"The hard part is making a single RW bus read only in the proper direction at all times."
That's not hard at all. If you want to be really sure you use an optoisolator.
Doesn't work with I2C, RX needs to send an ACK back, or the TX gets all out of whack and times out.
From what I skimmed over for canbus it also requires ACKs on a bidirectional bus.
What I'm getting at is written in deep in the protocol specification there is no such thing as a unidirectional unack'd packet. You could build a sniffer and have "something else" periodically poll and the sniffer could sniff and then your optoisolator-like design would work...
Maybe a way to rephrase it is at the hardware level there is no way on I2C and apparently canbus to send a unidirectional unacknowledged "ICMP/ping" or "udp" packet, so to speak.
The second link has no citations of a claim being denied.
The first link is pretty good. Note that insurance companies make money but not paying claims... its not unusual, if they think you don't have the resources to fight back, for them to deny a claim. Happens all the time with medical too.
For years now insurance claims have been denied for certain auto theft claims based on the theory that certain types of keys couldn't be replicated.
I find this hard to believe as everyone knows tow truck drivers and repo men (often one and the same) can tow anything. A quick snip and the parking brake doesn't matter either.
Same problem with motorcycles. You don't need a lockpick to steal a cycle, you need a pickup truck with a ramp and one of those mounting bar things. I've seen harleys stuffed into vans too.
ever since consoles got internet connections/updates, what happened? It started a trend among publishers to have games were no longer tested as rigorously, pushed out the door, and depend on internet updates to fix any issues.
Most importantly an attempt to eliminate the resale market.
Perhaps in the future you'll have to register and buy annual (or more often) updates for your car from the app store, and you won't be allowed to change the owner of the car, why the heck would you be permitted to do that, are you some kind of car thief?
I'm sorry sir your engine computer hardware is yours, but the software that runs on it is only licensed to the original buyer. You can only buy an engine computer software license with the purchase of a new engine computer. A new engine computer is only $999.95 or you can buy a $125 month two year service contract and get a complimentary new engine computer for free. Its all to protect you from hackers, you see.
I assume US regulation is far too extreme to pursue such ventures. Gates can get more bang for his buck in a country where it doesn't take 20 years just to get approval to move forward.
Kind of. SFRs are about 50 years old, even in the USA. We have, err, had, about a half dozen of them. Those crazy soviets put them in subs which they promptly set on fire and sunk. Its old icky tech. No one wants them if they can use a PWR or BWR design instead. The latest spin is to try to market them as something new even though they aren't new. Just like IT, everything old is eventually new again, and sometimes it even works. SFRs are the "cloud computing" of nuclear engineering.
For non-nuke noobs, a SFR is just like any other reactor except:
1) The coolant is sodium instead of water, so its hyper flammable and this scares the hell out of everyone involved, so every plant has had excellent safety and production records, well, except for the ones that caught fire.
2) Ditto above water is neutron activated for "a couple seconds" so other than impurities / leakage into the coolant, the coolant is basically radioactively harmless, however sodium does neutron activate and takes a couple days for enough half lifes to pass before its harmless (radioactively). Note I'm talking about the coolant itself not impurities or leakage into the coolant which is unchanged, more or less. So thats a bit freaky. You can draw PWR/BWR primary loop coolant and by they time it flows thru the "just in case" filters its cool enough to dump directly into the sewers. Sodium takes a bit longer and dumping it into the sewers is not exactly encouraged behavior, although I'm sure its terribly entertaining.
3) Other than being flammable and radioactive, sodium is a near ideal coolant. You won't have corrosion issues like hot high pressure water. Endless stories about 20 year old pumps being pulled out of service and appearing to be brand new. Although there were some "hilarious" near disasters with eutectic alloy formation and that was all figured out 40 years ago.
4) Sodium solidifies into a solid lump at room temp. This is kind of an issue for operational concerns. OK time to boot up the reactor, pull the control rods. Oh wait, they're frozen in place. Well then. And once you fix that and get the reactor cooking, the pumps are jammed so you've got to heat them.
5) Vapor pressure at operating temp is basically nil, at least compared to water. So the reactor vessel is more or less unpressurized (well yeah you blow argon over it instead of room air, but... its just a argon blanket not 1000 psi steam like PWRs / BWRs) So all this fukushima splitting open stuff is not really relevant. Of course if you did split one in half it would be the end of the freaking world...
6) The "overheat leads to high temp chemical reaction with cladding leads to H2 buildup leads to kaboom" aka fukishima is literally chemically impossible. "unplug" a SFR like happened in Japan and basically nothing happens it just inherently calms itself down and eventually will freeze itself solid. Crazy but true. Isn't nuclear engineering cool that way? PWR and BWR to some extent or another will try to blow themselves up if abandoned so you engineer "fail safe" by making them really tough, but an abandoned SFR just kinda sits there all hot at a constant temperature and does nothing. Its kind of boring that way. Until the local fire department decides to hose it down with fire hoses. Sodium doesn't like water very much. Err actually red hot sodium likes water a lot, its just the nearby humans that dislike the fireball.
