The article says Japan "extracted" the methane. But it says nothing about how they extracted it. By extraction they could simply mean melting the ice. Which is worthless. What we need is a way to transport it from the frozen bottom of the sea to the room temperature power plants
The problem is transporting it. Transporting liquids (oil) is easy, you pump it through pipes to tanks. Transporting gas is slightly harder as you pump it in air-tight pipes to air-tight tanks.
Transporting room temperature solids is a moderately hard, you shovel it and truck it.
But frozen methane is the worst. It is solid when left alone, but turns to gas at room temperature. Worse, it is almost always at the bottom of the ocean.
If they solved this problem, great. But we don;t know they did that, because they were not very clear at all.
In my experience there is a simple explanation for that lack of information - very bad translation from a foreign language. Someone probably solved a rather minor technical issue about removing the frozen water, leaving the gas, but it probably did NOT solve the major 'do it underwater, at huge depths, at freezing cold temperatures, by robot' problem.
Instead of explaining that it was a minor technical victory, they left out all the details and claimed translation issues.
1) Speeding cameras are scams not because they catch you speeding, but because they are considered 'reliable' by judges and juries when they are not.
2) In general, the easiest way to beat a speeding ticket is to not have the cop show up and claim he tested it. He doesn't have to actually test it - or give any film or other electronic records of him testing. He just has to show up and claim he tested it.
3) Studies show that cops lie about how much work they have done exactly as much as any other civil servant. Ever been to to Motor Vehicle department? Cops do as much work as they do.
4) P.S. This is not an insult to cops. It is just a recognition that cops are human too.
Which is why other people have been doing it for years.
Figuring out a different way to do something that Barnes and Nobles (lending econtent for a short time) or everyone else in the entire world already does (right of resale), is not something worth patenting.
It isn't even worth praise.
It's worth a "Finally you idiots figured out what we've been saying!"
Too true. The weird thing is that platinum isn't really that uncommon a metal - outside of the Earth's gravity well. Most of the platinum (and gold) we mine today were delivered by relatively recent asteroid strike.
The reason heavy metals are valuable is that gravity tends to concentrate them in the center of a planet when it forms, not out on the edge.
As to why you can't power a car with them, scale matters.
Some electrical sources work great at providing a trickle charge over hours, but can't power a car, even if you put 1000 of them in sequence or serial.
Sometimes it's a heat issue, sometimes it's weight, sometimes its some other physics law.
The real problem with password stealing is that they don't tell you when it happens - and they CAN.
Just list the last 3 times you logged in, with IP addresses. You can even add in the word (new) to an IP address that has not showed up before.
Look, if you go up to a chemistry teacher in the 15th century and said "Here's a printing press, use it to teach chemistry", they would laugh in your face.
You don't "use technology" to teach, you use specific, customized products to teach.
You don't offer generic technology. You custom design specific software.
As in the Khan Academy. Or as in Cargo Bridge, or similar physics games.
The question is not: Does X defense cost more than y attack?
Because defense has ALWAYS cost more than the attack - from the first time a guy decided to make a wooden shield to defend against rocks being thrown at him.
Instead, the question is as follows.
Is the defense spending to counter my enemies attack worth more than the cost to replace what the enemy is trying to destroy.
We don't care - we never care - how much the enemy spends to destroy a target. That number is IRRELEVANT.
Lets assume it costs us 200 million to defend a US carrier group, per attack, and it only costs the enemey $1 million per attack.
It is STILL worth it for us to spend that $200 million. Because it defends a $2 trillion US carrier group.
More and more people suspect that the human brain actively uses quantum mechanics within it's own 'circuitry'.
The human brain is not a deterministic computer, so you can't duplicate it's actual mechanisms.
They are not talking about the too complicated for people to play, They mean too complicated for a computer to play 'perfectly..
No one insults a baseball player because he only hit a triple, rather than a home run. But in their definition of game play, they expect every single move to be the best one possible. That is how COMPUTERS play games, not how people do. Computers make calculations based on all possible moves. That is not how people play at all.
Instead, people play the odds. We work in the murky world of probably rather than optimal. Which is why humans will always beat a computer playing Go, even if we lose in Chess.
