Could a physicist around here explain how these proposed dark energy stars could explain the expansion of the universe if they behave exactly like black holes outside the event horizon?
I am not a physicist, but I RT PDF paper. The guy isn't trying to explain the expansion of the universe, we already have several explanations for that using dark matter and energy. He is trying to integrate general relativity with quantum physics.
He uses the dark energy to get ride of the event horizon of the black holes. The existence of event horizons breaks QM. He is also not proposing a QM gravitational theory, just an alternative explanation for black holes.
With all the evil they have done, is there any way that they could do enough good for the evil to be forgotten, or at least to break even thus making them a "Corporation" not an "Evil Corporation"?
They just need to stop beeing evil and start to agregate value for our society. Honest people/corporations have no need for good actions to be accepted (but them sometimes do that anyway). If Microsoft turned not evil, people will start to trust them again. All they need is time.
But good actions also don't make evil people/corporation less evil. Bill Gates donnating money or M$ suing spammers will no make M$ less evil. Not even a bit.
You can make pellets from any biomass, but grass if far more efficient, fast and reliable than corn and soybean.
Since it is "field trash", it may be economical in small scale. You need to compare the generated energy with the more fertilizer you will need for the next crop and see if it is better. My guess is that for corn it will be, but for soybean it will not because of the little amount of trash generated.
almost all ammonium nitrate is produced directly from natural gas. so it would really just be converting petroleum to biofuel, which doesn't make sense,
If you RTFA, you will se that the input:output ratio of that is 1:10. So, it is more like converting a kilogram of gas into 10, what makes a lot of sense.
if the worry is running out of petroleum, the current common sense best solution is nuclear power, but common sense rarely prevails when discussing nuclear energy. replacing petroleum with renewable energy sources is a pipe dream.
I guess you didn't realize that this is a nuclear power plant. Just the reactor is very far away...
Oh, and remember that your keyboard have a shift key, try using it next time.
Cherney points out that grass biofuel pellets are much better for the environment because they emit up to 90 percent less greenhouse gases than oil, coal and natural gas do.
I always wonder how do these people compare emissions for renewable and fossil fuels. Aren't they completelly different, since renewable fuels emissions are absorved from air first. Are this 90% less emissions from fossil sources (fertilizers)?
grass is converted to useable heat at over 80% efficiency, with an energy output:input ratio exceeding 10:1, compared to other bioenergy sources with typicalsystem energy output:input ratios around 1:1.
This efficience also wonders me, is this guy including the solar input into the efficience? Amazing! He is doing the right calculation when everybody alse seems to do it wrong. But the typical bioenergy sistems dosen't have input:output ratios near 1:1, this is true for experimental non commercial sistems, not for the alread used. A ratio of 10:1 ins't that impressive.
The mass of the atoms is almost all contained on the nucleus. Also, the mass of the eletrosfere is almost all contained on the inner electrons (except for the lighter elements, that don't have them).
Also, the mass lose due to the arrangement of the atoms on a molecule is a tinny error when compared to the lose due to the bound between the electrons and the nucleus and the resting mass of the electrons. The last ones are a tinny error when compared to the nuclear particles bound, and the last one is a small error when compared to the resting mass of those particles. So, the molecular bounds doesn't make much difference.
The US don't have all this power. I expect an economic crisis by the end of this ear and the next one, when will happen the elections. And even so, I expect Lula to be reelected. He is very popular here, and there is no money in the world that makes this step unpopular.
Ah, and the oposition is who started the switch to free software.
-Management. I'm no linux guru, so there might be (very good) alternatives to do this with linux, but I'm not 100% sure. Everything across country is monitored by a central NOC 24/7 easily. We have Active Directory, SMS, VBScript/WMI and a whole lot of other mangement/scripting/automation/(...) options.
You should take a look at Linux managemnet. Windows sucks on this area and you don't even realize that if you don't try something different.
-Exchange-like calendaring and everything else (shared mailboxes, boardroom booking,... the whole 9 yards).
So good that Bazilian governemnt has near no use of that. This makes the transition much easier.
-All the in house applications. Just about every desktop (or employee) makes use of in-house software, and a lot of our corporate apps runs only in windows.
This and the legacy data are the biggest problem. Brazilian governement is dealing with it on this way:
- At the first step, every docuent created by the governent should be available on an open format. If a closed one is better, it should be available at the two.
- Then, the government policy changed to permit only open formats. No rules about the apps yet.
- Now that most of the documents are availabe to free apps, the policy is to not buy closed apps if there are free replacements.
- Governemnt is discussing a policy that forbides completely the use of closed apps. This seems to be the next step.
