nanotubes react with atmospheric oxygen, burst into flames
Based on that, High temps are required for the combustion to take place. So yes, combustion does happen *while* the nanotubes are at 1500C, at least within the context of the linked article.
=Smidge=
Did you even read the article you linked to? In order for that to happen, you need to fill a laundary list of rather specific criteria:
1) Single walled nanotubes
2) Presence of oxygen
3) Temperatures in excess of 1,500 C
4) Only intense light seems to effect it (photons are absorbed by the nanotubes directly)
We can let #1 slide since I do not know if there is any specific requirement if nanotubes can (or must be) single or multi walled for use in electronics. Since there hasn't been any real development of nanotube electronics yet, I don't think anyone really knows. The linked article is about tool to analize nanotubes, not no much build electronic devices that incorperate them. It does make a good proof-of-concept though.
#2 is easily remedied because the devices would be hermetically sealed in opaque packages. That also takes care of #4...
And I don't think anyone will have to worry about the 1500 degree temperatures so far as electronics are concerned. At least nobody in the private sector...
I mean damn, it's one thing to not RTFA, but you didn't even read your own sources!
=Smidge=
Well I'm willing to admit a mistake if you can point it out. Let's go through my math a little more carefully and see if we can find the problem...
:P Seems I multiplied by density instead of divided... *scratches head*
Given:
-1 Bushel of corn (shelled) = 56 pounds (Now sure how corn would be measured in gallons...) (source)
-High-oil corn yeilds 7.25% oil by weight. (source)
-Corn oil has a specific gravity of 0.92 (source
-Water weighs 8.33 pounds per gallon (accepted value)
-An acre of corn can yeild 150 bushels (source)
56 pounds times 7.25% is 4.2 pounds of oil.
The oil weights 7.66 pounds per gallon. (8.33 * 0.92)
Therefore, one bushel of corn yields (4.2/7.66) = 0.55 gallons of oil.
At 150 bushels of corn per acre, that amounts to 82 gallons of oil.
-----
Hmm. Wonder how I messed THAT up!
=Smidge=
One acre yeilds 150 bushels of corn. 1 bushel of high-oil (56 pounds) corn yeilds about 7.25% oil, or 4.2 pounds (32 gallons).
:P
You can convert corn oil to biodiesel in an almost 1:1 ratio. All you do is add small amounts of mythyl alcohol and lye to seperate out the glycerin.
So an acre of corn can produce roughly 4,500 gallons of biodiesel and 7,500 pounds of stalk, husk and meal - all of which can be processed into other forms of energy (electricity or oil from TDP)
Now tell me it takes more than 4,500 gallons of fuel to grow a single acre of corn, even if we ignore the rest of the available energy we can get.
Ethanol production is, by itself, a poor way to extract energy. But you could use it as an auxilary source to squeeze out every drop you can. (The main benefit being that ethanol can be used in fuel cells directly). Making ethanol as a primary fuel is a waste of time and money.
Besides, ethanol is for drinking
=Smidge=
Efficiency doesn't matter if your source (sunlight) is free. Harvest it on a big enough scale and you still end up with a substantial output.
If you're going to complain about the energy required to actually work the land (Equipment fuel), remember that you're making fuel. Recycling some of your product to perpetuate the process is all part of the package.
=Smidge=
It doesn't matter, because the plants are "new growth".
Burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2 by releasing carbon that was trapped millions of years ago. Our climate has adjusted since, and by releasing this ancient carbon into the atmosphere we're starting to mess it up.
If you're burning "new growth" plant matter, though, then we won't be changing the total CO2 levels. You can't possibly be adding more CO2 than you're removing because there's noplace else for the carbon to come from! You're not decreasing it either, but I never claimed that. Simply that the net CO2 emission from the cycle is zero.
=Smidge=
First, I'd like to apologize even though I don't think I have to.
My post was not anti-farmer. I made no assertion about who gets it or wheather or not they deserve it. I'm sorry if your grandfather is busting his ass to make ends meet (at it sure sounds like it from your post, anyway...) but that is neither here nor there.
Farm subsidies are primerily used to keep food cheap by paying the growers the difference. If market pressures were allowed to control it, then a lot of smaller growers (and thus, the farmers who work the land) would go out of business because the larger ones would be able to beat them hands-down.
But all is not lost, because I'm sure you know that subsidies kill small farmers by driving up land prices. So I fail to see what part of my pro-abolish-subidization sentament you found to be "anti-farmer". Energy crops would both reduce government porkbarrel spending and give farmers a very valuable crop to sell. Sounds win-win to me. You don't have to worry about overproducing energy, either - demand for it always grows just as fast (and usually faster) than supply. No so with food products.
As for the "sensationalist" site I linked to, I only used it for that one particular page - which is pretty neutral inof itself. It mentions undermining 3rd world growers, but that's about it. (Further support for my argument against subsidies...)
Since I am not talking about global warming, I don't care what that site has to say about it. I didn't even bother to look for such information. But since you brought it up, would you care to share what you found so "sensational" about it?
=Smidge=
Biomass burning emits carbon dioxide. Hence promoting global warming. Same thing for burning alcohol and, I suppose, biodiesel as well.
:) (Electric vehicles still have a long way to go and would require a big shift in infastructure and social habit. Manufactured fuels would not - just gas up as usual!)
True. But where did the carbon come from? The plants. Where did the plants get it from? The air.
Try as you might, conservation of mass says that the net increase of atmospheric carbon from this cycle is zero. So whatever net C02 increase there might be, it will be from the use of resources outside of the cycle.
Sugar is also a relatively difficult crop to deal with, and alcohol is not a very high-yeild fuel. I'm not surprized that it flunked. You would be better off growing rapeseed or peanuts for their oil (both of which grow very quickly, are robust and suited for a very wide range of climates).
And I do not have a fear of nuclear power. It's a great source of relatively clean, relatively safe energy - but it has it's fair share of problems, and it's kinda hard to put a nuclear reactor in a car
=Smidge=
Absoultely true, but nobody ever claimed that is was a "perfect" solution. (After all, it's not a perfect world!)
:P
But when you add it all up, at the end of the day you've made a pretty minimal impact on the environment for the amount of energy you produced.
Any CO2 you produce was from the plants you've burned, which got it from the air to begin with, so there's essentially no net CO2 increase -- unlike fossil fuels which are dumping extra CO2 without any compensation.
As for argricultural pollution: run the farm equipment and make any required fertilizers from the products you're making from the plants. Pesticides would be very minimal, since insect damage would not be as much a concern -- the crops aren't being used for food so more damage is acceptable.
As for space, the US has LOTS of space. (No pun intended!). Montana has roughly 150,000 square miles of land and a population less than 900,000. Sure it's a pretty cold climate, but I'm sure you can find (or engineer?) a crop that will grow nicely.
Then you might do a little terraforming in the deserts. I wonder how well cactuses burn...
=Smidge=