I have recently had a baby.... 8-7 jobs (like yours?) can fuck right off. I hope you are getting a per-hour rate to make it worthwhile.
4 tens (actually 4 elevens) means 4 days of daycare expenses instead of 5. Its astounding how much 1 day of day care, 52 weeks per year costs. Its like an ipod per month or something. Darn near a new car's car payment per month. So, yeah, its very much worth it financially, aside from getting an extra day per week to play with the kids.
Also not to be overlooked is my non-rush hour commute is about 20 minutes door to door but during rush hour its more like an hour. So a 9-5 sched 5 days a week equals 2*5*1 = 10 hours in my car per week, darn near a part time job, whereas my "4 tens" means 2 * 4 *.3 = 2.6 hours in my car per week... so I get almost 8 hours off that would otherwise have been spent commuting, darn near an extra day off per week just in saved commuting time cost. And I obviously only burn 4/5ths as much gasoline, 4/5ths car maintenance, all that adds up too.
I've found I work a lot harder on a 4 day week knowing I don't need to hold back for endurance. 1/4 of work days I'm extremely well rested, and 1/4 of work days its the end of the week so I put the pedal to the metal knowing I can sleep in the next morning. You have to hold yourself back for a 5 day schedule, its a marathon not a sprint.
AC got me good. should have written "The two are completely unrelated other than..."
See, its an analogy wrapped inside an analogy... you can make me post to/. but you can't force me to write well... Much like you can make me spend time at an office, but if I spend 4 hours at diversity training class, etc, that means I'm only "working" for a couple of the remaining hours.
A teacup of oil in a cubic yard of granite 7 miles down does us no good, no matter how many such teacups might exist.
Your post is basically correct but you're mixing messages. The failure of granite wells is porosity is awful. I heard of one granite well in the north sea that has an insane porosity like 20% but in the rest of the world oil in granite is useless because porosity is so low. You need weird super weathered condition granite (like it was on the surface, mostly broken down, Then covered and capped and buried) This is rare so its useless because its rare. Most granite looks frankly like a kitchen granite countertop, you're not going to extract much from that kind of material. Of course how oil would appear as pockets inside pristine granite is something of a mystery. In summary granite is an awful production layer because its so incredibly rare to be producible for technological reasons, even if miracle star trek phasors could drill the well "for free"
Most wells go into yummy crunchy limestone where there's no petroleum engineering reason not to have great production. That's where your argument of 7 miles down being more expensive (in energy) to drill than it'll ever produce applies.
TLDR summary is a granite layer is a failure for tech and extreme rarity reasons no matter how "cheap" it is, deep limestone is a failure because you need to burn/spend 1M barrels equiv to produce 100K barrels when you're done.
.. are a meaningless accounting fiction. If you want a real knee slapper look at some of the completely imaginary reserves numbers out of the middle east, they don't even pretend those are anything but made up so as to meet treaty obligations. The only way we'll ever know the true reserve figures out of M.E. is when the taps run dry (err 100% water cut instead of the mere 90% in S.A. now) then we'll know its zero, more or less.
I'm asking you to look at a historical graph of actual production, not something made up to goose stock and commodity prices the correct direction.
Its very much like asking for the AGI line off a IRS form 1040 from the year 2003 but getting an imaginary retirement planning guesstimate of possible theoretical income circa 2027 instead.
"exchanging small simple problems for bigger, more complex ones."
The resource extraction biz is inherently the other way around. There are tech biz operated like your quote, just no resource extractor biz. Large simple problems in the past, small complex problems in the future. Declining production years in a resource biz are almost the classic example of picking up nickels in front of the steamroller.
From talking to photographers its a widespread belief that you need to pay a Canadian model "a hundred dollars" more or less, otherwise historically judges have voided contracts for $1 or whatever. Pr0n is more expensive, I'm just talking about random glamour shots for marketing purposes, etc.
I find that occasional long days of 14-16 hours can be just fine.
What the fuck? Do you hate living? Don't you have anything better to do????
I'm not the AC, but as an example, some people are paid $250/hr to interface DDS RF oscillator chips to microcontrollers using a I2C bus. I do it for fun. At work or home, you really only get at most 6 hours of concentration per day.
The guy might be billing his client for 15 hours, or showing off to his boss by being in the office for 15 hours, but there's no way he's actually productively working for 15 hours.
Of work, or attendance? The two are completely unrelated, work never exceeds 3 to 6 hours per day, and work is always less than attendance. Also work is never/rarely tracked because it would be too embarrassing to make the results public. Every little bean of attendance is, however, counted, because that number looks much better.
