Of course, you have folks out there who are banning hemp because marijuana gets people high.
Hemp != marijuana Marijuana can be used as hemp but it is not real "hemp." They are in the same family but true hemp does not have THC. Smoking hemp will give you a headache so bad, getting knocked out with a mallet will feel like relief. In fact, modern strains of hemp truly have zero THC.
The last time hemp was legally grown in the US was WWII. You can still find it growing wild. Its now called ditch weed. The truth of the matter is, real ditch weed is actually hemp and can not get you high.
The truth of the matter is, cotton growers, petroleum and chemical corporations, and now corn growers are the real reasons why hemp is illegal in the US. Hemp directly competes with all of their bottom lines.
What's the point of fighting wars with robots if they are to follow the three laws?
I wish like hell people would actually read his books before they quote them. If you had actually read his books you wouldn't be asking the question in the first place. The entire point of his books are how flawed and ambiguous those three laws are. In short, anyone intending to create robots which are governed by Asimov's three laws of robots are either stupid - or well - stupid.
Unless you're looking for trouble, you need to be talking to both the FCC and the FAA. Not to mention if you flying your UAV into certain airspace and its linked back to you, you may be facing large civil fines and potentially criminal charges depending on the nature of the violation.
Note that if you live in USA it is illegal to make UAV. Even first person view flying is illegal. But first you need to learn how to make stuff fly before you even attempt to do the UAV stuff.
Can you cite any references? Also, is there now a legal definition for what qualifies as a UAV?
Everything I've read from people knowledgeable in this matter say helicopters are more difficult because they are naturally unstable where as most airplanes are naturally stable.
That was either 100 years ago or someone looking to stroke their own ego - which then became myth. These days R/C helicopters have tons of gyros in them which make them very stable. These days, "unstable" helis have a single two-axis gyro. More than likely anything used in UAVs will have at least two of those. Helicopter + modern gyros = super stable experimental platform. These days, creating a AUV heli that hovers is infinitely easier than creating those robots that balance a broom stick - unless of course you're now placing gyros on broom sticks.
So who do you have to bribe to make a minimum Capitol investment and how much?
Very likely many bribes are required but that's really not what I'm talking about. Part of the reason we have had limited gas supplies is because of the need for large capitol investments.
Low grade, high sulfur oils can readily be used to create both gas and diesel but only one such refinery exists. If you know the quality of your base product will continue to decline of the next decade and you in turn lobby to create even lower sulfur products (e.g. low sulfur diesel), its obvious they have no desire to increase supply. Furthermore, such processing also makes it cheaper to create low sulfur diesel. Yet, they would rather artificially (including dumping oil and gas on third world countries) limit supply such that they can rape the consumer at will.
Or hell, we could remove ethanol from gas and watch prices drop by roughly 60%. Yes, that's right, ethanol in gas costs us tax payers, plus what we pay at the pump, roughly 60% higher fuel prices. Ethanol is roughly 160% more expensive per gallon than is gas. People just don't realize it as its being subsidies so heavily in so many different places along the production chain.
So long story short, unless the oil companies can bend over your mother, wife, and sister at will, they have absolutely no incentive what so ever to look at any other energy technology - contrary to the bullshit propaganda you constantly hear.
I'd say that your threshold for proof is too high. When every modern climate model shows human-produced CO2 to be responsible for warming the atmosphere, that satisfies me.
Then you have set the threshold far too low AND the entire point of my post went completely over your head.
When every model, which we know is be completely wrong/invalid/incorrect/inaccurate has been specifically created to show man is responsible for the excess CO2, that's called bad science. If you are convinced by the very definition of bad science, then we have nothing else to discuss. After all, good science, logic, and reason certainly is not going to shift your opinion. If it were, you would not have already been swayed by silly, bad science which in turn is entirely rooted on bad science. You'll believe anything which is spoon fed to you - so long as they have a lab coat on when they tell you.
If you give them something that does the job better (which is to say, with a higher profit margin) they'll be all over it.
That's not an accurate statement at all.
