...and maybe if we give the farmers something useful to grow (Energy crops), we won't have to pay them to not grow anything (ween them off subsidies - Nearly $75 billion spent last year in the US alone to keep farmers employed because there isn't a market for the stuff they grow). May as well earn their money growing sometihng useful!
Not like the market for energy is going to be going anywhere anytime soon, and this might just put the US back-in-black in terms of energy production vs. usage. With the USA's crop production capacity we might even be able to generate a surplus and export it... =Smidge=
Are infant deaths factored into life expectancy calculations?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LifeExpectancy.html
Seems to me that at least the above method has a built-in correction. That they are actually measuring is the number of people (% of population) who die within age catagory x. If x is ages 30-40, then it has decreased in the past 100 years. If x is 70-80, then it has increased in the past 100 years.
The conclusion is that more people are reaching the 70-80 age group, and therefore people pn average are living longer.
That's the biggest problem which really keeps recycling from being commercially viable: There's no good way to seperate materials that need to be processed.
Plastic is a good example. You generally can't recycle all the different types of plastics in the same way. There may be (limited) ways to seperate them based on density, melting temperature or chemical solvents, but by and large they must be seperated and sorted by human hands... and human labor is slow and expensive, so recycling is generally slow and expensive too.
If you can find a way to streamline the process you probably stand to become a very rich individual. =Smidge=
And the plastic shell is better recycled as-is (ie: more plastic).
This isn't "Mr. Fusion" here talking about here. Yes, TDP has enormous potential for generating a renewable source of compatable fuels, but it's not gonna turn garbage into gold. =Smidge=
It seems obvious to anyone who has half a brain. You know, te kinds of people who have enough sense not to try and steal a car in the first place?
Then again, I know people who are fairly intelligent that simply don't know the kinds of things I take for granted. "Smart" is very relative - but I bet you'ld find more people who could stare right at the button and not even see it than people who could tell you what it's for. =Smidge=
Let's face it, most theives (like the kind that steal cars and rob candy stores) are not exactly the sharpest hammer in the drawer. I bet they wouldn't be able to tell if a car had OnStar without either previous experience ("Last time I stole one of those I got nailed") or a good looking-over (Which would kinda draw attention to themselves) - so you can bet they won't know where to start trying to disable it.
Of course, it won't stop the "professional" car theives who know what the hell they're doing in the first place, but that's not the issue for most customers. =Smidge=
We never got 24"+ of snow in the first week of December, either. If I use that as my data point, then we'll be up to about 10 feet by springtime...
Not saying if humans are/aren't making an impact, and certainly not the magnitude of any influence we might have, but using one anecdotal data point doesn't really help your argument.
But even if we're not really destroying the environment as much as everyone fears, I do agree that less pollution is a Good Thing(tm). =Smidge=
There is nothing special about this particular bug, except that it was used to gain some insight on how these kinds of bacteria work their magic.
The whole battery idea comes from how we now understand that the "c-type cytochromes" add electrons to the heavy metal ions to newtralize them, and create a small electrical current in the process.
Yes, in theory I would imagine any bacteria that has similar mechanics could be used.
This little fella jsut happened to get the spotlight because it was the first to be studied in depth.
You might also want to read through the talk.origins archive, since I think you might not fully understand how evolution works. (Hint: "survival of the fittest" is a really poor way to describe it.) =Smidge=
I *am* an HVAC systems engineer. And strictly off the record, this sounds like a perfect application for a ductless split AC system (alternate link for comparison). The nice thing about these units is that all you need to run is two copper tubes: Typically a 3/8" liquid and 1/2" vapor line (plus insulation). That greatly simplifies and penetrations you have to make to the building. The condenser unit can also be up to 100' feet away (including a max. 30' difference in elevation)
As for cost, one of these systesm will probably set you back US$1200, not including installation or consulting fees.
It's always a good idea to consult a professional with these kinds of things. He or she will be able to select a solution that's right for your application, and get the job done right. =Smidge=
I can't seem to find any solid definition of what "independent" is. The best I can make out from their rules is "self funded" and "company whose primary business is game development as opposed to commercial game publishing"
That's pretty vauge, IMHO. And to me, "independent" means you don't have a company backing you.
