Not that I feel particularly sorry for the guy, but Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was designated an enemy combatant and has been locked up without trial for over two years now.
Fortunately I don't think it will take a lot of sophisticated detection equipment to see this one coming. If the actual collapse is observed (which I assume it would be) there would be a couple of hours to notify the East Coast of the US. The Europeans and Africans on the other hand would not have very much time to clear out, but a tsunami warning system would not necessarily give them any additional warning, at least in this case.
Regarding your idea of directing the rockslide, I don't think there is much to be done there. Gravity and the slope of the seabed pretty much dictate where that hunk of rock is going to go. Even if it could be done, I am not sure the people living in the revised tsunami path would be to thrilled about it, not that the US (or at least the current administration) cares about world opinion.
Those exhibition aren't in the NHL, so they can't be included. The game will just be a arbitration simulation. If you finally win and get the two sides to agree, then it unlocks a "bonus" level of like actual hockey. How quickly you can get the sides to agree determines whether you get a half season,quarter season, or no season at all. Oh, and you have to bring a screenshot of the agreement in order to buy NHL 2005.
I didn't see anything in the article that mentioned using it to exchange insurance information, so I am not sure why you are getting so worked up about it. If someone wanted to ring up false charges, it would be very easy for them just write down your license plate number and work it that way. Besides, I would think that any insurance company that has a chance of staying in business would require a police report or other verification besides the fact that you have their customers information before paying out a claim.
Regarding the enviro-nazi angle: why would they focus on someone who was just in an accident? "Look that guy just wrecked his SUV! Let's get his name and address in case he buys another one." Why not just drive down random streets slashing tires and egging cars instead of hoping to come upon an accident involving an SUV? It's not exactly like they are hard to find.
I think it depends on the field that you teach in as well. A professor in science/engineering research who pulls in hundreds of thousands of dollars (or sometimes millions for medical research) a year in grants is going to be able to command a higher salary than someone in the social sciences, who will probably be lucky to cover his own salary. I know of a certain chemistry/chemical engineering professor in the UNC system that is getting well over $200K/yr between his regular salary, summer salary, patent licensing, etc. Of course his salary pales in comparison to the football and basketball coaches.
Perhaps within a few decades, the only brick-and-mortar stores around will have hideous prices and only exist to cater to wealthy retro-luddites.
I really think that, once more people realize that they literally can buy anything they wany over the internet, the traditional idea of a store will become a quaint throwback to an older time.
I seriously doubt it. Lots of people are doing shopping by internet these days, but if you go to the mall on any given weekend, especially during the past few weeks, I don't think you will find it any less crowded than ten years ago. Many people like to be able to see and touch an item in person before making a purchase, especially when it comes to clothing or other personal items.
Just because you can order just about anything online doesn't mean that everyone is going to want to. Some people *gasp* enjoy shopping! Does that make them luddites?
Sometimes shopping by internet is not practical from a time or money standpoint. Do I want to pay $5 to ship a $2 item when I pass a store than sells the same item on my way home anyway? Would I want to let my baby continue to crap his pants while I wait for that shipment of diapers to arrive? Both traditional stores and the internet have their advantages in terms of convenience, so I think they will continue to coexist.
Keep in mind this was sold at auction, so there at least one other person willing to spend at least a little less than $26,500 for the whole thing. Or whoever set up the auction was just playing around with this one guy to see how high he would go.
Wouldn't the same danger exist in an enclosed space with a running gasoline engine? I know my garage in my house has CO detectors hooked up to fans for just this sort of problem.
Well, duh. But I wasn't talking about running engines, I was talking about leaks and the probability of an explosion. My point was that while in open air hydrogen would probably dissipate quickly enough to not explode (given the leak was small enough) but in an enclosed space you will be more likely to get an explosive mixture from a hydrogen leak than a liquid gasoline leak.
Don't forget that certain types of electric engines also PRODUCE ozone. I personally doubt those clouds would last very long- clouds have a tendency to come back to earth as rain- but I think you fail to see the main reason to switch to hydrogen. The reason to switch to hydrogen has NOTHING to do with it being environmentally better- and everything to do with being POLITICALLY better (as in, getting us out of the quagmire that the middle east has turned into).
Do you know another name for ground level ozone? It's smog and it won't replenish the ozone layer. As far as the clouds go, we are talking much higher up than rain clouds. Ever seen a jet contrail just hang out up there for hours on end? I think that maybe you missed that we aren't talking about a one time leak but the perpetual leakiness of a national hydrogen distribution system. The clouds in question would be continuously fed.