If you give them something that does the job better, with minimum capitol investment, a captive customer base, control over supply, demand, and pricing, with both government subsidies and federal tax credits, they'll be all over it.
Keep in mind, contrary to popular myth, oil does not participate in free market pricing nor does gas. Furthermore, pricing is based on speculative models rather than real supply/demand numbers. Anyone who believes the oil companies are just another company looking for profit is nieve to say the least.
You need to check your facts again. There is only proof the climate is warming. There is no proof man is behind it. That's the problem. The proof people have been largely using to validate their position are these models which are 100% invalid and total bullshit.
That's also the problem of discussing the issue with the zealots here - as soon you offer the only real known fact, people want to cover the ears and eyes while humming. That's zealotry to the extreme.
I hope that wasn't his point because such a statement would only prove he is incapable of logic and has no valid point. After all, if there is zero proof man is behind global warming and his argument is that burning fossil fuels is behind global warming, he's attempting to use an unsubstantiated position to prove his second argument. Which of course means he's wrong.
In other words, that's the argument of either a fool or an idiot.
Perhaps that's because the fact that the planet is getting warmer is, um, a *fact*. We measure that.
And its a fact that it's also normal. The Earth has long gone through these phases.
Look, the global warming crackpots would have you believe that those that doubt deny the climate is changing. That's simply not true. Those that question are simply asking if man is behind it. The simple fact is, no one knows. The simple fact is, the best of data which indicates man is behind it is known to be full holes - bullshit in layman's terms.
The only conclusion anyone can actually have at this point is that we need more research and that we absolutely don't know if man is even partly responsible. Anyone who says otherwise is at best being dishonest - or more likely is up for a research grant.
Yes. The Gulf Stream helps keep much colder polar weather from migrating further south. Think of it as a giant blower at the front of stores which keeps cold air inside and warm air outside.
the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
Just tossing this out there - this is believed to be at least partly responsible for the last mini-ice age.
No, first and foremost it is politics. The fact the gp was modded "flamebait" does a wonderful job of underscoring that fact. LOL. Seriously, think about it.
What do you think is going to happen now? Either scientists will ignore this data or they will incorporate it into their models... wanna bet they incorporate it?
Yes, some science is being done but its goal orientated science; which is the worst kind. In other words, the goal is to prove global warming so politically they can get yet more funding. The absolute best of climate models are well known to be worthless. The only reason these models match historic data is because they fold in historic data into their models. Once they no longer have historic data, the models become worthless. Yet these same models are used to predict gloom and doom for global warming.
Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data? We won't know for sure until they incorporate the new data, but I'll take that bet.
Oh there is zero doubt CO2 warms the atmosphere. That's never been a point of contention. The contention is, is man responsible. The simply FACT is, no one knows. The FACT is, anyone who says otherwise, is at best dishonest.
The models we current have; and I mean the best of models, is at best is a tonka toy. They provide no real science and absolutely provide no credible evidence. Say it again ten times fast. That's the facts!
he only thing these models do is stir the political pot to garner yet more funding. To date, the models are only good for estimating and approximating historic trends using historic data. Once you get more than a couple years out or so, these models are nothing but a toy to gain more funding. Period. They are constantly having to add yet more historic data to make it even match the year or two before - and they are trying to project decades and centuries into the future. That's what sane people call political bullshit.
Should we research "Global Warming"? Sure. Should we react to it? Sure, only if your a fool of the worst kind. Again, the simple fact is, we have no proof man is behind the current warming trend. None.
And the bottom line is, are you prepared to play god with the climate? Realistically, if the doom and gloom profits are right, that's the only option we have on available on the table. And if their wrong, playing the only card we have may actually screw things up far, far worse than the worst of the doom and gloom projections.
So what should we do? React to models we know to be 100% worthless bullshit?
Why are you making a distinction? Android is not limited to running on ARM-only phones. Period. Such a distinction is an artificial distinction your making for absolutely no reason what so ever.
That PDF doesn't talk about efficiency at all. Rather, it talks about all the issues and recommendations required to increase efficiency.