Changing the entire governemnt is inherently slow. The process is going on for several years. Also, there will be problems when it makes free software mandatory. But the long term gain is very big to be ignored.
If I knew Portuguese, I would wish them 'Buenos fortunas', or whatever good luck is. It is "boa sorte", but on this subject we don't need that anymore.
If this program happens, it will happen with free software. The governemnt is very pro free software, the oposition (the only oposition capable of winning an election now) is also pro free software.
Also, our techinical base is pro free software since our universities switched to it when they realized they become "adiccted" to Windows and Microsoft tried to charge them very hard.
Most of Brazilian population still use Windows because it is pirated, and, so, very cheap. If they had to pay, they would switch. Still lot's of non technical people I have talked on the last ears where considering switch anyway.
Tanks anyway for whising, but we need luck for a lot of reasons, to get the chance of adopting free software, not.
That is because open software supporters on Brazil often have leftist ideology. Open source use is very strong at public universities here, where letfist ideology is stronger. But I agree that the claim about supply and demand is completely senseless (if the governement distributed the most used system, it would have to give pirated copies of Windows).
Well, I would post at top, but you proposed tha chalenge...
There are several people here arguing about lack of freedom of speech. They forget that UN is the biggest enforcers of free speech and other human rights we have.
There are other people complaining about lack of thecnical knowledge ("they don't understand the network"). Well, this agencie is responsible for the formulation of our telephony system, they don't lack the knowledge.
Others complain about the slowness of the UN to make decisions. Well, lack of change is one of the bigest problems of the Internet now (remember ipv6?). Also, tecnical agencies of the UN aren't as slow as the political bodyes (like every other government). One can't take one for the other.
Now that I said why it won't suck, let's see why it will be good...
First, if you RDFA, you will see that there are countries complaining about partiality of the network administration. It only serves the US, when it should serve the world. That is because the companies that rule it are located on US and are, so, unther their laws.
Then, a central administration can dictate new protocols (aren't you missing one for emails?) and deadlines (aren't you missing one for ipv6?). This will make changes possible, today they are not.
Also, a UN techinical team will be probably capable of organising the network. Current administration showed itself unable to do that, or why else do we not have decided who takes each address of the ipv6 protocol? If they can't administrate it well, the countries representatives can ask them to be replaced. This is diferent from current status, that nobody have this power.
Go on and start your net, but let other people run their at the most democractic way they know. And remember that most governements (and allmost all the more powerfull) are free speech enforcers, don't extrapolate a few examples.
Doctors have removed Terry Schiavo's feeding tube. A crowd of protestors gathered in front of the royal palace today to protest the decision to send troops to Freedonia. Police estimated the crowd at 10,000 people, while the protest leaders estimated 25,000.
Just the fact that you spread that information can already be biased. You could very well not support the protestors of the second news by not citting them. You could also put the removing of Terry Sciavo's tube on a good or bad pespective by just saying that for the right people.
Monocrystalline silicon is incredibly expensive. Polycrystalline silicon (which has largely taken over in the solar cell market) is simply "very expensive". Silicon is common, but pure silicon crystals require clean-room conditions to grow.
And monocristaline titanium is easyes to obtain? Will it be cheaper?
In fact, is you who are wrong (double wrong). Bacteria have genetic recombination, what replaces sexual reproduction for all evolutionary concers. Also, natural evolution doesn't have to be a GA, you clause that random search is GA because an organism evolve through it has no sense at all.
GA wihtout sexual reproduction is not GA, just random search.
Genetic algorithms are created from a very nice mathematical theorem that affirm, in short, that if you spread the characteristics your individual may have on a population and have this population reproducing with sex and selected, you have a near exponential speed up gain when looking for the best combination of characteristics, comparing with random search.
You can have GA without several things, even mutation, but you can not have it without sexual reprduction.
Since "pyrotechnic", "facetious", "colloquial" and "penultimate" are latin words, with similar ones on most of the western languages, I don't think that the problem is laziness. It much more feasible to have natural english speakers avoiding that words by laziness than most of the people for who it is the second language.
But I agree with your grammar observation. It is very hard to master another a foreign grammar.
The fact that they removed this stuff does indeed mean that MS Office no longer plays media content properly. I find it funny that the EU is complaining about this, as they got exactly what they wanted!
That only changes a monpoly by another one, EU have the right to demand a MSOffice that works without MP.
Slashdot Mirror
I did the math myself. There is no reason to "invent" dark matter to account for the flat galactic rotation curves.
Do you care to share your calculations? That could earn a Nobbel prize.
Could a physicist around here explain how these proposed dark energy stars could explain the expansion of the universe if they behave exactly like black holes outside the event horizon?
