You're missing the point. How technology is used is up to whoever uses it. Stop whining about how everything can be used for evil... How about we go back a few thousand years and whine about how many people iron will end up killing when people use it to make swords instead of ploughshares?
Well, that depends, was Gigli a great movie that was ruined by text messaging?
Does the MPAA directly produce these movies, write the scripts, etc., or is it just a blood sucking parasite that's there to make everone elses life worse?
First you make a good tasting* burger without a cow:)
*if it contains tofu or soy or anything like that it doesn't count because I already know it doesn't taste good
In a not-totally-unrelated incident, my first compsci teacher once (I saw it, this isn't a myth) splice a coaxial cable to a random other cable for one of the secretaries.
Fun year:(
My favourite quote from him, ever: "ultraviolet sound waves"
Oh yeah, and I'm assuming the point here is to figure out how to make the same material as opposed to harvesting sponges and using each individual fiber seperately.
If it was the hydrogen at fault, it would've exploded, not merely burned. From what I've heard, the paint was chemically quite similar to solid rocket fuel. Hydrogen requires lots of oxygen to burn, and disperses quickly.
The thing about equilibrium is, if you upset it, it tries to reestablish itself. If you make the environment more favourable for quicker plant growth, you get more plant growth, and therefore more CO2 is eaten up. The earth did not start with a set amount of CO2 that we've had ever since. Now, I'm not condoning all other aspects of the pollution that the industry produces.
"Even if there were a causal link between CO2 and higher temperatures, humans are responsible for only a miniscule amount of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere each year. In fact, human activity accounts for less than 3 percent of CO2 emissions."
(http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php?i ssue_id=743)
Well if we're responible for a whopping (less than) 3% of the total amount of CO2 it MUST be our fault in entirety!
If I were an eco warrior I would be against the hummers too, dumbass.
I'm just against people pointing their fingers at all the wrong things. Which is why I'm against the Kyoto accord.
Who needs Kyoto, period? Mostly just people like Johnny Cretin (mispelling intentional) who need a legacy. Otherwise it's just a waste of resources directed at the wrong problem.
Take a look at this: (http://www.scienceagogo.com)
"14 August 2003 Cosmic Rays The Biggest Culprit In Global Warming
Global warming will not be reduced much by efforts to limit carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere, say two scientists. Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more to cosmic forces than to the actions of man. In a recent article published in GSA Today, the journal of the Geographic Society of America, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites. The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures, apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained, however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces which are beyond our control. In practical terms, says Dr. Shaviv, "The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man." Thus, say the scientists, the Kyoto accord of 1997 - which was aimed at tackling the global warming phenomenon through limitations on carbon dioxide - is not the panacea some thought it would be. Taking the long-range view, Dr. Shaviv and Prof. Veiser believe that fluctuations in cosmic ray emissions account for about 75 percent of climate variation throughout the millennia. They acknowledge that this position pits them against prevailing scientific opinion, which still places a heavy emphasis on the negative role of greenhouse gases. "
You're right, it probably doesn't, considering they make up about 0.000001% of the population. It probably has more to do with everybody else driving their nearly as fuel-inefficient suvs and generally having way more power than they could possibly have a use for.
"Just imagine if something went wrong like chernobyl. Except this time it's 30 miles in the air where it can travel around the globe quite nicely."
If I'm not mistaken, we've already fired satellites into space with radioactive material
" I worked briefly as a spammer, but then lost my income as a result of an anti-spam hacker with a chip on his shoulder."
Good. You know the reason he had a chip on his shoulder? Probably had something to do with this spam that "people" like you send.
Vigilantes in general... bad.
Vigilantes taking down spammers... good.
"If you don't want to receive spam, don't connect to the Internet, or don't have an e-mail address."
Hmmm... I think you're right, he would've seen the light on his own.
How about we modify this quote a bit...
"If you don't want to recieve hourly death threats, don't use a phone"
Hypocrites indeed. They harrassed him with phone calls BECAUSE he was harrassing people with emails. You know, to force it through his thick skull that what he was doing was generally pissing people off?
from the article:
"The first scientists to recognize that rapidly pulsed detonations might be used to create thrust were probably the Germans, who developed the V-1 "buzz bomb" in the 1930s. "The Germans attempted a detonation with the V-1 but never got it," says Chris Brophy, a propulsion research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. "The V-1 was a pulse-jet, more of a high-speed deflagration.""
" Imagine a tube, closed at one end and filled with a mixture of fuel and air. A spark ignites the fuel at the closed end, and a combustion reaction propagates down the tube. In deflagration?even in "fast flame" situations ordinarily called explosions?that reaction moves at tens of meters per second at most. But in detonation, a supersonic shock wave slams down the tube at thousands of meters per second, close to Mach 5, compressing and igniting fuel and air almost instantaneously in a narrow, high-pressure, heat-release zone. "
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point. How technology is used is up to whoever uses it. Stop whining about how everything can be used for evil... How about we go back a few thousand years and whine about how many people iron will end up killing when people use it to make swords instead of ploughshares?
Helium is highly reactive and therefore highly dangerous.*
The first few elements on the periodic table are the least stable, and therefore the most radioactive.*
The same place we get all our other deuterium, just maybe?
