Uh... no. Anthracite coal (highest quality) is mostly carbon. In petroleum fuels, both the hydrogen and carbon generate power. Yes, petroleum based fuels are more energy dense than coal, but coal was our primary source of energy at a point.
I agree that our energy future will pass by numerous sources, no single one is going to generate enough for all our demands in the short term.
Right. That must be why nearly noone used to get divorced at all when marriages were arranged and they only actually got to have sex *after* they were married.
No, the basic reason for having divorce is when the couple loses patience. For a marriage to work, both need to concede on some things. People today do not wish to concede on anything, so marriages fail. Money usually being the problem.
Ignoring genetic considerations (Asians usually seem to be shorter) height tends to be influenced by diet. As for USA obesitity, I think your problem is not as much the solids as the liquids. People take a lot of calories in soft drinks. Another factor may be that you tend to not use sucrose (i.e. real sugar), but use frutose or dextrose instead. IIRC I read once that people tend to abuse frutose sweets more than sucrose, because it feels less satisfying. So you end up eating more calories instead of less.
That is one theory for the extinction, that homo sapiens killed them. Here is another theory which I think may have some merit:
One of prehistory's big questions is: Why did the Neanderthals become extinct at roughly the same moment that Homo sapiens arrived from Africa? At Sopena we may learn if there were significant differences in behaviors that gave an edge to modern humans. Could it have been diet or the way they processed food?
Yes. We look for remains like bones, charcoals from their fires and tools. From this we can learn how their diet changed over time. It's like we're digging through prehistoric domestic waste. Isotopic analysis of Neanderthal bones shows that they were almost entirely carnivores.
They mostly ate meat. And you need carbohydrates. We're finding that modern humans, coming from Africa, had a diet much more variable than Neanderthals.
It's always been thought about the Neanderthal extinction that Homo sapiens appeared in Europe and outcompeted Neanderthals. But it's not so easy. Forty thousand years ago was the last ice age. In that time, many animals became extinct. If Neanderthals survived on mammal meat, and those animals were nowhere to be found, they were in trouble.
And then you had modern man coming in from Africa, where there weren't seasons. They were eating seafood and vegetables and grasses, even fat extracted from bones by boiling them. It is possible this gave them an edge. We may find out.
In short, we survived because we had a more varied diet than they had. It may also explain why Neanderthals were taller than we are (they ate more meat), and why people have been getting taller from the XXth century onwards contrary to what was expected (inexpensive meat is more commonly available).
The most expensive and time consuming item to design in any launcher are the engines, by far. By keeping the same engines in use, they are reducing cost and time to entry in service.
If the orbiter was on top, rather than mounted on the tank, foam from the tank would not have hit the orbiter. So these designs fix that one.
As for the solids, yeah, I agree. They should not be used for space exploration. They are mostly useful for military missiles, which need to be storable and fast to fire.
Duh!
3 SSME engines on a Shuttle, not 7.
Using Google Calculator correctly this time:
3 * 7774 lb to kg = 10 578.6813 kilograms
(132 800 kilograms) - (118 000 kilograms) = 14 800 kilograms
So yeah, it is a bit more, but not that much.
This analogy falls apart when you realize that programmers are also filling the role of architect. Plumbers, electricians, and mechanics already have the structure built to work with.
Erm, no. Architects are into consulting as well. As for your second point it makes no sense really.
Just because it's convenient to make digital copies does not mean it's the best way to determine or relate value.
If it is easy to make digital copies, the market value of a copy should be low. Simple as that. Ignoring this fact introduces a market distortion, which will rapidly be compensated by the market. If not the regular market, then the black market. Hence you will need to waste resources fighting the black market with force to enforce your view, in a war you will never win. The greater the market distortion you try to push, the more force you will need to use to supress the market response.
Theoretically, yes. But it is also true Linus got GCC and other software which helped him make Linux more easily, and contributed little in return to GCC development. It is also true that was it not for him making Linux, I doubt he would be in the USA right now and got the proposals he did.
So yeah, if you analyse it in a case by case basis, it can be unfair. But if you analyse it iteratively, you will see you benefit much more than what you give back.
It is little coincidence this is the way scientific research has been done. Both scientific knowledge and software are incremental and easy to reproduce. On such an economy sharing is more efficient than privatizing. On such an economy, coopetition is much more powerful than competition. Because less valuable man hour resources are wasted, because you can reuse code.
