Are you the one who posts this comment on every single article, or are you part of a club or a larger organization? Do you really think that no news applies to nerds? Or is this some kind of joke I don't get?
"I have a feeling that the majority of those that think it would be the best option, are probably better off going back to school themselves."
No, generally people who seek alternative forms of education for their children are the ones who care about whether or not their children are learning, and are willing to give their children the time of day (after all, it is a huge time commitment). Parents who don't care just send their kids to school so they don't have to deal with them.
I was never able to learn my multiplication tables in school, and my teachers told me that I was too stupid to do anything related to engineering or mathematics (despite my strong conceptual understanding). However, after completing my degree and working as an engineer for the last three years, I can multiply quite well. It's funny how much better you learn information that you use every day. I'm surprised that people are expected to learn any other way.
I agree, encouraging a child's natural inquisitiveness through personal interaction and shared experiences is so much better than school, there's no comparison. School is (for the most part) a complete waste of time.
I've always though the issue was more one of key inventions. In the 19th century we invented a workable steam engine. It enabled us to easily harvest and make use of fossil fuels, which in turn has caused countless improvements in transportation, mineral exploration, sanitation, construction, indoor lighting and air conditioning, etc. Basically everything we see as modern technology can be traced back to this one single invention. The innovations related to this tech seem to have tapped out (though I can see maybe a couple more in the pipeline). That's why it appears innovation has stopped.
The underlying problem is that property, which is an essential concept in capitalism, requires government enforcement to exist. That means any capitalistic society needs a very strong government in order to work. This is why the US needs such a large, powerful government. Of course, individualism suffers as a result.
The government has to write laws to define property and liability, and put in-place a police force, and a judiciary to settle all the disputes and take the appropriate people to jail. And in the end, the government is corruptible, so property and liability are defined unfairly. If this goes on long enough, you get a situation where most property was obtained unfairly, but it's all obtained legally. You have more than one in a hundred people in jail and a huge military force engaged in insuring that overseas assets are protected.
In the end, any government will expand and become corrupted, destroying individualism and morality. Capitalism really is a form of government, and it is not exempt from this rule.
Are you sure this comment was meant for me? I was talking about tariffs.
Capitalism without government regulation is an oxymoron. Capitalism hinges on the concept of property, which can only exist through government action, in one form or another. So we can't have capitalism without government intervention.
My argument was not that we should try to eliminate government intervention (though I do think that's a good idea), but rather we should not impose tariffs to eliminate a trade deficit since they will eventually go away on their own. Whenever we are trying to solve a problem, we need to consider the option of doing nothing. In this case, doing nothing has the best result. It's much better than discouraging trade by the use of tariffs.
If you wait long enough, a trade deficit will go away on its own as exchange rates move to match purchasing power. That being true, why bother with government regulations?
Tariffs discourage trade, which hurts everybody. If they are unnecessary, we shouldn't use them.
And your point is? Maybe we should prohibit these businesses from operating in the states. Oh wait, that's why they're leaving. . . And that's the problem.
Patriotism is a highly overrated trait in anything/anybody. If it's better to leave, why stay?
"No building penetration, dead spots inside of major cities, etc..."
Pretty much the same as ATT. One has to wonder how much more popular the iPhone would be if it wasn't locked into these crappy carriers. It's amazing that they can sell these phones when they rarely work as such (I say this as a happy iPhone user).
I don't see how this is any different than they way many courses now try to include an online component to their classes by encouraging students post comments on internet forums. And it seems particularly appropriate that an apologetics class would encourage students to post comments where the views expressed would not be readily accepted (since that's what apologetics is all about). I don't think it's fair to say that posting dissenting viewpoints it trolling. This comment is a troll by that standard.
We most certainly are going back, probably a lot sooner than anyone would guess. That's what happens when you have a bunch of delusional selfish drugged up middle agers ignorantly trying to push around a smaller, younger generation who never learned to listen to authority. I can't believe the baby boomers actually expect the younger generation to support them in their old age! I want some of that they're smoking! (actually I don't, look what it did for them!)
Print is basically dead at this point. Online companies can find other ways to make money because they sell a product people want. Not so for print media.
What's the point of printing information about Ad Block, since the users you want to target are on the web and rarely look at print? Are web ads really that annoying? I don't use any blocker, and I get around just fine.
