It would be a realy nifty trick to take photovoltaic technology, now running about 20% efficiency, and improve it by "a couple orders of magnitude" to 2000%. 1 watt in, 20 watts out.
Using these wonderful cells to power fluorescent lamps, set up the lamps to shine on the cells. Electricity out, no power in. Perpetual motion!
Once the strip mining is done, there's a nice new valley all ready to be reforested. While it's being actively mined, no one lives on the edge of the mine.
Reservoirs are generally regarded as being attractive, and are popular for boating.
Nuclear waste disposal sites are deep underground, unseen.
An oil spill is not a "facility", but a processing plant is, and is not attractive.
The nuclear fusion plans I've seen rely on feeding a stream of fuel into the reaction, much like feeding diesel fuel into an engine. The potential for a nuclear explosion just isn't there. Any terrorist attacking such a plant would probably do less damage and cause less loss of life than if he attacked a shopping mall or a dam.
Everyone (except the far-left, and the RIAA) knows that you'll make far more money by embracing and investing in new technology then by trying to suppress it.
That explains why railroads own all the airlines. Oh, wait... nevermind.
I rather like the idea of turning all our highways into bumper-car highways. Suspend an electrical grid above the roadbed, cover the road with a conductive plate. Anyone who touches the grid is instantly Darwinized. Put electric power consumption meters on each car.
Landing a human on Venus is not terribly difficult. The problem is keeping him alive after he reaches the surface, and the very difficult task of getting him back off the planet again.
It's my understanding that reactors are designed so that if the reactive material melts it will drain off into a multitude of paths, so that no path will have sufficient material to maintain a high level reaction. No melting through the ground until it meets the water table.
On one hand our "evil rulers" will do anything to make a buck. On the other hand they will not do something that will save trillions of bucks because they don't want to lose influnence and power.
There is no contradiction here. The unifying principle is that they want more than everyone else. They don't care if that is achieved by enriching themselves or impoverishing everyone else.
It is a viable strategy to attempt to overturn the granting of a patent as a defense against patent infringement. A more extreme example is overturning a law, such as for vagueness.
If something is in the public domain, it is not property, it cannot have an owner, and it cannot be stolen.
It is common practice (when doing patent searches, prior to implementing a product) to evaluate the validity of each claim in the patent. That evaluation includes examining prior art.
Contrary to your claim that "Law is a pretty blunt hammer" is the commonplace observation that "The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine."
One reason that anti-intellectualism is so popular is that much of what passes for intellectualism is crap. Consider the nasty gobbledygook beloved by academics: Sartre, Camus, Becket and James Joyce.
Although there are electrostatically deflected ink jet devices, the technology used to propel modern consumer "ink jet" printers is heat or piezo, as noted in previous posts.
I've seen glass negatives over 100 years old. The glass is neither going to react with the silver nor degrade on its own. Paper prints hold chemicals that must be meticulously washed away to not attack the silver, and the paper itself is vulnerable to degradation. Modern plastic-based prints are better, but still not as stable as glass. Flexible film negatives are made on a variety of backings, including mylar which is quite stable.
Replace the word "communications" with "news" and see how well your argument works. Would you want to live where the only source of news was the government?
I've had to write parsers several times since leaving college and I've been doing EE work, not CS. BNF and formal language theory have been of no use to me.
Silver is only 5% or 6% more conductive than copper, so it would not make a substantial improvement. So far as I know, no semi manufacturer has ever used silver conductors. I don't know, but I assume there is a good reason for this, such as chemical incompatibility.
Yields at advanced fabs are generally secret, but for a chip the size of a P4 they would be doing very well to exceed 70%. That's still a lot of ICs that are absolutely nonfunctional.
Slashdot Mirror
Using these wonderful cells to power fluorescent lamps, set up the lamps to shine on the cells. Electricity out, no power in. Perpetual motion!
Reservoirs are generally regarded as being attractive, and are popular for boating.
Nuclear waste disposal sites are deep underground, unseen.
An oil spill is not a "facility", but a processing plant is, and is not attractive.
The nuclear fusion plans I've seen rely on feeding a stream of fuel into the reaction, much like feeding diesel fuel into an engine. The potential for a nuclear explosion just isn't there. Any terrorist attacking such a plant would probably do less damage and cause less loss of life than if he attacked a shopping mall or a dam.
You appear to believe that environmental change is always for the worse.
Brings new meaning to the phrase "hot chick".
That explains why railroads own all the airlines. Oh, wait ... nevermind.
Burning hydrogen in air won't stop the production of oxides of nitrogen.
I rather like the idea of turning all our highways into bumper-car highways. Suspend an electrical grid above the roadbed, cover the road with a conductive plate. Anyone who touches the grid is instantly Darwinized. Put electric power consumption meters on each car.
Landing a human on Venus is not terribly difficult. The problem is keeping him alive after he reaches the surface, and the very difficult task of getting him back off the planet again.
It's my understanding that reactors are designed so that if the reactive material melts it will drain off into a multitude of paths, so that no path will have sufficient material to maintain a high level reaction. No melting through the ground until it meets the water table.
There is no contradiction here. The unifying principle is that they want more than everyone else. They don't care if that is achieved by enriching themselves or impoverishing everyone else.
I don't know if it applies here, but the concept you're looking for is "laches".
If something is in the public domain, it is not property, it cannot have an owner, and it cannot be stolen.
It is common practice (when doing patent searches, prior to implementing a product) to evaluate the validity of each claim in the patent. That evaluation includes examining prior art.
Contrary to your claim that "Law is a pretty blunt hammer" is the commonplace observation that "The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine."
The database for English speakers originating in Antarctica is rather small.
How do you spend 5 million dollars on paper, pencils, chalk and blackboards? Particularly when the students provide the pencils and paper?
One reason that anti-intellectualism is so popular is that much of what passes for intellectualism is crap. Consider the nasty gobbledygook beloved by academics: Sartre, Camus, Becket and James Joyce.
Although there are electrostatically deflected ink jet devices, the technology used to propel modern consumer "ink jet" printers is heat or piezo, as noted in previous posts.
I've seen glass negatives over 100 years old. The glass is neither going to react with the silver nor degrade on its own. Paper prints hold chemicals that must be meticulously washed away to not attack the silver, and the paper itself is vulnerable to degradation. Modern plastic-based prints are better, but still not as stable as glass. Flexible film negatives are made on a variety of backings, including mylar which is quite stable.
Roger Moore gave the impression of being a snide rich boy playing at being James Bond. I was never able to see him as more than a cardboard cutout.
Does the phrase "non sequitur" mean anything to you?
Replace the word "communications" with "news" and see how well your argument works. Would you want to live where the only source of news was the government?
I've had to write parsers several times since leaving college and I've been doing EE work, not CS. BNF and formal language theory have been of no use to me.
This technique makes outlines for real-life objects, thus providing the an inportant step for turning real-life objects into cartoons.
Silver is only 5% or 6% more conductive than copper, so it would not make a substantial improvement. So far as I know, no semi manufacturer has ever used silver conductors. I don't know, but I assume there is a good reason for this, such as chemical incompatibility.
Yields at advanced fabs are generally secret, but for a chip the size of a P4 they would be doing very well to exceed 70%. That's still a lot of ICs that are absolutely nonfunctional.