I have read studies that show there are kind of grass, switch grass and hemp, that would make far better bio-fuels than anything we currently use. But for some reason, only Cthulhu knows, they want to continue to make it out of corn.
Ignoring the fact that you trying so hard to troll that you felt it was important to post this drivel twice.
I'm going to go forward and say that at this point it seems space is pretty much out of hands of the U.S. tax payer. The way forward seems to be in the hands of private industry. I predict that in a few years NASA will be come what the FAA is now. Just another regulatory agency. Which I think would be a good move for NASA.
Well there are some people that are just to cheap no matter how much money they have. If they can get something for nothing, they will. Some people its a challenge. Beat the system and get it for free. I know someone like that. They will pirate a game before they buy it. They don't even play it. It's the thrill of getting something for free that turns them on.
To me the risks out way any potential pay off you get from pirating a game. Let's face it, some of the people that crack these games don't have the best intentions at heart. Then there is just the trouble of not getting updates, having to fight the game to install it, and all kinds of other shit. I want to play a game, not fight it.
Why would I bother to do that? Tell you how smart I am. That accomplishes nothing. You have already formed your option of that, and anything I say will not change that.
You are mistaken about one thing. I did get the response I was looking for. I have drawn you out in to conversation. That is what I was trying to accomplish.
It wasn't your insults that attracted me to respond to you. I honestly could care less what people think about me personally. I've been on the internet way to long to be affected by peoples personal option. No, as I said, I remember some of your first posts. They where well thought out and very insightful. That earned you some of my respect. I guess I was mistaken about that.
But I would be interested in hearing more about this 'fame' you brought up. Some how that has escaped my notice.
If you get a game with a more decent campaign (I've sunk 50 hours into Nier so far), or a multiplayer option, or replay value, it becomes the cheapest form of entertainment you can buy.
This is truth. I've bought GTA V across 3 platforms, PS3, XBone, and now on the PC when it went on sale for $29 on Steam. I know some people would wonder about buying the same game several times, but I've literally played the hell out of this game. I really can't put a number on how many hours I've played it. But if I was to put a dollar amount on it, it would be under a $1 an hour.
Thank you for the numbers. The fossil fuel numbers are higher than I would like them to be at 62.7%. But the numbers for wind are up to twice what I thought they would be at 6.3%. Still a long way to go but I'm going to be happy with this.
I suppose that is as good an answer as I can expect. I could troll you; pick you up, and play you like a harp. But I don't see the point. It's fun to troll some people, but to troll you would just be sad.
I have a question. I'm sure this will be modded off topic, an that is fine. As you pointed out I have more than enough karma to cover it.
When did you become such a fool? I don't mean idiot or moron, but I mean a fool. There is a difference but most people tend to ignore them. One can be reasonably smart, such as yourself, an still be a fool.
I'm sure you will try to turn this back on me some how, an that will be fine. But I remember some of your earlier posts and they seemed well reasoned, thought out, and level headed. But now you seem more like a babbling fool trying to get attention anyway you can. What changed?
Well, I wasn't going to bring that up, but since you went there. Mine is Second Life.... why are you looking at me like that?
In SL I pay a yearly fee for a premium account and then a monthly fee to maintain a sim. Then I also buy things from in game developers. I pay real money for this. I could earn all this in game, I have before, but chosen not too.
I guess it could be worse. We could addicted to hookers and blow.
I do not play pay to win games. I don't see the point in it. Why should I invest time and money in a game when some asshat with a much bigger budget can come in and crush it at will? I also don't see the fun in crushing a opponent by simply being able to out spending him in real life. Where is the satisfaction in that?
I don't think paying $50 to $70 for a game released on first day is that outrageous, depending on the game. Lots of games now can occupy your time for weeks, if not months. The are not the simple jump and shoot games from the 80/90's. A great deal of them are open ended games with constant updates and expansions being release.
What I do think is outrageous is them continuing to charge $60 and $70 for a game that has been out for 2 or 3 years. GTAV on the PC is my example. I also have a beef with them charging you 50 bucks for a game then charging you 10 a month to continue to play it.
Seems to me that when I'm driving between cities on the interstate, when I look out my left side window there are vast patches of unused land that are 30 to 50 feet wide. Other than dividing the opposite lanes of traffic this land seems to serve no other purpose than a place for grass to grow. Grass that, for some reason escapes me, we seem to want to spend a great deal of time and energy to mow.
