The report is slashdotted, at the moment, but I would be willing to bet this is pretty much a white-wash, with no meaningful changes, by insiders giving up stuff they don't need, or which no one could prove they have anyway, while protecting everything they really want to keep, and largely ending up with the status quo.
I have no faith in an internal review in general and certainly not from this administration (the self proclaimed most transparent administration in history).
Regardless of what they say, you know this won't change till someone goes to jail. We need Judges impeached for violating their oath of office, we need career NSA brass fired 5 levels deep, we need bulldozers and wrecking balls to converge on Bluffdale Utah. We need every single request for corporations to turn over records to have a warrant issued by a non-secret court and the company empowered to notify each affected individual no later than 6 months after the request. If you can't build a case for arrest in 6 months its probably becaus they haven't done anything wrong.
This report deserves an immediate trip to the waste basket, and a "Warren Committee" empowered in its place.
This is just a slashvertisement for some bloke's paper. It's a reiteration of well known mantras, at best. Nothing to see here, move along.
I figured that out just by content. I hovered the mouse pointer over the first link, saw it lead to noplace likely to have real news, and decided I'm not playing that game.
TLDR. Too Lame, Didn't Read.
Seriously, the firehose readers that vote this crap up really need to clean up their act.
Around here, it's a $50 ticket for not having a bag with you to pick up poop.
Another law that is never enforced. Citing laws on the books does not contradict what I said. The only way that $50 ticket gets issued is if the dog craps on the Cop's shoes.
It's at most a fine. Destruction of private property.
Are ye daft?
It's a swat team busting down your door. It's cuffed and dragged out of your home and charged with attempted murder. (Until they can't find anything but a dead dog). Then it's Reckless Endangerment, Discharging a firearm in City limits, resisting arrest, and anything else they can possibly pile on.
No No No No! Small dogs are kept inside with the rest of the children. They may yip and yap but nobody will hear them.
Big dogs are left outside on chains all day when Mommy and Daddy are at work and bark incessantly at a volume that can be heard through walls, and it triggers barking by dogs 4 streets away. They also deposit enough crap that the entire neighborhood smells like a kennel. And if the owners are fairly young they will out partying till the wee hours with Bowser left chained and hungry barking non-stop till the bars close.
Of course everybody thinks THEIR dog is above such nonsense, and merely mentioning the barking in polite over the hedge chit-chat gets you rumored to be a malcontent trouble maker. And the deep freeze cold war starts the minute you call the cops, (assuming of course that the cops even respond, which the majority wont, or will wait 10 hours and drive through the neighborhood with the windows rolled up and report that no dogs were barking. But like I say, most cities and towns will do exactly nothing about barking dogs.
Really, I don't mind well behaved dogs, but anyone telling you that any laws on the books dealing with constantly barking dogs or dog crap on the sidewalks will have any effect at all is insane.
Police will not enforce such laws. Animal control will not enforce those laws. Until the neighborhood comes to blows, nothing you say will make the slightest difference.
There is something about dog ownership that causes deafness.
The closer the dwellings, the smaller the dogs need to be, and the less time they should be allowed chained up outside.
Put it on some dodgy mobile cracked app site and have it perform some trivial functionsfunctions, post about it in a conspiratorial tone in some forums and watch the cheap bastards come rolling in. There are a million cheapskates for every real customer of android apps.
How is the miracle of cellulose digestion going to happen exactly? Do we really want to evolve organisms that break down cellulose efficiently? The plant world might not appreciate that.
Well animals do it all the time. Oddly enough, we find the microbes in their gut that help them and industrialize them. We are currently working with Zebra poop.
Where did you get that idea? Its sole purpose is to stretch the gasoline supply.
Its need is being offset by more efficient vehicles more and more every day. Its to the point now where states are looking to tax fuel efficient vehicles (hybrids and electrics) because they are no longer bringing in the same amount in gas taxes.
More than 10% would be an extreme case, probably more attributable to steady degradation of your engine than any real difference attributable to fuel. Theoretical mileage reduction should not exceed 3%, however real world examples typically are closer to of 7%.
You need to run your tank almost empty, then fill up on 100% real gasoline and drive till empty, then measure again with E10. Relying on ancient memories or sticker claims is not sufficient.