Maybe there should be another category for people who develop games independently, as in by themselves with at most a small group of friends instead of a structured, funded company behind them.
I really think some of the more unique game ideas were overlooked as a result... Obviously a team of professional developers stand to develop a more complete and polished product than some guy working on it in his spare time, especially within the same timeframe. =Smidge=
Well consider this the test bed I guess. Keep an eye on the cancer statistics!
I also have personal experience from parents complaining about WiFi networks on schools irradiating the children. My usualy response is that the microwave energy put out by the access points are typically 1/30th the power of your average cell phone, and that it's unlikely anyone will be holding the access point up to their head. Get some strange looks from tht one...
Of course, when I say I'm an engineer, I've had more than one parent (and teachers) ask me what trains have to do with it. (And I wish that was a joke) =Smidge=
Re:Screw long-distance space travel
on
Sub-Zero Squirrels
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
That is typically an indication tht you're not drinking it fast enough...
Actually, my logic would prove a 747 to be extremely safe. Number in service * number of passengers that ever flew in one / total fatalites in accidents.
I think the other reply was much mre interesting. (About the total number of accidental failures & other problems). Although I'm sure most people wouldn't consider anything designed to fly through a war zone to be "safe" by most standards. Had the Osprey seen real service, something tells me it would be even more fragile and the accident rate would be much higher than for Harriers. =Smidge=+
There are (thousands?) of Harriers in service, and surprizingly few incidents compared to the number in use (and how they are used - eg in an actual conflict).
They built 10 Osprey V-22 aircraft for testing. In April of 2000, one V-22 crashed during a test flight and killed 19 marines. That alone is nearly two people dead for every craft ever built. (Note: Check date, might be wrong!)
Which do you suppose is the safer technology? =Smidge=
No seriously, Mars is cheaper. It takes less Delta V, and has far more economic opportunities than the moon does.
Assuming manned missions, a moon base would be cheaper and much more realistic in the now. The engine of a Mars-bound craft might be smaller, but the craft has to be much more expensive to keep a human crew survive several months in space (including food, water, air, sanity, comfort, etc) as well as be much more robust to survive a planetary landing in condition good enough to get off again (or at least part of the craft suitable for landing)
In either scenario, you will have to bring a shit load of tools and materials with you, even if you plan to use local resources -- assuming it's even feasible to build from the local materials, which it probably isn't until you have a working colony. (Chicken and egg?)
Considering it takes about 10 days to get to the moon and back, compared to about 400 days to Mars. That's a lot of extra surviving right off the bat. (I'd feel better knowing help way 5 days away instead of 3 months, too.)
No, you can not use the moon as a bounce point for getting to deeper exploration.
Because.... ?
First a moon base will not be self sufficient in our life times.
You're not going to terraform Mars in our lifetime either, and you're certainly not going to build a Mars colony faster than a Lunar colony. Farther away, more gravity = more structural materials, Still has to be resistant to extreme temperatures (no inflatable dome!), and still problems with supplies like food. With a moon mission it's more feasible to send supplies every few days. To do that on Mars, you'd either have to have a constant convoy of hundreds of ships floating around the solar system, send a year's worth of supplies at a time, or build a source of food locally (which means bringing more shit with you to begin with). In either case, you're not just going to show up with a garden hoe and live a happy life.
The moon has zero atmosphere, large extremes in temperature, and dust that somehow manages to find it's way into vacuum tubes.
No atmosphere and extreme temperatures I agree with. I have never heard anything about dust inside vacuum tubes, nor have I been able to find any. I'd appreciate some references.
I have seen stories about dust getting tract in from the crew, and such dust floating around causing breathing problems and clogged filters.
On Mars, not only is there still tons of dust, there's wind to blow it around!
Further, Mars has resources that alter the economics and safety in dramatic ways.
That is a vacuous statement which you did not support anywhere in your post. Dead wood.
For example, for lunar trips, tou have to take *ALL* your resources with you. Enough to get there, stay there, and get back. You will expend large amounts of fuel to slow down to enter orbit and land.
Ditto with Mars, as explained above. It is true that you could send a craft there to make air and water in advance (And methane fuel, though how useful that is for getting off the planet is still arguable). But that kind of equipment falls under the "more crap to take with you" category above. And you would still need to build permanent sources for food. You could do that on the moon much easier.
