First I did not advocate nuclear and oil anywhere in that post. I simply pointed out issues with solar power supplanting them per your statement
"Why do we still persist with nuclear, oil, coal, with all the attendant problems ??"
answer: because the options have problems.
Your turbine link is interesting but I find it revealing that they can't secure finaincing ( gvt track record non-withstanding, if its such a good investment whats the holdup ? ) and more importantly there is no link leading you to the study detailing the issues regarding the intermitent nature of wind power generation and what you do in the mean time when it is being intermittent and more importantly how do you store excess energy when it is providing peak power above and beyond current demands. This is one of the same problems that faces solar. Enter Fuel cells which as you pointed out are fairly pointless unless you have a means of creating the hydrogen in the first place not reliant on fossil fuels and or nuclear.
*** note don't dismiss nuclear... not all forms of nuclear are created equal so when bashing nuclear be sure to specifiy ( I assume in this case ) fission ***
Back to fuel cells. They are the reason conversion efficiencies is of the utmost importance to consider. What is the efficiency of the elctrolyzing process ? Its not good. But lets deal with just the theoretical max of roughly 80%. IE you run 1 kw of electricty from a solar array you will electrolise enough hydrogen to generate roughly.8kw. However,.8kw is only the 100% theoretical max presented by the amount of hydrogen generated. you again have another conversion loss comming back to electricty. Again the theoretical max is around 80% so your 1kw turns to.8 which converts back into.64. So you start with 1kw and wind up with.64kw. This is important because it greatly affects the size and $$$$$ of your array of alternative power producing widgets of choice.
Just for shits and giggles don't forget containing hydrogen is the scientific equivalent of trying to catch a fart in a bottle and containing , shipping and handling are all far more difficult than dealing with petrol. Ironcially in terms of danger when it escapes its generally less dangerous and contains less oomph than petrol. A fact most people simply don't understand..... however liquid hydrogen does pose some unique problems related to cryogenic tempratures. yet another interesting fact is when storing hydrogen as a liquid you also have to use energy to cool it sufficiently or place it under enough pressure to liquify it which again eats into your conversion efficiencies. Yes it can be done but it is more difficult and technically demanding than dealing with oil.. Ie I can store petrol for months in a plastic screw top jug, try doing that with hydrogen.
Yes every thing has to deal with the efficiency of conversion but in an ICE utilizing petrol you essentially take the stuff out of the ground and burn it. You use a fraction of the amount of energy represented by crude to process it into its various fuel derivatives and the process creates many usefull byproducts. Then you loose some 80% of its potential as heat when you run it through and engine. but you didn't have to create the energy represented by the oil in the first place... the sun and biological process over the aeons already did that for you. With solar/win etc you have to first create the hydrogen then put it back through a conversion to harvest the energy. Now fuel cells are still far more efficient than ICE but they face a problem. For a given amount of Oil you can extract and create more petrol energy per gallon of petrol expended ( given easily accesible supplies never run out which of course they will ). With solar power you can only store and recover roughly 64% of your initial input at theoretical max.
So why does it matter... not like the sun is going to turn off or wind stop blowing any time in the n
Are you smoking crack rock ? Leaps and bounds ? What leaps specifically are you reffering to and what bounds ?
Small portion of the deserts ? Exactly how small a portion would be required of any desert to say produce the energy needs of California? Don't forget providing power at night and on the rare cloudy day and during winter. I am not talking about peak. Go find the figures for last years energy use by california divide it by 365 to get your average power a day. Then divide that number by the average number of viable energy producing hours of sunlight in your desert of choice per day then multiply by the (cheapest cost per watt solar panel you can find*.50) for half cost of the cells due to large scale production discount.
Now find the size of said solar farm by multiplying the deminsions of the solar panel you chose by the number of cells needed. Convert this to square miles, km or whatever gets your rocks off. Then compare that to state sizes in the US and figure out where your farm fits on the scale from 1 largest to 51st smallest ( 51 becasue of your panel farm being on the list). If you do it right I all but assure you Rhode Island will be 51st. Your solar panel state will likely be in the smaller half of the 51. Now do the same thing above fot the entire US and then place the needed solar farm acreage on that same state size scale. Texas is probably in danger at the top of the list.
Now choose a storage method for the excess energy storage. Remember you are harvesting the energy needed for night use at the same time you are supplying daytime energy needs. How many 200 amp hour lead acid batteries would it take to store the energy ? How about electrolysing water and storing hydrogen ? You did remember to account of loss due to conversion inefficiencies didn't you ? NO?? Well go back and figure that out and the corresponding increase in needed solar cells. Don't forget that conversion costs comes back into play when converting your stored hydrogen back into electricity as well... go back and add those solar cells.
Now recalculate that solar panel farm size. Then find energy growth estimates and provide yearly increases to provide for future growth, how big is it in 10 years ?
I don't deal with off shore wind farms and tidal systems for one very important reason. We don't know yet how to make them work well enough to make any sense. How do you sufficiently anchor off shore wind platforms... what are their maintenence costs.. How much does it really cost to build one. How much energy will they really produce. Most of this goes for the tidal systems too. Theoretically yes they are great ideas... their practicallity remains to be prooven. I welcome any links/info to the contrary.
More problems with solar are issues of long distance transmission of power. If you elect for decentralized ( IE rooftop supplement ) deal with lower solar exposure, less efficient systems due to lack of sun tracking, higher periods of non-peak sunlight due to shadows, more cloud cover etc.... The thing is you will find in general the solar farm size needed to generate sufficient energy for a sufficientyly dense metropolis will exceed the size of the metropolis. Rooftop systems are great suplamental supplies and in carfeully designed residential settings can even provide primary power supply. This does not work nearly so well for industrial needs. You can decrease the size of the main solar farm with the rooftop usage but not at a one to one rate. probably more like a 3:1 or possibly even higher due to less efficient setups.
Here is another interesting puzzle. High efficiency appliances can drastically reduce energy consumption in the homes. The problem is truly high efficency appliances are also generally the most expenisve appliances. How much would it cost the average home to convert to new high efficiency appliances? When looking at a new home how much more will it cost to get super efficient appliances than regular applaiances? How long will it take the cheaper appliances to cost m
This is like patenting the combined use of a hammer, nails and wood to make a tree house. I wonder who's retirment plan just got a serious shot in the arm at the patent office. At least I hope someone got paid and they were not just woefully ignorant of how software works.
Software is often to general to patent this way. The Patent office would not grant a monopoly on 'word processing' which is about the same equivalent as patenting client server communication software. if this gets any serious court time it will be a true sign of the madness and utter ignorance of the court system in regards to technology. Software is almost always an issue of copyright, not one of patenting. If someone out and out steals the code thats one thing, but developing a similar capability which by its nature is similar in structure and action is not copyright. there are a bazillion differnt ways to actually implement client server communication as regards the server identifying a specific client uniquely and this patent blankets any manner of coding that accomplishes that. Again its like patenting using a hammer nails and wood to build any kind of tree house. Its "patently" absurd.
Well.. then you have to ask the question, if they saw it before would they tell us anyway ?