Games are not about picking the optimal move. Instead they are either about:
Having fun
LEARNING which moves are better and which moves are worse
Both.
That is what all play is about. Having fun, learning how to do things, or both.
Knowing the optimal moves ahead of time means you can't learn and you can't really have fun.
What they are talking about is trying to win the game for ever and ever. When we do that, we move on to another game.
Just like when I learned how to always win at tic tac toe.
First, it damages them even more than they already are. If I keep it up, my urine turns brown - from the blood. At that point I should go to a Hospital. If I didn't, then it would turn red. At that point they take me to a hospital.
#1 fits fine. You are assuming that scientist observable symptoms correlate with the actually beginning of the problem. Nope. Usually the problem starts long before other people notice it.
Which is more likely:
1) People with psychological issues seek pharmaceutical drugs to help them stay calm and not screw up their lives even though they are hearing voices and other psychotic issues.
2) Drugs cause the problems - but no one ever noticed before.
3) Some idiot won't even consider option #1 and go right option #2 - without any evidence at all, let alone proof.
Note, I have kidney disease - and as such do not take pot, drink alcohol or do any other drug without my doctor's express advice. My body can't handle it - but I'm not stupid enough to think other people have the same problem I do.
I see a lot of bull above. Among other things, having a driver's license should never expose you to more liability than not having one. That is, if it is legal for someone to be in a moving car with a license, then you can't punish someone in the car that has a license more than you can punish someone that doesn't.
Part of the problem is that people are making bad assumptions about the state of the technology.
There are basically three qualities of driver less driving.
1) Requires driver intervention more than once a year.
2) Doesn't need a driver - as long as it stays below a low speed (say 50 mph). I
3)Can compete in NASCAR and other races.
Type 1 is pretty much worthless for the standard person. Oh, it might be useful for truck drivers, but that's about it. This is basically the state we have now, without spending ridiculous amounts of money. It's called CRUISE CONTROL.
Type 2 does not need a driver and a) should have speed limits placed that make it go SLOWER than legally required for people. b) should pretty much be impossible to violate the laws, if they are properly posted on the map. c) any ticket for bad driving should legally be given to the corporation that programmed it poorly. d) any ticket for non-moving violations (parking, etc) should be given to people that gave the instructions.
Type 3 should be treated as Type one, only without the rules making it go slower than legally required for people. Also, once we have type 3, driver licenses would become much rarer - similar to hunting licenses. In addition, driver licenses might get tougher to obtain - and be tested yearly after age 60.
1) Science class cost more than dance, literature, etc. They need to fund labs and research. Charging less for the expensive stuff will find a way to work it's way down to lower quality science education
2) A core principle of economics is that people value more expensive things higher. Sell the same wine in two different bottles, one at $10 and the other at $50 and people will tell you that the $50 one tastes better. Another good example is that if a state school raises the 'minimum' sat score to get in, they get more people applying to get in. If you lower the standards, you get lower quality people. Expect the same with this idea.
3) No person getting a dance or similar degree expects to get a job from their degree. If you are concerned about money, then you are already getting a science degree. Or at least a 'hospitality degree'. So it won't do what you want it to do.
First of all, many of your peers are in the top 1%. People in the top 1% of intelligence face a remarkable problem. 1% is not all that rare. By definition, one out of a hundred. Currently the IQ to be one out of a hundred is about 135. Someone with an IQ of 135 is about as much smarter than the average person as the average person is to the bottom 1% or an IQ of 65. An IQ of 65 counts as mildly retarded (being used as a technical term of the American Association of Mental Retardation),
They are arrogant because most of their life they are surrounded by people that compared to them, have a legally defined mental problems.
The only way to cure this is:
Experience with other people of their same level.
I.E. COLLEGE
A good college should be entirely consisting of people in the top 1%. That is, everyone around them should be just as smart as they are, if not smarter.
It's going to take at least four years to teach these people that just because the average guy is not up to their level, doesn't mean
Now, if they are going to a lesser school, then it might take more time. By Graduate school, that problem should be fixed.
But nothing less than four years of realizing how smart everyone else is will make them lose their arrogance.
