Bullshit. The OP was advocating for a renewed effort by simple virtue of the fact that he wishes it had come to pass. He desires that it should exist, and desires it enough such that he made the effort to share his desire with a big chunk of the Internet. THAT is advocacy, explicit or not.
I never said "money was the problem". Go ahead, read my comment again and try to show me where I said that. No, what I said, and all I said, was that if the summary OP was bothered by this failure that *HE* should spearhead a renewed effort. What, the people that were considering it two decades ago are just gonna hand him the money to do it now, assuming they're even still alive? That's stupid to even imply it. It ain't likely their successors are going to be quite so eager, either, which is why it STILL hasn't been done in the decades since. No, he'll have to generate the cash this time around himself... and it will in fact require a ton of it. Yes, ultimately money would be *A* problem, but that is why I suggested Kickstarter as a means to solve that. The summary OP's problem is simply that it doesn't exist.
As a Trek fan, I'm saddened that this never got built because I feel that this would've appealed to a much wider audience than science fiction fans.
Are you new here? Stop whining about what somebody else shoulda oughtta done and put your efforts where your conviction is: throw a proposal up on Kickstarter or similar and then wait for the millions of dollars to roll in from all these alleged Trekkies-in-the-closet. If you're not just nuts, then you get to build the Enterprise, and if you are just nuts, then you'll have it confirmed in a way you can't ignore....
Cut and paste from my response to the other get-off-my-lawn griper:
The guy who founded that site and the others who contribute are hobbyists and collectors, meaning that they have available to share what has interested them personally. If you're an aficionado of IBM processors - and apparently you'd be in a minority - then contribute what you have and know. That's way the process works to the benefit of everyone. Perhaps others will see what you contribute and also become fascinated with IBM's processors.
The guy who founded that site and the others who contribute are hobbyists and collectors, meaning that they have available to share what has interested them personally. If you're an aficionado of IBM processors - and apparently you'd be in a minority - then contribute what you have and know. That's way the process works to the benefit of everyone. Perhaps others will see what you contribute and also become fascinated with IBM's processors.
I can't even look at what Stanford is trying to do right now, but there have existed for years at least two online CPU "museums" that serve this goal. The one that readily springs easiest to mind - the one I've used most myself - is CPU-World. It has extensive coverage of all the major CPU lineages, including photos submitted by users, and even includes some non-CPU silicon. It seems to be largely the creation of one guy, Gennadiy Shvets, with eager collaboration from a lot of fellow enthusiasts, and there seems to be no profit motive to the site that I've ever noticed. He even thanks the most prolific contributors by name.
WHY would Stanford feel it was necessary to "divide and conquer" this enthusiasm by creating an entirely new site and museum, rather than focusing the collective interest by contributing to or partnering with the one(s) that have already existed for many years? On the face of it this effort looks like either ignorance or pointless competition.
Your "key difference" is irrelevant when it's continually being replenished, as it will be if this becomes commercialized. Who's being obtuse and playing charades now?
The warmer the atmosphere, the longer water vapor will remain gaseous and the higher the saturation point. We're told the atmosphere is already warming and will continue to do so. It seems rather risky to bellow the most dangerous greenhouse gas of all directly into the air in quantities this planet has never seen before.
I already exist. I am not an additive process, I'm already here, unlike this proposed alternative to fossil fuels that would introduce water vapor directly into the atmosphere to a degree that doesn't already exist. Not only that, it will do so into an already heating atmosphere that will thus retain more of it, further compounding the greenhouse effect, further warming the atmosphere, and further retaining more water vapor.
Which - duh! - happens to be exactly the direction we're already inexorably headed. So to recap: add more water vapor to an already heating atmosphere, thus retaining more of it in the atmosphere, and thus further increasing atmospheric heating. Rinse, later, repeat. Did I get that right?
You mean if we get rid of them like the Canadians plan to do? Won't that inflate the price of our thoughts by 500%? Egads! Intellectual property will be too expensive for everyone.
What is the chemical result when hydrogen is burned? Water vapor.
What is the atmospheric component that is the predominant contributor to the greenhouse effect? Water vapor.
So lemme get this straight: all these disciples of the so-called hydrogen economy want us to burn hydrogen in energy-equivalent amounts as the fossil fuels we use now, thus putting more of the worst greenhouse gas of all directly into the atmosphere? Sure, some of it will change phase and precipitate back into oceans and lakes and rivers, but about the percentage that doesn't?
How much energy and other resources will be required to first mine all that zinc and then create the oxide to use in this device? What other costs of the process are being omitted here?
I have a favorite boulder that has served my burn-in testing needs pretty well. Would you like a photo so you can chisel your own? I added some LED bling to mine.
So now as the real life version of Planet of the Apes unfolds, Caesar will not only be smart and pissed, he'll look like Jimmy Durante and be hornier than Warren Beatty?
The article seems to imply that radon gar is actually taken up and transpired by trees, but that isn't really the case, is it? I think it's more likely the radon gas is being precipitated* from ground water as tree roots take it up. The consequences are of course still the same, I'm just questioning the implied mechanism.
Yep, that's one of the other centralized congestion events where doing something to 'divide and conquer' makes sense. I remembered it from college myself. I think I've seen them resort to it in a DMV office.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. The OP was advocating for a renewed effort by simple virtue of the fact that he wishes it had come to pass. He desires that it should exist, and desires it enough such that he made the effort to share his desire with a big chunk of the Internet. THAT is advocacy, explicit or not.