As an "older" slashdotter I've studied this in myself and coworkers and when I was in retail management I studied this in my employees and was astounded to discover its a concentration thing. Any time you have to concentrate, be it software development, operations support, video games, or manual labor, a minute of concentration seems to be a minute of concentration regardless of why you're concentrating..
You'd be surprised how much concentration it takes to do a manual labor job. There do exist absolutely mindless shoveling jobs where there is no QA and there is no goal and it's a perfectly safe non-distracting environment, but they are VERY few and far between.
I've done call center and cashier in the past and they require too much concentration to do for more than a couple hours both in myself and employees I've supervised. Oh you can make them stand there, you can make them go thru the motions, but one way or another you're only getting 3 to 6 hours of productive concentration out of them before they start screwing up, or getting goofy, or simply not working but being present.
I work 90 minutes a day. That feels about right to me.
Thats kind of wimpy. I've found that at work or home I can put in a real, intense, solid 6 or so hours of work. I mean super intense absolute peak productivity. Doesn't seem to matter if I'm studying/homework at university, or bulk manual labor of yardwork, doing hard core electronics work at home at my workbench, video gaming, programming/sysadmining/troubleshooting at work... just a law of nature that much as I sleep about 7 hours a night I can only work about 6 hours.
I am present at work about 11 hours per day about 4 days a week, but there's lunch, uncountable meetings both informal and formal, about two hundred emails per day have to be read, analyzed, and almost all deleted and about 1 in 100 followed up or acted on, a couple breaks, training classes mostly as recipient some as trainer, lots of time consuming mindless procedures, numerous distractions when I'm concentrating on something.... it works out to a bit more than half the time I'm actually producing.
I can F-off and listen to my coworkers talk sports and surf the net the rest of the time. Also I can "produce" at about 10% to 20% efficiency for an extra 12 or so hours on top of the 6. Beyond 18 hours we're solidly, deeply into negative productivity stage. I can, with numerous breaks / meetings / interruptions spread my "work" across an entire day. "Oh I thought I'd interrupt you while you were concentrating... it'll only take 10 minutes and then an extra hour for you to get back into the zone again". That type of thing.
Overall I'd rather sit in the office for 6 hours and work like a superhero all 6 hours, then spend the rest of the time at home. But I have to put in a show of being at work for 11 hours a day just to amuse bean counters. I had a boss some years ago who explained he hated his wife and family, so he was at work for 16+ hours per day just to avoid them. I feel sorry for those people.
You know those idiot kids who come into work still drunk from the night before and brag how they are "so tired" because they were up all night drinking and only got 2 hours of sleep, and they think everyone else considers them a hero for doing it so they brag and brag about it? Most of us think they're idiots, not heros. Ditto the "I work 18+ hours per day and then pager duty all night you should worship me" sorry dude you're a first class top of the line idiot not a hero.
If people wanted to simply be conspicuous consumers, all they needed to do was buy gold plated toilets.
LOL that doesn't even make sense. I know this is slashdot, but which line is more likely to work:
"Hey baby lets go back to my place and watch a movie on my new $3000 TV"
or
"Hey baby lets go back to my place and you can take a dump in my gold plated toilet"
On/. I suppose a pickup line would be more like "I just got a new $600 graphics card, wanna play Dayz on it?" Or whatever. It has a much better chance of working than a gold plated crapper anyway.
Also, toward the peak of the recent ongoing housing bubble, and the stylistic overhang, overboard styling of bathrooms (and kitchens, etc) was, in fact, a very popular way to prove you can waste borrowed money, or something like that.
The internet (or networks in general) are more than the web.
The main problem I see is I've never worked at a place without an airgapped or at least hyperfirewalled production/engineering network. Its actually pretty rare for that design to have a DNS server on the private net. So host file distribution is popular. As is forcing people to use/memorize ip addresses. After all, its not like a "computer" could automate hostname lookups or something like that, and enforcement and procedures give management something to do.
Anyway sounds like upgrading a production network from hosts files to DNS system suddenly got a whole lot more exciting if you've got windows 8.. Then again, people who use windows for production are pretty much already used to suffering and intense pain, so making it even less ready for the enterprise is not so big of an idea.
People buy LCD TVs because they are lighter, they take up less space, and can provide a large high definition picture.
LOL they only buy them to show off how much money they have, or how trendy in general. Also high def TVs were CRT in the old days when HD was new.
Ask your average goofball how much more money they'd pay, or how excited they'd be for a 10% lighter TV and they'd be all WTF who cares. On the other hand, if you offered them a free $5000 TV solely so they could brag to their future dating partner / neighbor / the guys at work how they have a $5000 TV and they'll faint with excitement.
