There is no problem with noble metal catalysts for fuel cells if they use internal combustion rather than fuel cells.
Just because something is cheaper or easier to do, doesn't mean it's cleaner. Expensive fuel cells are far more efficient than cheaper ICEs (including those that burn hydrogen).
Internal combustion seems to be the current track, how else would we have big loud cars?
Gasp, we'd have to give that up! Besides, the sound of a car just isn't the same without the smell of gas and rubber.
The real issue is still global warming and environmental effects. H2O is a greenhouse gas, just like CO2. H2O also has more immediate effects on local weather. If we switch over to hydrogen powered autos, we can count on more foggy roadways in the future.
Gasoline consists of hydrocarbons (with a lot of additives to help it burn cleanly). The chemical formula for hydrocarbons is CH3-(CH2)n-CH3. (The n indicates that the number varies. The molucule is a chain of carbon with hydrogens hanging off.) Burning gas gives mostly water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) (and some other chemicals that are by products of our inefficiency, like carbon monoxide (CO)).
You're not really going to get any more water emitted from your "hydrogen powered" cars that you already have being emitted from standard gas cars. What you don't get is CO2, CO, etc. The pollution at the car level is zero. (Pollution is shifted to the factories that produce the H2.)
OTOH, there could be some interesting benefits. Imagine the whole stretch of desert along U.S. Highways turning green because of the new abundance of water... (Not really a realistic scenerio, though.)
You're right, not realisitc. See above.
Finally, as others have pointed out, Hydrogen merely carries the energy, you still have to generate the energy by burning fossil fuels, running nuclear reactors, setting up windmills, or some other means, and how that energy generation is done will determine the effect on the climate.
Jury is still out on the climatic effects. But some forms of energy generation and conversion are cleaner or more efficient than others. (Unfortunately, these are often more expensive, too.)
Katrina should have been a wake-up call for all of us. While it's unknown and probably unknowable if Katrina was the result of global warming, it's pretty certain that as the oceans heat up, we'll get more Katrina-sized storms. We've got to take action to stop the greenhouse warming now.
I'm from California and am well aware of the problems caused by warm water (El Nino).
You can take action by conserving energy and pushing your legislative representatives towards greener policies. You can plant trees to soak up CO2. (Just don't burn them for firewood later!)
Decomposing logs release CO2 back into the atmosphere anyway. It's just slower.
The laser would be used to compress and heat a small capsule of deuterium and tritium until the nuclei are hot enough to undergo nuclear fusion and produce helium and neutrons.
Web based surveys are not scientific (not a random sample), therefore are completely worthless.
It's a random sample of people who responded, just not of the population at large. Just because it's not a random sample doesn't mean it's worthless. It can still give ideas on what to study further.
Who is more likely to fill out a web based survey, those who use time at work looking at the web, or those who don't?
That's true, but the survey can still be scientific as long as biases are explored and detailed in the report
There's the problem, and any conclusions drawn from this data about the general American population have no basis.
I don't disagree with this statement. News in America is typically worthless because of this. News is no longer about information but about selling a product. As editors try market their product by doctoring articles and sensationalizing headlines, we loose insight. Not to mention that reporters rarely have the background in the field they're reporting (except meteorologists).
The students broke the law--the very same law that protects you from having to worry about unauthorized computer access.
There are laws in place to prevent people from robbing you as well. Does that mean you shouldn't lock your door at night? I just don't follow your logic.
I'm talking about the loss of rights to use media and information THAT YOU BOUGHT, NOT rented, or licensed.
Not to be a troll, but there is no difference between "licensing" something and "buying" it. When you walk into a store and purchase something, you are agreeing to an implicit license. Usually this is along the lines of, "return it here for up to 30 days. If anything goes wrong after that, the manufacture will fix it up to a year. Beyond that, do whatever you want but we're not repsonsible."
When people refer to "licensing" they usually mean signing some other contract that does not include the "do whatever you want" clause implicit in "buying."
