Exactly what part of "any new use of technology has upsides as well as downsides" did you not understand. Yes, we should use a new technology if it makes our lives easier and more convenient.
"having my picture taken each and every time I walk outside my house"
How do you feel about having your picture taken maybe once one time when you are walking down the street and a google car drives by? Because that's what's happening here. And you know what else? This isn't the first time someone's taken a picture and caught "innocent bystanders" in it. Do you make sure there's no one and nothing unintended in every picture you take? Have you ever posted a picture on the internet when it had someone in it you don't know?
In the US, it is customary to hide yourself from view if you are doing something that you don't want others to see. This is for your benefit and theirs. It seems rather silly to do it any other way.
I use it all the time for work. It augments the directions they give you , and gives you an idea of what the place you're looking for looks like. The pictures are taken from the street, so I won't see anything on street view that I wont see later when I'm driving down the street. If the cultural norm is not to look in certain places, why can't you just not look there in the google pictures?
I was putting together a photo-log of monitoring wells the other day, and I needed a picture that I'd forgotten to take while I was in the field. Rather than go back out just for one stupid picture than no one is probably even going to look at, I went on street view and got the picture. It is very useful, and I don't see how it is realistically an invasion of privacy. It is obviously intended to give people a general idea of how landmarks in the street will appear, and it is really too low-resolution to be used for anything else.
I am not thermodynamics expert but is cooling really an issue? Wouldnt putting the reactor in the vacuum of space overcome this?
You would have to design the system to dissipate the heat that was generated. The vacuum of space vary bad at transferring heat, but space is extremely cold, so it balances out a little. You wold probably need to use a high temperature gas reactor to get temperatures high enough to dissipate the power. Gas reactors are also well suited to space applications because of their light weight.
Couldn't they just hold on to the pay checks generated by the system and issue new checks for minimum in the mean time. Then when the budget is passed, they could just ask people to pay them back in return for the checks the system generated. This isn't hard, seriously.
Cell phone carriers are moving more and more toward unlimited plans. That's because it more accurately represents their costs, and customers don't like to be bothered tracking individual minutes. In a couple years time, plans that aren't unlimited will be rare. You heard it here first (if you didn't hear it somewhere else first, that is).
Do as I say, not as I do. . . This asshole has no right to expect people to listen to his suggestions. Not that they are bad, but he has no credibility whatsoever. He is despicable and corrupt.
You have the unrealistic expectation of perfection. You need to learn that there is a difference between reality and whatever it is you think should happen. The reality is that people make mistakes when driving.
Yes, the biker was behind me. I changed lanes, and then there he was right in my rear view mirror. He must have been 5 or 10 feet behind me. I think he was trying to pass me when I changed lanes. He must have had to hit his breaks to avoid hitting the back of my car. But like I said, I couldn't see him before that, so I don't think it's fair to say that it was my fault.
It is his job to avoid hitting me as much as it is mine to avoid hitting him. Since he was behind me, he was in a much better position to see what was going on than I was. Especially since he was on a motorcycle, which has an unrestricted field of view (for the most part).
"You must understand that bikers are risk takers."
And you must understand that you are taking a risk by riding a motorcycle. That isn't my fault. You are going to have near misses, no matter how well (or poorly) the rest of us drive.
My car really does have a blind spot, most peoples do. Watch your mirrors when a car passes you, it will disappear entirely for a couple seconds. Now ask yourself, if an entire car can disappear, what happens when it's a motorcycle? Sure, I can spend my time trying to look behind me before I change lanes, but I learned the hard way that if you look behind you for too long, you will hit something in front of you.
This is just the reality of driving. I am not an asshole. You need to learn to try to see things from someone else's point of view.
I think I almost ran someone like you over the other day. I was merging across lanes to get to the fast lane, and I didn't see him. It's not that I wasn't looking, but motorcycles are so small, and he was in my blind spot. I felt bad until he got up next to my window and started yelling something at me. What a jerk! He must have though I did it on purpose. I just shrugged my shoulders at him.
You must understand that a motorcycle is just not as safe as a full-sized car.
Is the iPhone's battery life really that bad? My brother has a 3G iPhone and he surfs the net on it quite a lot, but he doesn't run out of battery on it as long as he charges it up every night.
If you fee that companies should not use government funds in this way, you are welcome to vote for candidates who will put conditions on how future funds can be used. It just doesn't make sense to use the legal system to enforce an all-encompassing restriction on how ISPs (who may or may not have accepted public funds, but did not in any case accept them with the understanding that it would be later used to justify these kind of restrictions) can use their infrastructure.
"The problem with making sure ISPs don't censor or filter any traffic/content over their lines is what?"
The problem is that it's their infrastructure, which they maintain at their own expense, and you want to restrict their right to manage their business as they see fit.
Another problem is that you want to introduce government restrictions into a market that's been unregulated up to this point. That's going to maker it harder for people to do business, and it's going to restrict the options of access providers.
