I think Jindal was talking about using Stimulus money to fund volcano monitoring. Sorry, but I have to agree with him here. Monitoring volcanoes does nothing to STIMULATE the economy. Now if he were opposed to a stand-alone bill that spent $140,000,000/yr for volcano monitoring, then your points may be valid.
As to Jindal lying about his actions during Katrina, I can't seem to find your posts of outrage when Hillary Clinton claimed she was shot at in Bosnia, Barack Obama's claims that he had no ties to William Ayers or Tony Rezko, or his ignorance of the blatant racism of his pastor for 20 years. Where is your outrage over a guy who ducked paying taxes being put in charge of the IRS?
Sorry Doc, but if you want to at least appear to be non-partisan, you must at least make an faux attempt to apply the same standards to both sides. Truth is that there are good people on both sides of the aisle, although few and far between. You really shouldn't hate someone just because of the letter after their name. You used to be fair and smarter than that. Seeing that you've become a hateful, partisan hack disappointments me.
Buying a faster chip is a lot cheaper and faster than rewriting something to be multithreaded.
Mostly true, but if the OS is multithreaded, and anything beyond WindowsME is, you can run multiple separate non-multithreaded apps on a single machine and get better performance from each of them.
I say "MOSTLY" true because there are situations where it is better to go ahead and rewrite the application, especially if you are running several thousand copies of it on multiple machines. When it comes time to upgrade your systems, it will be cheaper to upgrade to 500 multicore processors than 1000-2000 single cores.
That is just not true. New renewable energy power plants are on par with coal energy. With coal becoming more expensive in the future. Easily extractable and good quality coal is being used up fast. It is true that that existing power generation is cheaper with coal. But building new power plants is not.
Until I see some sort of reputable citation for this, I'm going to label it "not true". First, renewables are expensive, especially when consider how cheap coal is. Next is the fact that we have enough domestic coal in the US to supply 100% of our current energy needs for hundreds of years.
Because people aren't, in general, all that bright. Do you see much evidence that people are moving away from cars & fossil fuel dependency?
To what? You give me an reasonably priced, safe car that can get me to work and back with the AC or heater on full every day that doesn't use fossil fuels, and I'll gladly drive it.
As for now, don't call me stupid because I don't drive a car that does not exist.
"No, man, I haven't seen him since last night when he hooked up with that really huuuge white chick. why?"
"Dude, you should have seen it. He was goin' at it with her right out in the open, and all of a sudden she started shaking and smoking. I heard him scream 'YYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW!', she lit a fart or something and there was a huge flash, she flew away, and that was that last I ever heard from him."
Is it really that difficult for a corn grower to move some or all of their production from corn to rapeseed/flax/linseed/ whatever crop is best for bio-diesel? IANAF, so serious question how difficult(expensive) would it be?
I am not a farmer either, well, not a professional one anyway. I do have one hell of tomato crop starting this year. Anyway, the areas that are ideal for growing corn may not be ideal for growing rapeseed/flax/linseed. You also have to consider the millions in investments (per farmer!) in equipment that is proprietary to corn farming like harvesters and such, that will become worthless if the farmers start growing switchgrass.
Actually it can happen even for experienced users. A Google search for the color of the plumes of a bird (which my colleagues had found and wanted to know the gender) made me realize there were a LOT of other synonyms for female genitalia that I didn't even know...
Well let's see. Ignore the rest of the crap on this page and take a look at the long term carbon-in-the-atmosphere graph. It clearly shows that every 100-150 thousand years, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere peaks. The last peak was about 150 thousand years ago and, guess what, we are heading for a peak now. Imagine that! The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has been following a 150 thousand year cycle, and it happens to be rising 150 thousand years since the last peak. Were there coal plants 150,000 years ago? Nope. So, what do you think caused a CO2 spike then? Hmmmm. Surely, it's not the same thing that's causing it now. No, that wouldn't be politically profitable and governments wouldn't be able to take more control of our lives if that were the case. Must be coal plants.
Since someone downmodded this because they disagreed with the facts, I decided I should post it again.
Some plants grow better with higher CO2 levels, like poison ivy. However other plants grow slower. There are winners and losers wherein some plants grow faster and others slower under high CO2 levels. The same is true under higher temperatures.
Oh, BTW, "The jolt of carbon dioxide also boosted the most-toxic forms of poison ivy's rash-raising oil".