As my CRTs have died I have replaced them with LCDs. Clearer picture, but horrifically bad color rendition and simply pitiful black levels. CRTs suck too. They both suck about as much, although in completely different ways.
research that most people wouldn't identify as chemistry at all.
Can't do any of those projects without a pretty good research chemist on staff.
This brings up an interesting question of are there any current "big science" chemistry projects?
In the past, sure. For all you pyros out there, there's "Ignition! an informal history of rocket propellant chemistry" was pretty hard core "big science" chemistry work. And "excuse me sir would you like to buy a kilo of isopropyl bromide" which is a biography of a guy who probably contributed to more EPA superfund sites than any other dude on the planet. There's probably megatons of interesting chem warfare stories that are still classified.
Try as I might I'm having issues thinking of a good "big science" chemistry project. Seemingly all physics and bio and enviro need a chemist on staff, but none of the projects are purely chem projects...
CS is very much like this. No big projects. Big engineering and IT challenges, like how to stack, power, and cool 5000 1U servers instead of the previous supercomputer award winner having only 1000 1U servers. But no strictly computer science "big science" projects that I can think of.
If anyone can think of a current "big science" chem or CS project... post... who knows maybe you'll win a "Heros of Slashdot" award and you company can send you all the way to Michigan for... whoever's left... to crown you.
Nominations are only accepted by corporations. Sounds weird but true. The ACS then guilt trips the nominating corp into paying all expenses for the "winner" to visit the conference. Its a weird intersection of the old "whos who" scam and "best employer award" scam and a way for a (very good) manager to get budget approved for conferences "Well see here boss, one of my guys just won an award, what do you mean we don't have budget for travel expenses, maybe since we're famous award winners now we could get the money from PRs budget?" Note these chemists (AFAIK) are cool and they do cool work and are totally above board, its just the "award" thats semi-shady.
How that intersects with your concern is I have absolutely no idea in 2012 what corporation makes money off acid who has a acid related chemist on staff. A psych hospital might make money off it, but who's on staff that directly contributes to the chemistry? Maybe a CSI forensic chemist with a new detection scheme?
This is why you will only see "Big Pharma" nominees, and not see, for example, a high school chemistry teacher or educator in general.
In 1956, M. King Hubbert, a Shell geophysicist, forecast that gas production in the US would peak at about 14 trillion cubic feet per year sometime around 1970.
Oil production not gas
All these predictions failed to come true. Oil and gas production have continued to rise during the past 50 years.
Sorry, blatantly false. Try to find a US oil production graph showing this, LOL. Prediction dead accurate.
Maybe all that they are measuring is variations in *radon*output* from the phosphate sample, and not decay rates *of* radon
I like your idea. The problem is that's even worse/weirder/cooler than the "simpler" decay problem. You end up with something like the viscosity of radon varies with neutrino flux, so the viscosity change alters how fast it leaks out of tiny fissures in the rock. In a way that's not so bad, just tell the navy you're researching ways to lower the viscosity of water and watch the grant money roll in. Of course the experimental apparatus to generate mass quantities of neutrinos on demand doesn't fit in a torpedo warhead very well, but...
Sure, we just need a solar windmill about 10,000 miles in diameter, and a base to rest it on that doesnt cause enough gravity for it to collapse (so the moon is out)
Not necessarily. I love mega-engineering projects like placing a dam across the straits of Gibraltar and all that. If a flare is ionized particles I think you'd do a lot better to go elect eng instead of mech eng and make a peculiar array of wires and permanent magnets. Look at the work the MHD generator people have done and scale it to lower power. It would probably look like the worlds weirdest high gain HF shortwave antenna array. As a gut level guess it would have to be pretty freaking huge to power, say, a single LED. However, on a moon base, if you had spare manufacturing capacity and absolutely nothing better to do with your resources and time, an emergency lighting solution that will last 6 billion years, plus or minus meteor erosion, is kind of cool. Even if its only one wimpy dim LED.
I have not run the math but I think you're better off collecting microwave background radiation from deep space using the same length of wire. Essentially a real low powered "rectenna" from the microwave power satellite people except using cosmic background radiation. Also it would last longer than the life of the sun. On the other hand after the sun goes nova the moon base is probably screwed anyway. Probably.
Slashdot Mirror
"The hard part is making a single RW bus read only in the proper direction at all times."
That's not hard at all. If you want to be really sure you use an optoisolator.
Doesn't work with I2C, RX needs to send an ACK back, or the TX gets all out of whack and times out.
From what I skimmed over for canbus it also requires ACKs on a bidirectional bus.
What I'm getting at is written in deep in the protocol specification there is no such thing as a unidirectional unack'd packet. You could build a sniffer and have "something else" periodically poll and the sniffer could sniff and then your optoisolator-like design would work...
