Well, to start with the mission is costing $78 million, not $20 billion. Second, it costs $100,000 to launch one (1) gallon of water on the Shuttle. Probably closer to $10,000 per gallon on other vehicles; but, we all know the Shuttle is expensive to operate. Even at $10k/gal, that's still a lot of money. So, if we are going to put people on the Moon, it makes no sense, economically, to send them water from Earth. Even in high orbit of Earth, it's likely to be more cost effective, in the long run, to lift water out of the Moon's gravity well than it is to lift water out of the Earth's gravity well. It is clearly the fiscally responsible thing to do.
Actually it does benefit IBM. It's another piece of information their sales force can use in their campaign to convert Sun customers to IBM, whether it be on Power or on x86-64.
That's just pure nonsense. There's this thing, called a filter. There should be one on the intake of your engine. They are standard equipment on all cars and have been for the past few decades. IF you ARE getting dust into your engine then the filter is not doing its job, probably because you removed it and did not replace it.
But that's still 1.2 Million deaths in the US and 24 Million deaths world wide, at 0.4%. Are you prepared to deal with 1 in 200 people around you dying?
The important advantage people seem to be missing is the patent allows extended use of the battery. Li-Ion batteries have a discharge threshold, below which the cell is damaged and can not be recharged. The charge protection circuit usually cuts off the power, to save the cells, when this point is reached. In an emergency, it's a really good idea to be able to bypass this protection. It's an emergency, you're not going to care if you ruin the battery; but, you may care that you can get an extra 10-20% more talk time out of the battery.
Well you know, it's not the same panel. Hell, they don't even have a commercial product yet. Closest is the United Solar Ovonics panels, which aren't available through Home Depot. The Home Depot panels are BP solar. The United Solar panels are the same damn technology as the "new" tech espoused in the original article, by the way. Point was, although it's not the tech under discussion, Home Depot does sell solar PV systems.
100% of Nanosolar's production output is going to large scale (commercial/industrial scale) solar plants. They keep building additional manufacturing capacity but have not saturated the commercial demand. There's no need for them to offer panels to consumers; their business model is quite sound.
Home "fax machine" can be done via the internet. It can also be done using a cell phone dock.
Not necessarily. Around here we lost so many lines to flooding and downed trees during Isabel, that it didn't make any difference
e911. Our address is properly registered; so, it shows up.
You lose your cell phone? well, that's why I keep a spare
Landlines are less likely to work when the power fails, many phones (for some reason) use a power adapter these days
cell phones can provide better than dial-up internet service
So? Actually, if you use a cordless phone you're being exposed to the same radiation
Cordless phone's have batteries too. If you're concerned about battery failure, keep a spare
You got me there. Well, maybe not. Does your cell phone cut out when you walk into the front yard? My cordless did. If you have poor cell reception inside your house, they have these things called antennas and micro-cells
GM doesn't have any purpose built chassis any more. Not even the Corvette. The H3 probably shares it's chassis with the Equinox or similar (a wild ass guess)
To be honest, I don't know the answer to that. When I tried to research it I found a US DOE discussion that basically said: "There are two many variations in manufacturing for us to test all the variables; but, we are aware of the problem" YMMV depending on brand and usage. After I replaced all my lamps with cheap CFL's, I had a rash of failures within 3-4 months, where my children were turning the lights on and off in the family room as well as the bathrooms. I looked myself and found about half of them had a bad filaments in the bulb, which implies the other half had a bad power supply. I ended up putting incandecent bulbs back into my bathroom fixtures after the 2nd set of CFL bulbs failed within a few months.
CFL's seem to have a finite number of on-off cycles. Well, that's not completely true... What seems to happen is that if you turn it on for only short periods of time, the life expectancy is reduced. the reduction goes something like 20% loss at 15 min. cycles, 80% loss at 5 min cycles. Counter-intuitive and seems to violate the principle that you should turn off the lamp when you're not in the room.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to start with the mission is costing $78 million, not $20 billion. Second, it costs $100,000 to launch one (1) gallon of water on the Shuttle. Probably closer to $10,000 per gallon on other vehicles; but, we all know the Shuttle is expensive to operate. Even at $10k/gal, that's still a lot of money. So, if we are going to put people on the Moon, it makes no sense, economically, to send them water from Earth. Even in high orbit of Earth, it's likely to be more cost effective, in the long run, to lift water out of the Moon's gravity well than it is to lift water out of the Earth's gravity well. It is clearly the fiscally responsible thing to do.
