...signifant portion of the earth's biosphere dead or extinct....
There is evidence the whole earth once was very much warmer, approaching the temperature of your blood. There are TROPICAL fossils in the arctic regions of Earth.
The reason oil, coal and gas are called fossil fuels is that they once came from living organisms. All energy used by man on this planet other than nuclear comes from the sun. Oil, coal and gas represent stored sunshine from a very long time ago.
These stored fuels are mostly composed of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms that were bound together by the internal chemistry of living organisms. In order for the living creatures to be able to convert solar energy into these fuels, the elements must have been on the surface of the Earth in a form that made them available to photosynthesis. All of the carbon was therefore in the earth's atmosphere before the fossil fuels were stored underground.
This means our planet must have been much warmer before all that carbon was trapped in the underground deposits from which we extract them today. We find fossils, oil and coal in the polar regions made by tropical organisms. It is no accident that most warm blooded creatures have an internal temperature in the range of 95 to 105 deg F (35-40.5 deg C) because this is the range where life molecular processes operate at optimum.
If every known drop of oil, every ounce of coal and every last cubic foot of gas were burned by mankind, would the earth again be at a temperature approaching the internal temperature of warm blooded animals? If this temperature became the average temperature of the whole planet, uniformly from the deepest ocean depth to the highest mountain peaks and from pole to pole, what would be so bad about that?
The dire predictions about coastal flooding would not happen because the moisture holding capacity of the warm, carbon dioxide laden atmosphere would increase to more than offset the molten ice. The amount of water a hurricane can dump demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be suspended in warm air.
What would be so bad about growing bananas in Siberia and fruit trees in the Sahara? Houses and clothes, as we know them today would be largely superfluous. Wild weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and nasty winter storms would be gone. These things are due to temperature gradients in the atmosphere and oceans. The warm, humid, uniform atmosphere would eliminate hot and cold deserts.
One of the mysteries of the past is how the fossils and fuels got preserved and stored underground for our convenient use today. Normal observations today show that when a living organism dies, its remains are rendered back to carbon dioxide and water in a short time or are used again by another living entity.
In order to preserve the hydrocarbons, oxidation and decay have to be prevented in a short time after death. This could have happened by a quick burial such as to exclude oxygen and apply enough heat to prevent micro-organisms from acting to break the organic molecules back into their basic components.
Global warming is definitely happening because of the increase of carbon dioxide in the air. However, the amount of carbon mankind has released into the air so far, compared to how much carbon is known to exist in the world's fossil fuel stores, does not amount to much. This includes only the known reserves of such fuels and does not take into account the undiscovered quantities stored at depths and in places where we could not get them even if we knew they are there. So far, the average global temperature has changed only a very short distance toward the ideal life temperature.
The scare-mongers are right, the warming effect is real, but would ultimately result in a very livable planet. So let's burn up the fossil fuels and then we'd return to a warm global paradise where we would not need any fuel to stay warm. Since it would take a while to burn it all, living things could adapt to the new climate, just as they adapted from what it once was to what it is now.
Indeed, me too and our answerer, an old Mac classic lets me hear the first 10 seconds if they leave a message. I then answer if I want to talk to the caller.
It seems to me a phone spammer or bill collector still would have to know who the trusted friends are whose number they might fake. If I would get such a faked phone call, where the number the caller ID told me it was a friend or relative and it was really a spammer, I would immediately and without fanfare very rudely hang up. Any caller coming up as unknown or some suspected solicitor, right now gets only the answering machine which sends the first 10 seconds to the loudspeaker, if the caller leaves a message. If it someone I want to talk to, I pick up the phone myself.
You think that Osama would say to Kerry: "Here I am, I'm turning myself in"? Why should Kerry be able to find these terrorists any better than Bush? Terrorism will never be eliminated, the best we can hope for is to reduce it to a dull roar, such as we have done to Afghanistan's taliban what Pakistan is also doing. That will be the outcome in Iraq also, whether Bush stays or Kerry gets in. Israel has not managed to eliminate terror all these years, they too realize that the best that can be done is to reduce the terror to the lowest possible level. That is why they are building their wall/fence to slow down the terrorists.