It is sheer idiocy for you to claim that you are going to increase our freedom by restricting our freedoms. It makes no sense.
In a heat engine, there is a maximum theoretical efficiency which may be achieved. This is dependent on the difference in absolute temperatures between the hot and cold reservoirs. For example, if your hot reservoir is 1000K, and your cold is 300K, the maximum theoretical efficiency is 1-300/1000 = 70%. In the coal plant you were referring to, the actual efficiency is likely very near the theoretical efficiency (mechanical engineers have done a good job at achieving high efficiencies with mechanical systems). It is impossible to improve upon that without violating the laws of thermodynamics.
Of course, no moving parts means that you may be able to operate at much higher temperatures (you'd need a ceramic PEM to sustain the higher temperatures).
The problem is the reliance on PEMs, which are expensive and not long-lived. Of course, thermocouples are also relatively expensive when compared to conventional engines, but at least they last.
I'll admit, this is a great idea if they can get the materials issues for the PEMs worked out (and that's a big if). It would be nice to have a heat pump/engine with no moving parts, but the same efficiency as conventional technology.
Okay, this post was not flame-bait. This is my honest opinion, and I didn't even use any swear words or call people with opposing opinions idiots. WTF? I hate the stupid fucking moderator system.
"Internet is a utility, like phone service or electricity, creating natural monopolies."
That's a really bad example, because the government specifically granted those industries monopolies (at the time there was this idea that they should prevent the duplication of labor, they have a lively discussion of this philosophy in the movie The Aviator). There's absolutely no reason more than one company can't run power to your house. There's certainly no good reason more than one company can't generate electricity for a particular area. This goes doubly for phone service, since in most places you can buy it through the phone company, or the cable company (or multiple cell-phone providers).
"Right now, Comcast could decide to censor the internet,"
They can censor the service they provide to you, but no company in their right mind would do such a thing (it would detract from the value of the service, and provide no benefit of any kind to the company).
"Comcast could decide to block Vonage, because it competes with their VoIP service"
Yes, that would be a good idea. So what? Will you die without Vonage? Is it really worth passing asinine restrictions on internet providers just so that you can have Vonage?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly what part of "any new use of technology has upsides as well as downsides" did you not understand. Yes, we should use a new technology if it makes our lives easier and more convenient.
"having my picture taken each and every time I walk outside my house"
How do you feel about having your picture taken maybe once one time when you are walking down the street and a google car drives by? Because that's what's happening here. And you know what else? This isn't the first time someone's taken a picture and caught "innocent bystanders" in it. Do you make sure there's no one and nothing unintended in every picture you take? Have you ever posted a picture on the internet when it had someone in it you don't know?
People do not look at all the pictures before they go on street view. It's an automated process to some extent.
In the US, it is customary to hide yourself from view if you are doing something that you don't want others to see. This is for your benefit and theirs. It seems rather silly to do it any other way.
I use it all the time for work. It augments the directions they give you , and gives you an idea of what the place you're looking for looks like. The pictures are taken from the street, so I won't see anything on street view that I wont see later when I'm driving down the street. If the cultural norm is not to look in certain places, why can't you just not look there in the google pictures?
I was putting together a photo-log of monitoring wells the other day, and I needed a picture that I'd forgotten to take while I was in the field. Rather than go back out just for one stupid picture than no one is probably even going to look at, I went on street view and got the picture. It is very useful, and I don't see how it is realistically an invasion of privacy. It is obviously intended to give people a general idea of how landmarks in the street will appear, and it is really too low-resolution to be used for anything else.
I am not thermodynamics expert but is cooling really an issue? Wouldnt putting the reactor in the vacuum of space overcome this?
You would have to design the system to dissipate the heat that was generated. The vacuum of space vary bad at transferring heat, but space is extremely cold, so it balances out a little. You wold probably need to use a high temperature gas reactor to get temperatures high enough to dissipate the power. Gas reactors are also well suited to space applications because of their light weight.
for a rocket it's like this: .5 * propellant mass flow rate * propellant velocity ^ 2
power =
thrust = propellant mass flow rate * propellant velocity
I just bought 90% off the shelf at Rite Aid, here in Southern California. No one asked me if I was going to drink it :)
Couldn't they just hold on to the pay checks generated by the system and issue new checks for minimum in the mean time. Then when the budget is passed, they could just ask people to pay them back in return for the checks the system generated. This isn't hard, seriously.
You may be surprised to learn that NASA'a blown up quite a few rockets as well.
Cell phone carriers are moving more and more toward unlimited plans. That's because it more accurately represents their costs, and customers don't like to be bothered tracking individual minutes. In a couple years time, plans that aren't unlimited will be rare. You heard it here first (if you didn't hear it somewhere else first, that is).
What the hell do you think too long means? You need to learn to read.
Do as I say, not as I do. . . This asshole has no right to expect people to listen to his suggestions. Not that they are bad, but he has no credibility whatsoever. He is despicable and corrupt.