I recently did this on a long trip. Even with 100% pure gas, I was getting 2mpg less than the sticker (but then we were doing 70+ most of the way). I was getting about 6.8% less mpg on E10.
and it is possible we are simply out of time, with regards to the funding for this sort of research.
That seems unlikely. The future is never as bleak as some would have you believe. There have been a number of developments of late that suggest real progress is being made:
However, its still ethanol. It may be wiser to take a look at other fuel stretchers as well. Butanol is being looked at because it is less corrosive and also higher energy density than ethanol, almost approaching that of gasoline. (Exhaust smells like bananas).
Butanol trumps ethanol in several ways: Adding ethanol to gasoline reduces fuel mileage, but butanol packs almost as much energy as gas, meaning fewer fill-ups. Butanol also doesn't damage car engines like ethanol, so more of it can be blended into gas. And because butanol doesn't separate from gasoline in the presence of water, it can be blended right at the refinery, while ethanol has to be shipped separately from gas and blended closer to the filling station.
Even Zebra poop is helping, it yields a particular strain of Clostridium bacteria that can convert nearly any form of cellulose into butanol very efficiently.
Burned by itself, (B100) you might have a 10% mileage penalty. Mixed with gas it might not even impose any significant mileage penalty. Its been found that the mileage penalty does not exactly vary in lock-step with energy density. (Theoretically ethanol should only see a 2 to 3% mileage penalty, but some claim 10%, especially on older vehicles). But to date, no one has done significant real world testing on Butanol + Gas blends.
And yet we see cars have been running their entire lives on E10, with none of these effects.
Gas tanks are sealed. You don't have a wet wind blowing over your gas. Fuel system seldom malfunction (at least NOT more often than prior to E10. I've NEVER had a gasline freeze using E10, in spite of 30 years living in Alaska.) Corrosion and injector/pump damage? Maybe, but these are replacement parts anyway, they needed servicing prior to E10, and still do today.
So if Blue Oval cars can't hack E10, its a good reason to avoid blue oval cars. The rest of the fleet has made improvements in durability and reduced maintenance more than sufficient to overcome any damage associated with E10.
Doesn't mean I like E10. I suffer the same miles per gallon reduction that everyone else sees. (Well maybe less, since the car is new enough to have the tune compensated for it).
The post you replied to was stating why ethanol was chosen, as opposed to Jet A, or Diesel or Butanol. The point being that it is the only alternative we have that can be mass produced, and still operate in the current fleet with minimal tuning changes.
Or not renewed because the other side does not want to support something the first side implemented...
You sunset things far enough into the future such that they will be proven successful or a failure. No party kills off something that is a clear success, simply to snipe at the competition. Doing so pisses off the voters.
It was known going in that ethanol from corn was not a great investment.
This came about because 10% blend was mandated, AND the only projects that were funded were corn-to-ethanol. Had they funded cellulostic ethanol with the same level of funding it would be king right now. But nobody lobbied for that, because switch grass is free.
The only reason corn was funded was because the farm lobby and big ag already had the crop availability, and, at that time were already producing more corn (cattle corn) than needed.
Ethanol is a poor excuse for a bio-fuel: low energy and not well-suited for pipelines because it is corrosive and absorbs water.
True, but the energy density of ethanol is low hanging fruit. You can get there relativity easily. And for the standard automobile, E10 can be burned with minimal detrimental effects, zero changes in equipment, and minimal-to-zero engine re-tuning.
Changing out the physical engines in a country's entire automotive fleet is cost prohibitive, so what ever is synthesized as a fuel stretcher must be easy to manufacture and not require extensive or expensive engine changes.
Well, I applaud them for trying to end it, but it was never wise to turn over the best food growing land to fuel production. It was known from the beginning that it took more energy than it produced.
Cellulose is the only way to go. One of the most promising sources is switch grass, which can be grown on much more marginal land, and pretty much re-plants itself (due to deep roots).
Had an equal amount of money been put into cellulosic ethanol we wouldn't be stuck with a corn industry that is driving up food prices, and depleting prime agricultural soils. Nor would be have a bunch of corn processing facilities that will require significant work to convert to anything else.
This has been an expensive failed experiment, about what you would expect when you rush something into production rather than letting the science and the industry develop. The problem was they didn't set it up to allow competition between sources. They went full funding and full legislative mandate for a single solution before they even did much research.