I am not a physicist, but I RT PDF paper. The guy isn't trying to explain the expansion of the universe, we already have several explanations for that using dark matter and energy. He is trying to integrate general relativity with quantum physics.
He uses the dark energy to get ride of the event horizon of the black holes. The existence of event horizons breaks QM. He is also not proposing a QM gravitational theory, just an alternative explanation for black holes.
With all the evil they have done, is there any way that they could do enough good for the evil to be forgotten, or at least to break even thus making them a "Corporation" not an "Evil Corporation"?
They just need to stop beeing evil and start to agregate value for our society. Honest people/corporations have no need for good actions to be accepted (but them sometimes do that anyway). If Microsoft turned not evil, people will start to trust them again. All they need is time.
But good actions also don't make evil people/corporation less evil. Bill Gates donnating money or M$ suing spammers will no make M$ less evil. Not even a bit.
Can this tecnology be used to create virus or spyware inside of PDF files?
You can make pellets from any biomass, but grass if far more efficient, fast and reliable than corn and soybean.
Since it is "field trash", it may be economical in small scale. You need to compare the generated energy with the more fertilizer you will need for the next crop and see if it is better. My guess is that for corn it will be, but for soybean it will not because of the little amount of trash generated.
almost all ammonium nitrate is produced directly from natural gas. so it would really just be converting petroleum to biofuel, which doesn't make sense,
If you RTFA, you will se that the input:output ratio of that is 1:10. So, it is more like converting a kilogram of gas into 10, what makes a lot of sense.
if the worry is running out of petroleum, the current common sense best solution is nuclear power, but common sense rarely prevails when discussing nuclear energy. replacing petroleum with renewable energy sources is a pipe dream.
I guess you didn't realize that this is a nuclear power plant. Just the reactor is very far away...
Oh, and remember that your keyboard have a shift key, try using it next time.
Cherney points out that grass biofuel pellets are much better for the environment because they emit up to 90 percent less greenhouse gases than oil, coal and natural gas do.
I always wonder how do these people compare emissions for renewable and fossil fuels. Aren't they completelly different, since renewable fuels emissions are absorved from air first. Are this 90% less emissions from fossil sources (fertilizers)?
grass is converted to useable heat at over 80% efficiency, with an energy output:input ratio exceeding 10:1, compared to other bioenergy sources with typicalsystem energy output:input ratios around 1:1.
This efficience also wonders me, is this guy including the solar input into the efficience? Amazing! He is doing the right calculation when everybody alse seems to do it wrong. But the typical bioenergy sistems dosen't have input:output ratios near 1:1, this is true for experimental non commercial sistems, not for the alread used. A ratio of 10:1 ins't that impressive.
With the massive fraud by the operators of this site today, how do we know one way or the other?
Wait till the dup tomorrow if it is real.
I guess that is the joke...
The mass of the atoms is almost all contained on the nucleus. Also, the mass of the eletrosfere is almost all contained on the inner electrons (except for the lighter elements, that don't have them).
Also, the mass lose due to the arrangement of the atoms on a molecule is a tinny error when compared to the lose due to the bound between the electrons and the nucleus and the resting mass of the electrons. The last ones are a tinny error when compared to the nuclear particles bound, and the last one is a small error when compared to the resting mass of those particles. So, the molecular bounds doesn't make much difference.
The US don't have all this power. I expect an economic crisis by the end of this ear and the next one, when will happen the elections. And even so, I expect Lula to be reelected. He is very popular here, and there is no money in the world that makes this step unpopular.
Ah, and the oposition is who started the switch to free software.
-Management. I'm no linux guru, so there might be (very good) alternatives to do this with linux, but I'm not 100% sure. Everything across country is monitored by a central NOC 24/7 easily. We have Active Directory, SMS, VBScript/WMI and a whole lot of other mangement/scripting/automation/(...) options.
You should take a look at Linux managemnet. Windows sucks on this area and you don't even realize that if you don't try something different.
-Exchange-like calendaring and everything else (shared mailboxes, boardroom booking, ... the whole 9 yards).
So good that Bazilian governemnt has near no use of that. This makes the transition much easier.
-All the in house applications. Just about every desktop (or employee) makes use of in-house software, and a lot of our corporate apps runs only in windows.
This and the legacy data are the biggest problem. Brazilian governement is dealing with it on this way:
- At the first step, every docuent created by the governent should be available on an open format. If a closed one is better, it should be available at the two.
- Then, the government policy changed to permit only open formats. No rules about the apps yet.
- Now that most of the documents are availabe to free apps, the policy is to not buy closed apps if there are free replacements.
- Governemnt is discussing a policy that forbides completely the use of closed apps. This seems to be the next step.