This is not the first time superconductors have been used for a science project, so there are people out there with experience who know what works and what doesn't. Whether they worked on this project or not is a different matter.
Shouldn't AT&T at least build a wireless network of some kind before they try to claim it's more reliable. What's that AT&T? More bars in more places?! At least Verizon's claim seems to be true.
Carbon trading is a scam. There is no rational way to give out the credits, so you are basically give a whole bunch of random people a lot of money for no reason. They will come up with a bizarre scheme that's full of loopholes and hand-waving, and we will end up paying some rich guy with connections to buy a yacht. Gotta love politics.
You can go to jail now for making a video?! That's censorship plain and simple. I though that the government didn't do that here (at least not for private citizens). I can see sending someone to jail for crimes they committed which happened to be videotaped, but not for producing and distributing the videos themselves. This is insane.
I don't think the question is "Who is more trustworthy?" Instead the question is "Who is trustworthy?" Even the most trustworthy person in the world may be wrong, but God is righteous. So I won't ever take someone's word for it with regard to the content of the Bible, but instead it will read it myself. If something doesn't make sense, I ask people about it, conduct research, and engage in a lot of prayerful reflection.
I don't want to argue about which is the better of two flawed systems. As far as I am concerned your complaints about non-Catholic churches are every bit as valid as my complaints against the Catholic Church. I am only interested in the perfect solution God has laid out for me. I don't think the Church which is now passed down trough tradition, either Catholic or otherwise, is a good representation of the Church described in the Bible.
The price per watt on fuel cells has come down 10-fold in the last several years. If they can bring them down another 10-fold they most certainly will be practical. My efficiency statements are not inaccurate, you are comparing different numbers. I'm talking about the overall efficiency of the whole power-delivery system, you are looking at only the efficiency of the battery.
Fuel cells are not disaster upon disaster, as you say, their only downfall is their price. They are more efficient than internal combustion engines, and they can be used to store large amounts of electrical energy.
Batteries suffer from fundamental limitations that mean they simply will not be able to replace conventional transportation and energy storage systems. Charging batteries takes a long time, adding capacity means adding more batteries, batteries are heavy. Hydrogen fuel cells do not suffer from any of these limitations. Their only limitation is their cost.
You are comparing the mass density. However, liquid hydrogen has an energy density of 10MJ/L, vs. 17MJ/L for kerosene. So no, your tank does not have to be 12x bigger, it only has to be about 2x bigger when compared with Kerosene.
Hydrogen has approximately the same energy density (volumetricly) as natural gas for any given pressure (it's a little less, but not much), or when stored in liquid form. So, you can see how it is true when I say that if storing hydrogen is a problem, storing natural gas would be too, but we do it all the time.
You don't charge fuel cells, you fill them with Hydrogen. You can produce hydrogen through reformation, which is very efficient but starts with hydrocarbons, or through electrolysis.
Taken as a whole, an electrolysis/fuel cell system is 30-50% efficient, while a battery system may be 90% efficient. So a battery is maybe twice as efficient.
The problem with batteries is that you have to add more batteries to increase capacity, while with fuel cells you only need to store more hydrogen. So there are many energy storage applications where batteries are not suitable, but hydrogen could be.
These days fuel cells are not a lot more expensive than batteries. Remember, to get more range out of a fuel cell, all you need is a bigger tank, to get more range out of batteries, you need more batteries. So an electric car with a 300 mile range is pretty much impossible to build at any price, but a hydrogen car with that range is not much more expensive than a hydrogen car with a 1 mile range.
And they do not use 3-4 times more power than batteries, that's the whole point. Fuel cells basically are batteries.
There is now, and has only ever been one problem with the hydrogen economy.
The cost and durability of fuel cells.
When was the last time you heard someone say that we need to solve some issues before we can use natural gas? Hydrogen is not much less energy dense, nor is it much more difficult to work with. Storing the hydrogen is a non-issue, we've been storing gasses under pressure for quite a while now.
If the the cost of fuel cells comes down another 10 fold, and we can supply all the need for PEMs, we will have a hydrogen power infrastructure. Until then, hydrogen is nothing special.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you the one who posts this comment on every single article, or are you part of a club or a larger organization? Do you really think that no news applies to nerds? Or is this some kind of joke I don't get?