I never said "money was the problem". Go ahead, read my comment again and try to show me where I said that. No, what I said, and all I said, was that if the summary OP was bothered by this failure that *HE* should spearhead a renewed effort. What, the people that were considering it two decades ago are just gonna hand him the money to do it now, assuming they're even still alive? That's stupid to even imply it. It ain't likely their successors are going to be quite so eager, either, which is why it STILL hasn't been done in the decades since. No, he'll have to generate the cash this time around himself... and it will in fact require a ton of it. Yes, ultimately money would be *A* problem, but that is why I suggested Kickstarter as a means to solve that. The summary OP's problem is simply that it doesn't exist.
As a Trek fan, I'm saddened that this never got built because I feel that this would've appealed to a much wider audience than science fiction fans.
Are you new here? Stop whining about what somebody else shoulda oughtta done and put your efforts where your conviction is: throw a proposal up on Kickstarter or similar and then wait for the millions of dollars to roll in from all these alleged Trekkies-in-the-closet. If you're not just nuts, then you get to build the Enterprise, and if you are just nuts, then you'll have it confirmed in a way you can't ignore....
Cut and paste from my response to the other get-off-my-lawn griper:
The guy who founded that site and the others who contribute are hobbyists and collectors, meaning that they have available to share what has interested them personally. If you're an aficionado of IBM processors - and apparently you'd be in a minority - then contribute what you have and know. That's way the process works to the benefit of everyone. Perhaps others will see what you contribute and also become fascinated with IBM's processors.
The guy who founded that site and the others who contribute are hobbyists and collectors, meaning that they have available to share what has interested them personally. If you're an aficionado of IBM processors - and apparently you'd be in a minority - then contribute what you have and know. That's way the process works to the benefit of everyone. Perhaps others will see what you contribute and also become fascinated with IBM's processors.
I can't even look at what Stanford is trying to do right now, but there have existed for years at least two online CPU "museums" that serve this goal. The one that readily springs easiest to mind - the one I've used most myself - is CPU-World. It has extensive coverage of all the major CPU lineages, including photos submitted by users, and even includes some non-CPU silicon. It seems to be largely the creation of one guy, Gennadiy Shvets, with eager collaboration from a lot of fellow enthusiasts, and there seems to be no profit motive to the site that I've ever noticed. He even thanks the most prolific contributors by name.
WHY would Stanford feel it was necessary to "divide and conquer" this enthusiasm by creating an entirely new site and museum, rather than focusing the collective interest by contributing to or partnering with the one(s) that have already existed for many years? On the face of it this effort looks like either ignorance or pointless competition.
Your "key difference" is irrelevant when it's continually being replenished, as it will be if this becomes commercialized. Who's being obtuse and playing charades now?
You're ignoring the effects of atmospheric heating on that cycle. Thanks for the ad hominem as a bonus.
The warmer the atmosphere, the longer water vapor will remain gaseous and the higher the saturation point. We're told the atmosphere is already warming and will continue to do so. It seems rather risky to bellow the most dangerous greenhouse gas of all directly into the air in quantities this planet has never seen before.
I already exist. I am not an additive process, I'm already here, unlike this proposed alternative to fossil fuels that would introduce water vapor directly into the atmosphere to a degree that doesn't already exist. Not only that, it will do so into an already heating atmosphere that will thus retain more of it, further compounding the greenhouse effect, further warming the atmosphere, and further retaining more water vapor.
Who's the troll?
Ummm... no, I didn't get that right: "later" <--- "lather"
Which - duh! - happens to be exactly the direction we're already inexorably headed. So to recap: add more water vapor to an already heating atmosphere, thus retaining more of it in the atmosphere, and thus further increasing atmospheric heating. Rinse, later, repeat. Did I get that right?
You mean if we get rid of them like the Canadians plan to do? Won't that inflate the price of our thoughts by 500%? Egads! Intellectual property will be too expensive for everyone.
What is the chemical result when hydrogen is burned? Water vapor.
What is the atmospheric component that is the predominant contributor to the greenhouse effect? Water vapor.
So lemme get this straight: all these disciples of the so-called hydrogen economy want us to burn hydrogen in energy-equivalent amounts as the fossil fuels we use now, thus putting more of the worst greenhouse gas of all directly into the atmosphere? Sure, some of it will change phase and precipitate back into oceans and lakes and rivers, but about the percentage that doesn't?
How much energy and other resources will be required to first mine all that zinc and then create the oxide to use in this device? What other costs of the process are being omitted here?
I have a favorite boulder that has served my burn-in testing needs pretty well. Would you like a photo so you can chisel your own? I added some LED bling to mine.
Is that a new Italian particle?
Jeez, Slashdot... please budget for editors who can proofread, okay?
That Paramount actually has a "vice president for worldwide content protection" says plenty.
E.g.: felony murder rule.
Okay, granted... I was imagining the legal ideal. If we actually had that ideal we wouldn't need jury nullification.
Laws and legal liability are a subset of social ethics. Just because you can do something legally isn't a vindication that you should do it.
So now as the real life version of Planet of the Apes unfolds, Caesar will not only be smart and pissed, he'll look like Jimmy Durante and be hornier than Warren Beatty?
The article seems to imply that radon gar is actually taken up and transpired by trees, but that isn't really the case, is it? I think it's more likely the radon gas is being precipitated* from ground water as tree roots take it up. The consequences are of course still the same, I'm just questioning the implied mechanism.
* (Wrong verb?)
I actually saw what you described because it happened way back in the ancient Eighties. They didn't have servers back then. ;-)
Yep, that's one of the other centralized congestion events where doing something to 'divide and conquer' makes sense. I remembered it from college myself. I think I've seen them resort to it in a DMV office.