Yes, I do this, but a motorcycle is easy to miss.
You have the unrealistic expectation of perfection. You need to learn that there is a difference between reality and whatever it is you think should happen. The reality is that people make mistakes when driving.
Yes, the biker was behind me. I changed lanes, and then there he was right in my rear view mirror. He must have been 5 or 10 feet behind me. I think he was trying to pass me when I changed lanes. He must have had to hit his breaks to avoid hitting the back of my car. But like I said, I couldn't see him before that, so I don't think it's fair to say that it was my fault.
It is his job to avoid hitting me as much as it is mine to avoid hitting him. Since he was behind me, he was in a much better position to see what was going on than I was. Especially since he was on a motorcycle, which has an unrestricted field of view (for the most part).
"You must understand that bikers are risk takers."
And you must understand that you are taking a risk by riding a motorcycle. That isn't my fault. You are going to have near misses, no matter how well (or poorly) the rest of us drive.
My car really does have a blind spot, most peoples do. Watch your mirrors when a car passes you, it will disappear entirely for a couple seconds. Now ask yourself, if an entire car can disappear, what happens when it's a motorcycle? Sure, I can spend my time trying to look behind me before I change lanes, but I learned the hard way that if you look behind you for too long, you will hit something in front of you.
This is just the reality of driving. I am not an asshole. You need to learn to try to see things from someone else's point of view.
I think I almost ran someone like you over the other day. I was merging across lanes to get to the fast lane, and I didn't see him. It's not that I wasn't looking, but motorcycles are so small, and he was in my blind spot. I felt bad until he got up next to my window and started yelling something at me. What a jerk! He must have though I did it on purpose. I just shrugged my shoulders at him.
You must understand that a motorcycle is just not as safe as a full-sized car.
Is the iPhone's battery life really that bad? My brother has a 3G iPhone and he surfs the net on it quite a lot, but he doesn't run out of battery on it as long as he charges it up every night.
So when do you plan to start doing your job for free?
If you fee that companies should not use government funds in this way, you are welcome to vote for candidates who will put conditions on how future funds can be used. It just doesn't make sense to use the legal system to enforce an all-encompassing restriction on how ISPs (who may or may not have accepted public funds, but did not in any case accept them with the understanding that it would be later used to justify these kind of restrictions) can use their infrastructure.
"The problem with making sure ISPs don't censor or filter any traffic/content over their lines is what?"
The problem is that it's their infrastructure, which they maintain at their own expense, and you want to restrict their right to manage their business as they see fit.
Another problem is that you want to introduce government restrictions into a market that's been unregulated up to this point. That's going to maker it harder for people to do business, and it's going to restrict the options of access providers.
It is sheer idiocy for you to claim that you are going to increase our freedom by restricting our freedoms. It makes no sense.
In a heat engine, there is a maximum theoretical efficiency which may be achieved. This is dependent on the difference in absolute temperatures between the hot and cold reservoirs. For example, if your hot reservoir is 1000K, and your cold is 300K, the maximum theoretical efficiency is 1-300/1000 = 70%. In the coal plant you were referring to, the actual efficiency is likely very near the theoretical efficiency (mechanical engineers have done a good job at achieving high efficiencies with mechanical systems). It is impossible to improve upon that without violating the laws of thermodynamics.
Of course, no moving parts means that you may be able to operate at much higher temperatures (you'd need a ceramic PEM to sustain the higher temperatures).
I know a single woman who works in Alaska. As she puts it "the odds are good, but the goods are odd".
The problem is the reliance on PEMs, which are expensive and not long-lived. Of course, thermocouples are also relatively expensive when compared to conventional engines, but at least they last.
I'll admit, this is a great idea if they can get the materials issues for the PEMs worked out (and that's a big if). It would be nice to have a heat pump/engine with no moving parts, but the same efficiency as conventional technology.
Okay, this post was not flame-bait. This is my honest opinion, and I didn't even use any swear words or call people with opposing opinions idiots. WTF? I hate the stupid fucking moderator system.
"Internet is a utility, like phone service or electricity, creating natural monopolies."
That's a really bad example, because the government specifically granted those industries monopolies (at the time there was this idea that they should prevent the duplication of labor, they have a lively discussion of this philosophy in the movie The Aviator). There's absolutely no reason more than one company can't run power to your house. There's certainly no good reason more than one company can't generate electricity for a particular area. This goes doubly for phone service, since in most places you can buy it through the phone company, or the cable company (or multiple cell-phone providers).
"Right now, Comcast could decide to censor the internet,"
They can censor the service they provide to you, but no company in their right mind would do such a thing (it would detract from the value of the service, and provide no benefit of any kind to the company).
"Comcast could decide to block Vonage, because it competes with their VoIP service"
Yes, that would be a good idea. So what? Will you die without Vonage? Is it really worth passing asinine restrictions on internet providers just so that you can have Vonage?