I've many articles over the years which have made the distinctions I made above and the numbers have always been consistent. Not only that, but it matches well known and easily established facts. One of the reason the "high-tension" lines are used is because they push really huge voltages through them to minimize loss. While not huge percentage wise, that loss is, surprise, right around the 5% mark. And not surprising, that's exactly why superconductors are being used to replace these portions of the grid. That is, 5% loss as it comes out of the plant is huge over time. Especially considering that's before it ever gets off the distribution grid.
Now then, once you actually get off of the grid, the voltage drops, the age of the lines, line sag, increased load (and heat), transformers, so on and so on, starts to drastically increase. And so does the loss. Once it gets to a house, there is a lot more loss than just a net 5%. Adding another 5% net loss is hardly unreasonable in the least - and from what I've read it actually more than that.
...and was shit-stormed by/. and moderated as troll. This problem is hardly new. The problem has been on-going for a long time. After all, some of these satellites have been in place for almost two decades. That's a long time for an operational satellite.
Thankfully we now have systems like WAAS and AGPS to improve accuracy for civilian use. The problem with WAAS is its not likely your going to receive a consistent signal on ground. Its really designed for aircraft use. But given the right environment, its still possible to receive it.
The military still has other options as long as they can use multiple receivers. Not to mention other countries are starting to provide coverage with their own systems. I fully expect the military to leverage these where applicable - at least for munitions and possibly ground forces.
And to the ignorant mods and/. out there than wanted to make sure everyone remained as ignorant and dumb as them - F-U! Hopefully you feel like a first class jackass now. Maybe next time you'll not moderate things which are obviously well outside of your body of knowledge. Doing so only makes everyone as ignorant as you.
Re:...only if the BIOS chip is replaceable.
on
Phoenix BIOSOS?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Yes, because no one would ever think to update by flashing.
Why would stripping and running around buck naked update your computer? Not to mention its illegal in any public place.
I'd rather not update my system - ever - if it means keeping clothes on the/. population!
the first highly visible superpredator that you find, and bringing it back. (Cane Toads, Mongooses, Wolves, etc)...and house cat...
Australia has a bad feline problem too. They were imported to deal with ever increasing rodent populations as a result of the growing agro and ranching economy. Thankfully the Aborigines were quick to add them to their diet.
It seems house cats have very poor endurance and can be stalked rather successfully. At the end of the hunt the Aborigines literally walk right up to it and smash its head. The cat is simply too tired to run any further.
The games that I would buy were usually a few years old costing a fraction of what new ones would.
And that's an important point. If you can't afford to buy the latest game, chances are you can't afford to buy the system to play the latest game. Which means, IMO, many people are looking for an excuse to rationalize their stealing.
I do agree many games which are pirated are by people who would otherwise not buy the game. On the other hand, I bet its somewhere around a fifty-fifty split.
Its a public facility (open to the public) which is privately owned. That means he can be asked to leave and be arrested if he does not comply. At the same time, since it is a public facility there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. He was well within his rights to take a picture.
You're saying the same thing but missing the point. His position is its perfectly legal. Your position is, while its legal cops don't have any qualms about breaking the law.
He has no reasonable obligation to talk to an ATM repair man.
That's exactly right.
There are some minor points he has wrong. He asserts he is on public property. He is not. He asserts the issue is about taking pictures of the ATM. That's not the problem.The concern is for the identity of the people servicing the equipment.
Also, one of the guards nicely asked him to come talk to him when he was done. He tersely said, "no." The combination is a red flag for concern. The police should have been called.
Having said all that, *if* his story is true, he was a wonderful case of assault by an officer, illegal detainment, and possibly kidnapping, not to mention a likely half dozen other charges, because he was never asked to leave (according to his story). Since he was never asked to leave he can not be charged for trespassing and therefore the police have no cause to touch him.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, you have folks out there who are banning hemp because marijuana gets people high.