So, please, stop trying to insult the intelligence of people on slashdot until AFTER you have educated yourself about how the world works.
"Most studies have looked at the effects of carbon dioxide on plants in pots or on very simple ecosystems and concluded that plants are going to grow faster in the future," said Field, co-author of the Science study. "We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments -- warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation -- growth was actually suppressed."
In other words, higher levels of CO2 really did cause all plants to grow more, until they started screwing with other environmental variables based on what they THINK a future atmosphere (and temperature) will be like. In other words, they screwed with the gas and baked the plants in the oven until they stopped growing so they can say, "See, GW is bad!"
So when you say, I should do the same, I already did.
Well let's see. Ignore the rest of the crap on this page and take a look at the long term carbon-in-the-atmosphere graph. It clearly shows that every 100-150 thousand years, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere peaks. The last peak was about 150 thousand years ago and, guess what, we are heading for a peak now. Imagine that! The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has been following a 150 thousand year cycle, and it happens to be rising 150 thousand years since the last peak. Were there coal plants 150,000 years ago? Nope. So, what do you think caused a CO2 spike then? Hmmmm. Surely, it's not the same thing that's causing it now. No, that wouldn't be politically profitable and governments wouldn't be able to take more control of our lives if that were the case. Must be coal plants.
While I do agree that plants are the best way to recycle CO2, the rest of your post is complete crap. When there is more CO2, plants do better. More CO2=more plants=more CO2 converted to O2 and CARBOhydrates. It's a cycle that has been going on since nature invented photosynthesis.
The idea that CO2 will destroy all life on earth is absurd. Yes, coal, oil and other fossil fuels are carbon syncs, but where do you think that carbon came from? Here's a hint... where do you think fossil fuels came from? Yup, that's right! Plants. Plants took the CO2 from the atmosphere, died and turned into fossil fuels. Burning those fossil fuels re-releases that carbon back to the atmosphere WHERE IT STARTED and the cycle repeats.
So, please, stop trying to insult the intelligence of people on slashdot until AFTER you have educated yourself about how the world works. Oh, and stop breathing. You know that releases CO2 into the atmosphere, and as you put it, kills the oceans.
They don't, they breathe. In any case, making those scrubbers is a high-energy-cost activity and would be a net loss. Instead, you use the CO2 output to produce Algae, a process already tested by the USDOE at Sandia National Labs, where they were able to capture over 80% of the CO2 output in the algae. Then you can in turn make the algae into biodiesel and fertilizer, fixing some of the carbon and getting a second use out of the rest. In other words, your idea is stupid, and slashdot is a stupider place for having to hear it - but there is a similar, working solution.
My idea was an example, and yes, your idea... or should I say the idea you mentioned is much better. The point I was making is that even if you could make 100% clean, with no CO2, no mercury or anything else, these guys would still oppose it for no other reason than they've been brainwashed to think that it's evil.
All those things are much cleaner than coal. It is only for backroom politics we still depend on the stuff.
How about solar (must cut down trees or cover grass to install)?
Yep, lots of trees and grass in the desert. But jeeze! The iguana population is gonna explode with all the shade.
Is your problem with coal or just energy in general?
I don't understand the question.
OK, you got me. Solar power is good for deserts. Now, how about the other 75% of the US where they are ALSO putting up solar? How about all the trees that are cut down to run the wires from the deserts to the cities?
And if all those other energies are much cleaner than coal, why are you not down at your state capitol telling those hippies that are protesting the proposed nuclear plant to shut the hell up?!!? No, instead, you are here with them telling me how bad coal is and that you will oppose coal no matter how clean we can get power from it because... well, it's coal. It's evil!
In space they can dump it overboard. Got a place to put all that CO2? Check out the raw tonnage you're dealing with before you answer.
Um... where is all that CO2 now? We are not creating it, we are releasing it. How bout we put it into plants, the way nature intended? Maybe we could put into your Mountain Dew. There's a thousand other uses for CO2.
Or, is your problem not with coal and CO2, but something else:
Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day, says the Heartland Institute.
While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.
According to Columbia University physicist Klaus Lackner, who is leading the research team:
* Producing a large number of CO2 scrubbers can keep to a minimum any rise in atmospheric CO2 without the economically painful elimination of inexpensive energy sources.