It is only when you start applying these concepts to the material world, which has scarcity, that everything collapses quickly. Land ownership being a good example of something which is best if privately owned.
I still think all software development should be a consulting business, like plumbers, electricians, or mechanics. The business of selling software as a product should eventually cease to be. If the scarce factor is your labour, that is what should be charged, you should not charge for doing a copy which has zero cost. People are not stupid. They can see you are making them pay for something which is basically free. People do not like being cheated. Trying to force people into paying for things which they perceive to have zero cost leads to market distortion, draconian persecution, and other evil things.
You might claim this is also the case for all manufactured products. I claim it is not, because in this case we all own viable production machines. In the manufactured products case, you need to pay for the production machinery, which is too expensive for any one person to have. If someone invented a replicator which everyone could own, which made copies for basically no cost, then I could make a case that it would be the same. You could also claim that it is necessary to spread the initial production costs across more clients, because the cost to make a product is so high. I reply that is nonsense. No piece of software I know was born complete. Once you have a quick working prototype, you start selling it with limited functionality. Combined with the ability to reuse other people's code to make the prototype, that argument falls down. Except if you are only interested in maximizing your profit and do not care about your clients. If that is the case, then yes, selling them for hundreds of dollars something you can get for free is a great business.
Many of these combined several research teams under the same roof. But still, separate paths were pursued simultaneously. Less inspiring paths being terminated earlier on.
There was more than one Nuke design, there was more than one H-Bomb design, Computers were more or less simultaneously and independently invented by more than one group, etc.
You only pool all into one when you do not have enough resources to have separate teams.
But if we put it all into one big project, it's more likely that we can develop a successful method sooner.
Historically that has seldom been the case. In fact, it usually is better if you do it the other way around, and have multiple competing projects along more than one possible path.
That is the thing with research. Until you try it, you really do not know if you can do it or not.
It is possible to use superconductors to store electricity. If you had room temperature superconductors, which could sustain lots of current per weight, that would be the ultimate battery.
Only Brazil manages to get net positive energy out. Because they get their sugar from sugarcane, rather than corn. Even so, it took them decades to get to that point, and the infrastructure cost them dearly.
Slashdot Mirror
Those opportunities have been around since 911, yet only now are they investing in it.
I agree that our energy future will pass by numerous sources, no single one is going to generate enough for all our demands in the short term.
Uh, no. EMACS started as a set of Editor MaCroS for TECO which predates vi.
Here is a Tablet PC with a monocrome screen. It comes with infinite battery life and one *free* paint application.
In which way does EMACS copy Microsoft? Which Microsoft operating system runs on 512P system like this?
Right. That must be why nearly noone used to get divorced at all when marriages were arranged and they only actually got to have sex *after* they were married.
No, the basic reason for having divorce is when the couple loses patience. For a marriage to work, both need to concede on some things. People today do not wish to concede on anything, so marriages fail. Money usually being the problem.
Ignoring genetic considerations (Asians usually seem to be shorter) height tends to be influenced by diet. As for USA obesitity, I think your problem is not as much the solids as the liquids. People take a lot of calories in soft drinks. Another factor may be that you tend to not use sucrose (i.e. real sugar), but use frutose or dextrose instead. IIRC I read once that people tend to abuse frutose sweets more than sucrose, because it feels less satisfying. So you end up eating more calories instead of less.
From what I read, the author thinks the cause of extinction of those animals was the ice age, rather than humans getting in.
One of prehistory's big questions is: Why did the Neanderthals become extinct at roughly the same moment that Homo sapiens arrived from Africa? At Sopena we may learn if there were significant differences in behaviors that gave an edge to modern humans. Could it have been diet or the way they processed food?
Yes. We look for remains like bones, charcoals from their fires and tools. From this we can learn how their diet changed over time. It's like we're digging through prehistoric domestic waste. Isotopic analysis of Neanderthal bones shows that they were almost entirely carnivores.
They mostly ate meat. And you need carbohydrates. We're finding that modern humans, coming from Africa, had a diet much more variable than Neanderthals. It's always been thought about the Neanderthal extinction that Homo sapiens appeared in Europe and outcompeted Neanderthals. But it's not so easy. Forty thousand years ago was the last ice age. In that time, many animals became extinct. If Neanderthals survived on mammal meat, and those animals were nowhere to be found, they were in trouble. And then you had modern man coming in from Africa, where there weren't seasons. They were eating seafood and vegetables and grasses, even fat extracted from bones by boiling them. It is possible this gave them an edge. We may find out.