Step 1. Develop a business model founded on being the cheapest.
Step 2. Watch as almost everyone else gets out of the business because they can't profit at your price, leaving you with 90% of the market.
Step 3. Now try to increase profits. When you realize you can't raise prices because the other 10% undercut you and make most of the profit, cut off production entirely.
Step 4. Watch as the other 10% raise prices (to the level you wished you got) and make a profit at your expense. Then watch as they expand, cutting your original market share from 90% to 70%.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is transporting it. Transporting liquids (oil) is easy, you pump it through pipes to tanks. Transporting gas is slightly harder as you pump it in air-tight pipes to air-tight tanks.
Transporting room temperature solids is a moderately hard, you shovel it and truck it.
But frozen methane is the worst. It is solid when left alone, but turns to gas at room temperature. Worse, it is almost always at the bottom of the ocean.
If they solved this problem, great. But we don;t know they did that, because they were not very clear at all.
In my experience there is a simple explanation for that lack of information - very bad translation from a foreign language. Someone probably solved a rather minor technical issue about removing the frozen water, leaving the gas, but it probably did NOT solve the major 'do it underwater, at huge depths, at freezing cold temperatures, by robot' problem.
Instead of explaining that it was a minor technical victory, they left out all the details and claimed translation issues.
2) In general, the easiest way to beat a speeding ticket is to not have the cop show up and claim he tested it. He doesn't have to actually test it - or give any film or other electronic records of him testing. He just has to show up and claim he tested it.
3) Studies show that cops lie about how much work they have done exactly as much as any other civil servant. Ever been to to Motor Vehicle department? Cops do as much work as they do.
4) P.S. This is not an insult to cops. It is just a recognition that cops are human too.
Now, NOTHING can stand against us!
Crown us King of the Earth and the SEAS!
P.S. I already know humans kill more sharks than sharks kill humans. But darn it, they smiled too much when we kill them. Now we can do it BACK.
Which is why other people have been doing it for years.
Figuring out a different way to do something that Barnes and Nobles (lending econtent for a short time) or everyone else in the entire world already does (right of resale), is not something worth patenting.
It isn't even worth praise.
It's worth a "Finally you idiots figured out what we've been saying!"
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these!
Granted, I was talking about DMCA takedown notices, but it is the same concept: relevant blog post
"The mushroom can sometimes be confused with the Magpie fungus which is poisonous."
I somehow doubt that parents or sane pranksters would prefer to use your method.
In addition, Both parents and pranksters LIKE the fact that the vaccine is permanent.
1) Parents paying to inject their high school kids without asking what the kids think about it.
2) High school and college kids pranking each other by injecting their ex-'friends' with it.
The reason heavy metals are valuable is that gravity tends to concentrate them in the center of a planet when it forms, not out on the edge.
You are correct, I meant in series or parallel.
Sometimes it's a heat issue, sometimes it's weight, sometimes its some other physics law.
The real problem with password stealing is that they don't tell you when it happens - and they CAN. Just list the last 3 times you logged in, with IP addresses. You can even add in the word (new) to an IP address that has not showed up before.
You don't "use technology" to teach, you use specific, customized products to teach.
You don't offer generic technology. You custom design specific software.
As in the Khan Academy. Or as in Cargo Bridge, or similar physics games.
Because defense has ALWAYS cost more than the attack - from the first time a guy decided to make a wooden shield to defend against rocks being thrown at him.
Instead, the question is as follows.
Is the defense spending to counter my enemies attack worth more than the cost to replace what the enemy is trying to destroy.
We don't care - we never care - how much the enemy spends to destroy a target. That number is IRRELEVANT.
Lets assume it costs us 200 million to defend a US carrier group, per attack, and it only costs the enemey $1 million per attack.
It is STILL worth it for us to spend that $200 million. Because it defends a $2 trillion US carrier group.
More and more people suspect that the human brain actively uses quantum mechanics within it's own 'circuitry'. The human brain is not a deterministic computer, so you can't duplicate it's actual mechanisms.
Oh yes, water won't burst into fire. But water is corrosive. It causes rust.