With a little thinking could not some of this land be put to better use? Say a solar farm right down the middle of the interstate?
These articles require more context. For example, hydro-electric plants generate 7.5% of the total electrical production in the U.S., wind generates 6.3%, and solar power still provides only about 1.3%. So, clean energy only represents about 15% of electrical production. Nuclear could also be considered "clean energy," and it produces 20% of energy. But, coal-fired power plants still produce 30% of America's power and natural gas plants provide 32%. So, fossil fuels still provide the majority of America's electricity.
Really? Are these numbers accurate? I hope you don't mind if I double check these. I actually though the numbers for renewable energy use was actually far lower than what you have here. If these are accurate then my information is out of date, which is good news.
While I applaud the concept of electric vehicles for their emissions-reducing capability, the impact they actually have on greenhouse gas emissions are probably far less than would be assumed. The electricity to recharge them is still mostly generated from coal-fired power plants, so even if the cars themselves aren't emitting as much carbon dioxide, the eplants providing the power for them are.
The over all impact of electric vehicles on emissions is negligible for just reasons you listed here. But this will not always be the case. As wind and solar become more widespread electric vehicles will start to make real impacts on environmental standards, for the better.
In most consumer applications it isn't the speed of the memory or cpu that causes slowdown. It's the I/O. When I'm doing "real work" on my desktop my cpu hardly breaks 20% and I'm waiting on I/O to catch up. An this is with a Samsung 960 Pro NvME card.
With games its GPU. My cpu barely breaks 30% even with the most demanding game.
Faster CPU's are nice but they are not what determines overall computer power any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Very good. I mis-interpreted your intentions. You have my apologizes.
I'll just leave this here, but does anyone else remember this kook?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have read studies that show there are kind of grass, switch grass and hemp, that would make far better bio-fuels than anything we currently use. But for some reason, only Cthulhu knows, they want to continue to make it out of corn.
Ignoring the fact that you trying so hard to troll that you felt it was important to post this drivel twice.
I'm going to go forward and say that at this point it seems space is pretty much out of hands of the U.S. tax payer. The way forward seems to be in the hands of private industry. I predict that in a few years NASA will be come what the FAA is now. Just another regulatory agency. Which I think would be a good move for NASA.
I love that I live in your head for free!
Hi there. Looks like I'm your new room mate. I'll just set my stuff over here.
In other words, science doesn't give a damn about your personal options.
OMG. That is just perfect,:)
Unmowed grass is a fire hazard
Good point. I should have realized that.
Well there are some people that are just to cheap no matter how much money they have. If they can get something for nothing, they will. Some people its a challenge. Beat the system and get it for free. I know someone like that. They will pirate a game before they buy it. They don't even play it. It's the thrill of getting something for free that turns them on.
To me the risks out way any potential pay off you get from pirating a game. Let's face it, some of the people that crack these games don't have the best intentions at heart. Then there is just the trouble of not getting updates, having to fight the game to install it, and all kinds of other shit. I want to play a game, not fight it.
Why would I bother to do that? Tell you how smart I am. That accomplishes nothing. You have already formed your option of that, and anything I say will not change that.
You are mistaken about one thing. I did get the response I was looking for. I have drawn you out in to conversation. That is what I was trying to accomplish.
It wasn't your insults that attracted me to respond to you. I honestly could care less what people think about me personally. I've been on the internet way to long to be affected by peoples personal option. No, as I said, I remember some of your first posts. They where well thought out and very insightful. That earned you some of my respect. I guess I was mistaken about that.
But I would be interested in hearing more about this 'fame' you brought up. Some how that has escaped my notice.
If you get a game with a more decent campaign (I've sunk 50 hours into Nier so far), or a multiplayer option, or replay value, it becomes the cheapest form of entertainment you can buy.
This is truth. I've bought GTA V across 3 platforms, PS3, XBone, and now on the PC when it went on sale for $29 on Steam. I know some people would wonder about buying the same game several times, but I've literally played the hell out of this game. I really can't put a number on how many hours I've played it. But if I was to put a dollar amount on it, it would be under a $1 an hour.