Hemp != marijuana
Marijuana can be used as hemp but it is not real "hemp." They are in the same family but true hemp does not have THC. Smoking hemp will give you a headache so bad, getting knocked out with a mallet will feel like relief. In fact, modern strains of hemp truly have zero THC.
The last time hemp was legally grown in the US was WWII. You can still find it growing wild. Its now called ditch weed. The truth of the matter is, real ditch weed is actually hemp and can not get you high.
The truth of the matter is, cotton growers, petroleum and chemical corporations, and now corn growers are the real reasons why hemp is illegal in the US. Hemp directly competes with all of their bottom lines.
What's the point of fighting wars with robots if they are to follow the three laws?
I wish like hell people would actually read his books before they quote them. If you had actually read his books you wouldn't be asking the question in the first place. The entire point of his books are how flawed and ambiguous those three laws are. In short, anyone intending to create robots which are governed by Asimov's three laws of robots are either stupid - or well - stupid.
But how do you keep in communication with it?
Unless you're looking for trouble, you need to be talking to both the FCC and the FAA. Not to mention if you flying your UAV into certain airspace and its linked back to you, you may be facing large civil fines and potentially criminal charges depending on the nature of the violation.
Note that if you live in USA it is illegal to make UAV. Even first person view flying is illegal. But first you need to learn how to make stuff fly before you even attempt to do the UAV stuff.
Can you cite any references? Also, is there now a legal definition for what qualifies as a UAV?
Everything I've read from people knowledgeable in this matter say helicopters are more difficult because they are naturally unstable where as most airplanes are naturally stable.
That was either 100 years ago or someone looking to stroke their own ego - which then became myth. These days R/C helicopters have tons of gyros in them which make them very stable. These days, "unstable" helis have a single two-axis gyro. More than likely anything used in UAVs will have at least two of those. Helicopter + modern gyros = super stable experimental platform. These days, creating a AUV heli that hovers is infinitely easier than creating those robots that balance a broom stick - unless of course you're now placing gyros on broom sticks.
You're failing to account for the logistics of mixing, labeling, regulating, and delivering of the extra fuel.
So who do you have to bribe to make a minimum Capitol investment and how much?
Very likely many bribes are required but that's really not what I'm talking about. Part of the reason we have had limited gas supplies is because of the need for large capitol investments.
Low grade, high sulfur oils can readily be used to create both gas and diesel but only one such refinery exists. If you know the quality of your base product will continue to decline of the next decade and you in turn lobby to create even lower sulfur products (e.g. low sulfur diesel), its obvious they have no desire to increase supply. Furthermore, such processing also makes it cheaper to create low sulfur diesel. Yet, they would rather artificially (including dumping oil and gas on third world countries) limit supply such that they can rape the consumer at will.
Or hell, we could remove ethanol from gas and watch prices drop by roughly 60%. Yes, that's right, ethanol in gas costs us tax payers, plus what we pay at the pump, roughly 60% higher fuel prices. Ethanol is roughly 160% more expensive per gallon than is gas. People just don't realize it as its being subsidies so heavily in so many different places along the production chain.
So long story short, unless the oil companies can bend over your mother, wife, and sister at will, they have absolutely no incentive what so ever to look at any other energy technology - contrary to the bullshit propaganda you constantly hear.
I'd say that your threshold for proof is too high. When every modern climate model shows human-produced CO2 to be responsible for warming the atmosphere, that satisfies me.
Then you have set the threshold far too low AND the entire point of my post went completely over your head.
When every model, which we know is be completely wrong/invalid/incorrect/inaccurate has been specifically created to show man is responsible for the excess CO2, that's called bad science. If you are convinced by the very definition of bad science, then we have nothing else to discuss. After all, good science, logic, and reason certainly is not going to shift your opinion. If it were, you would not have already been swayed by silly, bad science which in turn is entirely rooted on bad science. You'll believe anything which is spoon fed to you - so long as they have a lab coat on when they tell you.
If you give them something that does the job better (which is to say, with a higher profit margin) they'll be all over it.
That's not an accurate statement at all.