Actually it does benefit IBM. It's another piece of information their sales force can use in their campaign to convert Sun customers to IBM, whether it be on Power or on x86-64.
That's just pure nonsense. There's this thing, called a filter. There should be one on the intake of your engine. They are standard equipment on all cars and have been for the past few decades. IF you ARE getting dust into your engine then the filter is not doing its job, probably because you removed it and did not replace it.
But that's still 1.2 Million deaths in the US and 24 Million deaths world wide, at 0.4%. Are you prepared to deal with 1 in 200 people around you dying?
The important advantage people seem to be missing is the patent allows extended use of the battery. Li-Ion batteries have a discharge threshold, below which the cell is damaged and can not be recharged. The charge protection circuit usually cuts off the power, to save the cells, when this point is reached. In an emergency, it's a really good idea to be able to bypass this protection. It's an emergency, you're not going to care if you ruin the battery; but, you may care that you can get an extra 10-20% more talk time out of the battery.
You know there's no "side" to the atmosphere, right.
Furthermore, I think that much of the original geek crowd is gone or mostly in lurk mode.
We lurk, we mod... We post the occasional idiotic comment just to see if anyone is paying attention.
And looks incredibly uncomfortable. No thanks.
Don't worry about the future. The pessimistic scientists (I count myself among them), will take care of it for you (and perhaps take care of you).
Proto-Earth + Theia --> Earth + Moon might suggest otherwise.
Better check their methods before suggesting that. They don't use a IEEE float in these big simulations on supercomputers, generally.
I don't know about you but I'd like to be here. Might be some 10-100 million re-incarnations later though...
just breaks off a blade. plane still falls out of sky.
everyone is talking about document management software and search appliances. You're going about it all wrong...
Hire a document management staff.
Librarians. Hot librarians.
Well you know, it's not the same panel. Hell, they don't even have a commercial product yet. Closest is the United Solar Ovonics panels, which aren't available through Home Depot. The Home Depot panels are BP solar. The United Solar panels are the same damn technology as the "new" tech espoused in the original article, by the way. Point was, although it's not the tech under discussion, Home Depot does sell solar PV systems.
Already available: http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=SV_HS_Solar_Power_Systems&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=1
100% of Nanosolar's production output is going to large scale (commercial/industrial scale) solar plants. They keep building additional manufacturing capacity but have not saturated the commercial demand. There's no need for them to offer panels to consumers; their business model is quite sound.
I propose that every time an astronaut takes a step, he turns around and drops a fused quartz glass* cover over his previous footstep.
* Why fused quartz? Because plexi-glass (or any other plastic) would be degraded by the UV. Quartz glass would last longer and has a low TC.
You mean the 12V power feed or the 100V Ring? Bad idea. If a ring signal ever comes down, it'll do evil things to anything not protected.
GM doesn't have any purpose built chassis any more. Not even the Corvette. The H3 probably shares it's chassis with the Equinox or similar (a wild ass guess)
You're only part way there... You also need integration, which would turn the CCD camera + interface + power supply + packing into an "eye"
To be honest, I don't know the answer to that. When I tried to research it I found a US DOE discussion that basically said: "There are two many variations in manufacturing for us to test all the variables; but, we are aware of the problem" YMMV depending on brand and usage. After I replaced all my lamps with cheap CFL's, I had a rash of failures within 3-4 months, where my children were turning the lights on and off in the family room as well as the bathrooms. I looked myself and found about half of them had a bad filaments in the bulb, which implies the other half had a bad power supply. I ended up putting incandecent bulbs back into my bathroom fixtures after the 2nd set of CFL bulbs failed within a few months.
I think what you're looking for is a neon (or similar) gas tube, not a ccfl.
CFL's seem to have a finite number of on-off cycles. Well, that's not completely true... What seems to happen is that if you turn it on for only short periods of time, the life expectancy is reduced. the reduction goes something like 20% loss at 15 min. cycles, 80% loss at 5 min cycles. Counter-intuitive and seems to violate the principle that you should turn off the lamp when you're not in the room.