Buy one beefy transformer for your common DC voltages - start with 5 and 12 - at Radio Shack. If you are enterprising, you could also repurpose a PC power supply for this task. Then buy a couple of these adaptaplug extensions. For each device, buy the appropriate adaptaplug connector for that device, and a "y" connector. Use Y connectors and extensions to daisy-chain as many devices as you need to the appropriate voltage chain (careful not to go too long on the wires though), until you reach the current capacity of your transformer. For those pesky devices that have the cord attached inside the device, just lop off their crappy wall wart or connector and solder on a hobby connector.
What difference does it make if man caused it or not?
I'm sorry, I thought that was obvious. It seems relevant to me because if man is not the cause, it is probable that man cannot effect a solution, in which case it is sensible not to waste too much time trying to do so.
I think that the questions you pose are and always will be unanswerable to your satisfaction. I also think that historical evidence demonstrates that humans are more than capable of adapting to a very wide variety of ecological conditions. Therefore, I think the logical way ahead is to focus on maximizing our happiness (in the utilitarian sense, not the hedonistic sense). Only then will the answers to some of your questions be known. The future is an uncharted path. What lies ahead? Maybe something good; maybe something bad; maybe more of status quo. But the only way to find out is to press ahead. Far better, in my opinion, to press ahead looking forwards, ready to meet challenges and overcome them, rather than being forced down the path, weakened, afraid, and looking backwards.
However, there is broad consensus...we are a significant, if not the sole, cause.
How, exactly, can there be broad consensus for a conclusion for which it is impossible and absurd to provide convincing? Let's take softer standard, then. What evidence is there that demonstrates it more likely than not that man is the significant, if not sole cause of warming? I'm not saying there is none; I am actually curious about this, but as a skeptic by nature I demand evidence, not consensus.
First of all, public defenders are only for criminal cases, not civil ones. Second of all, it's not like you can just win by default even if the law is on your side - you still need to present a defense. Third of all, DISCOVERY. If the suit has even a chance of success, they can and will require you to turn over all kinds of documents, records, files, information. It's a huge waste of time and an enormous burden, especially on a small business. And it's an unavoidable one - if you refuse to comply, you will go to jail.
I wasn't talking about putting reactors in cars, silly. Nuke power plant --> electricity --> batteries --> wheels. You could use coal if you really wanted to, but why dump more CO2 in than is necessary?
Re:Hmmm, First Virus to ask for your password?
on
First Mac OS X Virus?
·
· Score: 1
Maybe some higher demand for E85 (not enough supply)? Maybe some lower demand for gasoline (plently of supply available now)?
Both. Gas prices have declined slightly in the past months, and as the article states:
The price of ethanol has been driven up because major oil refiners are suddenly buying in bulk. They're stocking up on ethanol as a replacement for MTBE, a petroleum-based additive suspected of causing cancer. MTBE and ethanol boost the octane of gasoline and can reduce pollution.
So, theoretically, your plan could work, but this story gives me concern that there simply isn't a sufficient supply of E85. If you implement your tax plan, and more people switch to E85, the price of E85 will go up, so you raise your taxes, which causes more pepole to switch, which causes the price of E85 to go up, and so in an inflationary spiral. At some point, people will not put up with ridiculous amounts of taxes, and they will vote in politicians who will scrap your plan. Better to let E85 compete in open market, and let people adopt it when and if it is ready to be adopted.
POssibly, though of course there's no rule that they must follow the same path of progress that we did. For example, China plans to get a lot of its energy from nuclear reactors. Many areas go from having no phone service to having wireless phone service. There's no real reason they couldn't go from horse and buggy to electric car.
History disagrees. When oil embargoes in the 1970's caused a spike in oil prices, there was a huge upsurge in the popularity of smaller, fuel-efficient cars. As prices came back down, that trend reversed itself again, but there's no reason to think that people don't respond to high fuel prices. Haven't you noticed that hybrids can't be kept in stock, despite costing more and being only marginally economically efficient at today's fuel prices? Or that Ford is advertising a hybrid SUV? Or that Toyota's ad campaign for the camry is all about fuel consumption? They know what sells cars, and their research tells them that this is something people care about already - and if prices go up, they'll care even more. Sure, there will always be some who will not give up the gas guzzlers. But this isn't a religion, it's not necessary to convert every last person, and people - in general - really do respond to price incentives.
When they argue that global warming isn't happening, or man is not causing it, they are being flat-out stupid. There is no scientific debate at all about either of those two points
Can you point me to some indisputable evidence that man alone is responsible for the rise in the earth's temperature?
And the scary part is, we've procrastinated for so long, I'm not so sure that we'll find a suitable replacement in time
DON'T PANIC! Even if we have reached "peak oil," however that is defined, it will be a long process. Production will start a long, slow decline, and prices will start a long, steady rise. New conservation methods will come on line as prices rise, consumption will fall, and lifestyles will change, further slowing the process. And we can always fall back on nuclear energy.
Princeton University geology Professor Kenneth Deffeyes has been studying world petroleum production data and has come to the conclusion that the world hit peak oil last December 16, 2005.
Probably because it's no trivial matter to cool and maintain something at 20 degrees Kelvin, plus it takes almost a third of the energy stored just to cool it.
The problem is that hydrogen isn't all that great as an energy storage device. To get any kind of range, you need large quantities at really high pressures, especially if your burning it instead of using it in a fuel cell. If you're going to plug in your car and charge it up, you might as well use sealed batteries; they'll cost less and hold more energy.
It's the other outcome that I don't want to think about: what if they're right?
