Right now your catalytic converter converts CO (which is a partial combustion product) into C02 and heat. They're saying this enzyme could turn it into propane, which could then be burned again in the engine thereby using the energy that would normally be wasted.
They're also suggesting that you could split CO2 from the atmosphere into CO (probably by electrolysis) and use it to produce gasoline for fuel. That would be an achievement because it solves a lot or energy storage problems.
Well, yeah. I'd say that it was worth one viewing. My point stands, in any case. I think Cameron is mostly about the effects, so you know what you are getting when you go in.
Theaters are designed to have the screen occupy a certain percentage of the angular area of the viewers vision. So when the theater is smaller, the screen is smaller but the angular size for the viewer is about the same. Likewise, the design the seats in the theater are positioned so that everyone will have a similar viewing experience. That means within a certain margin of error the difference in size of the images will have the same angular size (which is what is important in stereoscopic vision). Obviously there is some variability depending on where you sit in the theater, but for the most part it will be about the same.
It's short sighted to say that 3D adds little to the movie-going experience. A director who thinks that simply lacks the imagination to realize the full potential of the medium. Using 3D, you can bring the viewer into an intimate setting, or a wide-open expanse. Characters, objects and settings can appear life-size, giving the audience a sense of scale without the need for objects of known size for comparison. The result can be a much more immerse viewing experience than was previously possible.
Of course, the 3D has to be done correctly. And directors will have to resist the urge to make objects jump out of the screen for "wow" factor. But in the end, you will have a better movie.
Why do people think economies of scale will drive down the cost of batteries? You can't use economies of scale to drive down the cost of raw materials. What economies of scale are you talking about driving down? Do you believe that battery factories are not fully utilized? Do you believe a larger factory would be significantly less capital intensive per unit produced? Do you believe these modern factories are not fully automated? Just what costs are you expecting to bring down? People have been spoiled by the computer industry and it's ability to reduce the cost of components orders of magnitude every decade by using more sophisticated manufacturing techniques.
The only thing that can bring down the the cost of batteries are fundamental new developments in the way the batteries work themselves. Simply buying more lithium ion batteries is not going to bring the marginal cost down.
Step 1: Stop spending money on foreign wars so stabilize our oil supply (and cut taxes).
Step 2: Stop using public funds to build and maintain roads and highways (and cut taxes).
Step 3: Wait for private industry to provide alternatives to our current transpiration system (which really is publicly funded, if you stop think about it for 10 seconds).
I have a Fiesta, and I can tell you it is not a crap car by any meaning of the word. It is well constructed, and it's easy to service (it's also pretty fast). It is a 4-door with seating for 5. Of course, it's not as large as those other cars, but that's how it gets is gas mileage. The point of these debates is that it's easier to save money by buying a good small car than by buying a hybrid or an electric. And if you are in Europe, there is really no comparison because the TDI gets the same gas mileage as any hybrid even though it costs significantly less.
I have an iPhone, so every time I'm using it and I think "I wish I had a bigger one of these" that's a time I could use an iPad. But on top of that, there are a lot of things that wouldn't even occur to you if you didn't have one. My brother has one and he uses it all the time, I don't even think he could get by without it anymore (he hardly ever uses his laptop). When it comes down to it, the interface on an iPad is much easier (and more natural) than anything else out there. Nothing comes close. I can't wait for the desktop version!
Reprocessing costs are the same no matter what fuel cycle you are using. It's expensive due to the difficulty of reprocessing highly radioactive nuclear fuel. This is true for an IFR as well. Even though the facility is on-site, reprocessing the nuclear fuel is expensive. Here is that that wikiepedia article has to say about the matter:
Because the current cost of enriched uranium is low compared to the expected cost of large-scale pyroprocessing and electrorefining equipment and the cost of building a secondary coolant loop, the higher fuel costs of a thermal reactor over the expected operating lifetime of the plant are offset by increased capital cost.
When the rains increase, you build the dams to mitigate the flooding, the result is more available water. If one area needs water, you build canals and pipelines to move it there. You act as though people can't adapt to changing weather patterns. Why do you think people are so un-capable? We've build dams before and canals before, it's not rocket-science.