In both cases, hydroponics wold be the ideal solution - plants recycle water, produce oxygen, remove carbon dioxide, and provide food. So there's no advantage over building such a facility one place or the other.
Further, a direct mission to Mars has an advantage in that it can use a technique called aerobraking. This means you use the atmosphere of Mars to slow the craft down, as opposed to buring fuel to do it.
For a human-safe landing, you would probably still need rockets. Aerobraking and parachutes can only do so much, and there's no ocean to land in. The moon has only a fraction of the gravity and so you'd need only a fraction
a) Didn't RTFA b) Don't know what the Darwin Awards are about c) All of the above
Besides, the crooks will still turn a profit. It's the poor shmucks who BUY the consoles off of these guys that'll lose out. I don't think the guy selling out of his van has a return policy...
Did I mention they usually deal in cash only? What are you going to do, call the cops because the STOLEN merchandise you bought is defective and the guy who sold it to you won't refund your money? =Smidge=
It's four feet high, four feet long, two feet wide and 360 pounds. Imagine a regular motorcycle bit with one big wheel where the engine would normally go.
It's the kind of thing you'ld cling desperately to, not so much sit on top of... =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
Biodiesel
...and maybe if we give the farmers something useful to grow (Energy crops), we won't have to pay them to not grow anything (ween them off subsidies - Nearly $75 billion spent last year in the US alone to keep farmers employed because there isn't a market for the stuff they grow). May as well earn their money growing sometihng useful!
Alcohol fuels
Biomass
Thermal Depolymerization
All viable ways to "grow" sources of energy...
Not like the market for energy is going to be going anywhere anytime soon, and this might just put the US back-in-black in terms of energy production vs. usage. With the USA's crop production capacity we might even be able to generate a surplus and export it...
=Smidge=
Are infant deaths factored into life expectancy calculations?
l
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LifeExpectancy.htm
Seems to me that at least the above method has a built-in correction. That they are actually measuring is the number of people (% of population) who die within age catagory x. If x is ages 30-40, then it has decreased in the past 100 years. If x is 70-80, then it has increased in the past 100 years.
The conclusion is that more people are reaching the 70-80 age group, and therefore people pn average are living longer.
At least that's my understanding...
=Smidge=
That's the biggest problem which really keeps recycling from being commercially viable: There's no good way to seperate materials that need to be processed.
Plastic is a good example. You generally can't recycle all the different types of plastics in the same way. There may be (limited) ways to seperate them based on density, melting temperature or chemical solvents, but by and large they must be seperated and sorted by human hands... and human labor is slow and expensive, so recycling is generally slow and expensive too.
If you can find a way to streamline the process you probably stand to become a very rich individual.
=Smidge=
Oh yes... the acid.
Sulfucic acid solution.
H2SO4 + H2O -- No carbon there, either.
And the plastic shell is better recycled as-is (ie: more plastic).
This isn't "Mr. Fusion" here talking about here. Yes, TDP has enormous potential for generating a renewable source of compatable fuels, but it's not gonna turn garbage into gold.
=Smidge=
I don't think any amount of thermal depolymerization will convert lead into hydrocarbons... nice try, though!
=Smidge=
Nope!
=Smidge=
It seems obvious to anyone who has half a brain. You know, te kinds of people who have enough sense not to try and steal a car in the first place?
Then again, I know people who are fairly intelligent that simply don't know the kinds of things I take for granted. "Smart" is very relative - but I bet you'ld find more people who could stare right at the button and not even see it than people who could tell you what it's for.
=Smidge=
Correct. There's no such thing as a sharp hammer persay.
:P
Now substitute "hammer" with "person" and "drawer" with "world", mix in a healthy dose of sarcasm, and consider the above statement again.
=Smidge=
I believe it.
Let's face it, most theives (like the kind that steal cars and rob candy stores) are not exactly the sharpest hammer in the drawer. I bet they wouldn't be able to tell if a car had OnStar without either previous experience ("Last time I stole one of those I got nailed") or a good looking-over (Which would kinda draw attention to themselves) - so you can bet they won't know where to start trying to disable it.