Maybe a way to rephrase it is at the hardware level there is no way on I2C and apparently canbus to send a unidirectional unacknowledged "ICMP/ping" or "udp" packet, so to speak.
The second link has no citations of a claim being denied.
The first link is pretty good. Note that insurance companies make money but not paying claims... its not unusual, if they think you don't have the resources to fight back, for them to deny a claim. Happens all the time with medical too.
For years now insurance claims have been denied for certain auto theft claims based on the theory that certain types of keys couldn't be replicated.
I find this hard to believe as everyone knows tow truck drivers and repo men (often one and the same) can tow anything. A quick snip and the parking brake doesn't matter either.
Same problem with motorcycles. You don't need a lockpick to steal a cycle, you need a pickup truck with a ramp and one of those mounting bar things. I've seen harleys stuffed into vans too.
ever since consoles got internet connections/updates, what happened? It started a trend among publishers to have games were no longer tested as rigorously, pushed out the door, and depend on internet updates to fix any issues.
Most importantly an attempt to eliminate the resale market.
Perhaps in the future you'll have to register and buy annual (or more often) updates for your car from the app store, and you won't be allowed to change the owner of the car, why the heck would you be permitted to do that, are you some kind of car thief?
I'm sorry sir your engine computer hardware is yours, but the software that runs on it is only licensed to the original buyer. You can only buy an engine computer software license with the purchase of a new engine computer. A new engine computer is only $999.95 or you can buy a $125 month two year service contract and get a complimentary new engine computer for free. Its all to protect you from hackers, you see.
The radio should simply never be able to get a message to the engine without wiring changes.
My father's decade old SUV talked to the transmission to control radio volume based on road speed.
The hard part is making a single RW bus read only in the proper direction at all times.
Thankfully it didn't run windows so there's no virus issue. But radios and engine/transmission computers have been talking for quite awhile.
I assume US regulation is far too extreme to pursue such ventures. Gates can get more bang for his buck in a country where it doesn't take 20 years just to get approval to move forward.
Kind of. SFRs are about 50 years old, even in the USA. We have, err, had, about a half dozen of them. Those crazy soviets put them in subs which they promptly set on fire and sunk. Its old icky tech. No one wants them if they can use a PWR or BWR design instead. The latest spin is to try to market them as something new even though they aren't new. Just like IT, everything old is eventually new again, and sometimes it even works. SFRs are the "cloud computing" of nuclear engineering.
For non-nuke noobs, a SFR is just like any other reactor except:
1) The coolant is sodium instead of water, so its hyper flammable and this scares the hell out of everyone involved, so every plant has had excellent safety and production records, well, except for the ones that caught fire.
2) Ditto above water is neutron activated for "a couple seconds" so other than impurities / leakage into the coolant, the coolant is basically radioactively harmless, however sodium does neutron activate and takes a couple days for enough half lifes to pass before its harmless (radioactively). Note I'm talking about the coolant itself not impurities or leakage into the coolant which is unchanged, more or less. So thats a bit freaky. You can draw PWR/BWR primary loop coolant and by they time it flows thru the "just in case" filters its cool enough to dump directly into the sewers. Sodium takes a bit longer and dumping it into the sewers is not exactly encouraged behavior, although I'm sure its terribly entertaining.
3) Other than being flammable and radioactive, sodium is a near ideal coolant. You won't have corrosion issues like hot high pressure water. Endless stories about 20 year old pumps being pulled out of service and appearing to be brand new. Although there were some "hilarious" near disasters with eutectic alloy formation and that was all figured out 40 years ago.
4) Sodium solidifies into a solid lump at room temp. This is kind of an issue for operational concerns. OK time to boot up the reactor, pull the control rods. Oh wait, they're frozen in place. Well then. And once you fix that and get the reactor cooking, the pumps are jammed so you've got to heat them.
5) Vapor pressure at operating temp is basically nil, at least compared to water. So the reactor vessel is more or less unpressurized (well yeah you blow argon over it instead of room air, but ... its just a argon blanket not 1000 psi steam like PWRs / BWRs) So all this fukushima splitting open stuff is not really relevant. Of course if you did split one in half it would be the end of the freaking world...
6) The "overheat leads to high temp chemical reaction with cladding leads to H2 buildup leads to kaboom" aka fukishima is literally chemically impossible. "unplug" a SFR like happened in Japan and basically nothing happens it just inherently calms itself down and eventually will freeze itself solid. Crazy but true. Isn't nuclear engineering cool that way? PWR and BWR to some extent or another will try to blow themselves up if abandoned so you engineer "fail safe" by making them really tough, but an abandoned SFR just kinda sits there all hot at a constant temperature and does nothing. Its kind of boring that way. Until the local fire department decides to hose it down with fire hoses. Sodium doesn't like water very much. Err actually red hot sodium likes water a lot, its just the nearby humans that dislike the fireball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor
I have recently had a baby.... 8-7 jobs (like yours?) can fuck right off. I hope you are getting a per-hour rate to make it worthwhile.