How can you trust the doctors to do everything they can to save you if you're an organ donor? What if they look and see than letting your life end could save 5 other lives, and they assume that you're probably just going to die anyway (much the same way this guy does)? I don't have enough faith in the system to believe that doctors are above this sort of thing, and I don't want to carry around a card that may become my death warrant someday. That's not selfish, that's just honest.
You're going to have to build them for flood control anyway. For all the global agreements on climate change, how come we aren't doing this? This is the biggest impact of warming, and there is a real, tangible way to mitigate it.
You have to extract the fuel from the cladding, treat it chemically, and then repackage it to put it back into the reactor. Since the spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive, this is much more difficult and expensive than working with virgin fuel.
I don't think it makes sense to claim that global warming will lead to water shortages, since it will mean increased precipitation. As long as people build the appropriate dams to capture the extra water, it should lead to an increase in water supply.
Also, I don't think the adverse effects to coastal cities will be as profound as people say. It would take a major increase in sea-level to really cause any problems, but the change to date has been modest.
Reprocessed fuel is more expensive than virgin fuel. So including that would raise the cost, not lower it. The follow up costs of nuclear are unknown, because we don't know what to do with the spent nuclear fuel.
So, what do you do with all your spent nuclear fuel? Is that included in you "at cost" price? I understand there is no politically correct way to dispose of the waste, that's a bit of a problem, don't you think?
I know you can reprocess the fuel and burn up the trans-uraniucs, but reprocessing is expensive and dangerous. And even after that you still have the fission products that need to be stored for 300 years or so before they will be safe. Is all this factored into your "at-cost" price? Or do you expect someone else to pay for it down the road?
I have to say that the argument for net neutrality is patently absurd. People are afraid that a few powerful ISPs will be able to control how information is transferred across the internet, so the solution they've come up with is to hand that authority to the Federal government?! I'd rather take my chances with the ISPs.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you should never join the military (or register for selective service).
Right now your catalytic converter converts CO (which is a partial combustion product) into C02 and heat. They're saying this enzyme could turn it into propane, which could then be burned again in the engine thereby using the energy that would normally be wasted.
They're also suggesting that you could split CO2 from the atmosphere into CO (probably by electrolysis) and use it to produce gasoline for fuel. That would be an achievement because it solves a lot or energy storage problems.
Why wouldn't they save them? All the images are saved. I've said it before and I will say it again. If you ever believed otherwise, you are an idiot.
Well, yeah. I'd say that it was worth one viewing. My point stands, in any case. I think Cameron is mostly about the effects, so you know what you are getting when you go in.
Theaters are designed to have the screen occupy a certain percentage of the angular area of the viewers vision. So when the theater is smaller, the screen is smaller but the angular size for the viewer is about the same. Likewise, the design the seats in the theater are positioned so that everyone will have a similar viewing experience. That means within a certain margin of error the difference in size of the images will have the same angular size (which is what is important in stereoscopic vision). Obviously there is some variability depending on where you sit in the theater, but for the most part it will be about the same.
Have you seen Avatar? 3D added a lot to that movie.
Don't listen to the naysayers.
It's short sighted to say that 3D adds little to the movie-going experience. A director who thinks that simply lacks the imagination to realize the full potential of the medium. Using 3D, you can bring the viewer into an intimate setting, or a wide-open expanse. Characters, objects and settings can appear life-size, giving the audience a sense of scale without the need for objects of known size for comparison. The result can be a much more immerse viewing experience than was previously possible.
Of course, the 3D has to be done correctly. And directors will have to resist the urge to make objects jump out of the screen for "wow" factor. But in the end, you will have a better movie.
Why do people think economies of scale will drive down the cost of batteries? You can't use economies of scale to drive down the cost of raw materials. What economies of scale are you talking about driving down? Do you believe that battery factories are not fully utilized? Do you believe a larger factory would be significantly less capital intensive per unit produced? Do you believe these modern factories are not fully automated? Just what costs are you expecting to bring down? People have been spoiled by the computer industry and it's ability to reduce the cost of components orders of magnitude every decade by using more sophisticated manufacturing techniques.