*slight levels of sarcasm detected
Well, that depends, was Gigli a great movie that was ruined by text messaging? Does the MPAA directly produce these movies, write the scripts, etc., or is it just a blood sucking parasite that's there to make everone elses life worse?
First you make a good tasting* burger without a cow :)
*if it contains tofu or soy or anything like that it doesn't count because I already know it doesn't taste good
So you mean all this time we were trying to build sponges when we thought we were making better networks?
I daresay there are better reasons than inspiration for technology, and I hope I don't have to list them!
:)
Kyoto still sucks tho
In a not-totally-unrelated incident, my first compsci teacher once (I saw it, this isn't a myth) splice a coaxial cable to a random other cable for one of the secretaries. Fun year :(
My favourite quote from him, ever: "ultraviolet sound waves"
Oh yeah, and I'm assuming the point here is to figure out how to make the same material as opposed to harvesting sponges and using each individual fiber seperately.
No kidding... there was no explosion, hence it wasn't hydrogen :)
If it was the hydrogen at fault, it would've exploded, not merely burned. From what I've heard, the paint was chemically quite similar to solid rocket fuel. Hydrogen requires lots of oxygen to burn, and disperses quickly.
The thing about equilibrium is, if you upset it, it tries to reestablish itself. If you make the environment more favourable for quicker plant growth, you get more plant growth, and therefore more CO2 is eaten up. The earth did not start with a set amount of CO2 that we've had ever since. Now, I'm not condoning all other aspects of the pollution that the industry produces.
"Even if there were a causal link between CO2 and higher temperatures, humans are responsible for only a miniscule amount of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere each year. In fact, human activity accounts for less than 3 percent of CO2 emissions." (http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php?i ssue_id=743)
Well if we're responible for a whopping (less than) 3% of the total amount of CO2 it MUST be our fault in entirety!
If I were an eco warrior I would be against the hummers too, dumbass. I'm just against people pointing their fingers at all the wrong things. Which is why I'm against the Kyoto accord.
Who needs Kyoto, period? Mostly just people like Johnny Cretin (mispelling intentional) who need a legacy. Otherwise it's just a waste of resources directed at the wrong problem.
Take a look at this: (http://www.scienceagogo.com)
"14 August 2003
Cosmic Rays The Biggest Culprit In Global Warming
Global warming will not be reduced much by efforts to limit carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere, say two scientists.
Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
In a recent article published in GSA Today, the journal of the Geographic Society of America, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures, apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained, however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces which are beyond our control.
In practical terms, says Dr. Shaviv, "The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man." Thus, say the scientists, the Kyoto accord of 1997 - which was aimed at tackling the global warming phenomenon through limitations on carbon dioxide - is not the panacea some thought it would be.
Taking the long-range view, Dr. Shaviv and Prof. Veiser believe that fluctuations in cosmic ray emissions account for about 75 percent of climate variation throughout the millennia. They acknowledge that this position pits them against prevailing scientific opinion, which still places a heavy emphasis on the negative role of greenhouse gases. "
New trees might not grow without fire, but that shouldn't mean that old ones that should still be living for hundreds of years yet would be dying.
You're right, it probably doesn't, considering they make up about 0.000001% of the population. It probably has more to do with everybody else driving their nearly as fuel-inefficient suvs and generally having way more power than they could possibly have a use for.
"Just imagine if something went wrong like chernobyl. Except this time it's 30 miles in the air where it can travel around the globe quite nicely." If I'm not mistaken, we've already fired satellites into space with radioactive material
If you had read the article, you would know that it's to go with a research station on mars.
Who's there to care?
Eh? What was so bad about mir? So they had to bring it down. Nothing lasts forever...
" I worked briefly as a spammer, but then lost my income as a result of an anti-spam hacker with a chip on his shoulder." Good. You know the reason he had a chip on his shoulder? Probably had something to do with this spam that "people" like you send. Vigilantes in general... bad. Vigilantes taking down spammers... good.
"If you don't want to receive spam, don't connect to the Internet, or don't have an e-mail address."
Hmmm... I think you're right, he would've seen the light on his own.
How about we modify this quote a bit...
"If you don't want to recieve hourly death threats, don't use a phone"
Hypocrites indeed. They harrassed him with phone calls BECAUSE he was harrassing people with emails. You know, to force it through his thick skull that what he was doing was generally pissing people off?
They'll need more than *potential* explosions before this thing ever really takes off!
Reputation?
from the article: "The first scientists to recognize that rapidly pulsed detonations might be used to create thrust were probably the Germans, who developed the V-1 "buzz bomb" in the 1930s. "The Germans attempted a detonation with the V-1 but never got it," says Chris Brophy, a propulsion research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. "The V-1 was a pulse-jet, more of a high-speed deflagration.""
from the article:
" Imagine a tube, closed at one end and filled with a mixture of fuel and air. A spark ignites the fuel at the closed end, and a combustion reaction propagates down the tube. In deflagration?even in "fast flame" situations ordinarily called explosions?that reaction moves at tens of meters per second at most. But in detonation, a supersonic shock wave slams down the tube at thousands of meters per second, close to Mach 5, compressing and igniting fuel and air almost instantaneously in a narrow, high-pressure, heat-release zone. "