If this turns out to be true, and not a product of some experimental error, it sounds like it could lead to some very interesting new theories. If it's due to neutrino flux, that indicates neutrinos interact much more strongly than previously thought.
If buying a house costs $10 million dollars, and renting an equivalent house costs $200/month, I think I'll stick with renting. I could buy my own Internet backbone, but I think I'll stick with paying my ISP month by month. I could buy my own toilet paper factory, but I'd rather just buy it as I use it.
And solar panels only "pays for itself" because you are leeching off of your neighbors through subsidies in order to alleviate your own guilt. And of course you're ignoring the fact that there is currently no feasible way to not be dependent upon the grid. There are times when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, and you'll need a grid to fill in the gaps. There is no way to store enough energy without an additional massive investment in batteries or something like that.
Oh I was talking about a wall plug in charger, not a USB charger. If that was the standard, then yes it would be better, assuming the user did not mind having to use a computer to charge. For some devices that's fine, for others it is a problem.
It doesn't negate the fact that the rectifier must provide enough amperage for an arbitrary device, adding cost. And the boost/buck converter has some cost associated with its implementation.
For one thing, different gadgets require different voltages. If you hook up the wrong voltage, you can fry the gadget. Different size plugs helps to avoid this. Also, different devices require different amperage. There is no reason to make a rectifier that can handle higher amperage that it really needs, since that adds cost.
Depends how it's done. Running a red light can be done safely, just like breaking most other traffic laws can be. Of course running a red light at a busy and blind intersection is very dangerous. Running a long light where there is no traffic and a clear, full view is not at all dangerous.
There is a great Charlie Brooker skit on aspirational television and how believing that we should be as beautiful and stylish as the cast of Friends and Sex and the City is actually making everybody miserable.
I think it's actually that thinking the cast of Sex and the City is beautiful and stylish is making people miserable.
The big deal is that there are many former Soviet bloc countries that are both free and our allies, Georgia being one of them. Ukraine might be next on Russia's hit list. I don't particularly want the Soviet empire to return, which is why I think this is a big deal.
Think about what this -- and "evolving your opinion" on other issues -- means. It means the candidate either: (1) didn't think through their previous position, (2) licks their finger and finds out which way the wind is blowing, or (3) has new facts that have changed their opinion. Of course (3) is how you want a leader to act, (1) is acceptable for certain minor issues, but this is a clear case of (2). That means he's the worst kind of politician, willing to say anything to get elected. Oh, and the motivation for the change?
He also said he was hoping "to ensure retention of" thousands of NASA workers in Texas and Florida whose jobs are threatened by a possible five-year gap before the beginning of the Constellation initiative to send astronauts to the moon and Mars.
I've never been that good in geography, but I seem to remember some big body of water near California. Can't quite come up with what it is at the moment...
I concur with your original analysis. I think it is valid to use our reference frame rather than the Sun's, since we would be essentially be firing a huge rocket.
It's like a car vs rocket. The energy it takes to change the velocity of a car depends on it's current velocity, essentially because you're pushing against a stationary object (the earth) while you are moving. The energy to change the velocity of a rocket does not depend on it's current velocity (neglecting air resistance). This is because it pushes against it's own fuel.
If this seems like a contradiction in terms of conservation of energy, consider this. At initial velocity, the fuel in the rocket has some momentum and energy relative to a fixed object (the earth). If the rocket pushes against the fuel to accelerate it, then the fuel has less momentum and energy relative to the fixed object. It is this 'extra' energy that makes up the difference. It's not 'free' energy, because the rocket had to accelerate that fuel in the first place.
For the pushing the earth analogy, you are 'using up' the energy of the nuclear fuel when you use it to speed up the earth, by making the fuel travel slower relative to the sun at the end.
And now to finish confusing people, if you are attempting to slow down the earth rather than accelerate it, you can actually get energy out of that.
Really? Where did the CO2 in fossil fuels come from? I'm pretty sure it came from the ecosystem. When I drive my gas-guzzling SUV, I'm just trying to be environmentally friendly by returning that carbon to the ecosystem.
OK I think I follow you. You aren't saying that's the energy needed to turn the earth into a black hole, but the energy needed to produce an earth-mass black hole.
Slashdot Mirror
If this turns out to be true, and not a product of some experimental error, it sounds like it could lead to some very interesting new theories. If it's due to neutrino flux, that indicates neutrinos interact much more strongly than previously thought.
If buying a house costs $10 million dollars, and renting an equivalent house costs $200/month, I think I'll stick with renting. I could buy my own Internet backbone, but I think I'll stick with paying my ISP month by month. I could buy my own toilet paper factory, but I'd rather just buy it as I use it.
