It looks like batteries with various "nanotech" (i.e. nanoscale-structure, in this case) materials are probably going to outstrip the energy density of hydrogen.
And liquid hydrocarbons will outstrip the energy density of that! I think the solution is in figuring out how to synthesize those liquid hydrocarbons, rather than trying to replace them.
Now, that makes sense (in fact, I've been saying the same thing myself). The nice thing is that, with current catalytic converters (and things like particulate filters and urea injection for diesels), the only really problematic pollutant is CO2. And if the fuel comes from anywhere other than deep underground then it's part of the short-term carbon cycle, and stops being a problem!
One of the problems is if we use rare catalysts - there might not be enough to go around to put in every vehicle (assuming a believable catalyst recycle rate when the vehicle is scrapped).
I wouldn't be too worried about that; I predict one of the fastest-growing industries in the next hundred years will be landfill mining.
hydrogen is great, of course, because it burns clean. but it is a b*tch to store and transport, and most importantly, although something clean is coming out of your exhaust, everything that went into getting hydrogen into your fuel tank created more pollution than if you were burning coal in your car
The "hydrogen economy" presupposes producing the hydrogen by electrolyzing water using electricity generated from clean sources (solar, wind, etc.). The problem is that idiots like Bush ran with it without realizing that.
the solution to our energy crisis is nuclear and electric cars
I really don't see electric becoming practical because of the lack of decent batteries. Personally, I think the solution is far more down-to-earth: keep running the cars on gasoline or diesel, but make the gasoline or diesel from either (CO2 + H2O + clean electricity) or plants.
Unfortunately, the second you say "hemp," the idiots making the laws assume you're a pot-smoking hippie.
<sarcasm>Besides, didn't you know that hemp makes blacks and Mexicans rape white women? William Randolph Hearst said so! (And his investments in the timber industry, which was threatened by hemp, had nothing to do with it.)</sarcasm>
Steel is North America's Number #1 Recycled Material. Each year, more steel is recycled than aluminum, paper, glass and plastic combined!
Scrap has become the steel industry's single largest source of raw material because it is economically advantageous to recycle old steel into new steel. In light of this, steelmaking furnaces have been designed to consume steel scrap.
In fact, in the past 50 years, approximately 50 percent of the steel produced in this country has been recycled through the steelmaking process. Thanks to the steel industry's impressive history of recycling, a wide variety of collection programs exist to recycle steel products.
(Note: I was going to make a claim that a lot of aluminum is recycled too, which I believe is true, but I can't find a source to cite for it.)
I've only got a 2 seat car...even if I wanted to, I don't really have a way to do it unless I was devoting a lot of time to it every few days to keep the loads small.
Even if your car has only 2 seats, it still has a trunk or hatch. Even if it's a smart car or something, it ought to be able to hold all your recycling for at least a week (assuming your household is small, which we can do because if you had a bigger household you would also have a bigger car!).
Besides, that doesn't even matter: unless your community is completely backward and idiotic, the trash service is also capable of picking up recycling. That's how my parents do it: they have to containers, one for trash, the other for recycling. They don't even have to sort the different kinds of recyclables; they just carry both down to the curb on trash day and let the utility deal with it.
A @media print stylesheet won't consolidate a multi-page article into one page. Also, a stylesheet won't give the user a preview of what the printed version will look like or the choice to print the page with all the cruft.
The web version should be all one page and without cruft to begin with!!
ONE gig of RAM is sufficient to play most current computer games, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say those are way more complex than a browser.
Since when did complexity have anything to do with RAM usage? A system like the Linux kernel or EMACS is complex, but they both run in (by today's standard) absolutely tiny amounts of RAM. Conversely, a simulation like Conway's Game of Life or any number of data-parallel scientific computing problems are exceedingly simple, but could require huge supercomputers to solve if you increase the number of cells enough.
Maybe this browser is simply trying to preload all the hyperlinks on the page you're reading, or something, which blows up real fast on any reasonably-connected page.
It's probably the most widely-used UNIX too, because the ones exceeding it that aren't typically "sold" (e.g. Linux) also aren't officially certified to be UNIX®.
Instead of cussing and threatening, why not explain to the rest of us some of the substance of your objections[?]
This information is readily available in the countless previous articles we've discussed OOXML in. However, if you wish for me to spoon-feed it to you, log in and reply as a non-anonymous user and I'll be happy to oblige.