In short, we survived because we had a more varied diet than they had. It may also explain why Neanderthals were taller than we are (they ate more meat), and why people have been getting taller from the XXth century onwards contrary to what was expected (inexpensive meat is more commonly available).
Female lionesses do not like tofu either.
Any surprise people at those latitudes have a higher suicide rate?
No other animal eats tofu either.
The most expensive and time consuming item to design in any launcher are the engines, by far. By keeping the same engines in use, they are reducing cost and time to entry in service.
As for the solids, yeah, I agree. They should not be used for space exploration. They are mostly useful for military missiles, which need to be storable and fast to fire.
Duh! 3 SSME engines on a Shuttle, not 7. Using Google Calculator correctly this time: 3 * 7774 lb to kg = 10 578.6813 kilograms (132 800 kilograms) - (118 000 kilograms) = 14 800 kilograms So yeah, it is a bit more, but not that much.
Block II Space Shuttle Main Engine weight 7,774 lb
Now using Google Calculator:
7 * 7774 lb to kg = 24 683.5896 kilograms
So yeah, it is a bit more, but not that much.
Erm, no. Architects are into consulting as well. As for your second point it makes no sense really.
Just because it's convenient to make digital copies does not mean it's the best way to determine or relate value.
If it is easy to make digital copies, the market value of a copy should be low. Simple as that. Ignoring this fact introduces a market distortion, which will rapidly be compensated by the market. If not the regular market, then the black market. Hence you will need to waste resources fighting the black market with force to enforce your view, in a war you will never win. The greater the market distortion you try to push, the more force you will need to use to supress the market response.
IIRC in Sweden, for example, traffic fines are proportional to your income.
So yeah, if you analyse it in a case by case basis, it can be unfair. But if you analyse it iteratively, you will see you benefit much more than what you give back.
It is little coincidence this is the way scientific research has been done. Both scientific knowledge and software are incremental and easy to reproduce. On such an economy sharing is more efficient than privatizing. On such an economy, coopetition is much more powerful than competition. Because less valuable man hour resources are wasted, because you can reuse code.
It is only when you start applying these concepts to the material world, which has scarcity, that everything collapses quickly. Land ownership being a good example of something which is best if privately owned.
I still think all software development should be a consulting business, like plumbers, electricians, or mechanics. The business of selling software as a product should eventually cease to be. If the scarce factor is your labour, that is what should be charged, you should not charge for doing a copy which has zero cost. People are not stupid. They can see you are making them pay for something which is basically free. People do not like being cheated. Trying to force people into paying for things which they perceive to have zero cost leads to market distortion, draconian persecution, and other evil things.
You might claim this is also the case for all manufactured products. I claim it is not, because in this case we all own viable production machines. In the manufactured products case, you need to pay for the production machinery, which is too expensive for any one person to have. If someone invented a replicator which everyone could own, which made copies for basically no cost, then I could make a case that it would be the same. You could also claim that it is necessary to spread the initial production costs across more clients, because the cost to make a product is so high. I reply that is nonsense. No piece of software I know was born complete. Once you have a quick working prototype, you start selling it with limited functionality. Combined with the ability to reuse other people's code to make the prototype, that argument falls down. Except if you are only interested in maximizing your profit and do not care about your clients. If that is the case, then yes, selling them for hundreds of dollars something you can get for free is a great business.
There was more than one Nuke design, there was more than one H-Bomb design, Computers were more or less simultaneously and independently invented by more than one group, etc.
You only pool all into one when you do not have enough resources to have separate teams.
Historically that has seldom been the case. In fact, it usually is better if you do it the other way around, and have multiple competing projects along more than one possible path.
That is the thing with research. Until you try it, you really do not know if you can do it or not.
It is possible to use superconductors to store electricity. If you had room temperature superconductors, which could sustain lots of current per weight, that would be the ultimate battery.
See a more complete table here.
In short, Diesel has about twice as much energy density than Ethanol, with Gasoline coming close to Diesel.
Biodiesel is more energy dense: You can store more energy in less volume. Smaller containers.
Biodiesel is more efficient to produce.
Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.
Last but not least: the military uses diesel in their vehicles. :-)
Only Brazil manages to get net positive energy out. Because they get their sugar from sugarcane, rather than corn. Even so, it took them decades to get to that point, and the infrastructure cost them dearly.