As a Christian the moral integrity of a person running for the highest office is more important than his stand on any particular issue. Mr. Clinton's integrity was zero and so is Kerry's. Kerry speaks with a forked tongue, uttering words the particular crowd he's addressing is most wanting to hear. However, his and Edward's voting and attendance record in the Senate might give you a better insight on what he would likely do if elected.
I don't agree with all that Bush has done, but his deeds and speech largely agree which is definitley NOT the case with Kerry.
How would Arafat know who the next president would be? He wants someone in office who would be less likely to stand by Israel and that one is definitely Kerry. If Bin Laden and the other Al-queida terrorists and the Taliban could vote here on Nov 2, Kerry would certainly be their unanimous choice.
...Except Kerry's answer would depend on who he's talking to...
Kerry, like most democrats is owned by Hollywood, and that is why he gives evasive answers to hard questions. Everyone may not like Bush, but at least he takes a fairly consistent stand on all the important issues. With Kerry no one can be sure that he says what he means and means what he syas. All anyone can go by for sure is his voting record in the Senate. Examine that and you'll find out that he supports the ones who pay him.
Increasing the speed of a G5 or any computer involves more than heat. The other system components also have to be faster. Like the article stated, the clock speed of a computer USED to be a measure of its performance but now the performance has to do more with how much total work a processor can do in a given amount of time. This varies greatly with the type of work to be done, how well the algorithm of the job is translated to the intructions of the processor and how well matched the architecture of a processor is to the algorithm.
...votes are encoded.... What's so great about that? What if the encoding is incorrect by error or malice? How can a anyone know whether the correllation between the names and the non-human readable barcode is right? Here in Oregon we use a simple machine readable paper ballot where a black pencil mark is made by each candidate. Any mismarked ballots are ejected by the reading machine and get scrutinized by humans. Any complex programmable system can be subverted by errors or malice much more readily than a simple, foolproof system of counting the original marks made by the voter on a tangible paper ballot.
How about medium tech, like we have here in Oregon. We have traceable paper ballots that are machine readable. Any ambiguously marked or incompletely erased marks are kicked out by the reading machine and are tabulated by humans, as are the write in candidates. With this system, we get a reasonably fast result and have a traceable record in case of a dispute.
Indeed true, computer bits can disappear into cyberspace without a trace, but tangible paper ballots are much harder to alter en masse or simply make them vanish into an electronic black hole. The dependence on the honesty of a few people is much less with the paper system.
Here in Oregon we still use paper ballots that use a black pencil mark that can be read by an optical scanner. If there is a counting error or controversy, the ballots can be scanned again. I think that this system is a good compromise between hi-tech electronic voting and the old hand read ballots marked with an X next to the name of the candidate. If a voter messes up, the mark can be erased (before the ballot is mailed or put in the ballot box) carefuly and done correctly.
...tend to kill any install that asks for my admin password...
It is probably safe to give the password only IF you are the one that initiated the install process. If you are surfing the web and suddenly the password dialog comes up it is best to cancel that immediately. The Internet has some bad neighborhoods, and it is best to avoid going there in the first place and certainly not download unknown stuff from unknown sources.
...Windows is super insecure because users are admin by default
Windows users HAVE to be admins, since most programs crash if the user is in any way restricted. Windows is still basically a single user system and most software for it always was and still is written under the assumption that a user owns the computer and has access to all parts of the system. *NIX with its multi-user origins does not assume the user has full privs. to run most software.
A person who has administrator privileges by definition can do *anything* to that computer. That is why on our Macs there is only ONE person who has admin priv. So when ordinary users want to do certain things that could be dangerous, they simply can't. Anyone who knows the admin password should be knowlegeable enough about computers not to wantonly install any unsolicited files. The basic rule is really very simple: If you did not intitiate the transaction don't give the password." I have gotten plenty of "phishing" e-mails, but by simply following that rule religigiously, I have never been tricked by even the most clever schemes to give out any useful information.
What if cars worked like the phone system? You dial your destination , tell it to go and it takes you there. Everybody is just a passenger and the "driver" is just there to take over if something goes wrong that the control system cannot handle.
Windows aren't the only computers that lock up so even the power button no longer works. I've got a Mac laptop which has locked up in such a way that the none of the usual controls did anything. Luckily it also has a hardware button in the back that can be pushed with a paper clip and that has always reset it. Otherwise the only way to get it going again is by taking the battery out of it. Since upgrading RAM and switching to OSX it has never crashed at all unless I fiddled with some external SCSI drives.