Of course, it won't stop the "professional" car theives who know what the hell they're doing in the first place, but that's not the issue for most customers.
=Smidge=
We never got 24"+ of snow in the first week of December, either. If I use that as my data point, then we'll be up to about 10 feet by springtime...
Not saying if humans are/aren't making an impact, and certainly not the magnitude of any influence we might have, but using one anecdotal data point doesn't really help your argument.
But even if we're not really destroying the environment as much as everyone fears, I do agree that less pollution is a Good Thing(tm).
=Smidge=
Smaller, faster, better! This is cool stuff. Soon they're going to be pushing the physical limits of manufacturing!
Does anyone know if there's a company working on applying MEMS fabrication to similar devices?
=Smidge=
That's why I gave you the link... since you seem interested, I thought it might be informative for you.
:P
Just trying to help
=Smidge=
There is nothing special about this particular bug, except that it was used to gain some insight on how these kinds of bacteria work their magic.
The whole battery idea comes from how we now understand that the "c-type cytochromes" add electrons to the heavy metal ions to newtralize them, and create a small electrical current in the process.
Yes, in theory I would imagine any bacteria that has similar mechanics could be used.
This little fella jsut happened to get the spotlight because it was the first to be studied in depth.
Ref. http://www.geobacter.org/ for some more info
You might also want to read through the talk.origins archive, since I think you might not fully understand how evolution works. (Hint: "survival of the fittest" is a really poor way to describe it.)
=Smidge=
Of course, that's always the wy to go.
I *am* an HVAC systems engineer. And strictly off the record, this sounds like a perfect application for a ductless split AC system (alternate link for comparison). The nice thing about these units is that all you need to run is two copper tubes: Typically a 3/8" liquid and 1/2" vapor line (plus insulation). That greatly simplifies and penetrations you have to make to the building. The condenser unit can also be up to 100' feet away (including a max. 30' difference in elevation)
As for cost, one of these systesm will probably set you back US$1200, not including installation or consulting fees.
It's always a good idea to consult a professional with these kinds of things. He or she will be able to select a solution that's right for your application, and get the job done right.
=Smidge=
That's the tricky part... at what point does their company become "not independent" anymore?
From your post, you make it sound like risk-taking is what defines them. That's not a very good way to differentiate!
There has to be a limit somewhere, which is why the grandparent post was very interesting: how is a $1.5M budget "independent"?
There doesn't seem to be a clear, objective definition for this. If you have one please share!
=Smidge=
I also find the results rather... offcolor?
I can't seem to find any solid definition of what "independent" is. The best I can make out from their rules is "self funded" and "company whose primary business is game development as opposed to commercial game publishing"
That's pretty vauge, IMHO. And to me, "independent" means you don't have a company backing you.
Maybe there should be another category for people who develop games independently, as in by themselves with at most a small group of friends instead of a structured, funded company behind them.
I really think some of the more unique game ideas were overlooked as a result... Obviously a team of professional developers stand to develop a more complete and polished product than some guy working on it in his spare time, especially within the same timeframe.
=Smidge=
Well consider this the test bed I guess. Keep an eye on the cancer statistics!
I also have personal experience from parents complaining about WiFi networks on schools irradiating the children. My usualy response is that the microwave energy put out by the access points are typically 1/30th the power of your average cell phone, and that it's unlikely anyone will be holding the access point up to their head. Get some strange looks from tht one...
Of course, when I say I'm an engineer, I've had more than one parent (and teachers) ask me what trains have to do with it. (And I wish that was a joke)
=Smidge=
That is typically an indication tht you're not drinking it fast enough...
=Smidge=
Actually, my logic would prove a 747 to be extremely safe. Number in service * number of passengers that ever flew in one / total fatalites in accidents.
I think the other reply was much mre interesting. (About the total number of accidental failures & other problems). Although I'm sure most people wouldn't consider anything designed to fly through a war zone to be "safe" by most standards. Had the Osprey seen real service, something tells me it would be even more fragile and the accident rate would be much higher than for Harriers.
=Smidge=+
Here's a hint:
There are (thousands?) of Harriers in service, and surprizingly few incidents compared to the number in use (and how they are used - eg in an actual conflict).