Well, what if they are? That's really the important question, isn't it? I see no reason to assume a priori that any climate change of any kind is bad. The Earth is a constantly changing place, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Buy one beefy transformer for your common DC voltages - start with 5 and 12 - at Radio Shack. If you are enterprising, you could also repurpose a PC power supply for this task. Then buy a couple of these adaptaplug extensions. For each device, buy the appropriate adaptaplug connector for that device, and a "y" connector. Use Y connectors and extensions to daisy-chain as many devices as you need to the appropriate voltage chain (careful not to go too long on the wires though), until you reach the current capacity of your transformer. For those pesky devices that have the cord attached inside the device, just lop off their crappy wall wart or connector and solder on a hobby connector.
You know, people also say the same thing about products you have to give away for free.
Just sayin'.
All your fingers broken? Why not take 10 seconds and try it yourself, rather than relying on slashdot to do your thinking for you?
Not for the Germans.
I'm sorry, I thought that was obvious. It seems relevant to me because if man is not the cause, it is probable that man cannot effect a solution, in which case it is sensible not to waste too much time trying to do so.
But nuclear batteries in cars may very well be practical sometime soon.
I think that the questions you pose are and always will be unanswerable to your satisfaction. I also think that historical evidence demonstrates that humans are more than capable of adapting to a very wide variety of ecological conditions. Therefore, I think the logical way ahead is to focus on maximizing our happiness (in the utilitarian sense, not the hedonistic sense). Only then will the answers to some of your questions be known. The future is an uncharted path. What lies ahead? Maybe something good; maybe something bad; maybe more of status quo. But the only way to find out is to press ahead. Far better, in my opinion, to press ahead looking forwards, ready to meet challenges and overcome them, rather than being forced down the path, weakened, afraid, and looking backwards.
How, exactly, can there be broad consensus for a conclusion for which it is impossible and absurd to provide convincing? Let's take softer standard, then. What evidence is there that demonstrates it more likely than not that man is the significant, if not sole cause of warming? I'm not saying there is none; I am actually curious about this, but as a skeptic by nature I demand evidence, not consensus.
First of all, public defenders are only for criminal cases, not civil ones. Second of all, it's not like you can just win by default even if the law is on your side - you still need to present a defense. Third of all, DISCOVERY. If the suit has even a chance of success, they can and will require you to turn over all kinds of documents, records, files, information. It's a huge waste of time and an enormous burden, especially on a small business. And it's an unavoidable one - if you refuse to comply, you will go to jail.
I wasn't talking about putting reactors in cars, silly. Nuke power plant --> electricity --> batteries --> wheels. You could use coal if you really wanted to, but why dump more CO2 in than is necessary?
Only if the user is root.
Both. Gas prices have declined slightly in the past months, and as the article states:
So, theoretically, your plan could work, but this story gives me concern that there simply isn't a sufficient supply of E85. If you implement your tax plan, and more people switch to E85, the price of E85 will go up, so you raise your taxes, which causes more pepole to switch, which causes the price of E85 to go up, and so in an inflationary spiral. At some point, people will not put up with ridiculous amounts of taxes, and they will vote in politicians who will scrap your plan. Better to let E85 compete in open market, and let people adopt it when and if it is ready to be adopted.
Oil hasn't peaked, it's just jumped the shark.
I don't know where you are getting your facts, but E85 is NOT cheaper than gasoline, at least not anymore.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-02-14-e85-u sat_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
Excerpt:
Come again? Canada is our number one source of imported oil.
POssibly, though of course there's no rule that they must follow the same path of progress that we did. For example, China plans to get a lot of its energy from nuclear reactors. Many areas go from having no phone service to having wireless phone service. There's no real reason they couldn't go from horse and buggy to electric car.
Nothing. People have been saying this for fifty years, and nobody has panicked yet.
History disagrees. When oil embargoes in the 1970's caused a spike in oil prices, there was a huge upsurge in the popularity of smaller, fuel-efficient cars. As prices came back down, that trend reversed itself again, but there's no reason to think that people don't respond to high fuel prices. Haven't you noticed that hybrids can't be kept in stock, despite costing more and being only marginally economically efficient at today's fuel prices? Or that Ford is advertising a hybrid SUV? Or that Toyota's ad campaign for the camry is all about fuel consumption? They know what sells cars, and their research tells them that this is something people care about already - and if prices go up, they'll care even more. Sure, there will always be some who will not give up the gas guzzlers. But this isn't a religion, it's not necessary to convert every last person, and people - in general - really do respond to price incentives.
Can you point me to some indisputable evidence that man alone is responsible for the rise in the earth's temperature?
DON'T PANIC! Even if we have reached "peak oil," however that is defined, it will be a long process. Production will start a long, slow decline, and prices will start a long, steady rise. New conservation methods will come on line as prices rise, consumption will fall, and lifestyles will change, further slowing the process. And we can always fall back on nuclear energy.
Yeah but what time?
300 bar? Well, give me a call when you can find a solar-powered small air compressor that goes up to 4300 PSI.
Probably because it's no trivial matter to cool and maintain something at 20 degrees Kelvin, plus it takes almost a third of the energy stored just to cool it.
The problem is that hydrogen isn't all that great as an energy storage device. To get any kind of range, you need large quantities at really high pressures, especially if your burning it instead of using it in a fuel cell. If you're going to plug in your car and charge it up, you might as well use sealed batteries; they'll cost less and hold more energy.
Well, what if they are? That's really the important question, isn't it? I see no reason to assume a priori that any climate change of any kind is bad. The Earth is a constantly changing place, after all.