And solar panels only "pays for itself" because you are leeching off of your neighbors through subsidies in order to alleviate your own guilt. And of course you're ignoring the fact that there is currently no feasible way to not be dependent upon the grid. There are times when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, and you'll need a grid to fill in the gaps. There is no way to store enough energy without an additional massive investment in batteries or something like that.
The total cost of the Iraq war is about $600 billion dollars. We spend more than that on oil alone each year.
You clearly don't have the slightest clue how a free market works.
Oh I was talking about a wall plug in charger, not a USB charger. If that was the standard, then yes it would be better, assuming the user did not mind having to use a computer to charge. For some devices that's fine, for others it is a problem.
It doesn't negate the fact that the rectifier must provide enough amperage for an arbitrary device, adding cost. And the boost/buck converter has some cost associated with its implementation.
For one thing, different gadgets require different voltages. If you hook up the wrong voltage, you can fry the gadget. Different size plugs helps to avoid this. Also, different devices require different amperage. There is no reason to make a rectifier that can handle higher amperage that it really needs, since that adds cost.
Depends how it's done. Running a red light can be done safely, just like breaking most other traffic laws can be. Of course running a red light at a busy and blind intersection is very dangerous. Running a long light where there is no traffic and a clear, full view is not at all dangerous.
Cheers to that!
There is a great Charlie Brooker skit on aspirational television and how believing that we should be as beautiful and stylish as the cast of Friends and Sex and the City is actually making everybody miserable.
I think it's actually that thinking the cast of Sex and the City is beautiful and stylish is making people miserable.
The big deal is that there are many former Soviet bloc countries that are both free and our allies, Georgia being one of them. Ukraine might be next on Russia's hit list. I don't particularly want the Soviet empire to return, which is why I think this is a big deal.
And don't feed me horseshit about Florida; you could win that state in a second by promising to increase medicare payments.
He's got you beat: he's going to eliminate income tax on seniors. He's quite the panderer, isn't he?
Then take them off. What facts/new information has changed here?
He also said he was hoping "to ensure retention of" thousands of NASA workers in Texas and Florida whose jobs are threatened by a possible five-year gap before the beginning of the Constellation initiative to send astronauts to the moon and Mars.
So NASA can become a fucking welfare agency.
Haha how is this troll? It's exactly what this is.
Not one society in all our history has ever functioned on libertarian or anarchist principles. Not one.
Except, you know, the United States of America, which is based entirely on classical liberalism (or at least was up until 70 years ago or so).
In my ideal world, government with GTFO and let the businesses who are actually providing the services figure out how to do it.
Tax credits are a tax increase on those who don't get the credits.
I've never been that good in geography, but I seem to remember some big body of water near California. Can't quite come up with what it is at the moment...
I concur with your original analysis. I think it is valid to use our reference frame rather than the Sun's, since we would be essentially be firing a huge rocket.
It's like a car vs rocket. The energy it takes to change the velocity of a car depends on it's current velocity, essentially because you're pushing against a stationary object (the earth) while you are moving. The energy to change the velocity of a rocket does not depend on it's current velocity (neglecting air resistance). This is because it pushes against it's own fuel.
If this seems like a contradiction in terms of conservation of energy, consider this. At initial velocity, the fuel in the rocket has some momentum and energy relative to a fixed object (the earth). If the rocket pushes against the fuel to accelerate it, then the fuel has less momentum and energy relative to the fixed object. It is this 'extra' energy that makes up the difference. It's not 'free' energy, because the rocket had to accelerate that fuel in the first place.
For the pushing the earth analogy, you are 'using up' the energy of the nuclear fuel when you use it to speed up the earth, by making the fuel travel slower relative to the sun at the end.
And now to finish confusing people, if you are attempting to slow down the earth rather than accelerate it, you can actually get energy out of that.
Yes, but why did we start cooking? It wasn't to make cooked carrots, it was to make a nice, juicy woolly mammoth stake.
Surely no corporation would undertake an initiative like this, especially on this scale, as the profits would be far too long term and unlikely.
Your idea of innovation is spending money without getting anything back for it?
Really? Where did the CO2 in fossil fuels come from? I'm pretty sure it came from the ecosystem. When I drive my gas-guzzling SUV, I'm just trying to be environmentally friendly by returning that carbon to the ecosystem.
They seem to feel that losing everything is at stake whenever they give up anything, and that totalitarianism is always just around the corner.
You're a fool if you think otherwise.
OK I think I follow you. You aren't saying that's the energy needed to turn the earth into a black hole, but the energy needed to produce an earth-mass black hole.