In your rush to post something Anti-Google, you totally missed the point of the very article you posted.
It wasn't even about Google. It was about ship-jumping techies scorching the earth as they head for the exit, regardless of what company they were leaving. The most telling quote in the article: Whittaker's criticism merely burns a bridge.
What you are seeing here is the petulant child syndrome of someone who didn't get their way, or was passed over for promotion. Its not the way a grown-up leaves a job.
Yeah, it seemed to me to simply be a way to throw some gratuitous denigration and farts in the general of Ubuntu.
People can't seem to just report the news these days, they have to color it and use it as a springboard for their own pet peeves and preferences. Something learned from the mainstream media I guess.
And that huge block of storage can be recovered any time you want. Entry level desktop machines these days come with more than enough storage to accommodate running a couple concurrent VMs.
What was wrong with linking directly to Fedora site. I'm so sick of these spamvertisement sites that rush up a page and post it on Slashdot, that I virtually never click the first link.
"radiologist in India for diagnosis" hey maybe they can afford toilets then
They have better imaginations in India perhaps. After all it takes a great deal of imagination to read most Xrays, and it its a lost art in this country, its only because there are so many better imaging technologies that imagining soft tissue shadows in an Xray is simply worth pursuing any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Snowden has offered to help Brazil investigate US intelligence. Is that the patriotism you were referring to?
Why, yes, Yes it is.
Any spying on Brazil was for economic reasons, probably at the behest of corporations, not due to any threat to the US.
Plus 1.
With an honest president, this guy would get a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
This president will give him 3 hots and a cot.
The report is slashdotted, at the moment, but I would be willing to bet this is pretty much a white-wash, with no meaningful
changes, by insiders giving up stuff they don't need, or which no one could prove they have anyway, while protecting
everything they really want to keep, and largely ending up with the status quo.
I have no faith in an internal review in general and certainly not from this administration (the self proclaimed most transparent administration in history).
Regardless of what they say, you know this won't change till someone goes to jail. We need Judges impeached for violating their oath of office, we need career NSA brass fired 5 levels deep, we need bulldozers and wrecking balls to converge on Bluffdale Utah. We need every single request for corporations to turn over records to have a warrant issued by a non-secret court and the company empowered to notify each affected individual no later than 6 months after the request. If you can't build a case for arrest in 6 months its probably becaus they haven't done anything wrong.
This report deserves an immediate trip to the waste basket, and a "Warren Committee" empowered in its place.
This is just a slashvertisement for some bloke's paper. It's a reiteration of well known mantras, at best. Nothing to see here, move along.
I figured that out just by content. I hovered the mouse pointer over the first link, saw it lead to noplace likely to have real news, and decided I'm not playing that game.
TLDR. Too Lame, Didn't Read.
Seriously, the firehose readers that vote this crap up really need to clean up their act.
Around here, it's a $50 ticket for not having a bag with you to pick up poop.
Another law that is never enforced.
Citing laws on the books does not contradict what I said.
The only way that $50 ticket gets issued is if the dog craps on the Cop's shoes.
It's at most a fine. Destruction of private property.
Are ye daft?
It's a swat team busting down your door.
It's cuffed and dragged out of your home and charged with attempted murder. (Until they can't find anything but a dead dog).
Then it's Reckless Endangerment, Discharging a firearm in City limits, resisting arrest, and anything else they can possibly pile on.
No No No No! Small dogs are kept inside with the rest of the children. They may yip and yap but nobody will hear them.
Big dogs are left outside on chains all day when Mommy and Daddy are at work and bark incessantly at a volume that can be heard through walls, and it triggers barking by dogs 4 streets away. They also deposit enough crap that the entire neighborhood smells like a kennel. And if the owners are fairly young they will out partying till the wee hours with Bowser left chained and hungry barking non-stop till the bars close.
Of course everybody thinks THEIR dog is above such nonsense, and merely mentioning the barking in polite over the hedge chit-chat gets you rumored to be a malcontent trouble maker. And the deep freeze cold war starts the minute you call the cops, (assuming of course that the cops even respond, which the majority wont, or will wait 10 hours and drive through the neighborhood with the windows rolled up and report that no dogs were barking. But like I say, most cities and towns will do exactly nothing about barking dogs.