"the technique also seems tailor made for lazy parents"
No! You are required to spend an enormous amount of time with your children to carry out this technique. The lazy thing is sending them to school!
"I have a feeling that the majority of those that think it would be the best option, are probably better off going back to school themselves."
No, generally people who seek alternative forms of education for their children are the ones who care about whether or not their children are learning, and are willing to give their children the time of day (after all, it is a huge time commitment). Parents who don't care just send their kids to school so they don't have to deal with them.
I was never able to learn my multiplication tables in school, and my teachers told me that I was too stupid to do anything related to engineering or mathematics (despite my strong conceptual understanding). However, after completing my degree and working as an engineer for the last three years, I can multiply quite well. It's funny how much better you learn information that you use every day. I'm surprised that people are expected to learn any other way.
I agree, encouraging a child's natural inquisitiveness through personal interaction and shared experiences is so much better than school, there's no comparison. School is (for the most part) a complete waste of time.
I've always though the issue was more one of key inventions. In the 19th century we invented a workable steam engine. It enabled us to easily harvest and make use of fossil fuels, which in turn has caused countless improvements in transportation, mineral exploration, sanitation, construction, indoor lighting and air conditioning, etc. Basically everything we see as modern technology can be traced back to this one single invention. The innovations related to this tech seem to have tapped out (though I can see maybe a couple more in the pipeline). That's why it appears innovation has stopped.
The underlying problem is that property, which is an essential concept in capitalism, requires government enforcement to exist. That means any capitalistic society needs a very strong government in order to work. This is why the US needs such a large, powerful government. Of course, individualism suffers as a result.
The government has to write laws to define property and liability, and put in-place a police force, and a judiciary to settle all the disputes and take the appropriate people to jail. And in the end, the government is corruptible, so property and liability are defined unfairly. If this goes on long enough, you get a situation where most property was obtained unfairly, but it's all obtained legally. You have more than one in a hundred people in jail and a huge military force engaged in insuring that overseas assets are protected.
In the end, any government will expand and become corrupted, destroying individualism and morality. Capitalism really is a form of government, and it is not exempt from this rule.
Are you sure this comment was meant for me? I was talking about tariffs.
Capitalism without government regulation is an oxymoron. Capitalism hinges on the concept of property, which can only exist through government action, in one form or another. So we can't have capitalism without government intervention.
My argument was not that we should try to eliminate government intervention (though I do think that's a good idea), but rather we should not impose tariffs to eliminate a trade deficit since they will eventually go away on their own. Whenever we are trying to solve a problem, we need to consider the option of doing nothing. In this case, doing nothing has the best result. It's much better than discouraging trade by the use of tariffs.
If you wait long enough, a trade deficit will go away on its own as exchange rates move to match purchasing power. That being true, why bother with government regulations?
Tariffs discourage trade, which hurts everybody. If they are unnecessary, we shouldn't use them.
And your point is? Maybe we should prohibit these businesses from operating in the states. Oh wait, that's why they're leaving. . . And that's the problem.
Patriotism is a highly overrated trait in anything/anybody. If it's better to leave, why stay?
"No building penetration, dead spots inside of major cities, etc..."
Pretty much the same as ATT. One has to wonder how much more popular the iPhone would be if it wasn't locked into these crappy carriers. It's amazing that they can sell these phones when they rarely work as such (I say this as a happy iPhone user).
I don't see how this is any different than they way many courses now try to include an online component to their classes by encouraging students post comments on internet forums. And it seems particularly appropriate that an apologetics class would encourage students to post comments where the views expressed would not be readily accepted (since that's what apologetics is all about). I don't think it's fair to say that posting dissenting viewpoints it trolling. This comment is a troll by that standard.
We most certainly are going back, probably a lot sooner than anyone would guess. That's what happens when you have a bunch of delusional selfish drugged up middle agers ignorantly trying to push around a smaller, younger generation who never learned to listen to authority. I can't believe the baby boomers actually expect the younger generation to support them in their old age! I want some of that they're smoking! (actually I don't, look what it did for them!)
Print is basically dead at this point. Online companies can find other ways to make money because they sell a product people want. Not so for print media.
What's the point of printing information about Ad Block, since the users you want to target are on the web and rarely look at print? Are web ads really that annoying? I don't use any blocker, and I get around just fine.