When "YOU BUY" something today, more often then not their is an explicit license agreement. If you don't like the limitations, it's your own damn fault for spending money on it. You should have found a license that allowed you to own the product.
Don't get me wrong, I hate M$ and the **AA's as much as anyone and despise their licensing schemes. You must realize, however, that you do not have any rights that are not given in the contract that you agreed to in purchasing something. Where as in the past licenses were implicit and you could claim that the store owner/manufacturer is responsible for "X", now the contracts are explicit.
Until we get around to changing the law (in America), it's perfectly legal for companies to take your "rights" away, but only if you're dumb enough to let them.
Think of how funny it would have been to you 20 years ago if someone told you that you wouldn't be able to open a document or run a program on your computer because Microsoft didn't give you a code to do so.
Actually, 20 years ago, it would have been rather confusing. Run a program? Is that less then running a marathon? Open a document, that's silly; just take off the paper clip!
If the hardware can burn, shock, or do anything hazardous, it is up to the hardware to mitigate that problem.
It's not unreasonable to assume that some piece of hardware (like a motherboard and CPU) will only be used with another piece of hardware (like a case). If someone chooses not to, then bad things can happen. (Maybe I can burn myself on the CPU? Who knows?) If it's reasonable to assume that I have hardware protections in place, why is it not reasonable to assume that I have software protections in place?
Let's go back to the automobile for a minute. How many hardware interlocks are being replaced with software? Quite a few.
What about Broadcom's wireless products. Although they're not dangerous, the hardward clearly is not designed to prevent you from stepping on (US) Military frequencies. They rely on software to do that.
We want to work with other willing service providers to enable their users to communicate directly with Google Talk users.
From what I understand, they want all ISPs to host their own IM servers that are interoperable, just like email servers. This doesn't sound unreasonable.
For the time being, Google is the only one hosting such servers (although you can't really claim to be interoperable if there is no one to cooperate with). It makes sense that if you're using a Google server you must first login with Google credentials. Requiring a Gmail account fits perfectly with there model.
If you really want to use your primary email to chat, then tell your ISP to join up. Until then, you have to sign up with Google, which accounts for the extra email address.
The checkout of the future will be accomplished by the simple act of walking through the door. The door will be smart enough to read the tags on everything in your cart and then charge your credit card straight from your back pocket. The credit companies will even share your personal information for you so that the store can pick out the best card to use (if you have more than one). Isn't that nice of them?
As a regular donor, I concur with this. It is extremely frustrating to be turned away (temporarily) for some of the most absurd reasons, especially if it's after they've already poked your finger.
My favorite reason was that I went to Nayarita, a state in Mexico with a "malaria risk." The fun part is, I was only 5 miles across the border into the region (from Jalisco, which is "safe") and I stayed on the beach and out of the jungle. As a result, I could not give blood. (This is despite the fact that I had been back in the states for 10 months without any of the symptoms and that the typical incubation period for malaria is 7-30 days. This is also despite the fact that 5 months earlier I had already successfully donated under an earlier set of rules.)
Do mosquitos carrying malaria really follow the geopolitical boundaries imposed by human governments?
Actually, I think they use lasers that "weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures (sic) the size of a large fridge" and are "powerful enough to knock out a missile." Oh, shoot. I think I got my stories mixed up again.
Angry people are going to commit acts of violence whether there are video games or not.
Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious. Not only are they going to commit crimes, they're going to look for ways to avoid responsiblity too. Whereas before one might have claimed insanity, now, he or she can claim that "video games taught me that my actions were ok." Shifting blame is (unfortunately) a significant part of human nature.
A better analogy: you're a teenager. Your parents give you keys to your new car (by a password taped at the bottom of the computer). You get used to the freedom to do whatever you want. Now, your dad realizes you're using the car far more than he expected and takes the key away from you. Now your car sits in your driveway except when your dad gives you explicit permission to use it. You're only allowed to run basic errands like dropping your sister at school (or run academically sanctioned software). Sooner or later, you deside to take the key back when he's not looking and make a duplicate so you can use the car fully again (hack back into the admin account). Sooner or later, dad figures out that you've gone behind his back intentionally.