Changing the entire governemnt is inherently slow. The process is going on for several years. Also, there will be problems when it makes free software mandatory. But the long term gain is very big to be ignored.
If I knew Portuguese, I would wish them 'Buenos fortunas', or whatever good luck is.
It is "boa sorte", but on this subject we don't need that anymore.
If this program happens, it will happen with free software. The governemnt is very pro free software, the oposition (the only oposition capable of winning an election now) is also pro free software.
Also, our techinical base is pro free software since our universities switched to it when they realized they become "adiccted" to Windows and Microsoft tried to charge them very hard.
Most of Brazilian population still use Windows because it is pirated, and, so, very cheap. If they had to pay, they would switch. Still lot's of non technical people I have talked on the last ears where considering switch anyway.
Tanks anyway for whising, but we need luck for a lot of reasons, to get the chance of adopting free software, not.
That is because open software supporters on Brazil often have leftist ideology. Open source use is very strong at public universities here, where letfist ideology is stronger. But I agree that the claim about supply and demand is completely senseless (if the governement distributed the most used system, it would have to give pirated copies of Windows).
And the government is oblied to refuse that because it is abuse of economical power. Also, it may charge the company, but that part is harder.
I would prefer that my government spend money in a way that make people of my country richer. Not someone far, far away...
Well, I would post at top, but you proposed tha chalenge...
There are several people here arguing about lack of freedom of speech. They forget that UN is the biggest enforcers of free speech and other human rights we have.
There are other people complaining about lack of thecnical knowledge ("they don't understand the network"). Well, this agencie is responsible for the formulation of our telephony system, they don't lack the knowledge.
Others complain about the slowness of the UN to make decisions. Well, lack of change is one of the bigest problems of the Internet now (remember ipv6?). Also, tecnical agencies of the UN aren't as slow as the political bodyes (like every other government). One can't take one for the other.
Now that I said why it won't suck, let's see why it will be good...
First, if you RDFA, you will see that there are countries complaining about partiality of the network administration. It only serves the US, when it should serve the world. That is because the companies that rule it are located on US and are, so, unther their laws.
Then, a central administration can dictate new protocols (aren't you missing one for emails?) and deadlines (aren't you missing one for ipv6?). This will make changes possible, today they are not.
Also, a UN techinical team will be probably capable of organising the network. Current administration showed itself unable to do that, or why else do we not have decided who takes each address of the ipv6 protocol? If they can't administrate it well, the countries representatives can ask them to be replaced. This is diferent from current status, that nobody have this power.
Go on and start your net, but let other people run their at the most democractic way they know. And remember that most governements (and allmost all the more powerfull) are free speech enforcers, don't extrapolate a few examples.
Doctors have removed Terry Schiavo's feeding tube.
A crowd of protestors gathered in front of the royal palace today to protest the decision to send troops to Freedonia. Police estimated the crowd at 10,000 people, while the protest leaders estimated 25,000.
Just the fact that you spread that information can already be biased. You could very well not support the protestors of the second news by not citting them. You could also put the removing of Terry Sciavo's tube on a good or bad pespective by just saying that for the right people.
Monocrystalline silicon is incredibly expensive. Polycrystalline silicon (which has largely taken over in the solar cell market) is simply "very expensive". Silicon is common, but pure silicon crystals require clean-room conditions to grow.
And monocristaline titanium is easyes to obtain? Will it be cheaper?
In fact, is you who are wrong (double wrong). Bacteria have genetic recombination, what replaces sexual reproduction for all evolutionary concers. Also, natural evolution doesn't have to be a GA, you clause that random search is GA because an organism evolve through it has no sense at all.
GA wihtout sexual reproduction is not GA, just random search.
Genetic algorithms are created from a very nice mathematical theorem that affirm, in short, that if you spread the characteristics your individual may have on a population and have this population reproducing with sex and selected, you have a near exponential speed up gain when looking for the best combination of characteristics, comparing with random search.
You can have GA without several things, even mutation, but you can not have it without sexual reprduction.
You forgotten:
- Their front page don't crash Firefox.
Since "pyrotechnic", "facetious", "colloquial" and "penultimate" are latin words, with similar ones on most of the western languages, I don't think that the problem is laziness. It much more feasible to have natural english speakers avoiding that words by laziness than most of the people for who it is the second language.
But I agree with your grammar observation. It is very hard to master another a foreign grammar.
No, they are complaining that MSWord will not interoperate with any other media player you put on the system because the registry is modified.
The fact that they removed this stuff does indeed mean that MS Office no longer plays media content properly. I find it funny that the EU is complaining about this, as they got exactly what they wanted!
That only changes a monpoly by another one, EU have the right to demand a MSOffice that works without MP.