You are right about the motivation being political. Hydrogen seems better environmentally and it seems to depend less on the Middle East, but in reality just switching to hydrogen would change little. The most readily available source of hydrogen is from cracking hydrocarbons. This results in the same net carbon release as burning it while maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels. Electrolysis would work as well but again will likely rely in large part on fossil fuels to generate the electricity. For anything to really change alternative energy sources need to be developed. Hydrogen is not an energy source like fossil fuels or nuclear, but rather a means of transmission like the electrical grid.
Certainly adding odor would allow easier detection of leaks. My greater point is that in enclosed spaces hydrogen would likely be just as if not more dangerous than gasoline. I am not trying to be alarmist or say that it is too dangerous, but that in their zeal to promote it some proponents of H2 (as with any new technology) pretend as if there would be no danger at all.
Regarding the quantity of H2 leaked, in the article the concern mentioned was that it would combine with oxygen in the upper atmosphere to form high level clouds. These clouds could then could contribute to global warming, which would seemingly defeat the purpose of going to H2. Your own prediction of ozone depletion wouldn't exactly be a windfall for the environment (or the fair-skinned) either.
Yes, the hydrogen would dissipate rather quickly at the fueling station, provided the leak wasn't too large. What about if your car starts leaking in your garage at night though? Since hydrogen is odorless you wouldn't even notice until you went to start the car in the morning and then BLAMMO! I am sure that there could be ways to detect it, etc, but I am just trying to point out that hydrogen could be at least a dangerous as gasoline.
The article was also trying to make a point not just about the danger of leaks, but just of the shear quantity released. Hydrogen is a really small molecule and can be difficult to contain. Apparently, there could be some negative consequences if large amounts of it were to leak into the atmosphere.
For the layman, I would say just your memory card to the local photo shop that also prints digital pics. When I bought my latest printer I dreamt of printing out my own pics. Reality came calling when I realized that a) inkjet ink is f***ing expensive and b) printing out pictures uses it up FAST. I can take my pictures to the nearest Ritz Camera and get them printed for like $.29 a pop on 4x6. If they screw it up, I can take it back and make them fix it. If I screw it up at home, well, too bad.
The previous solution, however, was to simply have the USDA regulate that ALL parts of a chicken are "chicken". Remember that the next time you eat a chicken nugget.
The questionable contents of chicken isn't exactly a secret. Can't remember the last time I bit into a chicken breast and had something go crunch.
I am more afraid to think about what is in sausage though, especially down here in the Southeastern U.S. Pig's feet and ears are on display for sale in the grocery store, so what parts do they try to sneak into the sausage?
Chicken is one of the most energy-efficient, cheap-to-produce forms of livestock meat, if not *the* most.
I'm no animal rights activist, but if we are really concerned with nutritional efficieny, we should skip the middle man and feed the starving masses the grains, etc., that the chickens would be getting.
you can eat meat without the animals having to live unpleasent cruel lives
I feel the same way. The lives these farm raised animals live bothers me more than they have to die for my consumption. I don't eat a lot of meat, but I can't see cutting it out completely.
It confuses me when fellow meat eaters are repulsed by hunting, even if the hunter plans on eating his kill. Seems to me a free life cut short by a swift death is preferrable to short life crammed in a cage. I had a suitemate in college who didn't eat meat but would eat eggs. He didn't seem to realize that the enslaved chicken whose eggs he was eating was going to end up just as dead and be eaten by either another person or farm animal.
Well, seeing as the idea for the shuttle was originally conceived more than 30 years ago, I am sure that most of the people overseeing its initial design have since retired. Besides, it is difficult to blame just one group of engineers, when it is likely the entire culture of NASA that got the project in trouble. I don't know the whole story of the shuttle's design but I am sure there was plenty of compromises made in its design due to politics and budget constraints. Then there are the pitfalls of contracting out to the lowest bidder.
Like, we may be causing global warming, and that might be causing extinctions, isn't there a semi-regular ice age cycle?
Yes, it is true that there is a natural ocurring cycle of global warming and cooling, but it appears that it as accelerated in the last 100 years. Do we really want to hasten it without fully understanding the consequences and allowing time to prepare for them?
The ozone layer just didn't spontaneously form, wont the processes that put it there in the first place repair it?
Again, that is true, but no one is proposing to "repair" the ozone layer. Rather the environmentalists want to reduce the rate of destruction so that the restorative processes can catch up. Saving the ozone layer is not just for sentimental reasons either, it serves a vital function.
A lot of the work done here at the EPA is about saving and improving the quality of life of one species: humans. Ground level ozone, fine particulate matter emissions, contaminated drinking water, mercury from coal plants, etc. are all things that affect people. And yes, we are just a part of the planet, so if we f*** it up we are f***ing ourselves.
I think what he was saying was that if we used fuels made from plants grown in the present it would not have a net effect on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. That is, the carbon dioxide released on combustion would be equal to that taken up by the plants when they grew. On the other hand, when we burn fossil fuels we are releasing carbon that had been previously sequestered.