Nemisis and the other cataclysmic theories are out there because they have enough wiggle room in accepted theory to create reasonable doubt and of course the evidence of gigantic impact craters:-D
If you really want a good mind fuck go find a copy of "Worlds in Collision" or of "Ages in Chaos" both by Immanuel Velikovsky and read them at least willing to entertain the ideas for a while. If nothing else approach what he has to say with the idea it is true and you have to disprove him. It will give you a laundry list of things to look up. At the end of it you probably will not belive all, or even anything he has to say but your faith in 'Established theory' and 'Established history' will likely have been dealt a healthy dose of skepticisim provided you truly approach the questions he asks and try to find the answer for yourself... IE why is his take wrong and the accepted take right or.... is he wrong ?;-)
If you do that I strongly suggest actually finding a copy to read rather than settling for the internet debate... I have found very little constructive debate surrounding Velikovsky on the web. Though take the time to find the Velikovsky archive where they have his letters with Albert Einstien ( yes Mr. E=Mc^2 himself ) regarding the theories presented in "Worlds in Collision".
Its all intersting reading... and like I said, if you allow yourself to even entertain the idea its a total mind fuck. Don't fall to the dark side, but don't simply retreat into a corner chanting "thats impossible" either and you will be fine. Its polarizing stuff, and if nothing else will change your perspective and a number of issues.
da the silt... and many of these theories out there tend to loose some steam when they are dealt with closely, though there is a counter argument to subduction saying that based on geologic times of subduction there is still some missing silt.. IE X amount is deposited on a yearly basis and subduction happens at like 1 inch a year meaning there should still be X amount of silt not subducted and the observed amount still dosn't jive with the geologic age.
A better geologic discussion is the one between catastrophics and geologists regarding ice ages, their lengths, galciers etc... The typical Ice age theory is coming increasingly under attack. Most of these are stemming from climate models. though there is a 'silt' question there regarding the great lakes and the location of Niagra. IE the Niagra fall recedes at a steady rate and it is thought to have been formed at the end of the last ice age thus doing the math given the current rate says it should have started at X location or if it started where we think it did geologic time says it should have receded farther than it did and there should be X amount of silt build up under the fall. Then you get to the issue of flow rates were likely far higher during its formation due to glacial melt and the recede rate would have been correspondingly higher.
This is where the Mamoths are a bone of contention as well and the climate of Siberia during the ice ages. Velikovsky has the notion the poles where in different locations and more mainstream thinkers are thinking during the glacial times there was a climate pattern similar to northern europe that made siberia much more hospitable during the ice ages IE the Mamoths did not live in frozen wastelands.. they lived in a pretty temperate climate with lots of vegitation.
The geologic stuff is pretty dry. My favorit discussions in this vein are the arguments about the impossible nature of dinosaur physiology. If your interested two very good and generally openminded debate topics in that regard are the giant herbivore necks ( brontos etc ) and the discussion of the flying ability of 'Dactyl's. Some serious issues regarding bone/muscle strength, weight and force exerted by the wings. Also in the mix are discussions about how fast T-Rex and Dino's in general were. If you thought the idea of fast Dino's had been cemented then you may be in for a surprise... early palentologists had good reasons for thinking they were slow as molasses other than assuming they were cold blooded and similar to present reptiles. Some of those arguments are making a come back. In short the evidence pointing to fast Dino's is getting stronger and stronger but at the same time our knowledge of the limits of physiology is increasing and as it does, the more unlikely the speed of the dionsaurs seems. In otherwords two very valid lines of investigation are at loggerheads and no one knows how they are going to resolve the conflict.
Most of these issues revolve around the weak or attackable points of current theories. Sometimes they are attackable due to lack of data and arguments either way have no real means for being substantiated and sometimes they are attackable due to annomolus conditions that simply do not appear to jive. To make things worse you get alot of religious zealotry tossed in for good measure. Not all people arguing from a religous bent have there heads in the ground reciting 'the party line' but a great many of the ones you encounter in these debates do. On the other hand modern theory backers almost always have a great deal at stake in current theory and challenging them is rarely in their best interest and their ranks have a fair share of 'party line' shouters as well.
True or not I don't think it is ever a bad thing to question what we know. After all if we know the answer then whats the worry ? Sometimes I think we are just a bit too smug about what we think we know.
Look up nemisis and appropriate key words on goolge.. stuff like apocalypse, asteroid, planet X etc... in the same vein but with no extra hydrogen ball check out Imanuel Velikovsky and his theories.. a lot of stuff which you can find on the web though take the time to find some no rabid fans/dtractors and find someone that just talks about the theories.
makes for some intersting reading... the nemisis stuff is really an alteration of Velikovsky's ideas as far as I have seen.. ie someone discounts Velikovsky's idea of what happend in the past but presents an alternative with similar effects.
Some less extreme stuff is to check out belivers in catastrophic history/evolution etc... look into the mystery of the wooly mamoths (did you know the biggest source of ivory in history was from Mammoth tusks? ), the mystery of the Loese of Siberia and 'Muck' in Alaska... the lack of enough silt on the ocean floor, Niagra falls not being far enough back and other similar things, questions regarding the Ice Ages. The inability of dinosaurs to have existed based on current understanding of biology ( they existed but our understanding of biology says they are physcially impossible in size due to limitations of muscle mass efficiency etc, interesting reading )
All this stuff tends to get mixed up in debates about creation and punctuated equilibrium ( catastrophic history ). Regardless it clashes with most accepted mainstream science and as such is hard to find non-rabid discussions about some of the legitimate questions which have no answers in current theory.
well...just as M$ is not beholden to China law so is China not bound by M$. Granted using M$ code as their standard seems silly to me from a security standpoint... after all monster that Gates is I have little doubt which side he would side with in a dispute between the two nations, well for now I have little doubt.
Not a problem of it not being perfect.. it just isn't practical yet. Cost of the catalyst in the fuel cells and its durability plus being able to store sufficient hydrogen and delivery systems.. IE do we go for a liquid infrastructure or gas ? Straight Hydrogen or in an intermediary we reform the gas from easily?
Even some question of our ability to generate the hydrogen to begin with. Current power generation is insufficient. If your not sure why then imagine California power companies having to produce all the power to generate enough hydrogen to fuel cars in addition to its current needs that it can't supply.
In a sense you have to replace all the HP currently located under hoods in every driveway with the equivalent power generation equipment... in terms of daily use, not total possible power output... people have to buy new cars and gov't or industries have to build huge new power generation stations which also comes out of peoples pockets one way or another.
Switching to a hydrogen economy has many real obstacles to overcome. We are moving in that direction but Oil is entrenched at the foundation of the worlds economy and has more than 100 years of industry build up behind it... When Oil toppled Coal it brought something to the table Coal did't have. The ability to run more capable and mobile internal combustion engines to coals external combustion engines ( steam ). Hydrogen is trying to supplant Oil but it offers nothing but compromises in comparison with its only advantage being the ability to generate it vrs Oil's limited supply. Granted that is the ace in the hole but the pressure to find a new source of energy just hasn't gotten strong enough yet. Sooner or later that will change and be it hydrogen or some other form of energy source oil will be replaced.
ummmmm not quite right. You can run hydrogen into your average normal car engine with minor modifications and the necesarry fuel delivery equipment. This has in fact been done. Problems are storing enough fuel and creation of some bad exhaust fumes due to the extreme heat of the combustion... creates NOS I belive actually. Fuel cell's reap the benifit of the energy in the H2 O2 reaction by means of a non combustive reaction resulting in electricity instead of an explosion giving heat and expanding gases.