Really, I don't mind well behaved dogs, but anyone telling you that any laws on the books dealing with constantly barking dogs or dog crap on the sidewalks will have any effect at all is insane.
Police will not enforce such laws. Animal control will not enforce those laws. Until the neighborhood comes to blows, nothing you say will make the slightest difference.
There is something about dog ownership that causes deafness.
The closer the dwellings, the smaller the dogs need to be, and the less time they should be allowed chained up outside.
But I've driven a 16,000 car getting easily 40 mpg. It was crap. It was a Yaris.
Nobody wants that.
Put it on some dodgy mobile cracked app site and have it perform some trivial functionsfunctions, post about it in a conspiratorial tone in some forums and watch the cheap bastards come rolling in. There are a million cheapskates for every real customer of android apps.
How is the miracle of cellulose digestion going to happen exactly? Do we really want to evolve organisms that break down cellulose efficiently? The plant world might not appreciate that.
Well animals do it all the time. Oddly enough, we find the microbes in their gut that help them
and industrialize them. We are currently working with Zebra poop.
E10 was never intended to yield "savings".
Where did you get that idea?
Its sole purpose is to stretch the gasoline supply.
Its need is being offset by more efficient vehicles more and more every day. Its to the point now where states are looking to tax fuel efficient vehicles (hybrids and electrics) because they are no longer bringing in the same amount in gas taxes.
More than 10% would be an extreme case, probably more attributable to steady degradation of your engine than any real difference attributable to fuel.
Theoretical mileage reduction should not exceed 3%, however real world examples typically are closer to of 7%.
You need to run your tank almost empty, then fill up on 100% real gasoline and drive till empty, then measure again with E10.
Relying on ancient memories or sticker claims is not sufficient.
I recently did this on a long trip. Even with 100% pure gas, I was getting 2mpg less than the sticker (but then we were doing 70+ most of the way).
I was getting about 6.8% less mpg on E10.
and it is possible we are simply out of time, with regards to the funding for this sort of research.
That seems unlikely. The future is never as bleak as some would have you believe.
There have been a number of developments of late that suggest real progress is being made:
http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/cellulosic-ethanol-heads-for-cost-competitiveness-by-2016/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/09/04/same-moonshine-different-name-welcome-to-the-age-of-cellulosic-ethanol/
Somewhat dated:
http://www.nrel.gov/continuum/sustainable_transportation/cellulosic_ethanol.cfm
However, its still ethanol.
It may be wiser to take a look at other fuel stretchers as well.
Butanol is being looked at because it is less corrosive and also higher energy density than ethanol, almost approaching that of gasoline. (Exhaust smells like bananas).
Butanol trumps ethanol in several ways: Adding ethanol to gasoline reduces fuel mileage, but butanol packs almost as much energy as gas, meaning fewer fill-ups. Butanol also doesn't damage car engines like ethanol, so more of it can be blended into gas. And because butanol doesn't separate from gasoline in the presence of water, it can be blended right at the refinery, while ethanol has to be shipped separately from gas and blended closer to the filling station.
Even Zebra poop is helping, it yields a particular strain of Clostridium bacteria that can convert nearly any form of cellulose into butanol very efficiently.
Burned by itself, (B100) you might have a 10% mileage penalty. Mixed with gas it might not even impose any significant mileage penalty.
Its been found that the mileage penalty does not exactly vary in lock-step with energy density. (Theoretically ethanol should only see a 2 to 3% mileage penalty, but some claim 10%, especially on older vehicles). But to date, no one has done significant real world testing on Butanol + Gas blends.
Some links to Butanol stories:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/12/the-fuel-that-could-be-the-end-of-ethanol/
http://farmindustrynews.com/blog/bio-butanol-can-be-produced-about-same-cost-ethanol-optinol-reports
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2013/april/cost-saving-measure-to-upgrade-ethanol-to-butanol-a-better-alternative-to-gasoline.html
And yet we see cars have been running their entire lives on E10, with none of these effects.
Gas tanks are sealed. You don't have a wet wind blowing over your gas.
Fuel system seldom malfunction (at least NOT more often than prior to E10. I've NEVER had a gasline freeze using E10, in spite of 30 years living in Alaska.)