Cars controlled by software CAN be made reliable, but that has to be designed in from the beginning, something MS has never done and maybe doesn't know how to do, since a PC crashing usually does no bodily harm.
Credit cards are a great convenience, but you have to be disciplined and pay off the balance every month to avoid the exorbitant interest. Buy everything on a credit card and keep track of what you spent. This way you'll build up your credit for that big purchase of a car or house.
How about NO electronics whatsoever? I have an ancient car with over 300,000 miles on it that runs on diesel fuel. After it is running, I can disconnect the battery and it will still run the same. The engine uses NO electricity whatsoever other than to initially power the glow plugs and then crank it.
The article summary states that the competition to these turbines will be fuel cells. Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen and oxygen directly into electricity with no moving parts and the attendant noise. The only pollution they make is clean drinking water. NASA has been using them for many years. There is no known practical means of convert chemical energy to electric power anywhere nearly as efficient as a fuel cell. Virtual all of the stored energy of the hydrogen-oxygen reaction is available as electric power to the load.
As their size and cost decreases, fuel cells will become competitive in many applications that require electricity. Hydrogen can be produced from sunlight and stored in metal hydride tanks using only moderate pressures. The conversion of sunlight into hydrogen is considerably less efficient. However these losses occur in a location where they have less impact than they would have in an electronic device or most other places where the electric power from the fuel cell might be used. Using hydrogen, or any other combustible fuel to power the passengers electronics on an airplane will always involve risk which may be deemed unacceptable anyway, rendering the pollution aspect in the passenger cabin moot.
Hydrogen produced by renewable sources such as hydro, wind and solar could eventually replace all fossil fuels. On the much more distant future horizon, the thermonuclear fusion power generation could be used to produce hydrogen to satisfy all power needs without any pollution.
Slashdot Mirror
...signifant portion of the earth's biosphere dead or extinct....
There is evidence the whole earth once was very much warmer, approaching the temperature of your blood. There are TROPICAL fossils in the arctic regions of Earth.
...Show me this hasnt happened before...
The reason oil, coal and gas are called fossil fuels is that they once came from living organisms. All energy used by man on this planet other than nuclear comes from the sun. Oil, coal and gas represent stored sunshine from a very long time ago.
These stored fuels are mostly composed of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms that were bound together by the internal chemistry of living organisms. In order for the living creatures to be able to convert solar energy into these fuels, the elements must have been on the surface of the Earth in a form that made them available to photosynthesis. All of the carbon was therefore in the earth's atmosphere before the fossil fuels were stored underground.
This means our planet must have been much warmer before all that carbon was trapped in the underground deposits from which we extract them today. We find fossils, oil and coal in the polar regions made by tropical organisms. It is no accident that most warm blooded creatures have an internal temperature in the range of 95 to 105 deg F (35-40.5 deg C) because this is the range where life molecular processes operate at optimum.
If every known drop of oil, every ounce of coal and every last cubic foot of gas were burned by mankind, would the earth again be at a temperature approaching the internal temperature of warm blooded animals? If this temperature became the average temperature of the whole planet, uniformly from the deepest ocean depth to the highest mountain peaks and from pole to pole, what would be so bad about that?
The dire predictions about coastal flooding would not happen because the moisture holding capacity of the warm, carbon dioxide laden atmosphere would increase to more than offset the molten ice. The amount of water a hurricane can dump demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be suspended in warm air.
What would be so bad about growing bananas in Siberia and fruit trees in the Sahara? Houses and clothes, as we know them today would be largely superfluous. Wild weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and nasty winter storms would be gone. These things are due to temperature gradients in the atmosphere and oceans. The warm, humid, uniform atmosphere would eliminate hot and cold deserts.
One of the mysteries of the past is how the fossils and fuels got preserved and stored underground for our convenient use today. Normal observations today show that when a living organism dies, its remains are rendered back to carbon dioxide and water in a short time or are used again by another living entity.
In order to preserve the hydrocarbons, oxidation and decay have to be prevented in a short time after death. This could have happened by a quick burial such as to exclude oxygen and apply enough heat to prevent micro-organisms from acting to break the organic molecules back into their basic components.