The wind knocking it off the desk is far different from the phone manufacturer knocking it off the desk.
If M$ started manufaturing non PC compatible X-boxes I would agree but if someone purchased and altered one that was they do not have the right to change back what you altered in your system without your permission.
This is not about M$ not anticipating a far from standard need. It is about the deliberate altering of a system someone else owns without consent.
By the way I do not own an X-Box. As much as I wanted to buy an american console system I could not bring myself to buy a M$ box.. esepcially as the early choices regarding the system came to light ( Extra for DVD, artificial limitation of access to the PC underpinings ). The unwieldy controler was also a big negative as well though the newer smaller models and the japanese market controller is much more worthy.
If I choose to use it as a PC ??? Thats not what it's made for ??? Do you not understand THIS THING IS A PC ??? It is a PC compatible computer in a different form factor box with the one odity of its primary means of graphic presentation being a TV screen vrs a computer monitor... IE its a freaking gateway media PC. The difference is custom physcial architecture designed for the form factor with decisions made facilitating its use primarily as a game system ( like propriatary controler/memory ports ). Saying an X-Box is not a PC is about like saying a laptop is not a PC cause its not a desktop.
Going back to a car analogy I'll put it another way. PSII and Game cube are like specialty vehicles.. think farm equipment or construction equipment. There are physcial reasons and limitations which keep them from general driving. An X-box is a street legal race car.... it has been customized for a certain use but there is no physcial limitation to using it as a more general use vehicle. When you go to a store to buy software a large percentage of the PC titles you can buy could be loaded on to an X-box and run without any problems if it wasn't for M$'s hardware control that checks to see if the disk being loaded is a certified X-box title. The same is not even remotely the case with either the PSII or gamecube.
Thus the X-box's software limitation is not one of design but of a choice regarding use. Saying running PC software is not what it was designed to do is ignorant. It was in fact designed specifically to be capable of runnig PC software because one of M$'s strategies was to lure PC only game software developers with the ease of producing versions of their games for the X-box thus allowing them an avenue to reach console only gamers. It was also done because otherwise they would have had no established software creators for "their" system. If it was propriatry the way PS and Nentendo systems are anyone developing sofware for them would have had to learn how first. Anyone familiar with the console wars knows the issue of having enough titles is a major problem for any new console trying to break the strangle hold of Sony and Nentendo.
In otherwords an X-box running PC software or a PC linux kernel is not a phone used as a paper weight... It IS a paperweight. But M$ is trying to control what papers you can chose to weight down with it.
um beacuse its a future story made in the past ie the sociological phenomenon your refering to are artifacts of the present reality, not necesarrily reflective of the world presented.
As for the whole primitive vrs mature malarky.. sheesh, we are only primitive compared to our own imaginings of what we might be instead of what we are. Reality has rough edges, always has and always will. Utopia's are unrealistic figments of our imagination. Perhaps we will evolve to a more peacefull existence if we are stuck here on earth.... more likely we will get even uglier as resources become ever more scarce. Just think of stories of refugees surviving in a barren area, marooned shipwrecked etc. Peace and co-operation is not usually the name of the game... canabalisim often is.
Only valid Point M$ has is making sure legitimate systems connect to Live for online play. So for someone to succesfully connect to a live server to be subjected to a system check/update etc.. is not in question. For a live customer who signed an agrement which would indicate automatic updates when attaching to live servers is legit.
HOWEVER patching systems not signed up for the live service without the owners consent is not right. Thats like taking you car to the dealership for a tune up and they replace your aftermarket rims and replace them with stock because they were not 'standard' without asking your permission. It is an unauthorized alteration of your system. That is not M$'s box it is property of whoever purchased it. M$ has the right to not allow unconforming boxes to access its system, it does not have the right to alter your system so that it is conforming without your consent.
EULA for the equipment cannot determin the use of the equipment. You can't state a phone can only be used for a phone and not a paper weight. You can't say this system is not allowed to be used for something we don't want it to be used for. And for those contending this is a console and thus not a PC all I can say is you don't understand this at a technical enough level. This is like ford selling you a car that will only drive on certain roads or use gas dispensed at a specific gas station chain. For any who contend X-box is not a PC you simply don't get it. a PS II or Game cube are not PC's.. they have a differnt base architeture which physically keep them from running PC software. An XBOX is a PC. It uses X-86 PC compatabile hardware architecture. Its ability to use any PC compatible software is artificially limited by the hardware control software. M$ has everyright to sell a limited system, it does not have the right to alter your removal of that limitation without first obtaining your consent, and obtaining your consent means you have to have a reasonable chance to deny the request. Patching a system not signed up for the live service without the owners consent is criminal.
Were talking about apples and oranges. Reality is your far more likely to be invovled in a wreck with another vehicle. In which case the mass does most deffinatly become a concern. The light vehicle does better in wreckes where its potential energy is used against it, but it still dosn't have the ability to reject the energy imparted to it by a heavier vehicle... IE a 2000lbs car crashing at 50mph head on with a concrete barrier presents the same energy to be rejected if it is sitting still and hit by a 4000lbs SUV going 25mph. By contrast the car has to be going 50mph to impart the same energy to the SUV. However if the car is going 50 and the SUV going 25 then its an even match... but the head on crash means the car is absorbing the equivalent of a head on 50mph crash and the SUV absorbing a 25mph crash. Pretty simple physcis really. If the car dosn't represent enough energy to cancle out the SUV's energy then the SUV dosn't have to absorb all of its potential energy. SUV energy minus the Car energy leaves some energy unacounted for.. IE not absorbed in the initial impact. Car - SUV is negative.. so after the cars energy is accounted for by the SUV it then also gets to absorb the excess energy imparted by the SUV if there is a speed difference.
Now in terms of the vehicle frames ability to reject the energy in a wreck with something which represents more inertia or counter energy than they have SUV's in general still far out strip smaller compact cars when you talk similar energy amounts.. IE an SUV frame can reject far higher energy amounts with less danger to the occupants than a small car. HOWEVER when comparing the energy represented by two different weight designs at the same speeds you find the SUV contains much higher energy at the same speed due to its heavier weight. Thus the danger zone energy level for head on collisions is reached at lower speeds in an SUV than a car. However that only matters when the SUV is put in a wreck where it is forced to absorb that level of energy... IE in reality that means when it takes on something with more inertia.
So your statistics are right... your "safe" car design of choice can survive a head on colision with a concrete barrier at higher speeds than your typical SUV. But don't think for a second that prooves the car can safeley absorb more energy in a wreck.