* This technology would allow people to use fossil fuels, which they will be using anyway, without destroying the planet.
Environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace have consistently opposed similar technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, because they do not address what they see as the root of the problem, says the Heartland Institute.
"This is just one more piece of evidence that environmentalists aren't concerned about solving a problem," said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. "Every problem, as they see it, is one way to restrict people's lifestyles, and if you come up with a technological fix that can solve a problem but doesn't require sacrifice and lets us go about our business the way we were before, they're not happy about it, even if it solves the problem."
Clean coal doesn't exist. Saying it is a clean energy form is like saying fusion is a clean energy form: regardless of whatever merits you can come up with for the system, carbon capture and sequestration (clean coal), like fusion, has no working plants (and probably won't for at least a decade) and is more a gimmick for public support and research funding than anything else. Money would be better spent on the efficiency efforts mentioned and commercially viable forms of clean energy that can be bought in the market today.
So all of the other posts here explaining technologies that convert coal to another, cleaner form of energy are all wrong, and you are right? Even if it's something as simple as taking the scrubber technology we've had since the birth of the space program and attaching that to smoke stack to remove the CO2... it doesn't exist, right? (how do all those space guys breath?)
What about video? We've been told we'd have video phones for as long as we've been promised flying cars. Seriously, how hard would it be to integrate video into this phone system?
OK, sure there are hardware and protocol requirements. But nearly any current "chat" service offers video. Even if you didn't want to do this directly from you computer, Google could sell or license phones that connect directly to your wireless router that have a small screen and camera. They could even sell a device that connects to your TV. Of course, for now, it would require both sides to have Google's phone service, but there's no reason this couldn't be an open protocol that would allow video calls from say, Vonage and Google customers.
Looks like they are thinking big, but they could think bigger!
What's the deal with this statement in the summary?
"Sadly, the voicemail didn't integrate very nicely w/ my phone back in the day, so I guess I should give it a shot."
What's different between that and, "Sadly, Windows didn't work well for me in 2002, so I guess I should try Windows 7?" Or "Sadly, I hated my Nissan Altima from 2004, so my next purchase should be an Altima from 2009?"
I'm not saying your shouldn't try it out, but that sentence reads like a big fat non sequitur.
Actually, it would be more like, "I loved Windows 3.11, but it didn't connect to the Internet well. Maybe I'll give XP a shot."
It's not that he didn't like the system. One feature did not work well for him. That feature was a deal breaker. Now that a new version is out, he's hoping that one feature will work so he can benefit from the rest.
Listen, I've tried PS3 linux before, I know what the hardware is, and I know what the limitations of PS3 linux are. These have not changed (apart from the bluetooth thing), and these are not bound to change. ie: the 2nd half of memory will always be basically useless, and the RSX will never be fully accessible from PS3 linux.
So effectively, there is no hope PS3 linux will get more useful than it already is, which is how it was when I checked it out. I've been running it for a few months which was about a year ago, and back then it broke 3 times on firmware updates. How you would know better how much time I spent with it eludes me...
If you don't believe what I'm saying about PS3 linux: go ahead and try it anyway, I couldn't care less, not my PS3, not my spare time. Just find out yourself how terrific it works and how much I'm trolling here. Don't see why I would be trolling about PS3 linux on Slashdot anyway but hey, some people here obviously feel better screaming troll all the time.
But does it run a web browser, email app, word processor and download porn? After that, everything else is just gravy.
Anti-abortionists are going to have a field day with this. If stem cells can be harvested from aborted fetuses, and stem cells actually fulfill their promise as everyone expects they will, then getting an abortion suddenly becomes not so much the destruction of one life but the preservation of many.
Embryonic stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses, at least not from the traditional type of abortion. Embryonic stem cells come from left over fertilized eggs at fertility clinics that are to be thrown away. These are thawed, encouraged to begin development, then harvested for stem cells, which destroys them.
(I find it ironic that the last time stem cells came up, someone accused pro-lifers of trying to say that stem comes come from abortions)
I'm not sure where you live where they force you to ride the bus, but if someone says that making you ride the bus is to stop global warming, then they're unable to apply the proper sense of scale to their problem-solving.