Global warming is definitely happening because of the increase of carbon dioxide in the air. However, the amount of carbon mankind has released into the air so far, compared to how much carbon is known to exist in the world's fossil fuel stores, does not amount to much. This includes only the known reserves of such fuels and does not take into account the undiscovered quantities stored at depths and in places where we could not get them even if we knew they are there. So far, the average global temperature has changed only a very short distance toward the ideal life temperature.
The scare-mongers are right, the warming effect is real, but would ultimately result in a very livable planet. So let's burn up the fossil fuels and then we'd return to a warm global paradise where we would not need any fuel to stay warm. Since it would take a while to burn it all, living things could adapt to the new climate, just as they adapted from what it once was to what it is now.
....otherwise they get my answering machine...
Indeed, me too and our answerer, an old Mac classic lets me hear the first 10 seconds if they leave a message. I then answer if I want to talk to the caller.
It seems to me a phone spammer or bill collector still would have to know who the trusted friends are whose number they might fake. If I would get such a faked phone call, where the number the caller ID told me it was a friend or relative and it was really a spammer, I would immediately and without fanfare very rudely hang up. Any caller coming up as unknown or some suspected solicitor, right now gets only the answering machine which sends the first 10 seconds to the loudspeaker, if the caller leaves a message. If it someone I want to talk to, I pick up the phone myself.
You think that Osama would say to Kerry: "Here I am, I'm turning myself in"? Why should Kerry be able to find these terrorists any better than Bush? Terrorism will never be eliminated, the best we can hope for is to reduce it to a dull roar, such as we have done to Afghanistan's taliban what Pakistan is also doing. That will be the outcome in Iraq also, whether Bush stays or Kerry gets in. Israel has not managed to eliminate terror all these years, they too realize that the best that can be done is to reduce the terror to the lowest possible level. That is why they are building their wall/fence to slow down the terrorists.
That one person can and should make a non-admin account for everyday use. Then when asked for a password, be suspicious.
As a Christian the moral integrity of a person running for the highest office is more important than his stand on any particular issue. Mr. Clinton's integrity was zero and so is Kerry's. Kerry speaks with a forked tongue, uttering words the particular crowd he's addressing is most wanting to hear. However, his and Edward's voting and attendance record in the Senate might give you a better insight on what he would likely do if elected.
I don't agree with all that Bush has done, but his deeds and speech largely agree which is definitley NOT the case with Kerry.
...while ingratiating himself....
How would Arafat know who the next president would be? He wants someone in office who would be less likely to stand by Israel and that one is definitely Kerry. If Bin Laden and the other Al-queida terrorists and the Taliban could vote here on Nov 2, Kerry would certainly be their unanimous choice.
...Except Kerry's answer would depend on who he's talking to...
Kerry, like most democrats is owned by Hollywood, and that is why he gives evasive answers to hard questions. Everyone may not like Bush, but at least he takes a fairly consistent stand on all the important issues. With Kerry no one can be sure that he says what he means and means what he syas. All anyone can go by for sure is his voting record in the Senate. Examine that and you'll find out that he supports the ones who pay him.
Increasing the speed of a G5 or any computer involves more than heat. The other system components also have to be faster. Like the article stated, the clock speed of a computer USED to be a measure of its performance but now the performance has to do more with how much total work a processor can do in a given amount of time. This varies greatly with the type of work to be done, how well the algorithm of the job is translated to the intructions of the processor and how well matched the architecture of a processor is to the algorithm.
...votes are encoded ....
What's so great about that? What if the encoding is incorrect by error or malice? How can a anyone know whether the correllation between the names and the non-human readable barcode is right? Here in Oregon we use a simple machine readable paper ballot where a black pencil mark is made by each candidate. Any mismarked ballots are ejected by the reading machine and get scrutinized by humans. Any complex programmable system can be subverted by errors or malice much more readily than a simple, foolproof system of counting the original marks made by the voter on a tangible paper ballot.
How about medium tech, like we have here in Oregon. We have traceable paper ballots that are machine readable. Any ambiguously marked or incompletely erased marks are kicked out by the reading machine and are tabulated by humans, as are the write in candidates. With this system, we get a reasonably fast result and have a traceable record in case of a dispute.
...happen much more easily inside a black box...
Indeed true, computer bits can disappear into cyberspace without a trace, but tangible paper ballots are much harder to alter en masse or simply make them vanish into an electronic black hole. The dependence on the honesty of a few people is much less with the paper system.