Now to loosely tie this back into the topic the same case for saftey exists with shuttle design... part of the shuttles problem is it is so big and so heavy that it presents a crap load of energy that must be imparted first to get it to orbital velocity and then to get it back on the ground. Whereas an SUV has circumstances in which its heavier mass can benifit it on the road space vehicle desings all face the same issue... absorbing the energy represented by the weight of the design times 17,500mph needed to achieve LEO operations. Therefore all things being equal the lighter design is safer.. or at least needs less energy at launch and rejects less energy durring re-entry which generally means less complex.
define a sharp 50mph curve ? If thats what you want certianly don't get an SUV.. well other than the Porsche or BMW... but that dosn't mean you can't operate an SUV withen a safe range of speeds given the circumstances you are faced with. And those limits are useable if not on par with an average sedan.. less maneverable does not mean more dangerous unless you insist on driving at rates which do not allow you any safe evasive options. Some idiot that dosn't understand you can't drive an explorer like a mustang is no differnt than an idiot in said mustang driving it like a Porsche IE unsafely.
Corolla or Sirion both I would still preffer the Expedition for your average fender bender. I understand the value of being nimble but its generally easier to drive more cautiously ( ie withen its capabilities ) with a less capable vehicle and hold a mass advantage ( statistically speaking ) in the worst case than it is to be holding the manouverability card when you meet something 3 times the mass of your car.... especially if its moving faster than you are. Nimble only helps you avoid a wreck. dosn't do a damn thing once it happens.. once that happens the more steel and structure you have on your side the better.
I dunno.. but then again I am biased, my first Heinlien experience was To Sail Beyond the Sunset. About the only book I would say is a poor first choice would be Number of the Beast.... I still find it hard to belive he wrote that sometimes.
If I had to pick a best first Heinlien book I would probbaly suggest Starship Troopers. It is probably the most approcahable book he wrote.
"Have a decen t vehicle for cargo. Russians have been understood this 20 years ago by separating the Soyuz and Progress programmes."
ummmm I am not sure I would call Progress a decent cargo vehicle... Its just a soyuz without a heatshield or life support systems, it dosn't lift any more mass, just a higher percentage of cargo, if you sent a crewless soyuz stuffed with cargo the only difference in capacity would be the heatshield and for the small capsuel its enough wieght to be usefull but its really not all that much when you get down to it.
And since I can't resist SUV's serve a decided purpose as family people movers. and if you think they are not safe I will ask you a question... there are two cars that are about to be in a typical wreck with each other, a Civic and an Expedition, given the choice which one would you preffer to be in ? Not safe... thats phunny. And please don't bring up wreck statistics regarding idiots that don't understand their high center of gravity urban assault vehicles are not sports cars. Thats a different issue entirely.
"Soyuz was introduced in 1966 and performed its first manned flight in 1967. Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov launched aboard Soyuz 1 on April 23. He completed seventeen orbits. Tragically, the parachute system was entangled, causing Komarov to crash back to Earth at a speed of 450 kilometers per hour. His was the first space fatality. "
read the rest at http://www.nauts.com/vehicles/60s/soyuz.html;2 0030 905215317754
Soyuz replaced the Vostok but it could have been called the second generation Vostok, it wasn't exactly a revolutionary step forward. Granted they were updated in 81 and again for MIR but essentially it is the same system, they still use the cheat sticks to reach all the switches.
Also Soyuz was no more reliable in its first 100 missions than shuttle. There are also military missions results that we do not know so it may well have been far more dangerous. There are also several instances of cargo versions exploding on the launch pad and killing engineers etc... One just last year no less. The problem could have just as easily occured on one topped with a manned module. It did recieve uprades in 81 and again during the MIR program but they were incremental upgrades at best. Some lighter structural materials and better engines. The safety of the design is one born out of an extensive launch rate with the possibility to make changes on the shop floor since they are fabricated for each mission.
Its all in how you look at it really. Comparing a one time use launch system with 1500 launches to a semi reuseable one with 112 or so is a little difficult to do accurately. Even if your after end results you should compare them at similar stage in their life cycles... but do you judge that by launch rate or years ??? again yields very contrasted views of which is a more reliable system.
Not that I don't think Shuttle is a compromise design system from hell but if we have pumped the resources into it to launch 1500 times ( or simply at a comisurate rate with Soyuz over its life time) it would either A) work cosistently and reliably as planned. or B) have been replaced a long time ago.
Hard to belive you put "Job" on the avoid list there. Barring those intolerant of exploring religious issues it was a fantastic book. I also enoyed most of those books other than Number of the Beast but I often think many many people get to caught up in the sex stuff and don't look at the issues driving his worlds. his books are all written on several differnt levels, I feel sory for those that get lost in the window dressing and don't bother to read between the lines.... or worse who judge his worlds soely by their own morales.
Its pretty horrific... but if you have a taste for cheeze its a very very potent example of cheezy sci fi. Never heard the intentionally bad writting theory but it wouldn't shock me if it was true.... it might have been his I wonder if I can write anything an sell it book.
You know the RIAA's refusal to embrace new technology reminds me of the scene in blazing saddles with the toll booth..... only they actually expect everyone to line up and pay the toll when they have the option to ride around.
I would grant more credence to what you say if you would examine what can be bad about collective bargaining as well as what can be good and how to balance those issues.
I also have to laugh a little at your Bob example. Historically collective bargaining has protected EASILY replaced workers, IE people who have no position of power because they don't do something your average joe shmuck off the street can't learn to do in a relatively short ammount of time. IE Coal Mining, Chicken processing, Assembly Line workers, Stock Yard workers, COnstruction Workers etc... The kind of workers who only give pause to a company when they band together precisely because they have no other means of leverage against management. The reason they do not have leverage individualy is becasue they do not possess scarce skills. By contrast someone who has highly specialized skills that cannot be replaced in a workable timeframe for the company has leverage or it takes fewer in his/her position to create collective barganing leverage. Those IT workers have little idea about organized labor becasue until recently your average capable IT worker possesed such a scarce skill that they could demand no dress code and free drinks in addition to exorbant salaries and actually get it.
Unions provide a level of job security for blue collar generally less skilled labor positions that would not otherwise exist in a true capitalist market labor system. Granted that fact is one of the uglier facets of a free market. Unions can also deal with highly skilled positions that are flooded with capable applicants.. meaning they face the same problem unskilled labor faces, namely easy replacement by someone willing to work cheaper or under less favorable circumstances.
I certainly don't think a true capitalistic labor system is the best but just as sweat shops with zero stability creates problems so do powerful unions with no eye for what is good for the company/industry as a whole. Take the whole auto union fiasco of the 70's/80's regarding automation of production lines. Unions forced less automation,closing/cosolidation of factories to preserve jobs and sent the American auto industry right down the crapper while Japan merrily automated their lines to a fairthee well and offered higher quality vehicles at a lower price. It Wasn't till US manufacturers were able to catch up in manufacturing techniques and protective auto import taxes (specifically against Japan no less ) were levied that that fiasco sort of got turned around. Didn't hurt that the Japanese economy went into a serious tailspin for a while. Unions were not soley to blame, not by a damn sight. But their refusal to accept some realities certainly contributed to the fiasco.