My honest impression of your post is that the basis of your opinion is that anything done by Microsoft must be bad.
Did I even so much as mention Microsoft in my post? No. Did I attack it for being the marketing tool of a monopolist? No. I attacked it for its lack of technical merit: "redundant, conflicting, and poorly-designed;" and I attacked ISO's (lack of) process.
Incidentally, I'd like to note that, in light of the fact that you're an AC, that you've based your impression on something I didn't actually say, and that you're so far the only person who hasn't enthusiastically supported what I said, that my impression is that you're a troll. If that impression is correct, I cordially invite you to fuck off and die. Otherwise, have a nice day!
But those "requirements" have no force of law, so they're irrelevant. And no, it does not indicate lack of due diligence, either: what if the person did read it and deliberately disregarded it? It's only advice, after all.
Aside, perhaps, from the lack of an organization equivalent to Microsoft in other industries, don't you realize that this proves that ISO could be subverted in exactly the same way for anything else, too?
Here we have the company responsible for that 90% (if not more!) wanting to open up their file format and make it an ISO standard, giving the wider global community some sort of say in the process, for the first time ever.
Wrong! Microsoft doesn't want to open up a damn thing, nor does it want to give anybody else any say in the process. Microsoft wants nothing more and nothing less than to be able to claim compliance with government laws requiring the use of "open standard" file formats. In fact, Microsoft has even said that it intends to direct the development of the OOXML format itself, ignoring the recommendations of whatever groups ECMA and ISO might create.
Some of those "flaws" are directly related to preserving the ability of a word processor to open older documents and render them properly
That's bullshit. The correct way to handle that sort of thing is that, when translating an older document into the new format, to just do it fucking completely the first time. If Word knows what "AutoSpaceLikeWord95" means, then it needs to translate that into the correct formatting commands at the time it saves the new file, not just stick it in there as-is for some other program to have to support later!
will archaeologists be able to open a 100-yr old Word document in the future? 500 year old? I hope so, because that will be a regular part of the job...
No, they won't. And they won't be able to do it to a fucking OOXML file, either! It doesn't fucking matter that the format is text-based instead of binary (the only real difference between.doc and.docx); they're still not going to be able to deal with a 6000-page, internally-inconsistent, incomplete, unimplementable spec that dreams up its own auxiliary formats (for things like dates and vector graphics) instead of leveraging other standards!
No, "turning it into a reasonable standard" is stupid regardless, because we already have a reasonable standard -- namely, ODF -- and don't need a different one. Moreover, the fact that the current version of OOXML is ISO-approved means that Microsoft can claim compliance with this version regardless of what happen to the next one, which is bad because then governments and such would continue to use the current, flawed, unimplmentable-by-third-parties version and we would have no recourse.
We the undersigned wish to make it clear that the ISO fucked up and should never have made OOXML a standard, and that we will continue to attack ISO until it is revoked. Furthermore, we believe that this is for the ISO's own good, because allowing this result of obvious corruption to remain can only harm ISO's credibility as a standards organization. We also wish to remind the ISO that these so-called "personal attacks" have only become necessary in the first place because our technical objections have been entirely ignored. Finally, we note that the resolution to create working groups to maintain OOXML and "harmonize" it with ODF was stupid, because neither group would be necessary in the first place if the redundant, conflicting, and poorly-designed OOXML hadn't been approved in the first place!
Microsoft pays standard salaries to H1-B visa holders. They are required to, by law
But the "standard" itself is depressed by the existence of the H1-B workers. Hell, it's not even just the fact that they're willing to work for less, but also just the fact that they're there: if you increase the supply of workers, wages go down. Full stop. This is fucking microeconomics 101; it's not negotiable or debatable. It's a fact!
Okay, but who weaves on city streets anyway (except around obstructions, such as double-parked delivery trucks and cars turning left)? I'm a relatively aggressive driver myself, and even I don't do that!
Yep, and I think they're essentially dumbed-down general CPU cores; apparently they don't even support vector operations and are scalar-only.
I'm not sure that statement makes sense. Sure, you could talk about the GPU operating on 128 scalar values, but you could just as well talk about it operating on a single 128-dimensional vector. (Or any combination thereof: N vectors of degree (128 / N).)