Here in Oregon we still use paper ballots that use a black pencil mark that can be read by an optical scanner. If there is a counting error or controversy, the ballots can be scanned again. I think that this system is a good compromise between hi-tech electronic voting and the old hand read ballots marked with an X next to the name of the candidate. If a voter messes up, the mark can be erased (before the ballot is mailed or put in the ballot box) carefuly and done correctly.
most computers also use 5Volts in addition to the 12 V The 12V usually runs the motor part of the disk drives and the 5V the logic circuits.
a good fridge or freezer should keep food cold enough for at least 24 hours
...tend to kill any install that asks for my admin password...
It is probably safe to give the password only IF you are the one that initiated the install process. If you are surfing the web and suddenly the password dialog comes up it is best to cancel that immediately. The Internet has some bad neighborhoods, and it is best to avoid going there in the first place and certainly not download unknown stuff from unknown sources.
...Windows is super insecure because users are admin by default
Windows users HAVE to be admins, since most programs crash if the user is in any way restricted. Windows is still basically a single user system and most software for it always was and still is written under the assumption that a user owns the computer and has access to all parts of the system. *NIX with its multi-user origins does not assume the user has full privs. to run most software.
A person who has administrator privileges by definition can do *anything* to that computer. That is why on our Macs there is only ONE person who has admin priv. So when ordinary users want to do certain things that could be dangerous, they simply can't. Anyone who knows the admin password should be knowlegeable enough about computers not to wantonly install any unsolicited files. The basic rule is really very simple: If you did not intitiate the transaction don't give the password." I have gotten plenty of "phishing" e-mails, but by simply following that rule religigiously, I have never been tricked by even the most clever schemes to give out any useful information.
...putting limits on our vehicles....
What if cars worked like the phone system? You dial your destination , tell it to go and it takes you there. Everybody is just a passenger and the "driver" is just there to take over if something goes wrong that the control system cannot handle.
Windows aren't the only computers that lock up so even the power button no longer works. I've got a Mac laptop which has locked up in such a way that the none of the usual controls did anything. Luckily it also has a hardware button in the back that can be pushed with a paper clip and that has always reset it. Otherwise the only way to get it going again is by taking the battery out of it. Since upgrading RAM and switching to OSX it has never crashed at all unless I fiddled with some external SCSI drives.
Cars controlled by software CAN be made reliable, but that has to be designed in from the beginning, something MS has never done and maybe doesn't know how to do, since a PC crashing usually does no bodily harm.
...you have no credit cards....
Credit cards are a great convenience, but you have to be disciplined and pay off the balance every month to avoid the exorbitant interest. Buy everything on a credit card and keep track of what you spent. This way you'll build up your credit for that big purchase of a car or house.
...my little sports car is probably less likely to kill other people...
But you in your little sports car are more likely to get killed by someone driving a great big, heavy, gas guzzling SUV.
...controlled by a small amount of hardware...
How about NO electronics whatsoever? I have an ancient car with over 300,000 miles on it that runs on diesel fuel. After it is running, I can disconnect the battery and it will still run the same. The engine uses NO electricity whatsoever other than to initially power the glow plugs and then crank it.
The article summary states that the competition to these turbines will be fuel cells. Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen and oxygen directly into electricity with no moving parts and the attendant noise. The only pollution they make is clean drinking water. NASA has been using them for many years. There is no known practical means of convert chemical energy to electric power anywhere nearly as efficient as a fuel cell. Virtual all of the stored energy of the hydrogen-oxygen reaction is available as electric power to the load.
As their size and cost decreases, fuel cells will become competitive in many applications that require electricity. Hydrogen can be produced from sunlight and stored in metal hydride tanks using only moderate pressures. The conversion of sunlight into hydrogen is considerably less efficient. However these losses occur in a location where they have less impact than they would have in an electronic device or most other places where the electric power from the fuel cell might be used. Using hydrogen, or any other combustible fuel to power the passengers electronics on an airplane will always involve risk which may be deemed unacceptable anyway, rendering the pollution aspect in the passenger cabin moot.
Hydrogen produced by renewable sources such as hydro, wind and solar could eventually replace all fossil fuels. On the much more distant future horizon, the thermonuclear fusion power generation could be used to produce hydrogen to satisfy all power needs without any pollution.