Ah, but this was in Australia. In the Southern Hemisphere clocks run counter-clockwise (well, still clockwise to them), so time runs opposite of what it does in the Northern Hemisphere.
I'm no economist, so excuse my ignorance, but can't the US just sell more T-bills to cover the ones that are maturing, provided that anyone wants to buy them? At its current pace the Bush adminstration's fiscal policy does not seem very encouraging, but we will have a few years of a new administration (hopefully either of the tax and spend or don't tax and don't spend variety, rather than the don't tax and spend-spend-spend one that we currently have) before your "Judgment Day" scenario kicks in.
According to the link you posted, it normally has a pH of 4.6-8.0, so it would appear that typically it could be either acidic or basic. Not to mention that the original post dealt with mouse urine which may or may not be significantly different from human urine.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I feel particularly sorry for the guy, but Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was designated an enemy combatant and has been locked up without trial for over two years now.
Those wheels didn't happen to have Firestone tires on them, did they?
Regarding your idea of directing the rockslide, I don't think there is much to be done there. Gravity and the slope of the seabed pretty much dictate where that hunk of rock is going to go. Even if it could be done, I am not sure the people living in the revised tsunami path would be to thrilled about it, not that the US (or at least the current administration) cares about world opinion.
Those exhibition aren't in the NHL, so they can't be included. The game will just be a arbitration simulation. If you finally win and get the two sides to agree, then it unlocks a "bonus" level of like actual hockey. How quickly you can get the sides to agree determines whether you get a half season,quarter season, or no season at all. Oh, and you have to bring a screenshot of the agreement in order to buy NHL 2005.
Regarding the enviro-nazi angle: why would they focus on someone who was just in an accident? "Look that guy just wrecked his SUV! Let's get his name and address in case he buys another one." Why not just drive down random streets slashing tires and egging cars instead of hoping to come upon an accident involving an SUV? It's not exactly like they are hard to find.
Or maybe he's a traveling salesman, you insensitive clods!
I think it depends on the field that you teach in as well. A professor in science/engineering research who pulls in hundreds of thousands of dollars (or sometimes millions for medical research) a year in grants is going to be able to command a higher salary than someone in the social sciences, who will probably be lucky to cover his own salary. I know of a certain chemistry/chemical engineering professor in the UNC system that is getting well over $200K/yr between his regular salary, summer salary, patent licensing, etc. Of course his salary pales in comparison to the football and basketball coaches.
Ah yes, somebody arbitrarily deciding what games should be altered for content and what games shouldn't be. I believe that's called "censorship."
Mod parent +1 insightful. I never would have realized that calling for something to be censored is censorship.
I really think that, once more people realize that they literally can buy anything they wany over the internet, the traditional idea of a store will become a quaint throwback to an older time.
I seriously doubt it. Lots of people are doing shopping by internet these days, but if you go to the mall on any given weekend, especially during the past few weeks, I don't think you will find it any less crowded than ten years ago. Many people like to be able to see and touch an item in person before making a purchase, especially when it comes to clothing or other personal items.
Just because you can order just about anything online doesn't mean that everyone is going to want to. Some people *gasp* enjoy shopping! Does that make them luddites?
Sometimes shopping by internet is not practical from a time or money standpoint. Do I want to pay $5 to ship a $2 item when I pass a store than sells the same item on my way home anyway? Would I want to let my baby continue to crap his pants while I wait for that shipment of diapers to arrive? Both traditional stores and the internet have their advantages in terms of convenience, so I think they will continue to coexist.
Keep in mind this was sold at auction, so there at least one other person willing to spend at least a little less than $26,500 for the whole thing. Or whoever set up the auction was just playing around with this one guy to see how high he would go.
Well, duh. But I wasn't talking about running engines, I was talking about leaks and the probability of an explosion. My point was that while in open air hydrogen would probably dissipate quickly enough to not explode (given the leak was small enough) but in an enclosed space you will be more likely to get an explosive mixture from a hydrogen leak than a liquid gasoline leak.
Don't forget that certain types of electric engines also PRODUCE ozone. I personally doubt those clouds would last very long- clouds have a tendency to come back to earth as rain- but I think you fail to see the main reason to switch to hydrogen. The reason to switch to hydrogen has NOTHING to do with it being environmentally better- and everything to do with being POLITICALLY better (as in, getting us out of the quagmire that the middle east has turned into).
Do you know another name for ground level ozone? It's smog and it won't replenish the ozone layer. As far as the clouds go, we are talking much higher up than rain clouds. Ever seen a jet contrail just hang out up there for hours on end? I think that maybe you missed that we aren't talking about a one time leak but the perpetual leakiness of a national hydrogen distribution system. The clouds in question would be continuously fed.