Actually, not a problem where I live. Ever been to New York or Chicago? Granted, it's been expensive to drive in either place for years, but it's getting worse. Now, instead of taxing and tolling to need to pay to build and maintain roads, they are doing so in the name of climate change. Obama wants to set up a "cap and trade" program, which is fancy talk for "energy tax". I will pay that energy tax. You will pay that energy tax too. We already pay for corn subsidies in both taxes and higher corn prices due to ethanol regulations.
So, no. No one is forcing anyone to take the bus, train, subway or whatever. They do, however, make driving your own vehicle so expensive that only the wealthy can afford to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Jindal was talking about using Stimulus money to fund volcano monitoring. Sorry, but I have to agree with him here. Monitoring volcanoes does nothing to STIMULATE the economy. Now if he were opposed to a stand-alone bill that spent $140,000,000/yr for volcano monitoring, then your points may be valid.
As to Jindal lying about his actions during Katrina, I can't seem to find your posts of outrage when Hillary Clinton claimed she was shot at in Bosnia, Barack Obama's claims that he had no ties to William Ayers or Tony Rezko, or his ignorance of the blatant racism of his pastor for 20 years. Where is your outrage over a guy who ducked paying taxes being put in charge of the IRS?
Sorry Doc, but if you want to at least appear to be non-partisan, you must at least make an faux attempt to apply the same standards to both sides. Truth is that there are good people on both sides of the aisle, although few and far between. You really shouldn't hate someone just because of the letter after their name. You used to be fair and smarter than that. Seeing that you've become a hateful, partisan hack disappointments me.
But buying a faster multi-core (as in, 3 or more cores) chip isn't going to do you any good if your application only runs on one or two threads.
Very true if your system only runs that single application. However, everyone I know runs multiple applications just by booting their OS.
Buying a faster chip is a lot cheaper and faster than rewriting something to be multithreaded.
Mostly true, but if the OS is multithreaded, and anything beyond WindowsME is, you can run multiple separate non-multithreaded apps on a single machine and get better performance from each of them.
I say "MOSTLY" true because there are situations where it is better to go ahead and rewrite the application, especially if you are running several thousand copies of it on multiple machines. When it comes time to upgrade your systems, it will be cheaper to upgrade to 500 multicore processors than 1000-2000 single cores.
That is just not true.
New renewable energy power plants are on par with coal energy. With coal becoming more expensive in the future. Easily extractable and good quality coal is being used up fast.
It is true that that existing power generation is cheaper with coal. But building new power plants is not.
Until I see some sort of reputable citation for this, I'm going to label it "not true". First, renewables are expensive, especially when consider how cheap coal is. Next is the fact that we have enough domestic coal in the US to supply 100% of our current energy needs for hundreds of years.
Because people aren't, in general, all that bright. Do you see much evidence that people are moving away from cars & fossil fuel dependency?
To what? You give me an reasonably priced, safe car that can get me to work and back with the AC or heater on full every day that doesn't use fossil fuels, and I'll gladly drive it.
As for now, don't call me stupid because I don't drive a car that does not exist.
Awesome! I'm gonna make it a little bit better.
Are you?
OK, I'm gonna try to make it better.
Better?
Awesome! I'm gonna make it a little bit better.
"Hey, have you seen Brian lately?"
"No, man, I haven't seen him since last night when he hooked up with that really huuuge white chick. why?"
"Dude, you should have seen it. He was goin' at it with her right out in the open, and all of a sudden she started shaking and smoking. I heard him scream 'YYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW!', she lit a fart or something and there was a huge flash, she flew away, and that was that last I ever heard from him."
Is it really that difficult for a corn grower to move some or all of their production from corn to rapeseed/flax/linseed/ whatever crop is best for bio-diesel? IANAF, so serious question how difficult(expensive) would it be?
I am not a farmer either, well, not a professional one anyway. I do have one hell of tomato crop starting this year. Anyway, the areas that are ideal for growing corn may not be ideal for growing rapeseed/flax/linseed. You also have to consider the millions in investments (per farmer!) in equipment that is proprietary to corn farming like harvesters and such, that will become worthless if the farmers start growing switchgrass.
Actually it can happen even for experienced users. A Google search for the color of the plumes of a bird (which my colleagues had found and wanted to know the gender) made me realize there were a LOT of other synonyms for female genitalia that I didn't even know...
There's a bird called the cooter?