This is basically only useful in two situations:
1. Some moron is too scared of hydrogen fires to understand it is safer than gasoline.
2. Situations where we can not take the standard precautions against fire.
No one insults a baseball player because he only hit a triple, rather than a home run. But in their definition of game play, they expect every single move to be the best one possible. That is how COMPUTERS play games, not how people do. Computers make calculations based on all possible moves. That is not how people play at all.
Instead, people play the odds. We work in the murky world of probably rather than optimal. Which is why humans will always beat a computer playing Go, even if we lose in Chess.
Games are not about picking the optimal move. Instead they are either about:
Having fun
LEARNING which moves are better and which moves are worse
Both. That is what all play is about. Having fun, learning how to do things, or both. Knowing the optimal moves ahead of time means you can't learn and you can't really have fun.
What they are talking about is trying to win the game for ever and ever. When we do that, we move on to another game.
Just like when I learned how to always win at tic tac toe.
First, it damages them even more than they already are. If I keep it up, my urine turns brown - from the blood. At that point I should go to a Hospital. If I didn't, then it would turn red. At that point they take me to a hospital.
#1 fits fine. You are assuming that scientist observable symptoms correlate with the actually beginning of the problem. Nope. Usually the problem starts long before other people notice it.
2) Drugs cause the problems - but no one ever noticed before.
3) Some idiot won't even consider option #1 and go right option #2 - without any evidence at all, let alone proof.
Note, I have kidney disease - and as such do not take pot, drink alcohol or do any other drug without my doctor's express advice. My body can't handle it - but I'm not stupid enough to think other people have the same problem I do.
Part of the problem is that people are making bad assumptions about the state of the technology. There are basically three qualities of driver less driving.
1) Requires driver intervention more than once a year.
2) Doesn't need a driver - as long as it stays below a low speed (say 50 mph). I
3)Can compete in NASCAR and other races.
Type 1 is pretty much worthless for the standard person. Oh, it might be useful for truck drivers, but that's about it. This is basically the state we have now, without spending ridiculous amounts of money. It's called CRUISE CONTROL.
Type 2 does not need a driver and a) should have speed limits placed that make it go SLOWER than legally required for people. b) should pretty much be impossible to violate the laws, if they are properly posted on the map. c) any ticket for bad driving should legally be given to the corporation that programmed it poorly. d) any ticket for non-moving violations (parking, etc) should be given to people that gave the instructions.
Type 3 should be treated as Type one, only without the rules making it go slower than legally required for people. Also, once we have type 3, driver licenses would become much rarer - similar to hunting licenses. In addition, driver licenses might get tougher to obtain - and be tested yearly after age 60.
2) A core principle of economics is that people value more expensive things higher. Sell the same wine in two different bottles, one at $10 and the other at $50 and people will tell you that the $50 one tastes better. Another good example is that if a state school raises the 'minimum' sat score to get in, they get more people applying to get in. If you lower the standards, you get lower quality people. Expect the same with this idea.
3) No person getting a dance or similar degree expects to get a job from their degree. If you are concerned about money, then you are already getting a science degree. Or at least a 'hospitality degree'. So it won't do what you want it to do.
They are arrogant because most of their life they are surrounded by people that compared to them, have a legally defined mental problems.
The only way to cure this is:
Experience with other people of their same level.
I.E. COLLEGE
A good college should be entirely consisting of people in the top 1%. That is, everyone around them should be just as smart as they are, if not smarter.
It's going to take at least four years to teach these people that just because the average guy is not up to their level, doesn't mean Now, if they are going to a lesser school, then it might take more time. By Graduate school, that problem should be fixed.
But nothing less than four years of realizing how smart everyone else is will make them lose their arrogance.
Step 2. Watch as almost everyone else gets out of the business because they can't profit at your price, leaving you with 90% of the market.
Step 3. Now try to increase profits. When you realize you can't raise prices because the other 10% undercut you and make most of the profit, cut off production entirely.
Step 4. Watch as the other 10% raise prices (to the level you wished you got) and make a profit at your expense. Then watch as they expand, cutting your original market share from 90% to 70%.
Article/poster should discuss how to opt out and what if any, the consequences are.