This is not the first time superconductors have been used for a science project, so there are people out there with experience who know what works and what doesn't. Whether they worked on this project or not is a different matter.
If they want to do this, why haven't they done it? It would be completely legal (until this bill passes).
What you say is true, but I don't know how informative it is. You've definitely got some captain obvious points going on here.
Shouldn't AT&T at least build a wireless network of some kind before they try to claim it's more reliable. What's that AT&T? More bars in more places?! At least Verizon's claim seems to be true.
*for extremely large values of "very soon"
Carbon trading is a scam. There is no rational way to give out the credits, so you are basically give a whole bunch of random people a lot of money for no reason. They will come up with a bizarre scheme that's full of loopholes and hand-waving, and we will end up paying some rich guy with connections to buy a yacht. Gotta love politics.
You can go to jail now for making a video?! That's censorship plain and simple. I though that the government didn't do that here (at least not for private citizens). I can see sending someone to jail for crimes they committed which happened to be videotaped, but not for producing and distributing the videos themselves. This is insane.
I don't think the question is "Who is more trustworthy?" Instead the question is "Who is trustworthy?" Even the most trustworthy person in the world may be wrong, but God is righteous. So I won't ever take someone's word for it with regard to the content of the Bible, but instead it will read it myself. If something doesn't make sense, I ask people about it, conduct research, and engage in a lot of prayerful reflection.
I don't want to argue about which is the better of two flawed systems. As far as I am concerned your complaints about non-Catholic churches are every bit as valid as my complaints against the Catholic Church. I am only interested in the perfect solution God has laid out for me. I don't think the Church which is now passed down trough tradition, either Catholic or otherwise, is a good representation of the Church described in the Bible.
The price per watt on fuel cells has come down 10-fold in the last several years. If they can bring them down another 10-fold they most certainly will be practical. My efficiency statements are not inaccurate, you are comparing different numbers. I'm talking about the overall efficiency of the whole power-delivery system, you are looking at only the efficiency of the battery.
Fuel cells are not disaster upon disaster, as you say, their only downfall is their price. They are more efficient than internal combustion engines, and they can be used to store large amounts of electrical energy.
Batteries suffer from fundamental limitations that mean they simply will not be able to replace conventional transportation and energy storage systems. Charging batteries takes a long time, adding capacity means adding more batteries, batteries are heavy. Hydrogen fuel cells do not suffer from any of these limitations. Their only limitation is their cost.
You are comparing the mass density. However, liquid hydrogen has an energy density of 10MJ/L, vs. 17MJ/L for kerosene. So no, your tank does not have to be 12x bigger, it only has to be about 2x bigger when compared with Kerosene.
Hydrogen has approximately the same energy density (volumetricly) as natural gas for any given pressure (it's a little less, but not much), or when stored in liquid form. So, you can see how it is true when I say that if storing hydrogen is a problem, storing natural gas would be too, but we do it all the time.
You don't charge fuel cells, you fill them with Hydrogen. You can produce hydrogen through reformation, which is very efficient but starts with hydrocarbons, or through electrolysis.
Taken as a whole, an electrolysis/fuel cell system is 30-50% efficient, while a battery system may be 90% efficient. So a battery is maybe twice as efficient.
The problem with batteries is that you have to add more batteries to increase capacity, while with fuel cells you only need to store more hydrogen. So there are many energy storage applications where batteries are not suitable, but hydrogen could be.
These days fuel cells are not a lot more expensive than batteries. Remember, to get more range out of a fuel cell, all you need is a bigger tank, to get more range out of batteries, you need more batteries. So an electric car with a 300 mile range is pretty much impossible to build at any price, but a hydrogen car with that range is not much more expensive than a hydrogen car with a 1 mile range.
And they do not use 3-4 times more power than batteries, that's the whole point. Fuel cells basically are batteries.
There is now, and has only ever been one problem with the hydrogen economy.
The cost and durability of fuel cells.
When was the last time you heard someone say that we need to solve some issues before we can use natural gas? Hydrogen is not much less energy dense, nor is it much more difficult to work with. Storing the hydrogen is a non-issue, we've been storing gasses under pressure for quite a while now.
If the the cost of fuel cells comes down another 10 fold, and we can supply all the need for PEMs, we will have a hydrogen power infrastructure. Until then, hydrogen is nothing special.