They built 10 Osprey V-22 aircraft for testing. In April of 2000, one V-22 crashed during a test flight and killed 19 marines. That alone is nearly two people dead for every craft ever built. (Note: Check date, might be wrong!)
Which do you suppose is the safer technology?
=Smidge=
Not only are they great entertainment that excesizes their training and teamwork, but when they're on the move it can double as body armor!
=Smidge=
No seriously, Mars is cheaper. It takes less Delta V, and has far more economic opportunities than the moon does.
Assuming manned missions, a moon base would be cheaper and much more realistic in the now. The engine of a Mars-bound craft might be smaller, but the craft has to be much more expensive to keep a human crew survive several months in space (including food, water, air, sanity, comfort, etc) as well as be much more robust to survive a planetary landing in condition good enough to get off again (or at least part of the craft suitable for landing)
In either scenario, you will have to bring a shit load of tools and materials with you, even if you plan to use local resources -- assuming it's even feasible to build from the local materials, which it probably isn't until you have a working colony. (Chicken and egg?)
Considering it takes about 10 days to get to the moon and back, compared to about 400 days to Mars. That's a lot of extra surviving right off the bat. (I'd feel better knowing help way 5 days away instead of 3 months, too.)
No, you can not use the moon as a bounce point for getting to deeper exploration.
Because.... ?
First a moon base will not be self sufficient in our life times.
You're not going to terraform Mars in our lifetime either, and you're certainly not going to build a Mars colony faster than a Lunar colony. Farther away, more gravity = more structural materials, Still has to be resistant to extreme temperatures (no inflatable dome!), and still problems with supplies like food. With a moon mission it's more feasible to send supplies every few days. To do that on Mars, you'd either have to have a constant convoy of hundreds of ships floating around the solar system, send a year's worth of supplies at a time, or build a source of food locally (which means bringing more shit with you to begin with). In either case, you're not just going to show up with a garden hoe and live a happy life.
The moon has zero atmosphere, large extremes in temperature, and dust that somehow manages to find it's way into vacuum tubes.
No atmosphere and extreme temperatures I agree with. I have never heard anything about dust inside vacuum tubes, nor have I been able to find any. I'd appreciate some references.
I have seen stories about dust getting tract in from the crew, and such dust floating around causing breathing problems and clogged filters.
On Mars, not only is there still tons of dust, there's wind to blow it around!
Further, Mars has resources that alter the economics and safety in dramatic ways.
That is a vacuous statement which you did not support anywhere in your post. Dead wood.
For example, for lunar trips, tou have to take *ALL* your resources with you. Enough to get there, stay there, and get back. You will expend large amounts of fuel to slow down to enter orbit and land.
Ditto with Mars, as explained above. It is true that you could send a craft there to make air and water in advance (And methane fuel, though how useful that is for getting off the planet is still arguable). But that kind of equipment falls under the "more crap to take with you" category above. And you would still need to build permanent sources for food. You could do that on the moon much easier.
In both cases, hydroponics wold be the ideal solution - plants recycle water, produce oxygen, remove carbon dioxide, and provide food. So there's no advantage over building such a facility one place or the other.
Further, a direct mission to Mars has an advantage in that it can use a technique called aerobraking. This means you use the atmosphere of Mars to slow the craft down, as opposed to buring fuel to do it.
For a human-safe landing, you would probably still need rockets. Aerobraking and parachutes can only do so much, and there's no ocean to land in. The moon has only a fraction of the gravity and so you'd need only a fraction
Apparently, you either:
a) Didn't RTFA
b) Don't know what the Darwin Awards are about
c) All of the above
Besides, the crooks will still turn a profit. It's the poor shmucks who BUY the consoles off of these guys that'll lose out. I don't think the guy selling out of his van has a return policy...
Did I mention they usually deal in cash only? What are you going to do, call the cops because the STOLEN merchandise you bought is defective and the guy who sold it to you won't refund your money?
=Smidge=
the horrid bug-eyed Vegans ...and that's why meat and dairy are important parts of a well balanced diet.
=Smidge=
It's four feet high, four feet long, two feet wide and 360 pounds. Imagine a regular motorcycle bit with one big wheel where the engine would normally go.
It's the kind of thing you'ld cling desperately to, not so much sit on top of...
=Smidge=