Slashdot Mirror
First I did not advocate nuclear and oil anywhere in that post. I simply pointed out issues with solar power supplanting them per your statement
.8kw. However, .8kw is only the 100% theoretical max presented by the amount of hydrogen generated. you again have another conversion loss comming back to electricty. Again the theoretical max is around 80% so your 1kw turns to .8 which converts back into .64. So you start with 1kw and wind up with .64kw. This is important because it greatly affects the size and $$$$$ of your array of alternative power producing widgets of choice.
"Why do we still persist with nuclear, oil, coal, with all the attendant problems ??"
answer: because the options have problems.
Your turbine link is interesting but I find it revealing that they can't secure finaincing ( gvt track record non-withstanding, if its such a good investment whats the holdup ? ) and more importantly there is no link leading you to the study detailing the issues regarding the intermitent nature of wind power generation and what you do in the mean time when it is being intermittent and more importantly how do you store excess energy when it is providing peak power above and beyond current demands. This is one of the same problems that faces solar. Enter Fuel cells which as you pointed out are fairly pointless unless you have a means of creating the hydrogen in the first place not reliant on fossil fuels and or nuclear.
*** note don't dismiss nuclear... not all forms of nuclear are created equal so when bashing nuclear be sure to specifiy ( I assume in this case ) fission ***
Back to fuel cells. They are the reason conversion efficiencies is of the utmost importance to consider. What is the efficiency of the elctrolyzing process ? Its not good. But lets deal with just the theoretical max of roughly 80%. IE you run 1 kw of electricty from a solar array you will electrolise enough hydrogen to generate roughly
Just for shits and giggles don't forget containing hydrogen is the scientific equivalent of trying to catch a fart in a bottle and containing , shipping and handling are all far more difficult than dealing with petrol. Ironcially in terms of danger when it escapes its generally less dangerous and contains less oomph than petrol. A fact most people simply don't understand..... however liquid hydrogen does pose some unique problems related to cryogenic tempratures. yet another interesting fact is when storing hydrogen as a liquid you also have to use energy to cool it sufficiently or place it under enough pressure to liquify it which again eats into your conversion efficiencies. Yes it can be done but it is more difficult and technically demanding than dealing with oil.. Ie I can store petrol for months in a plastic screw top jug, try doing that with hydrogen.
Yes every thing has to deal with the efficiency of conversion but in an ICE utilizing petrol you essentially take the stuff out of the ground and burn it. You use a fraction of the amount of energy represented by crude to process it into its various fuel derivatives and the process creates many usefull byproducts. Then you loose some 80% of its potential as heat when you run it through and engine. but you didn't have to create the energy represented by the oil in the first place... the sun and biological process over the aeons already did that for you. With solar/win etc you have to first create the hydrogen then put it back through a conversion to harvest the energy. Now fuel cells are still far more efficient than ICE but they face a problem. For a given amount of Oil you can extract and create more petrol energy per gallon of petrol expended ( given easily accesible supplies never run out which of course they will ). With solar power you can only store and recover roughly 64% of your initial input at theoretical max.
So why does it matter... not like the sun is going to turn off or wind stop blowing any time in the n
Are you smoking crack rock ? Leaps and bounds ? What leaps specifically are you reffering to and what bounds ?
Small portion of the deserts ? Exactly how small a portion would be required of any desert to say produce the energy needs of California? Don't forget providing power at night and on the rare cloudy day and during winter. I am not talking about peak. Go find the figures for last years energy use by california divide it by 365 to get your average power a day. Then divide that number by the average number of viable energy producing hours of sunlight in your desert of choice per day then multiply by the (cheapest cost per watt solar panel you can find*.50) for half cost of the cells due to large scale production discount.
Now find the size of said solar farm by multiplying the deminsions of the solar panel you chose by the number of cells needed. Convert this to square miles, km or whatever gets your rocks off. Then compare that to state sizes in the US and figure out where your farm fits on the scale from 1 largest to 51st smallest ( 51 becasue of your panel farm being on the list). If you do it right I all but assure you Rhode Island will be 51st. Your solar panel state will likely be in the smaller half of the 51. Now do the same thing above fot the entire US and then place the needed solar farm acreage on that same state size scale. Texas is probably in danger at the top of the list.
Now choose a storage method for the excess energy storage. Remember you are harvesting the energy needed for night use at the same time you are supplying daytime energy needs. How many 200 amp hour lead acid batteries would it take to store the energy ? How about electrolysing water and storing hydrogen ? You did remember to account of loss due to conversion inefficiencies didn't you ? NO?? Well go back and figure that out and the corresponding increase in needed solar cells. Don't forget that conversion costs comes back into play when converting your stored hydrogen back into electricity as well... go back and add those solar cells.
Now recalculate that solar panel farm size. Then find energy growth estimates and provide yearly increases to provide for future growth, how big is it in 10 years ?
I don't deal with off shore wind farms and tidal systems for one very important reason. We don't know yet how to make them work well enough to make any sense. How do you sufficiently anchor off shore wind platforms... what are their maintenence costs.. How much does it really cost to build one. How much energy will they really produce. Most of this goes for the tidal systems too. Theoretically yes they are great ideas... their practicallity remains to be prooven. I welcome any links/info to the contrary.
More problems with solar are issues of long distance transmission of power. If you elect for decentralized ( IE rooftop supplement ) deal with lower solar exposure, less efficient systems due to lack of sun tracking, higher periods of non-peak sunlight due to shadows, more cloud cover etc.... The thing is you will find in general the solar farm size needed to generate sufficient energy for a sufficientyly dense metropolis will exceed the size of the metropolis. Rooftop systems are great suplamental supplies and in carfeully designed residential settings can even provide primary power supply. This does not work nearly so well for industrial needs. You can decrease the size of the main solar farm with the rooftop usage but not at a one to one rate. probably more like a 3:1 or possibly even higher due to less efficient setups.
Here is another interesting puzzle. High efficiency appliances can drastically reduce energy consumption in the homes. The problem is truly high efficency appliances are also generally the most expenisve appliances. How much would it cost the average home to convert to new high efficiency appliances? When looking at a new home how much more will it cost to get super efficient appliances than regular applaiances? How long will it take the cheaper appliances to cost m
This is like patenting the combined use of a hammer, nails and wood to make a tree house. I wonder who's retirment plan just got a serious shot in the arm at the patent office. At least I hope someone got paid and they were not just woefully ignorant of how software works.
Software is often to general to patent this way. The Patent office would not grant a monopoly on 'word processing' which is about the same equivalent as patenting client server communication software. if this gets any serious court time it will be a true sign of the madness and utter ignorance of the court system in regards to technology. Software is almost always an issue of copyright, not one of patenting. If someone out and out steals the code thats one thing, but developing a similar capability which by its nature is similar in structure and action is not copyright. there are a bazillion differnt ways to actually implement client server communication as regards the server identifying a specific client uniquely and this patent blankets any manner of coding that accomplishes that. Again its like patenting using a hammer nails and wood to build any kind of tree house. Its "patently" absurd.
I have 8 NEC 1850e's stacked two high 4 across working 5 machines for my 'workstation' :-D
LoL... da but the sad thing is thats my typing skill at its finest :-D
Well.. then you have to ask the question, if they saw it before would they tell us anyway ?