Should he a:
Call the cops
Take away the car
Discipline you and hope you learn
The response will vary based on the father (or the school administration). Consider this: when you go off to college, your sister gets the car (or the next student gets the laptop). Your reckless driving means that the engine will require a little more maintenance than it otherwise would have required (actually, the laptop hard drive should be wiped and have a clean install of the software anyway). Will the father consider this fact when punishing you? Should a father really press felony changes against his teen--someone whose well being he is directly responsible for--or should he handle it in a manner that the teen might still recover from? Legally, the father is right in any case, but what about morally?
I recognize this analogy is not perfect and does not account for the students spying on the administrators. Attack that as a week point if you like. Personally, I think it should be a moot point because I have no simpathy for the administrators after they were spying on the students. I once heard a saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I hope that it still applies even today.
Here's a better idea, install the cat5 where you know you'll need it (your home office, the kids' rooms, anywhere you will have a desktop, perhaps near the tv for the latest 'Tivo'). Everywhere else, wireless will probably be good enough because you're probably using your laptop anyway.
When you realize "damn, I should have run some Cat-5 cable to X", simply run it under the house in the crawl space. (You do have one don't you?) It's really not hard, identify where you want the cable to come through the floor, drill a hole through the carpet, then stuff a piece of string (or better, baling wire so it can actually be used to pull the cable through) down the hole (or something else so you can see it from below). Put on your dust mask, some grubby clothes, and take 2 Benadryl. Now your ready to run the the cable wherever you want.
I've done this multiple times in my own house and other's. It may take you a couple hours (and works better if you have above that you can coordinate with), but no matter how much you plan now, you'll end up doing it anyway (unless you pay to have conduit to every room). An alternative of course is the attic/crawlspace above your house.
It would be wonderful to have a massive wild reserve in North America where Grizzlies, Wolves, Buffalo and numerous other endangered North American species could actually exist in their natural state devoid of human pressure.
Is it just me, or shouldn't we save our own mega-fauna before saving others? Reachieving the balance that existed in the 1600s seems far more important than that which existed 13k years ago.
Besides, I don't see anyone trying to bring back the wooly mammoth!
IMO, it is vital to make homework not
feel like homework in order to get children interested in their schooling again and combat their growing apathy.
Maybe personal responsibility shoudn't feel like personal responsibility in order to get citizens (of America) interested in democracy again and combat their growing apathy
Slashdot Mirror
"one time I had forgotten the key sequence to quit emacs"
That's not too hard:
Ctrl-X,Ctrl-C
Or the work around:
Ctrl-z (send it to the background)
ps|grep emacs
kill -9
Is it just me, or is the work around the only way to exit emacs when it's run inside cygwin?
Could you please pass me a Kleenex("soft facial tissue")?
I'm out of Q-tips ("cotton-tipped swabs"), can you pick up another box at the store?
Do you have any Chapstick ("moisturizing lip balm")?
Just because something is cheaper or easier to do, doesn't mean it's cleaner. Expensive fuel cells are far more efficient than cheaper ICEs (including those that burn hydrogen).
Gasp, we'd have to give that up! Besides, the sound of a car just isn't the same without the smell of gas and rubber.
Gasoline consists of hydrocarbons (with a lot of additives to help it burn cleanly). The chemical formula for hydrocarbons is CH3-(CH2)n-CH3. (The n indicates that the number varies. The molucule is a chain of carbon with hydrogens hanging off.) Burning gas gives mostly water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) (and some other chemicals that are by products of our inefficiency, like carbon monoxide (CO)).
You're not really going to get any more water emitted from your "hydrogen powered" cars that you already have being emitted from standard gas cars. What you don't get is CO2, CO, etc. The pollution at the car level is zero. (Pollution is shifted to the factories that produce the H2.)