4 tens (actually 4 elevens) means 4 days of daycare expenses instead of 5. Its astounding how much 1 day of day care, 52 weeks per year costs. Its like an ipod per month or something. Darn near a new car's car payment per month. So, yeah, its very much worth it financially, aside from getting an extra day per week to play with the kids.
Also not to be overlooked is my non-rush hour commute is about 20 minutes door to door but during rush hour its more like an hour. So a 9-5 sched 5 days a week equals 2*5*1 = 10 hours in my car per week, darn near a part time job, whereas my "4 tens" means 2 * 4 * .3 = 2.6 hours in my car per week ... so I get almost 8 hours off that would otherwise have been spent commuting, darn near an extra day off per week just in saved commuting time cost. And I obviously only burn 4/5ths as much gasoline, 4/5ths car maintenance, all that adds up too.
I've found I work a lot harder on a 4 day week knowing I don't need to hold back for endurance. 1/4 of work days I'm extremely well rested, and 1/4 of work days its the end of the week so I put the pedal to the metal knowing I can sleep in the next morning. You have to hold yourself back for a 5 day schedule, its a marathon not a sprint.
AC got me good. should have written "The two are completely unrelated other than ..."
See, its an analogy wrapped inside an analogy ... you can make me post to /. but you can't force me to write well... Much like you can make me spend time at an office, but if I spend 4 hours at diversity training class, etc, that means I'm only "working" for a couple of the remaining hours.
A teacup of oil in a cubic yard of granite 7 miles down does us no good, no matter how many such teacups might exist.
Your post is basically correct but you're mixing messages. The failure of granite wells is porosity is awful. I heard of one granite well in the north sea that has an insane porosity like 20% but in the rest of the world oil in granite is useless because porosity is so low. You need weird super weathered condition granite (like it was on the surface, mostly broken down, Then covered and capped and buried) This is rare so its useless because its rare. Most granite looks frankly like a kitchen granite countertop, you're not going to extract much from that kind of material. Of course how oil would appear as pockets inside pristine granite is something of a mystery. In summary granite is an awful production layer because its so incredibly rare to be producible for technological reasons, even if miracle star trek phasors could drill the well "for free"
Most wells go into yummy crunchy limestone where there's no petroleum engineering reason not to have great production. That's where your argument of 7 miles down being more expensive (in energy) to drill than it'll ever produce applies.
TLDR summary is a granite layer is a failure for tech and extreme rarity reasons no matter how "cheap" it is, deep limestone is a failure because you need to burn/spend 1M barrels equiv to produce 100K barrels when you're done.
Proven reserves ...
.. are a meaningless accounting fiction. If you want a real knee slapper look at some of the completely imaginary reserves numbers out of the middle east, they don't even pretend those are anything but made up so as to meet treaty obligations. The only way we'll ever know the true reserve figures out of M.E. is when the taps run dry (err 100% water cut instead of the mere 90% in S.A. now) then we'll know its zero, more or less.
I'm asking you to look at a historical graph of actual production, not something made up to goose stock and commodity prices the correct direction.
Its very much like asking for the AGI line off a IRS form 1040 from the year 2003 but getting an imaginary retirement planning guesstimate of possible theoretical income circa 2027 instead.
"exchanging small simple problems for bigger, more complex ones."
The resource extraction biz is inherently the other way around. There are tech biz operated like your quote, just no resource extractor biz. Large simple problems in the past, small complex problems in the future. Declining production years in a resource biz are almost the classic example of picking up nickels in front of the steamroller.
Because you agreed to it in exchange for the valuable consideration of access to their services.
The phrase usually used is "sufficient consideration" which is a whole nother kettle of fish.
Here's a typical Canadian release form:
http://www.capic.org/download_pdfs/Form-en-2--Model-Agreement.pdf
From talking to photographers its a widespread belief that you need to pay a Canadian model "a hundred dollars" more or less, otherwise historically judges have voided contracts for $1 or whatever. Pr0n is more expensive, I'm just talking about random glamour shots for marketing purposes, etc.
I find that occasional long days of 14-16 hours can be just fine.
What the fuck? Do you hate living? Don't you have anything better to do????
I'm not the AC, but as an example, some people are paid $250/hr to interface DDS RF oscillator chips to microcontrollers using a I2C bus. I do it for fun. At work or home, you really only get at most 6 hours of concentration per day.
The guy might be billing his client for 15 hours, or showing off to his boss by being in the office for 15 hours, but there's no way he's actually productively working for 15 hours.
