I think it's also about language processing and accuracy - if I say "Mary" to the computer, it could hear "merry" "mary" "marry" etc. Plus parsing incomplete sentences, plus dealing with the vague ("I need something about Earth - limit it to 10 sites").
As phrased, this article suggests that the computer will be able to read minds to clarify which question you're asking... Half the time even humans don't know what you're asking!
This assumes that the cost of gas stays at current levels. Since I expect gas prices to hit $3.00 within the next 2-3 years, that's going to help offset the higher repair costs. Also, see previous note about LONG warranty.
Depends what you have to (not) do while you're at the computer desk.
I personally bike to work and then do about 1/2 of yoga stretches while I read my email. Then actually walk out of your cubicle/office/building to get lunch (if possible.) Also, I have replaced my chair at work with a balance ball (big 65 cm ball that runs about $15) - this encourages much better posture which will start working the stomach and back subtly.
If you want more suggestions for fighting fat while sitting at a desk, check out a woman's light exercise magazine (Self, Shape, etc.) - they cater to your average secretary's constant worry about cutting fat while sitting around all day.
Maybe someone can explain this to me better, but as I understand it -
Emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel. If this is true, how can adding hydrogen (i.e. more fuel) help the emissions quality when the limiting ingredient is oxygen?
NOx gasses are going to form as long as there's nitrogen present at high temperatures, pretty much no matter what you burn. So that's not going to improve emissions...
Where are we supposed to be getting the hydrogen from in sufficient amounts to make it worth the effort?
The problem here is that the surface area has to be buried in the sediment, which means digging up and re-depositing (or burrowing through) a lot of sediments. It's possible that newer cathodes with higher surface area might be used (there's been some experimenting with graphite felt), but the bacteria are basically limited in how fast they can carry out the reducing reactions. Essentially, unless you can speed up the bacterial process, we still need a lot of surface area.
They've actually put two of these things up in field sites, and it works well in both polluted (Tuckerton, NJ) and unpolluted (Newport, OR) areas. The energy it's harvesting is from the difference between the oxidizing environment we live in and the reducing environment in which sediment bacteria turn organic matter into methane (and no, the methane can't be effectively harvested.)
The good news is that the power supply was very steady over 3 months. The bad news is that the power so low as to be useless - it averaged at 28 MILLIwatts per square meter. The area needing to be covered in order to run a lightbulb is left as an exercise for the reader, but the answer's big. They're currently thinking this might be a good way to power long-term monitoring devices deployed in the middle of the ocean and other distant places, but as a practical power source - go get a photovoltaic!
Just because horizontal gene transfer is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it's likely. They are still looking for evidence of horizontal gene transfer between bacterial genomes in nature and, with the exception of plasmid transfer which plants don't really have, haven't found it. Bacteria are the genetic sluts of biology (due in part to their simpler genomes and physical structures, lesser defenses, and generation times orders of magnitude shorter), so if they can't find horizontal gene transfer between bacterial chromosomes, how likely is it that such would occur in plants?
Also, A+ to those who pointed out that a corn-soybean crossbreed would be (a) sterile and (b) very difficult to grow/unlikely to occur.
Slashdot Mirror
Marketing genius, but maybe not so hot on tech
As phrased, this article suggests that the computer will be able to read minds to clarify which question you're asking... Half the time even humans don't know what you're asking!
In America, about a quarter $0.25 actually goes to the government, and the rest of the $1.50 to $2.00 gas price goes to the gas companies.
I don't mind paying the government too much, but over-subsidizing the gas company/monopoly really bugs me.
This assumes that the cost of gas stays at current levels. Since I expect gas prices to hit $3.00 within the next 2-3 years, that's going to help offset the higher repair costs. Also, see previous note about LONG warranty.
Better automate the beer taps as well - I know a lot of people whose creative liscence should be taken away...
I personally bike to work and then do about 1/2 of yoga stretches while I read my email. Then actually walk out of your cubicle/office/building to get lunch (if possible.) Also, I have replaced my chair at work with a balance ball (big 65 cm ball that runs about $15) - this encourages much better posture which will start working the stomach and back subtly.
If you want more suggestions for fighting fat while sitting at a desk, check out a woman's light exercise magazine (Self, Shape, etc.) - they cater to your average secretary's constant worry about cutting fat while sitting around all day.
- Emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel. If this is true, how can adding hydrogen (i.e. more fuel) help the emissions quality when the limiting ingredient is oxygen?
- NOx gasses are going to form as long as there's nitrogen present at high temperatures, pretty much no matter what you burn. So that's not going to improve emissions...
- Where are we supposed to be getting the hydrogen from in sufficient amounts to make it worth the effort?
Color me very confused...Was that "big content management and CORROBORATION systems providers"?
Personally, I think the working conditions needed are going to be too stringent for this to be really practical outside the lab.
The problem here is that the surface area has to be buried in the sediment, which means digging up and re-depositing (or burrowing through) a lot of sediments. It's possible that newer cathodes with higher surface area might be used (there's been some experimenting with graphite felt), but the bacteria are basically limited in how fast they can carry out the reducing reactions. Essentially, unless you can speed up the bacterial process, we still need a lot of surface area.
They've actually put two of these things up in field sites, and it works well in both polluted (Tuckerton, NJ) and unpolluted (Newport, OR) areas. The energy it's harvesting is from the difference between the oxidizing environment we live in and the reducing environment in which sediment bacteria turn organic matter into methane (and no, the methane can't be effectively harvested.)
The good news is that the power supply was very steady over 3 months. The bad news is that the power so low as to be useless - it averaged at 28 MILLIwatts per square meter. The area needing to be covered in order to run a lightbulb is left as an exercise for the reader, but the answer's big. They're currently thinking this might be a good way to power long-term monitoring devices deployed in the middle of the ocean and other distant places, but as a practical power source - go get a photovoltaic!
Also, A+ to those who pointed out that a corn-soybean crossbreed would be (a) sterile and (b) very difficult to grow/unlikely to occur.