You're right, not realisitc. See above.
Jury is still out on the climatic effects. But some forms of energy generation and conversion are cleaner or more efficient than others. (Unfortunately, these are often more expensive, too.)
I'm from California and am well aware of the problems caused by warm water (El Nino).
Decomposing logs release CO2 back into the atmosphere anyway. It's just slower.
Sounds a lot like Spiderman to me.
It's a random sample of people who responded, just not of the population at large. Just because it's not a random sample doesn't mean it's worthless. It can still give ideas on what to study further.
That's true, but the survey can still be scientific as long as biases are explored and detailed in the report
I don't disagree with this statement. News in America is typically worthless because of this. News is no longer about information but about selling a product. As editors try market their product by doctoring articles and sensationalizing headlines, we loose insight. Not to mention that reporters rarely have the background in the field they're reporting (except meteorologists).
There are laws in place to prevent people from robbing you as well. Does that mean you shouldn't lock your door at night? I just don't follow your logic.
There is a reason why supervillians run Linux! http://www.ubergeek.tv/switchlinux/
Not to be a troll, but there is no difference between "licensing" something and "buying" it. When you walk into a store and purchase something, you are agreeing to an implicit license. Usually this is along the lines of, "return it here for up to 30 days. If anything goes wrong after that, the manufacture will fix it up to a year. Beyond that, do whatever you want but we're not repsonsible."
When people refer to "licensing" they usually mean signing some other contract that does not include the "do whatever you want" clause implicit in "buying."
When "YOU BUY" something today, more often then not their is an explicit license agreement. If you don't like the limitations, it's your own damn fault for spending money on it. You should have found a license that allowed you to own the product.
Don't get me wrong, I hate M$ and the **AA's as much as anyone and despise their licensing schemes. You must realize, however, that you do not have any rights that are not given in the contract that you agreed to in purchasing something. Where as in the past licenses were implicit and you could claim that the store owner/manufacturer is responsible for "X", now the contracts are explicit.
Until we get around to changing the law (in America), it's perfectly legal for companies to take your "rights" away, but only if you're dumb enough to let them.
Actually, 20 years ago, it would have been rather confusing. Run a program? Is that less then running a marathon? Open a document, that's silly; just take off the paper clip!
The group is "recently Trusted"? You mean it wasn't trusted before? Oh, I get it. You meant "the TCG's recently published best practices document."
Sorry, bad grammar confuses me sometimes.
But I thought boats were safer than cars?
It's not unreasonable to assume that some piece of hardware (like a motherboard and CPU) will only be used with another piece of hardware (like a case). If someone chooses not to, then bad things can happen. (Maybe I can burn myself on the CPU? Who knows?) If it's reasonable to assume that I have hardware protections in place, why is it not reasonable to assume that I have software protections in place?
Let's go back to the automobile for a minute. How many hardware interlocks are being replaced with software? Quite a few.
What about Broadcom's wireless products. Although they're not dangerous, the hardward clearly is not designed to prevent you from stepping on (US) Military frequencies. They rely on software to do that.
From the about page http://www.google.com/talk/about.html#open:
From what I understand, they want all ISPs to host their own IM servers that are interoperable, just like email servers. This doesn't sound unreasonable.
For the time being, Google is the only one hosting such servers (although you can't really claim to be interoperable if there is no one to cooperate with). It makes sense that if you're using a Google server you must first login with Google credentials. Requiring a Gmail account fits perfectly with there model.
If you really want to use your primary email to chat, then tell your ISP to join up. Until then, you have to sign up with Google, which accounts for the extra email address.
The checkout of the future will be accomplished by the simple act of walking through the door. The door will be smart enough to read the tags on everything in your cart and then charge your credit card straight from your back pocket. The credit companies will even share your personal information for you so that the store can pick out the best card to use (if you have more than one). Isn't that nice of them?