If you give them something that does the job better, with minimum capitol investment, a captive customer base, control over supply, demand, and pricing, with both government subsidies and federal tax credits, they'll be all over it.
Keep in mind, contrary to popular myth, oil does not participate in free market pricing nor does gas. Furthermore, pricing is based on speculative models rather than real supply/demand numbers. Anyone who believes the oil companies are just another company looking for profit is nieve to say the least.
You need to check your facts again. There is only proof the climate is warming. There is no proof man is behind it. That's the problem. The proof people have been largely using to validate their position are these models which are 100% invalid and total bullshit.
That's also the problem of discussing the issue with the zealots here - as soon you offer the only real known fact, people want to cover the ears and eyes while humming. That's zealotry to the extreme.
Case in point - your post.
I hope that wasn't his point because such a statement would only prove he is incapable of logic and has no valid point. After all, if there is zero proof man is behind global warming and his argument is that burning fossil fuels is behind global warming, he's attempting to use an unsubstantiated position to prove his second argument. Which of course means he's wrong.
In other words, that's the argument of either a fool or an idiot.
Isn't that what we've been doing?
No. Aside from hurricane research, I'm not aware of anyone doing that. And that's really playing with weather rather than climate.
Can you cite some specific examples?
Perhaps that's because the fact that the planet is getting warmer is, um, a *fact*. We measure that.
And its a fact that it's also normal. The Earth has long gone through these phases.
Look, the global warming crackpots would have you believe that those that doubt deny the climate is changing. That's simply not true. Those that question are simply asking if man is behind it. The simple fact is, no one knows. The simple fact is, the best of data which indicates man is behind it is known to be full holes - bullshit in layman's terms.
The only conclusion anyone can actually have at this point is that we need more research and that we absolutely don't know if man is even partly responsible. Anyone who says otherwise is at best being dishonest - or more likely is up for a research grant.
Yes. The Gulf Stream helps keep much colder polar weather from migrating further south. Think of it as a giant blower at the front of stores which keeps cold air inside and warm air outside.
the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
Just tossing this out there - this is believed to be at least partly responsible for the last mini-ice age.
Where to start...shesh...
No, it's actually science.
No, first and foremost it is politics. The fact the gp was modded "flamebait" does a wonderful job of underscoring that fact. LOL. Seriously, think about it.
What do you think is going to happen now? Either scientists will ignore this data or they will incorporate it into their models... wanna bet they incorporate it?
Yes, some science is being done but its goal orientated science; which is the worst kind. In other words, the goal is to prove global warming so politically they can get yet more funding. The absolute best of climate models are well known to be worthless. The only reason these models match historic data is because they fold in historic data into their models. Once they no longer have historic data, the models become worthless. Yet these same models are used to predict gloom and doom for global warming.
Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data? We won't know for sure until they incorporate the new data, but I'll take that bet.
Oh there is zero doubt CO2 warms the atmosphere. That's never been a point of contention. The contention is, is man responsible. The simply FACT is, no one knows. The FACT is, anyone who says otherwise, is at best dishonest.
The models we current have; and I mean the best of models, is at best is a tonka toy. They provide no real science and absolutely provide no credible evidence. Say it again ten times fast. That's the facts!
he only thing these models do is stir the political pot to garner yet more funding. To date, the models are only good for estimating and approximating historic trends using historic data. Once you get more than a couple years out or so, these models are nothing but a toy to gain more funding. Period. They are constantly having to add yet more historic data to make it even match the year or two before - and they are trying to project decades and centuries into the future. That's what sane people call political bullshit.
Should we research "Global Warming"? Sure. Should we react to it? Sure, only if your a fool of the worst kind. Again, the simple fact is, we have no proof man is behind the current warming trend. None.
And the bottom line is, are you prepared to play god with the climate? Realistically, if the doom and gloom profits are right, that's the only option we have on available on the table. And if their wrong, playing the only card we have may actually screw things up far, far worse than the worst of the doom and gloom projections.
So what should we do? React to models we know to be 100% worthless bullshit?
Modern phones run ARM, not x86 or MIPS.