:-D
;-)
Nemisis and the other cataclysmic theories are out there because they have enough wiggle room in accepted theory to create reasonable doubt and of course the evidence of gigantic impact craters
If you really want a good mind fuck go find a copy of "Worlds in Collision" or of "Ages in Chaos" both by Immanuel Velikovsky and read them at least willing to entertain the ideas for a while. If nothing else approach what he has to say with the idea it is true and you have to disprove him. It will give you a laundry list of things to look up. At the end of it you probably will not belive all, or even anything he has to say but your faith in 'Established theory' and 'Established history' will likely have been dealt a healthy dose of skepticisim provided you truly approach the questions he asks and try to find the answer for yourself... IE why is his take wrong and the accepted take right or.... is he wrong ?
If you do that I strongly suggest actually finding a copy to read rather than settling for the internet debate... I have found very little constructive debate surrounding Velikovsky on the web. Though take the time to find the Velikovsky archive where they have his letters with Albert Einstien ( yes Mr. E=Mc^2 himself ) regarding the theories presented in "Worlds in Collision".
Its all intersting reading... and like I said, if you allow yourself to even entertain the idea its a total mind fuck. Don't fall to the dark side, but don't simply retreat into a corner chanting "thats impossible" either and you will be fine. Its polarizing stuff, and if nothing else will change your perspective and a number of issues.
da the silt... and many of these theories out there tend to loose some steam when they are dealt with closely, though there is a counter argument to subduction saying that based on geologic times of subduction there is still some missing silt.. IE X amount is deposited on a yearly basis and subduction happens at like 1 inch a year meaning there should still be X amount of silt not subducted and the observed amount still dosn't jive with the geologic age.
A better geologic discussion is the one between catastrophics and geologists regarding ice ages, their lengths, galciers etc... The typical Ice age theory is coming increasingly under attack. Most of these are stemming from climate models. though there is a 'silt' question there regarding the great lakes and the location of Niagra. IE the Niagra fall recedes at a steady rate and it is thought to have been formed at the end of the last ice age thus doing the math given the current rate says it should have started at X location or if it started where we think it did geologic time says it should have receded farther than it did and there should be X amount of silt build up under the fall. Then you get to the issue of flow rates were likely far higher during its formation due to glacial melt and the recede rate would have been correspondingly higher.
This is where the Mamoths are a bone of contention as well and the climate of Siberia during the ice ages. Velikovsky has the notion the poles where in different locations and more mainstream thinkers are thinking during the glacial times there was a climate pattern similar to northern europe that made siberia much more hospitable during the ice ages IE the Mamoths did not live in frozen wastelands.. they lived in a pretty temperate climate with lots of vegitation.
The geologic stuff is pretty dry. My favorit discussions in this vein are the arguments about the impossible nature of dinosaur physiology. If your interested two very good and generally openminded debate topics in that regard are the giant herbivore necks ( brontos etc ) and the discussion of the flying ability of 'Dactyl's. Some serious issues regarding bone/muscle strength, weight and force exerted by the wings. Also in the mix are discussions about how fast T-Rex and Dino's in general were. If you thought the idea of fast Dino's had been cemented then you may be in for a surprise... early palentologists had good reasons for thinking they were slow as molasses other than assuming they were cold blooded and similar to present reptiles. Some of those arguments are making a come back. In short the evidence pointing to fast Dino's is getting stronger and stronger but at the same time our knowledge of the limits of physiology is increasing and as it does, the more unlikely the speed of the dionsaurs seems. In otherwords two very valid lines of investigation are at loggerheads and no one knows how they are going to resolve the conflict.
Most of these issues revolve around the weak or attackable points of current theories. Sometimes they are attackable due to lack of data and arguments either way have no real means for being substantiated and sometimes they are attackable due to annomolus conditions that simply do not appear to jive. To make things worse you get alot of religious zealotry tossed in for good measure. Not all people arguing from a religous bent have there heads in the ground reciting 'the party line' but a great many of the ones you encounter in these debates do. On the other hand modern theory backers almost always have a great deal at stake in current theory and challenging them is rarely in their best interest and their ranks have a fair share of 'party line' shouters as well.
True or not I don't think it is ever a bad thing to question what we know. After all if we know the answer then whats the worry ? Sometimes I think we are just a bit too smug about what we think we know.
Look up nemisis and appropriate key words on goolge.. stuff like apocalypse, asteroid, planet X etc... in the same vein but with no extra hydrogen ball check out Imanuel Velikovsky and his theories.. a lot of stuff which you can find on the web though take the time to find some no rabid fans/dtractors and find someone that just talks about the theories.
makes for some intersting reading... the nemisis stuff is really an alteration of Velikovsky's ideas as far as I have seen.. ie someone discounts Velikovsky's idea of what happend in the past but presents an alternative with similar effects.
Some less extreme stuff is to check out belivers in catastrophic history/evolution etc... look into the mystery of the wooly mamoths (did you know the biggest source of ivory in history was from Mammoth tusks? ), the mystery of the Loese of Siberia and 'Muck' in Alaska... the lack of enough silt on the ocean floor, Niagra falls not being far enough back and other similar things, questions regarding the Ice Ages. The inability of dinosaurs to have existed based on current understanding of biology ( they existed but our understanding of biology says they are physcially impossible in size due to limitations of muscle mass efficiency etc, interesting reading )
All this stuff tends to get mixed up in debates about creation and punctuated equilibrium ( catastrophic history ). Regardless it clashes with most accepted mainstream science and as such is hard to find non-rabid discussions about some of the legitimate questions which have no answers in current theory.
well...just as M$ is not beholden to China law so is China not bound by M$. Granted using M$ code as their standard seems silly to me from a security standpoint... after all monster that Gates is I have little doubt which side he would side with in a dispute between the two nations, well for now I have little doubt.
Not a problem of it not being perfect.. it just isn't practical yet. Cost of the catalyst in the fuel cells and its durability plus being able to store sufficient hydrogen and delivery systems.. IE do we go for a liquid infrastructure or gas ? Straight Hydrogen or in an intermediary we reform the gas from easily?
Even some question of our ability to generate the hydrogen to begin with. Current power generation is insufficient. If your not sure why then imagine California power companies having to produce all the power to generate enough hydrogen to fuel cars in addition to its current needs that it can't supply.
In a sense you have to replace all the HP currently located under hoods in every driveway with the equivalent power generation equipment... in terms of daily use, not total possible power output... people have to buy new cars and gov't or industries have to build huge new power generation stations which also comes out of peoples pockets one way or another.
Switching to a hydrogen economy has many real obstacles to overcome. We are moving in that direction but Oil is entrenched at the foundation of the worlds economy and has more than 100 years of industry build up behind it... When Oil toppled Coal it brought something to the table Coal did't have. The ability to run more capable and mobile internal combustion engines to coals external combustion engines ( steam ). Hydrogen is trying to supplant Oil but it offers nothing but compromises in comparison with its only advantage being the ability to generate it vrs Oil's limited supply. Granted that is the ace in the hole but the pressure to find a new source of energy just hasn't gotten strong enough yet. Sooner or later that will change and be it hydrogen or some other form of energy source oil will be replaced.
sure ... just remap C and V to CTRL and Shift ;-)
ummmmm not quite right. You can run hydrogen into your average normal car engine with minor modifications and the necesarry fuel delivery equipment. This has in fact been done. Problems are storing enough fuel and creation of some bad exhaust fumes due to the extreme heat of the combustion... creates NOS I belive actually. Fuel cell's reap the benifit of the energy in the H2 O2 reaction by means of a non combustive reaction resulting in electricity instead of an explosion giving heat and expanding gases.
try
ctrl-ins
to copy
then
shift-ins
to paste
It works pretty much everywhere to every thing in windows and linux ( at least for SUSE versions 6-8 so far for me ).
