Did you really expect the Slashdot crowd to understand the difference between loosing money and an investment? We are way to busy trying to remove as many characters from our PERL scripts to learn about such descrepancies.
but don't I sound much more intelligent knowing the fact that one cubic foot of water weighs around 60 lbs..... Saying one liter of water weights one kilogram at 4 degrees Celsius is far less impressive.
Water is heavy. It is something like $10,000 a pound to launch something into space. This is why they put all the astronauts on a diet and make them take a leak before launch.
One cubic foot of water is around 60 lbs. The is $600,000 per cubic foot of water. Not very cost effective. And my numbers are old and off the cuff. It could be far more expensive now.
I know where it went; it is called the carbon cycle. All that CO2 is either in the oceans, in plants/animals and in the air as CO2. I just saved you $273 million dollars, and I take a 10% cut. Check please.
We've probably made the world a better place for our friends who breathe the stuff.
Can someone please answer this: If we are burning fossil fuels; presumably all this carbon we are burning was part of the carbon cycle 100s of millions of years ago. All this carbon was then free to go from life -> CO2 and back. Assuming all the free carbon in the cycle now was available then; wouldn't the amount of CO2 in the air 100's of millions of years ago been far greater than it is today? Fossilization removed carbon from the cycle VERY slowly. We are adding it back quickly; but bringing it to levels where it previously has been. An we went through ice ages AND heat spells then. Are we really changing anything?
So if we burn fossil fuels that lets the carbon that is stored into the ground into the air. Fine.
What I don't understand is wasn't this carbon involved in the carbon life cycle many millions of years ago. The carbon that is in the cycle today was presumably in the cycle then as well. So wasn't there more carbon: and one would assume more CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago? The carbon in the life cycle today wasn't locked up as far as I can tell. I would imagine that the amount of carbon on the planet would be pretty static even over millions of years. Maybe a few asteroid hit bringing more; but I would think that would be inconsequential.
So if more carbon was in the life cycle and not locked up as hydrocarbons; wouldn't we just be bringing the planet back a few millions years? Clearly the planet was hospitable to life then; are we really in any danger?
Is it possible that we could design machinery in the future to remove CO2 from the air?
I am not sure I am convinced on the science overall; but these questions I haven't even heard debated.
Well, technically yes. But the way it works is that successful shows are "renewed" by the networks. Seinfeld was supposed to be 2 years. If they show was a success: it would be renewed as the networks would make it worth while for the producers/writers.
I hate CFL. It takes a while to ramp up: it is noisy: and it contains hazardous materials. The light is also kind of poor. If you break one: the EPA tells you to open your windows and evacuate your house for ten minutes.
I have two of them for use outside. I don't care about the noise there and my PC turns the lights on at dusk and shuts them off at 10:30. They are on a long time, and if they break I don't need to leave my home.
Solve these problems: and I am in. I wonder if LEDs will be better.
Well, I guess we will have to resort back to the fear of CO2 emissions causing the planet to turn into an oven and the oceans melting and drowning us all. Certainly not as cataclysmic as a one time explosion.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the war on poverty....
Will these robots also include appendages for being able to make love to an alien life form the way James T. Kirk does?
Apparently those German submarine generators aren't so hot as the server is currently down. I'll like to read TFA please.
Did you really expect the Slashdot crowd to understand the difference between loosing money and an investment? We are way to busy trying to remove as many characters from our PERL scripts to learn about such descrepancies.
Don't you watch Fox News; Canada's military is laughable.
If we all wear tin foiled hats; that would reflect enough of the suns energy back into space to cool the planet.
Sounds like a good online business to start.
Can't a Sterling engine be used to turn the hot water into power to feed back to the data center?
The metric system makes life too easy.
One cubic foot of water is around 60 lbs. The is $600,000 per cubic foot of water. Not very cost effective. And my numbers are old and off the cuff. It could be far more expensive now.
I think the Drunkards Walk is supposed to be similar as well.
they offer Lynx.
Oceans of soup? Sweet... That would solve the hunger crisis.
We've probably made the world a better place for our friends who breathe the stuff.
Can someone please answer this: If we are burning fossil fuels; presumably all this carbon we are burning was part of the carbon cycle 100s of millions of years ago. All this carbon was then free to go from life -> CO2 and back. Assuming all the free carbon in the cycle now was available then; wouldn't the amount of CO2 in the air 100's of millions of years ago been far greater than it is today? Fossilization removed carbon from the cycle VERY slowly. We are adding it back quickly; but bringing it to levels where it previously has been. An we went through ice ages AND heat spells then. Are we really changing anything?
1 Gbps; man that is a lot of schoolgirl porn.....
I worked at a defense contractor where we named them after the then President's scores: there was Paula, Monica, Jennifer and Hillary.
What I don't understand is wasn't this carbon involved in the carbon life cycle many millions of years ago. The carbon that is in the cycle today was presumably in the cycle then as well. So wasn't there more carbon: and one would assume more CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago? The carbon in the life cycle today wasn't locked up as far as I can tell. I would imagine that the amount of carbon on the planet would be pretty static even over millions of years. Maybe a few asteroid hit bringing more; but I would think that would be inconsequential.
So if more carbon was in the life cycle and not locked up as hydrocarbons; wouldn't we just be bringing the planet back a few millions years? Clearly the planet was hospitable to life then; are we really in any danger?
Is it possible that we could design machinery in the future to remove CO2 from the air?
I am not sure I am convinced on the science overall; but these questions I haven't even heard debated.
Well, technically yes. But the way it works is that successful shows are "renewed" by the networks. Seinfeld was supposed to be 2 years. If they show was a success: it would be renewed as the networks would make it worth while for the producers/writers.
Poor product placements. No doubt the reason this show is being canceled.
File an online petition with the FCC claiming the service doesn't work as advertised and they will let you go.
The compressor runs off of the electrical grid: which uses fossil fuels. There is nothing green about it.
Do share? What brand? Do they contain mercury? I tried the three way ones and the ballast was noisy.
We need to forward this to Tom Dickinson...
I have two of them for use outside. I don't care about the noise there and my PC turns the lights on at dusk and shuts them off at 10:30. They are on a long time, and if they break I don't need to leave my home.
Solve these problems: and I am in. I wonder if LEDs will be better.
Well, I guess we will have to resort back to the fear of CO2 emissions causing the planet to turn into an oven and the oceans melting and drowning us all. Certainly not as cataclysmic as a one time explosion.