Why are you making a distinction? Android is not limited to running on ARM-only phones. Period. Such a distinction is an artificial distinction your making for absolutely no reason what so ever.
That PDF doesn't talk about efficiency at all. Rather, it talks about all the issues and recommendations required to increase efficiency.
I've many articles over the years which have made the distinctions I made above and the numbers have always been consistent. Not only that, but it matches well known and easily established facts. One of the reason the "high-tension" lines are used is because they push really huge voltages through them to minimize loss. While not huge percentage wise, that loss is, surprise, right around the 5% mark. And not surprising, that's exactly why superconductors are being used to replace these portions of the grid. That is, 5% loss as it comes out of the plant is huge over time. Especially considering that's before it ever gets off the distribution grid.
Now then, once you actually get off of the grid, the voltage drops, the age of the lines, line sag, increased load (and heat), transformers, so on and so on, starts to drastically increase. And so does the loss. Once it gets to a house, there is a lot more loss than just a net 5%. Adding another 5% net loss is hardly unreasonable in the least - and from what I've read it actually more than that.
...and was shit-stormed by /. and moderated as troll. This problem is hardly new. The problem has been on-going for a long time. After all, some of these satellites have been in place for almost two decades. That's a long time for an operational satellite.
Thankfully we now have systems like WAAS and AGPS to improve accuracy for civilian use. The problem with WAAS is its not likely your going to receive a consistent signal on ground. Its really designed for aircraft use. But given the right environment, its still possible to receive it.
The military still has other options as long as they can use multiple receivers. Not to mention other countries are starting to provide coverage with their own systems. I fully expect the military to leverage these where applicable - at least for munitions and possibly ground forces.
And to the ignorant mods and /. out there than wanted to make sure everyone remained as ignorant and dumb as them - F-U! Hopefully you feel like a first class jackass now. Maybe next time you'll not moderate things which are obviously well outside of your body of knowledge. Doing so only makes everyone as ignorant as you.
Yes, because no one would ever think to update by flashing.
Why would stripping and running around buck naked update your computer? Not to mention its illegal in any public place.
I'd rather not update my system - ever - if it means keeping clothes on the /. population!
the first highly visible superpredator that you find, and bringing it back. (Cane Toads, Mongooses, Wolves, etc) ...and house cat...
Australia has a bad feline problem too. They were imported to deal with ever increasing rodent populations as a result of the growing agro and ranching economy. Thankfully the Aborigines were quick to add them to their diet.
It seems house cats have very poor endurance and can be stalked rather successfully. At the end of the hunt the Aborigines literally walk right up to it and smash its head. The cat is simply too tired to run any further.
The games that I would buy were usually a few years old costing a fraction of what new ones would.
And that's an important point. If you can't afford to buy the latest game, chances are you can't afford to buy the system to play the latest game. Which means, IMO, many people are looking for an excuse to rationalize their stealing.
I do agree many games which are pirated are by people who would otherwise not buy the game. On the other hand, I bet its somewhere around a fifty-fifty split.
Its a public facility (open to the public) which is privately owned. That means he can be asked to leave and be arrested if he does not comply. At the same time, since it is a public facility there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. He was well within his rights to take a picture.
You're saying the same thing but missing the point. His position is its perfectly legal. Your position is, while its legal cops don't have any qualms about breaking the law.
He has no reasonable obligation to talk to an ATM repair man.
That's exactly right.
There are some minor points he has wrong. He asserts he is on public property. He is not. He asserts the issue is about taking pictures of the ATM. That's not the problem.The concern is for the identity of the people servicing the equipment.
Also, one of the guards nicely asked him to come talk to him when he was done. He tersely said, "no." The combination is a red flag for concern. The police should have been called.
Having said all that, *if* his story is true, he was a wonderful case of assault by an officer, illegal detainment, and possibly kidnapping, not to mention a likely half dozen other charges, because he was never asked to leave (according to his story). Since he was never asked to leave he can not be charged for trespassing and therefore the police have no cause to touch him.