13-18hr days are the norm :(
Of work, or attendance? The two are completely unrelated, work never exceeds 3 to 6 hours per day, and work is always less than attendance. Also work is never/rarely tracked because it would be too embarrassing to make the results public. Every little bean of attendance is, however, counted, because that number looks much better.
it depends on what you are doing
As an "older" slashdotter I've studied this in myself and coworkers and when I was in retail management I studied this in my employees and was astounded to discover its a concentration thing. Any time you have to concentrate, be it software development, operations support, video games, or manual labor, a minute of concentration seems to be a minute of concentration regardless of why you're concentrating..
You'd be surprised how much concentration it takes to do a manual labor job. There do exist absolutely mindless shoveling jobs where there is no QA and there is no goal and it's a perfectly safe non-distracting environment, but they are VERY few and far between.
I've done call center and cashier in the past and they require too much concentration to do for more than a couple hours both in myself and employees I've supervised. Oh you can make them stand there, you can make them go thru the motions, but one way or another you're only getting 3 to 6 hours of productive concentration out of them before they start screwing up, or getting goofy, or simply not working but being present.
I work 90 minutes a day. That feels about right to me.
Thats kind of wimpy. I've found that at work or home I can put in a real, intense, solid 6 or so hours of work. I mean super intense absolute peak productivity. Doesn't seem to matter if I'm studying/homework at university, or bulk manual labor of yardwork, doing hard core electronics work at home at my workbench, video gaming, programming/sysadmining/troubleshooting at work... just a law of nature that much as I sleep about 7 hours a night I can only work about 6 hours.
I am present at work about 11 hours per day about 4 days a week, but there's lunch, uncountable meetings both informal and formal, about two hundred emails per day have to be read, analyzed, and almost all deleted and about 1 in 100 followed up or acted on, a couple breaks, training classes mostly as recipient some as trainer, lots of time consuming mindless procedures, numerous distractions when I'm concentrating on something.... it works out to a bit more than half the time I'm actually producing.
I can F-off and listen to my coworkers talk sports and surf the net the rest of the time. Also I can "produce" at about 10% to 20% efficiency for an extra 12 or so hours on top of the 6. Beyond 18 hours we're solidly, deeply into negative productivity stage. I can, with numerous breaks / meetings / interruptions spread my "work" across an entire day. "Oh I thought I'd interrupt you while you were concentrating... it'll only take 10 minutes and then an extra hour for you to get back into the zone again". That type of thing.
Overall I'd rather sit in the office for 6 hours and work like a superhero all 6 hours, then spend the rest of the time at home. But I have to put in a show of being at work for 11 hours a day just to amuse bean counters. I had a boss some years ago who explained he hated his wife and family, so he was at work for 16+ hours per day just to avoid them. I feel sorry for those people.
You know those idiot kids who come into work still drunk from the night before and brag how they are "so tired" because they were up all night drinking and only got 2 hours of sleep, and they think everyone else considers them a hero for doing it so they brag and brag about it? Most of us think they're idiots, not heros. Ditto the "I work 18+ hours per day and then pager duty all night you should worship me" sorry dude you're a first class top of the line idiot not a hero.
Demand for skilled workers, especially in the USA, is still outstripping supply
At $7.25/hr part time no benefits under two years experience need not apply, over 30 years old need not apply.
For all other situations, not so good.
If people wanted to simply be conspicuous consumers, all they needed to do was buy gold plated toilets.
LOL that doesn't even make sense. I know this is slashdot, but which line is more likely to work:
"Hey baby lets go back to my place and watch a movie on my new $3000 TV"
or
"Hey baby lets go back to my place and you can take a dump in my gold plated toilet"
On /. I suppose a pickup line would be more like "I just got a new $600 graphics card, wanna play Dayz on it?" Or whatever. It has a much better chance of working than a gold plated crapper anyway.
Also, toward the peak of the recent ongoing housing bubble, and the stylistic overhang, overboard styling of bathrooms (and kitchens, etc) was, in fact, a very popular way to prove you can waste borrowed money, or something like that.
wallpaper apps that sport provocative titles and nude photos
How can someone see that and not realize its gotta be a scam?
Probably just as effective as putting up a "idiots click here please".
The ability to be scammed is hardly limited to senior citizens.
The internet (or networks in general) are more than the web.
The main problem I see is I've never worked at a place without an airgapped or at least hyperfirewalled production/engineering network. Its actually pretty rare for that design to have a DNS server on the private net. So host file distribution is popular. As is forcing people to use/memorize ip addresses. After all, its not like a "computer" could automate hostname lookups or something like that, and enforcement and procedures give management something to do.
Anyway sounds like upgrading a production network from hosts files to DNS system suddenly got a whole lot more exciting if you've got windows 8.. Then again, people who use windows for production are pretty much already used to suffering and intense pain, so making it even less ready for the enterprise is not so big of an idea.