Corrosion and injector/pump damage? Maybe, but these are replacement parts anyway, they needed servicing prior to E10, and still do today.
So if Blue Oval cars can't hack E10, its a good reason to avoid blue oval cars.
The rest of the fleet has made improvements in durability and reduced maintenance more than sufficient to overcome any damage associated with E10.
Doesn't mean I like E10. I suffer the same miles per gallon reduction that everyone else sees. (Well maybe less, since the car is new enough to have the tune compensated for it).
The post you replied to was stating why ethanol was chosen, as opposed to Jet A, or Diesel or Butanol.
The point being that it is the only alternative we have that can be mass produced, and still operate in the current fleet with minimal tuning changes.
Or not renewed because the other side does not want to support something the first side implemented...
You sunset things far enough into the future such that they will be proven successful or a failure. No party kills off something
that is a clear success, simply to snipe at the competition. Doing so pisses off the voters.
It was known going in that ethanol from corn was not a great investment.
This came about because 10% blend was mandated, AND the only projects that were funded were corn-to-ethanol. Had they funded cellulostic ethanol with the same level of funding it would be king right now. But nobody lobbied for that, because switch grass is free.
The only reason corn was funded was because the farm lobby and big ag already had the crop availability, and, at that time were already producing more corn (cattle corn) than needed.
True, but if you want
1) Dimmable
2) Greater than 60watt equiv light output (that is somewhere around 1000 lumens)
3) Non-radio-interfering
You still end up paying around $25/bulb.
When that gets down to $2.50 it will make it possible for even low income households to purchase.
It's not just the corn; it's the ethanol.
Ethanol is a poor excuse for a bio-fuel: low energy and not well-suited for pipelines because it is corrosive and absorbs water.
True, but the energy density of ethanol is low hanging fruit. You can get there relativity easily. And for the standard automobile, E10 can be burned with minimal detrimental effects, zero changes in equipment, and minimal-to-zero engine re-tuning.
Changing out the physical engines in a country's entire automotive fleet is cost prohibitive, so what ever is synthesized as a fuel stretcher must be easy to manufacture and not require extensive or expensive engine changes.
Well, I applaud them for trying to end it, but it was never wise to turn over the best food growing land to fuel production.
It was known from the beginning that it took more energy than it produced.
Cellulose is the only way to go. One of the most promising sources is switch grass, which can be grown on much more marginal land, and pretty much re-plants itself (due to deep roots).
Had an equal amount of money been put into cellulosic ethanol we wouldn't be stuck with a corn industry that is driving up food prices, and depleting prime agricultural soils. Nor would be have a bunch of corn processing facilities that will require significant work to convert to anything else.
This has been an expensive failed experiment, about what you would expect when you rush something into production rather than letting the science and the industry develop. The problem was they didn't set it up to allow competition between sources. They went full funding and full legislative mandate for a single solution before they even did much research.
In your rush to post something Anti-Google, you totally missed the point of the very article you posted.
It wasn't even about Google. It was about ship-jumping techies scorching the earth as they head for the exit, regardless of what company they were leaving.
The most telling quote in the article: Whittaker's criticism merely burns a bridge.
What you are seeing here is the petulant child syndrome of someone who didn't get their way, or was passed over for promotion. Its not the way a grown-up leaves a job.
Yeah, it seemed to me to simply be a way to throw some gratuitous denigration and farts in the general of Ubuntu.
People can't seem to just report the news these days, they have to color it and use it as a springboard for their own
pet peeves and preferences. Something learned from the mainstream media I guess.
Disk is cheap. You won't miss it.
And that huge block of storage can be recovered any time you want. Entry level desktop machines these days come with more than enough storage to accommodate running a couple concurrent VMs.
Exactly.
What was wrong with linking directly to Fedora site.
I'm so sick of these spamvertisement sites that rush up a page and post it on Slashdot, that I virtually never click the first link.
Yes, the Cat is out of the bag already.
"radiologist in India for diagnosis" hey maybe they can afford toilets then
They have better imaginations in India perhaps.
After all it takes a great deal of imagination to read most Xrays, and it its a lost art in this country, its only because
there are so many better imaging technologies that imagining soft tissue shadows in an Xray is simply worth pursuing any more.