The wind knocking it off the desk is far different from the phone manufacturer knocking it off the desk.
If M$ started manufaturing non PC compatible X-boxes I would agree but if someone purchased and altered one that was they do not have the right to change back what you altered in your system without your permission.
This is not about M$ not anticipating a far from standard need. It is about the deliberate altering of a system someone else owns without consent.
By the way I do not own an X-Box. As much as I wanted to buy an american console system I could not bring myself to buy a M$ box.. esepcially as the early choices regarding the system came to light ( Extra for DVD, artificial limitation of access to the PC underpinings ). The unwieldy controler was also a big negative as well though the newer smaller models and the japanese market controller is much more worthy.
If I choose to use it as a PC ??? Thats not what it's made for ??? Do you not understand THIS THING IS A PC ??? It is a PC compatible computer in a different form factor box with the one odity of its primary means of graphic presentation being a TV screen vrs a computer monitor... IE its a freaking gateway media PC. The difference is custom physcial architecture designed for the form factor with decisions made facilitating its use primarily as a game system ( like propriatary controler/memory ports ). Saying an X-Box is not a PC is about like saying a laptop is not a PC cause its not a desktop.
Going back to a car analogy I'll put it another way. PSII and Game cube are like specialty vehicles.. think farm equipment or construction equipment. There are physcial reasons and limitations which keep them from general driving. An X-box is a street legal race car.... it has been customized for a certain use but there is no physcial limitation to using it as a more general use vehicle. When you go to a store to buy software a large percentage of the PC titles you can buy could be loaded on to an X-box and run without any problems if it wasn't for M$'s hardware control that checks to see if the disk being loaded is a certified X-box title. The same is not even remotely the case with either the PSII or gamecube.
Thus the X-box's software limitation is not one of design but of a choice regarding use. Saying running PC software is not what it was designed to do is ignorant. It was in fact designed specifically to be capable of runnig PC software because one of M$'s strategies was to lure PC only game software developers with the ease of producing versions of their games for the X-box thus allowing them an avenue to reach console only gamers. It was also done because otherwise they would have had no established software creators for "their" system. If it was propriatry the way PS and Nentendo systems are anyone developing sofware for them would have had to learn how first. Anyone familiar with the console wars knows the issue of having enough titles is a major problem for any new console trying to break the strangle hold of Sony and Nentendo.
In otherwords an X-box running PC software or a PC linux kernel is not a phone used as a paper weight... It IS a paperweight. But M$ is trying to control what papers you can chose to weight down with it.
um beacuse its a future story made in the past ie the sociological phenomenon your refering to are artifacts of the present reality, not necesarrily reflective of the world presented.
As for the whole primitive vrs mature malarky.. sheesh, we are only primitive compared to our own imaginings of what we might be instead of what we are. Reality has rough edges, always has and always will. Utopia's are unrealistic figments of our imagination. Perhaps we will evolve to a more peacefull existence if we are stuck here on earth.... more likely we will get even uglier as resources become ever more scarce. Just think of stories of refugees surviving in a barren area, marooned shipwrecked etc. Peace and co-operation is not usually the name of the game... canabalisim often is.
Only valid Point M$ has is making sure legitimate systems connect to Live for online play. So for someone to succesfully connect to a live server to be subjected to a system check/update etc.. is not in question. For a live customer who signed an agrement which would indicate automatic updates when attaching to live servers is legit.
HOWEVER patching systems not signed up for the live service without the owners consent is not right. Thats like taking you car to the dealership for a tune up and they replace your aftermarket rims and replace them with stock because they were not 'standard' without asking your permission. It is an unauthorized alteration of your system. That is not M$'s box it is property of whoever purchased it. M$ has the right to not allow unconforming boxes to access its system, it does not have the right to alter your system so that it is conforming without your consent.
EULA for the equipment cannot determin the use of the equipment. You can't state a phone can only be used for a phone and not a paper weight. You can't say this system is not allowed to be used for something we don't want it to be used for. And for those contending this is a console and thus not a PC all I can say is you don't understand this at a technical enough level. This is like ford selling you a car that will only drive on certain roads or use gas dispensed at a specific gas station chain. For any who contend X-box is not a PC you simply don't get it. a PS II or Game cube are not PC's.. they have a differnt base architeture which physically keep them from running PC software. An XBOX is a PC. It uses X-86 PC compatabile hardware architecture. Its ability to use any PC compatible software is artificially limited by the hardware control software. M$ has everyright to sell a limited system, it does not have the right to alter your removal of that limitation without first obtaining your consent, and obtaining your consent means you have to have a reasonable chance to deny the request. Patching a system not signed up for the live service without the owners consent is criminal.
well this has gotten off topic but....
Were talking about apples and oranges. Reality is your far more likely to be invovled in a wreck with another vehicle. In which case the mass does most deffinatly become a concern. The light vehicle does better in wreckes where its potential energy is used against it, but it still dosn't have the ability to reject the energy imparted to it by a heavier vehicle... IE a 2000lbs car crashing at 50mph head on with a concrete barrier presents the same energy to be rejected if it is sitting still and hit by a 4000lbs SUV going 25mph. By contrast the car has to be going 50mph to impart the same energy to the SUV. However if the car is going 50 and the SUV going 25 then its an even match... but the head on crash means the car is absorbing the equivalent of a head on 50mph crash and the SUV absorbing a 25mph crash. Pretty simple physcis really. If the car dosn't represent enough energy to cancle out the SUV's energy then the SUV dosn't have to absorb all of its potential energy. SUV energy minus the Car energy leaves some energy unacounted for.. IE not absorbed in the initial impact. Car - SUV is negative.. so after the cars energy is accounted for by the SUV it then also gets to absorb the excess energy imparted by the SUV if there is a speed difference.
Now in terms of the vehicle frames ability to reject the energy in a wreck with something which represents more inertia or counter energy than they have SUV's in general still far out strip smaller compact cars when you talk similar energy amounts.. IE an SUV frame can reject far higher energy amounts with less danger to the occupants than a small car. HOWEVER when comparing the energy represented by two different weight designs at the same speeds you find the SUV contains much higher energy at the same speed due to its heavier weight. Thus the danger zone energy level for head on collisions is reached at lower speeds in an SUV than a car. However that only matters when the SUV is put in a wreck where it is forced to absorb that level of energy... IE in reality that means when it takes on something with more inertia.
So your statistics are right... your "safe" car design of choice can survive a head on colision with a concrete barrier at higher speeds than your typical SUV. But don't think for a second that prooves the car can safeley absorb more energy in a wreck.