People buy LCD TVs because they are lighter, they take up less space, and can provide a large high definition picture.
LOL they only buy them to show off how much money they have, or how trendy in general. Also high def TVs were CRT in the old days when HD was new.
Ask your average goofball how much more money they'd pay, or how excited they'd be for a 10% lighter TV and they'd be all WTF who cares. On the other hand, if you offered them a free $5000 TV solely so they could brag to their future dating partner / neighbor / the guys at work how they have a $5000 TV and they'll faint with excitement.
As my CRTs have died I have replaced them with LCDs. Clearer picture, but horrifically bad color rendition and simply pitiful black levels. CRTs suck too. They both suck about as much, although in completely different ways.
research that most people wouldn't identify as chemistry at all.
Can't do any of those projects without a pretty good research chemist on staff.
This brings up an interesting question of are there any current "big science" chemistry projects?
In the past, sure. For all you pyros out there, there's "Ignition! an informal history of rocket propellant chemistry" was pretty hard core "big science" chemistry work. And "excuse me sir would you like to buy a kilo of isopropyl bromide" which is a biography of a guy who probably contributed to more EPA superfund sites than any other dude on the planet. There's probably megatons of interesting chem warfare stories that are still classified.
Try as I might I'm having issues thinking of a good "big science" chemistry project. Seemingly all physics and bio and enviro need a chemist on staff, but none of the projects are purely chem projects...
CS is very much like this. No big projects. Big engineering and IT challenges, like how to stack, power, and cool 5000 1U servers instead of the previous supercomputer award winner having only 1000 1U servers. But no strictly computer science "big science" projects that I can think of.
If anyone can think of a current "big science" chem or CS project... post... who knows maybe you'll win a "Heros of Slashdot" award and you company can send you all the way to Michigan for ... whoever's left ... to crown you.
Is one of them the inventor of LSD?
Nominations are only accepted by corporations. Sounds weird but true. The ACS then guilt trips the nominating corp into paying all expenses for the "winner" to visit the conference. Its a weird intersection of the old "whos who" scam and "best employer award" scam and a way for a (very good) manager to get budget approved for conferences "Well see here boss, one of my guys just won an award, what do you mean we don't have budget for travel expenses, maybe since we're famous award winners now we could get the money from PRs budget?" Note these chemists (AFAIK) are cool and they do cool work and are totally above board, its just the "award" thats semi-shady.
How that intersects with your concern is I have absolutely no idea in 2012 what corporation makes money off acid who has a acid related chemist on staff. A psych hospital might make money off it, but who's on staff that directly contributes to the chemistry? Maybe a CSI forensic chemist with a new detection scheme?
This is why you will only see "Big Pharma" nominees, and not see, for example, a high school chemistry teacher or educator in general.
Seems poorly researched
In 1956, M. King Hubbert, a Shell geophysicist, forecast that gas production in the US would peak at about 14 trillion cubic feet per year sometime around 1970.
Oil production not gas
All these predictions failed to come true. Oil and gas production have continued to rise during the past 50 years.
Sorry, blatantly false. Try to find a US oil production graph showing this, LOL. Prediction dead accurate.
Maybe all that they are measuring is variations in *radon*output* from the phosphate sample, and not decay rates *of* radon
I like your idea. The problem is that's even worse/weirder/cooler than the "simpler" decay problem. You end up with something like the viscosity of radon varies with neutrino flux, so the viscosity change alters how fast it leaks out of tiny fissures in the rock. In a way that's not so bad, just tell the navy you're researching ways to lower the viscosity of water and watch the grant money roll in. Of course the experimental apparatus to generate mass quantities of neutrinos on demand doesn't fit in a torpedo warhead very well, but...
Sure, we just need a solar windmill about 10,000 miles in diameter, and a base to rest it on that doesnt cause enough gravity for it to collapse (so the moon is out)
Not necessarily. I love mega-engineering projects like placing a dam across the straits of Gibraltar and all that. If a flare is ionized particles I think you'd do a lot better to go elect eng instead of mech eng and make a peculiar array of wires and permanent magnets. Look at the work the MHD generator people have done and scale it to lower power. It would probably look like the worlds weirdest high gain HF shortwave antenna array. As a gut level guess it would have to be pretty freaking huge to power, say, a single LED. However, on a moon base, if you had spare manufacturing capacity and absolutely nothing better to do with your resources and time, an emergency lighting solution that will last 6 billion years, plus or minus meteor erosion, is kind of cool. Even if its only one wimpy dim LED.
I have not run the math but I think you're better off collecting microwave background radiation from deep space using the same length of wire. Essentially a real low powered "rectenna" from the microwave power satellite people except using cosmic background radiation. Also it would last longer than the life of the sun. On the other hand after the sun goes nova the moon base is probably screwed anyway. Probably.