You are right about the motivation being political. Hydrogen seems better environmentally and it seems to depend less on the Middle East, but in reality just switching to hydrogen would change little. The most readily available source of hydrogen is from cracking hydrocarbons. This results in the same net carbon release as burning it while maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels. Electrolysis would work as well but again will likely rely in large part on fossil fuels to generate the electricity. For anything to really change alternative energy sources need to be developed. Hydrogen is not an energy source like fossil fuels or nuclear, but rather a means of transmission like the electrical grid.
Regarding the quantity of H2 leaked, in the article the concern mentioned was that it would combine with oxygen in the upper atmosphere to form high level clouds. These clouds could then could contribute to global warming, which would seemingly defeat the purpose of going to H2. Your own prediction of ozone depletion wouldn't exactly be a windfall for the environment (or the fair-skinned) either.
The article was also trying to make a point not just about the danger of leaks, but just of the shear quantity released. Hydrogen is a really small molecule and can be difficult to contain. Apparently, there could be some negative consequences if large amounts of it were to leak into the atmosphere.
For the layman, I would say just your memory card to the local photo shop that also prints digital pics. When I bought my latest printer I dreamt of printing out my own pics. Reality came calling when I realized that a) inkjet ink is f***ing expensive and b) printing out pictures uses it up FAST. I can take my pictures to the nearest Ritz Camera and get them printed for like $.29 a pop on 4x6. If they screw it up, I can take it back and make them fix it. If I screw it up at home, well, too bad.
The questionable contents of chicken isn't exactly a secret. Can't remember the last time I bit into a chicken breast and had something go crunch.
I am more afraid to think about what is in sausage though, especially down here in the Southeastern U.S. Pig's feet and ears are on display for sale in the grocery store, so what parts do they try to sneak into the sausage?
I'm no animal rights activist, but if we are really concerned with nutritional efficieny, we should skip the middle man and feed the starving masses the grains, etc., that the chickens would be getting.
I feel the same way. The lives these farm raised animals live bothers me more than they have to die for my consumption. I don't eat a lot of meat, but I can't see cutting it out completely.
It confuses me when fellow meat eaters are repulsed by hunting, even if the hunter plans on eating his kill. Seems to me a free life cut short by a swift death is preferrable to short life crammed in a cage. I had a suitemate in college who didn't eat meat but would eat eggs. He didn't seem to realize that the enslaved chicken whose eggs he was eating was going to end up just as dead and be eaten by either another person or farm animal.
Well, seeing as the idea for the shuttle was originally conceived more than 30 years ago, I am sure that most of the people overseeing its initial design have since retired. Besides, it is difficult to blame just one group of engineers, when it is likely the entire culture of NASA that got the project in trouble. I don't know the whole story of the shuttle's design but I am sure there was plenty of compromises made in its design due to politics and budget constraints. Then there are the pitfalls of contracting out to the lowest bidder.
Yes, it is true that there is a natural ocurring cycle of global warming and cooling, but it appears that it as accelerated in the last 100 years. Do we really want to hasten it without fully understanding the consequences and allowing time to prepare for them?
The ozone layer just didn't spontaneously form, wont the processes that put it there in the first place repair it?
Again, that is true, but no one is proposing to "repair" the ozone layer. Rather the environmentalists want to reduce the rate of destruction so that the restorative processes can catch up. Saving the ozone layer is not just for sentimental reasons either, it serves a vital function.
A lot of the work done here at the EPA is about saving and improving the quality of life of one species: humans. Ground level ozone, fine particulate matter emissions, contaminated drinking water, mercury from coal plants, etc. are all things that affect people. And yes, we are just a part of the planet, so if we f*** it up we are f***ing ourselves.
I think what he was saying was that if we used fuels made from plants grown in the present it would not have a net effect on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. That is, the carbon dioxide released on combustion would be equal to that taken up by the plants when they grew. On the other hand, when we burn fossil fuels we are releasing carbon that had been previously sequestered.
I think you mean: In Korea only old people don't care about learning.
Ah, but this was in Australia. In the Southern Hemisphere clocks run counter-clockwise (well, still clockwise to them), so time runs opposite of what it does in the Northern Hemisphere.
Because reshooting all the pictures he already has on slides would require a lot of travel and/or a time machine?
I'm no economist, so excuse my ignorance, but can't the US just sell more T-bills to cover the ones that are maturing, provided that anyone wants to buy them? At its current pace the Bush adminstration's fiscal policy does not seem very encouraging, but we will have a few years of a new administration (hopefully either of the tax and spend or don't tax and don't spend variety, rather than the don't tax and spend-spend-spend one that we currently have) before your "Judgment Day" scenario kicks in.
According to the link you posted, it normally has a pH of 4.6-8.0, so it would appear that typically it could be either acidic or basic. Not to mention that the original post dealt with mouse urine which may or may not be significantly different from human urine.