As a regular donor, I concur with this. It is extremely frustrating to be turned away (temporarily) for some of the most absurd reasons, especially if it's after they've already poked your finger.
My favorite reason was that I went to Nayarita, a state in Mexico with a "malaria risk." The fun part is, I was only 5 miles across the border into the region (from Jalisco, which is "safe") and I stayed on the beach and out of the jungle. As a result, I could not give blood. (This is despite the fact that I had been back in the states for 10 months without any of the symptoms and that the typical incubation period for malaria is 7-30 days. This is also despite the fact that 5 months earlier I had already successfully donated under an earlier set of rules.)
Do mosquitos carrying malaria really follow the geopolitical boundaries imposed by human governments?
Actually, I think they use lasers that "weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures (sic) the size of a large fridge" and are "powerful enough to knock out a missile." Oh, shoot. I think I got my stories mixed up again.
Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious. Not only are they going to commit crimes, they're going to look for ways to avoid responsiblity too. Whereas before one might have claimed insanity, now, he or she can claim that "video games taught me that my actions were ok." Shifting blame is (unfortunately) a significant part of human nature.
Yes, but if your shop doesn't have enough people going in and out to begin with, think of how many people would simply pass by thinking it's closed?
A better analogy: you're a teenager. Your parents give you keys to your new car (by a password taped at the bottom of the computer). You get used to the freedom to do whatever you want. Now, your dad realizes you're using the car far more than he expected and takes the key away from you. Now your car sits in your driveway except when your dad gives you explicit permission to use it. You're only allowed to run basic errands like dropping your sister at school (or run academically sanctioned software). Sooner or later, you deside to take the key back when he's not looking and make a duplicate so you can use the car fully again (hack back into the admin account). Sooner or later, dad figures out that you've gone behind his back intentionally.
Should he a:
The response will vary based on the father (or the school administration). Consider this: when you go off to college, your sister gets the car (or the next student gets the laptop). Your reckless driving means that the engine will require a little more maintenance than it otherwise would have required (actually, the laptop hard drive should be wiped and have a clean install of the software anyway). Will the father consider this fact when punishing you? Should a father really press felony changes against his teen--someone whose well being he is directly responsible for--or should he handle it in a manner that the teen might still recover from? Legally, the father is right in any case, but what about morally?
I recognize this analogy is not perfect and does not account for the students spying on the administrators. Attack that as a week point if you like. Personally, I think it should be a moot point because I have no simpathy for the administrators after they were spying on the students. I once heard a saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I hope that it still applies even today.
How long until people start stealing the tombstones? I'd love to get my hands on a solar powered box. I bet it can do more than play movies
Here's a better idea, install the cat5 where you know you'll need it (your home office, the kids' rooms, anywhere you will have a desktop, perhaps near the tv for the latest 'Tivo'). Everywhere else, wireless will probably be good enough because you're probably using your laptop anyway.
When you realize "damn, I should have run some Cat-5 cable to X", simply run it under the house in the crawl space. (You do have one don't you?) It's really not hard, identify where you want the cable to come through the floor, drill a hole through the carpet, then stuff a piece of string (or better, baling wire so it can actually be used to pull the cable through) down the hole (or something else so you can see it from below). Put on your dust mask, some grubby clothes, and take 2 Benadryl. Now your ready to run the the cable wherever you want.
I've done this multiple times in my own house and other's. It may take you a couple hours (and works better if you have above that you can coordinate with), but no matter how much you plan now, you'll end up doing it anyway (unless you pay to have conduit to every room). An alternative of course is the attic/crawlspace above your house.
Is it just me, or shouldn't we save our own mega-fauna before saving others? Reachieving the balance that existed in the 1600s seems far more important than that which existed 13k years ago.
Besides, I don't see anyone trying to bring back the wooly mammoth!
This was actually one of the Summer of Code projects listed by Gnome. They wanted a browser extension for Galleon that did this.