Now, the logic core needed to perform these two tasks is highly specific, which is why we have separate CPUs and GPUs to begin with. But there's a lot to be gained by integrating the two more closely. You can share memory interfaces, for example, and perhaps more relevantly for the high-end graphics segment, you can tightly couple CPU and GPU operations across a bus that's going to be a hundred times faster than anything PCI Express can provide, and with latency to die for.
That's why I think AMD/ATI, rather than either Intel or NVidia, is on the right track: I'm really looking forward to being able to put an AMD CPU and an ATI GPU on either end of a Hypertransport bus.
The slow traffic that failed to yield the left lane is just as much at fault. In fact, they are more at fault: the cars doing the "weaving" are not breaking any law unless they're doing it "recklessly," but the slow traffic in the left lane is specifically disobeying the "slower traffic keep right" sign.
Where my brother lives, lights are long. If you miss a light you have to wait 3-5 minutes for the next.
Wow, I would have failed my transportation engineering class if I'd tried to design an intersection like that. Either the engineers were incompetent or they're trying to compensate for a woefully failing level of service (because the politicians were incompetent).
In other words, the purpose of a yellow light means the light is about to turn red, so stop if you can do so safely, or go through if you can do so safely.
I think the point he was trying to make is that if you think you can do either safely, that you should stop. Or in other words, that you should stop on the yellow unless you have absolutely no choice but to keep going.
Slashdot Mirror
And liquid hydrocarbons will outstrip the energy density of that! I think the solution is in figuring out how to synthesize those liquid hydrocarbons, rather than trying to replace them.
Now, that makes sense (in fact, I've been saying the same thing myself). The nice thing is that, with current catalytic converters (and things like particulate filters and urea injection for diesels), the only really problematic pollutant is CO2. And if the fuel comes from anywhere other than deep underground then it's part of the short-term carbon cycle, and stops being a problem!
I wouldn't be too worried about that; I predict one of the fastest-growing industries in the next hundred years will be landfill mining.The "hydrogen economy" presupposes producing the hydrogen by electrolyzing water using electricity generated from clean sources (solar, wind, etc.). The problem is that idiots like Bush ran with it without realizing that.
I really don't see electric becoming practical because of the lack of decent batteries. Personally, I think the solution is far more down-to-earth: keep running the cars on gasoline or diesel, but make the gasoline or diesel from either (CO2 + H2O + clean electricity) or plants.
Unfortunately, the second you say "hemp," the idiots making the laws assume you're a pot-smoking hippie.
<sarcasm>Besides, didn't you know that hemp makes blacks and Mexicans rape white women? William Randolph Hearst said so! (And his investments in the timber industry, which was threatened by hemp, had nothing to do with it.)</sarcasm>
Aren't you forgetting a little thing called metal? The majority of steel is recycled!
From http://www.recycle-steel.org/rates.html:
(Note: I was going to make a claim that a lot of aluminum is recycled too, which I believe is true, but I can't find a source to cite for it.)
Even if your car has only 2 seats, it still has a trunk or hatch. Even if it's a smart car or something, it ought to be able to hold all your recycling for at least a week (assuming your household is small, which we can do because if you had a bigger household you would also have a bigger car!).
Besides, that doesn't even matter: unless your community is completely backward and idiotic, the trash service is also capable of picking up recycling. That's how my parents do it: they have to containers, one for trash, the other for recycling. They don't even have to sort the different kinds of recyclables; they just carry both down to the curb on trash day and let the utility deal with it.
Unless I'm mistaken, fractals aren't smooth or regular at any level.
; )
My laptop does indeed use SATA... I wonder when there'll be dual CF adapter for that.
The web version should be all one page and without cruft to begin with!!
Since when did complexity have anything to do with RAM usage? A system like the Linux kernel or EMACS is complex, but they both run in (by today's standard) absolutely tiny amounts of RAM. Conversely, a simulation like Conway's Game of Life or any number of data-parallel scientific computing problems are exceedingly simple, but could require huge supercomputers to solve if you increase the number of cells enough.
Maybe this browser is simply trying to preload all the hyperlinks on the page you're reading, or something, which blows up real fast on any reasonably-connected page.
It's probably the most widely-used UNIX too, because the ones exceeding it that aren't typically "sold" (e.g. Linux) also aren't officially certified to be UNIX®.
This information is readily available in the countless previous articles we've discussed OOXML in. However, if you wish for me to spoon-feed it to you, log in and reply as a non-anonymous user and I'll be happy to oblige.