Now to loosely tie this back into the topic the same case for saftey exists with shuttle design... part of the shuttles problem is it is so big and so heavy that it presents a crap load of energy that must be imparted first to get it to orbital velocity and then to get it back on the ground. Whereas an SUV has circumstances in which its heavier mass can benifit it on the road space vehicle desings all face the same issue... absorbing the energy represented by the weight of the design times 17,500mph needed to achieve LEO operations. Therefore all things being equal the lighter design is safer.. or at least needs less energy at launch and rejects less energy durring re-entry which generally means less complex.
define a sharp 50mph curve ? If thats what you want certianly don't get an SUV.. well other than the Porsche or BMW... but that dosn't mean you can't operate an SUV withen a safe range of speeds given the circumstances you are faced with. And those limits are useable if not on par with an average sedan.. less maneverable does not mean more dangerous unless you insist on driving at rates which do not allow you any safe evasive options. Some idiot that dosn't understand you can't drive an explorer like a mustang is no differnt than an idiot in said mustang driving it like a Porsche IE unsafely.
Corolla or Sirion both I would still preffer the Expedition for your average fender bender. I understand the value of being nimble but its generally easier to drive more cautiously ( ie withen its capabilities ) with a less capable vehicle and hold a mass advantage ( statistically speaking ) in the worst case than it is to be holding the manouverability card when you meet something 3 times the mass of your car.... especially if its moving faster than you are. Nimble only helps you avoid a wreck. dosn't do a damn thing once it happens.. once that happens the more steel and structure you have on your side the better.
I dunno.. but then again I am biased, my first Heinlien experience was To Sail Beyond the Sunset. About the only book I would say is a poor first choice would be Number of the Beast.... I still find it hard to belive he wrote that sometimes.
If I had to pick a best first Heinlien book I would probbaly suggest Starship Troopers. It is probably the most approcahable book he wrote.
"Have a decen t vehicle for cargo. Russians have been understood this 20 years ago by separating the Soyuz and Progress programmes."
ummmm I am not sure I would call Progress a decent cargo vehicle... Its just a soyuz without a heatshield or life support systems, it dosn't lift any more mass, just a higher percentage of cargo, if you sent a crewless soyuz stuffed with cargo the only difference in capacity would be the heatshield and for the small capsuel its enough wieght to be usefull but its really not all that much when you get down to it.
And since I can't resist SUV's serve a decided purpose as family people movers. and if you think they are not safe I will ask you a question... there are two cars that are about to be in a typical wreck with each other, a Civic and an Expedition, given the choice which one would you preffer to be in ? Not safe... thats phunny. And please don't bring up wreck statistics regarding idiots that don't understand their high center of gravity urban assault vehicles are not sports cars. Thats a different issue entirely.
"Soyuz was introduced in 1966 and performed its first manned flight in 1967. Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov launched aboard Soyuz 1 on April 23. He completed seventeen orbits. Tragically, the parachute system was entangled, causing Komarov to crash back to Earth at a speed of 450 kilometers per hour. His was the first space fatality. "
2 0030 905215317754
read the rest at
http://www.nauts.com/vehicles/60s/soyuz.html;
Soyuz replaced the Vostok but it could have been called the second generation Vostok, it wasn't exactly a revolutionary step forward. Granted they were updated in 81 and again for MIR but essentially it is the same system, they still use the cheat sticks to reach all the switches.
Also Soyuz was no more reliable in its first 100 missions than shuttle. There are also military missions results that we do not know so it may well have been far more dangerous. There are also several instances of cargo versions exploding on the launch pad and killing engineers etc... One just last year no less. The problem could have just as easily occured on one topped with a manned module. It did recieve uprades in 81 and again during the MIR program but they were incremental upgrades at best. Some lighter structural materials and better engines. The safety of the design is one born out of an extensive launch rate with the possibility to make changes on the shop floor since they are fabricated for each mission.
Its all in how you look at it really. Comparing a one time use launch system with 1500 launches to a semi reuseable one with 112 or so is a little difficult to do accurately. Even if your after end results you should compare them at similar stage in their life cycles... but do you judge that by launch rate or years ??? again yields very contrasted views of which is a more reliable system.
Not that I don't think Shuttle is a compromise design system from hell but if we have pumped the resources into it to launch 1500 times ( or simply at a comisurate rate with Soyuz over its life time) it would either
A) work cosistently and reliably as planned.
or
B) have been replaced a long time ago.
Hard to belive you put "Job" on the avoid list there. Barring those intolerant of exploring religious issues it was a fantastic book. I also enoyed most of those books other than Number of the Beast but I often think many many people get to caught up in the sex stuff and don't look at the issues driving his worlds. his books are all written on several differnt levels, I feel sory for those that get lost in the window dressing and don't bother to read between the lines.... or worse who judge his worlds soely by their own morales.
Its pretty horrific... but if you have a taste for cheeze its a very very potent example of cheezy sci fi. Never heard the intentionally bad writting theory but it wouldn't shock me if it was true.... it might have been his I wonder if I can write anything an sell it book.
You know the RIAA's refusal to embrace new technology reminds me of the scene in blazing saddles with the toll booth..... only they actually expect everyone to line up and pay the toll when they have the option to ride around.
I would grant more credence to what you say if you would examine what can be bad about collective bargaining as well as what can be good and how to balance those issues.
I also have to laugh a little at your Bob example. Historically collective bargaining has protected EASILY replaced workers, IE people who have no position of power because they don't do something your average joe shmuck off the street can't learn to do in a relatively short ammount of time. IE Coal Mining, Chicken processing, Assembly Line workers, Stock Yard workers, COnstruction Workers etc... The kind of workers who only give pause to a company when they band together precisely because they have no other means of leverage against management. The reason they do not have leverage individualy is becasue they do not possess scarce skills. By contrast someone who has highly specialized skills that cannot be replaced in a workable timeframe for the company has leverage or it takes fewer in his/her position to create collective barganing leverage. Those IT workers have little idea about organized labor becasue until recently your average capable IT worker possesed such a scarce skill that they could demand no dress code and free drinks in addition to exorbant salaries and actually get it.
Unions provide a level of job security for blue collar generally less skilled labor positions that would not otherwise exist in a true capitalist market labor system. Granted that fact is one of the uglier facets of a free market. Unions can also deal with highly skilled positions that are flooded with capable applicants.. meaning they face the same problem unskilled labor faces, namely easy replacement by someone willing to work cheaper or under less favorable circumstances.
I certainly don't think a true capitalistic labor system is the best but just as sweat shops with zero stability creates problems so do powerful unions with no eye for what is good for the company/industry as a whole. Take the whole auto union fiasco of the 70's/80's regarding automation of production lines. Unions forced less automation,closing/cosolidation of factories to preserve jobs and sent the American auto industry right down the crapper while Japan merrily automated their lines to a fairthee well and offered higher quality vehicles at a lower price. It Wasn't till US manufacturers were able to catch up in manufacturing techniques and protective auto import taxes (specifically against Japan no less ) were levied that that fiasco sort of got turned around. Didn't hurt that the Japanese economy went into a serious tailspin for a while. Unions were not soley to blame, not by a damn sight. But their refusal to accept some realities certainly contributed to the fiasco.