It's no wonder your CO2 emissions are so much more than every one elses.
Unless your China. Almost twice as much as the US by some reports.
Thank you for the numbers. The fossil fuel numbers are higher than I would like them to be at 62.7%. But the numbers for wind are up to twice what I thought they would be at 6.3%. Still a long way to go but I'm going to be happy with this.
I suppose that is as good an answer as I can expect. I could troll you; pick you up, and play you like a harp. But I don't see the point. It's fun to troll some people, but to troll you would just be sad.
Doesn't things like this give you warm fuzzes all over? Makes you just want to run right out and buy their product. Oh wait, maybe not.
I have a question. I'm sure this will be modded off topic, an that is fine. As you pointed out I have more than enough karma to cover it.
When did you become such a fool? I don't mean idiot or moron, but I mean a fool. There is a difference but most people tend to ignore them. One can be reasonably smart, such as yourself, an still be a fool.
I'm sure you will try to turn this back on me some how, an that will be fine. But I remember some of your earlier posts and they seemed well reasoned, thought out, and level headed. But now you seem more like a babbling fool trying to get attention anyway you can. What changed?
Could be worse.
Well, I wasn't going to bring that up, but since you went there. Mine is Second Life.... why are you looking at me like that?
In SL I pay a yearly fee for a premium account and then a monthly fee to maintain a sim. Then I also buy things from in game developers. I pay real money for this. I could earn all this in game, I have before, but chosen not too.
I guess it could be worse. We could addicted to hookers and blow.
I do not play pay to win games. I don't see the point in it. Why should I invest time and money in a game when some asshat with a much bigger budget can come in and crush it at will? I also don't see the fun in crushing a opponent by simply being able to out spending him in real life. Where is the satisfaction in that?
I don't think paying $50 to $70 for a game released on first day is that outrageous, depending on the game. Lots of games now can occupy your time for weeks, if not months. The are not the simple jump and shoot games from the 80/90's. A great deal of them are open ended games with constant updates and expansions being release.
What I do think is outrageous is them continuing to charge $60 and $70 for a game that has been out for 2 or 3 years. GTAV on the PC is my example. I also have a beef with them charging you 50 bucks for a game then charging you 10 a month to continue to play it.
Pay to win is usually not that simple
There fixed that for you.
Seems to me that when I'm driving between cities on the interstate, when I look out my left side window there are vast patches of unused land that are 30 to 50 feet wide. Other than dividing the opposite lanes of traffic this land seems to serve no other purpose than a place for grass to grow. Grass that, for some reason escapes me, we seem to want to spend a great deal of time and energy to mow.
With a little thinking could not some of this land be put to better use? Say a solar farm right down the middle of the interstate?
These articles require more context. For example, hydro-electric plants generate 7.5% of the total electrical production in the U.S., wind generates 6.3%, and solar power still provides only about 1.3%. So, clean energy only represents about 15% of electrical production. Nuclear could also be considered "clean energy," and it produces 20% of energy. But, coal-fired power plants still produce 30% of America's power and natural gas plants provide 32%. So, fossil fuels still provide the majority of America's electricity.
Really? Are these numbers accurate? I hope you don't mind if I double check these. I actually though the numbers for renewable energy use was actually far lower than what you have here. If these are accurate then my information is out of date, which is good news.
While I applaud the concept of electric vehicles for their emissions-reducing capability, the impact they actually have on greenhouse gas emissions are probably far less than would be assumed. The electricity to recharge them is still mostly generated from coal-fired power plants, so even if the cars themselves aren't emitting as much carbon dioxide, the eplants providing the power for them are.
The over all impact of electric vehicles on emissions is negligible for just reasons you listed here. But this will not always be the case. As wind and solar become more widespread electric vehicles will start to make real impacts on environmental standards, for the better.
In most consumer applications it isn't the speed of the memory or cpu that causes slowdown. It's the I/O. When I'm doing "real work" on my desktop my cpu hardly breaks 20% and I'm waiting on I/O to catch up. An this is with a Samsung 960 Pro NvME card.
With games its GPU. My cpu barely breaks 30% even with the most demanding game.
Faster CPU's are nice but they are not what determines overall computer power any more.
To bastardize a quote from Penn and Teller. "God works in mysterious, cruel, inefficient, and inhuman ways."