Did I even so much as mention Microsoft in my post? No. Did I attack it for being the marketing tool of a monopolist? No. I attacked it for its lack of technical merit: "redundant, conflicting, and poorly-designed;" and I attacked ISO's (lack of) process.
Incidentally, I'd like to note that, in light of the fact that you're an AC, that you've based your impression on something I didn't actually say, and that you're so far the only person who hasn't enthusiastically supported what I said, that my impression is that you're a troll. If that impression is correct, I cordially invite you to fuck off and die. Otherwise, have a nice day!
But those "requirements" have no force of law, so they're irrelevant. And no, it does not indicate lack of due diligence, either: what if the person did read it and deliberately disregarded it? It's only advice, after all.
Aside, perhaps, from the lack of an organization equivalent to Microsoft in other industries, don't you realize that this proves that ISO could be subverted in exactly the same way for anything else, too?
Wrong! Microsoft doesn't want to open up a damn thing, nor does it want to give anybody else any say in the process. Microsoft wants nothing more and nothing less than to be able to claim compliance with government laws requiring the use of "open standard" file formats. In fact, Microsoft has even said that it intends to direct the development of the OOXML format itself, ignoring the recommendations of whatever groups ECMA and ISO might create.
That's bullshit. The correct way to handle that sort of thing is that, when translating an older document into the new format, to just do it fucking completely the first time. If Word knows what "AutoSpaceLikeWord95" means, then it needs to translate that into the correct formatting commands at the time it saves the new file, not just stick it in there as-is for some other program to have to support later!
No, they won't. And they won't be able to do it to a fucking OOXML file, either! It doesn't fucking matter that the format is text-based instead of binary (the only real difference between .doc and .docx); they're still not going to be able to deal with a 6000-page, internally-inconsistent, incomplete, unimplementable spec that dreams up its own auxiliary formats (for things like dates and vector graphics) instead of leveraging other standards!
No, "turning it into a reasonable standard" is stupid regardless, because we already have a reasonable standard -- namely, ODF -- and don't need a different one. Moreover, the fact that the current version of OOXML is ISO-approved means that Microsoft can claim compliance with this version regardless of what happen to the next one, which is bad because then governments and such would continue to use the current, flawed, unimplmentable-by-third-parties version and we would have no recourse.
We the undersigned wish to make it clear that the ISO fucked up and should never have made OOXML a standard, and that we will continue to attack ISO until it is revoked. Furthermore, we believe that this is for the ISO's own good, because allowing this result of obvious corruption to remain can only harm ISO's credibility as a standards organization. We also wish to remind the ISO that these so-called "personal attacks" have only become necessary in the first place because our technical objections have been entirely ignored. Finally, we note that the resolution to create working groups to maintain OOXML and "harmonize" it with ODF was stupid, because neither group would be necessary in the first place if the redundant, conflicting, and poorly-designed OOXML hadn't been approved in the first place!
But the "standard" itself is depressed by the existence of the H1-B workers. Hell, it's not even just the fact that they're willing to work for less, but also just the fact that they're there: if you increase the supply of workers, wages go down. Full stop. This is fucking microeconomics 101; it's not negotiable or debatable. It's a fact!
Okay, but who weaves on city streets anyway (except around obstructions, such as double-parked delivery trucks and cars turning left)? I'm a relatively aggressive driver myself, and even I don't do that!
I'm not sure that statement makes sense. Sure, you could talk about the GPU operating on 128 scalar values, but you could just as well talk about it operating on a single 128-dimensional vector. (Or any combination thereof: N vectors of degree (128 / N).)
That's why I think AMD/ATI, rather than either Intel or NVidia, is on the right track: I'm really looking forward to being able to put an AMD CPU and an ATI GPU on either end of a Hypertransport bus.
Perhaps the limitation is in the ability of the humans to model the scene rather than the ability of the computer to render it.
The slow traffic that failed to yield the left lane is just as much at fault. In fact, they are more at fault: the cars doing the "weaving" are not breaking any law unless they're doing it "recklessly," but the slow traffic in the left lane is specifically disobeying the "slower traffic keep right" sign.
Wow, I would have failed my transportation engineering class if I'd tried to design an intersection like that. Either the engineers were incompetent or they're trying to compensate for a woefully failing level of service (because the politicians were incompetent).
I think the point he was trying to make is that if you think you can do either safely, that you should stop. Or in other words, that you should stop on the yellow unless you have absolutely no choice but to keep going.