The only thing that can bring down the the cost of batteries are fundamental new developments in the way the batteries work themselves. Simply buying more lithium ion batteries is not going to bring the marginal cost down.
Yes you can.
Step 1: Stop spending money on foreign wars so stabilize our oil supply (and cut taxes).
Step 2: Stop using public funds to build and maintain roads and highways (and cut taxes).
Step 3: Wait for private industry to provide alternatives to our current transpiration system (which really is publicly funded, if you stop think about it for 10 seconds).
I have a Fiesta, and I can tell you it is not a crap car by any meaning of the word. It is well constructed, and it's easy to service (it's also pretty fast). It is a 4-door with seating for 5. Of course, it's not as large as those other cars, but that's how it gets is gas mileage. The point of these debates is that it's easier to save money by buying a good small car than by buying a hybrid or an electric. And if you are in Europe, there is really no comparison because the TDI gets the same gas mileage as any hybrid even though it costs significantly less.
I have an iPhone, so every time I'm using it and I think "I wish I had a bigger one of these" that's a time I could use an iPad. But on top of that, there are a lot of things that wouldn't even occur to you if you didn't have one. My brother has one and he uses it all the time, I don't even think he could get by without it anymore (he hardly ever uses his laptop). When it comes down to it, the interface on an iPad is much easier (and more natural) than anything else out there. Nothing comes close. I can't wait for the desktop version!
Reprocessing costs are the same no matter what fuel cycle you are using. It's expensive due to the difficulty of reprocessing highly radioactive nuclear fuel. This is true for an IFR as well. Even though the facility is on-site, reprocessing the nuclear fuel is expensive. Here is that that wikiepedia article has to say about the matter:
No, it doesn't. People have been damming and moving water for thousands of years, it's nothing new.
When the rains increase, you build the dams to mitigate the flooding, the result is more available water. If one area needs water, you build canals and pipelines to move it there. You act as though people can't adapt to changing weather patterns. Why do you think people are so un-capable? We've build dams before and canals before, it's not rocket-science.
How can you trust the doctors to do everything they can to save you if you're an organ donor? What if they look and see than letting your life end could save 5 other lives, and they assume that you're probably just going to die anyway (much the same way this guy does)? I don't have enough faith in the system to believe that doctors are above this sort of thing, and I don't want to carry around a card that may become my death warrant someday. That's not selfish, that's just honest.
You're going to have to build them for flood control anyway. For all the global agreements on climate change, how come we aren't doing this? This is the biggest impact of warming, and there is a real, tangible way to mitigate it.
You have to extract the fuel from the cladding, treat it chemically, and then repackage it to put it back into the reactor. Since the spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive, this is much more difficult and expensive than working with virgin fuel.
I don't think it makes sense to claim that global warming will lead to water shortages, since it will mean increased precipitation. As long as people build the appropriate dams to capture the extra water, it should lead to an increase in water supply.
Also, I don't think the adverse effects to coastal cities will be as profound as people say. It would take a major increase in sea-level to really cause any problems, but the change to date has been modest.
Reprocessed fuel is more expensive than virgin fuel. So including that would raise the cost, not lower it. The follow up costs of nuclear are unknown, because we don't know what to do with the spent nuclear fuel.
So, what do you do with all your spent nuclear fuel? Is that included in you "at cost" price? I understand there is no politically correct way to dispose of the waste, that's a bit of a problem, don't you think?
I know you can reprocess the fuel and burn up the trans-uraniucs, but reprocessing is expensive and dangerous. And even after that you still have the fission products that need to be stored for 300 years or so before they will be safe. Is all this factored into your "at-cost" price? Or do you expect someone else to pay for it down the road?
I have to say that the argument for net neutrality is patently absurd. People are afraid that a few powerful ISPs will be able to control how information is transferred across the internet, so the solution they've come up with is to hand that authority to the Federal government?! I'd rather take my chances with the ISPs.
Can I stop explaining to people why I intend to purchase this phone despite a minor defect that won't affect me now?
Shashdot has a desperate need to adopt the same policy, and it's probably the most troll-free forum on the internet.
4,000,000,000 kg / 10,000,000,000 m^2 = 0.4 kg/m^2
Anyone else have a problem with this?
You mean this one?