Well let's see. Ignore the rest of the crap on this page and take a look at the long term carbon-in-the-atmosphere graph. It clearly shows that every 100-150 thousand years, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere peaks. The last peak was about 150 thousand years ago and, guess what, we are heading for a peak now. Imagine that! The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has been following a 150 thousand year cycle, and it happens to be rising 150 thousand years since the last peak. Were there coal plants 150,000 years ago? Nope. So, what do you think caused a CO2 spike then? Hmmmm. Surely, it's not the same thing that's causing it now. No, that wouldn't be politically profitable and governments wouldn't be able to take more control of our lives if that were the case. Must be coal plants.
Since someone downmodded this because they disagreed with the facts, I decided I should post it again.
When there is more CO2, plants do better.
Some plants grow better with higher CO2 levels, like poison ivy. However other plants grow slower. There are winners and losers wherein some plants grow faster and others slower under high CO2 levels. The same is true under higher temperatures.
Oh, BTW, "The jolt of carbon dioxide also boosted the most-toxic forms of poison ivy's rash-raising oil".
So, please, stop trying to insult the intelligence of people on slashdot until AFTER you have educated yourself about how the world works.
I suggest you do the same.
Falcon
You mean like this study. Let me quote from it:
"Most studies have looked at the effects of carbon dioxide on plants in pots or on very simple ecosystems and concluded that plants are going to grow faster in the future," said Field, co-author of the Science study. "We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments -- warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation -- growth was actually suppressed."
In other words, higher levels of CO2 really did cause all plants to grow more, until they started screwing with other environmental variables based on what they THINK a future atmosphere (and temperature) will be like. In other words, they screwed with the gas and baked the plants in the oven until they stopped growing so they can say, "See, GW is bad!"
So when you say, I should do the same, I already did.
Well let's see. Ignore the rest of the crap on this page and take a look at the long term carbon-in-the-atmosphere graph. It clearly shows that every 100-150 thousand years, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere peaks. The last peak was about 150 thousand years ago and, guess what, we are heading for a peak now. Imagine that! The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has been following a 150 thousand year cycle, and it happens to be rising 150 thousand years since the last peak. Were there coal plants 150,000 years ago? Nope. So, what do you think caused a CO2 spike then? Hmmmm. Surely, it's not the same thing that's causing it now. No, that wouldn't be politically profitable and governments wouldn't be able to take more control of our lives if that were the case. Must be coal plants.
While I do agree that plants are the best way to recycle CO2, the rest of your post is complete crap. When there is more CO2, plants do better. More CO2=more plants=more CO2 converted to O2 and CARBOhydrates. It's a cycle that has been going on since nature invented photosynthesis.
The idea that CO2 will destroy all life on earth is absurd. Yes, coal, oil and other fossil fuels are carbon syncs, but where do you think that carbon came from? Here's a hint... where do you think fossil fuels came from? Yup, that's right! Plants. Plants took the CO2 from the atmosphere, died and turned into fossil fuels. Burning those fossil fuels re-releases that carbon back to the atmosphere WHERE IT STARTED and the cycle repeats.
So, please, stop trying to insult the intelligence of people on slashdot until AFTER you have educated yourself about how the world works. Oh, and stop breathing. You know that releases CO2 into the atmosphere, and as you put it, kills the oceans.
(how do all those space guys breath?)
They don't, they breathe. In any case, making those scrubbers is a high-energy-cost activity and would be a net loss. Instead, you use the CO2 output to produce Algae, a process already tested by the USDOE at Sandia National Labs, where they were able to capture over 80% of the CO2 output in the algae. Then you can in turn make the algae into biodiesel and fertilizer, fixing some of the carbon and getting a second use out of the rest. In other words, your idea is stupid, and slashdot is a stupider place for having to hear it - but there is a similar, working solution.
My idea was an example, and yes, your idea... or should I say the idea you mentioned is much better. The point I was making is that even if you could make 100% clean, with no CO2, no mercury or anything else, these guys would still oppose it for no other reason than they've been brainwashed to think that it's evil.
And just how much more coal do you have to burn to do all that?
Shall we stop here, or should we go into the hazards of mining and transport and it's associated contamination also?
Very little energy is used to capture and sequestration. Not that it matters since your next question makes me ask:
Is your problem with coal because it releases CO2 and other pollutants or because of the methods we use to mine it?
All those things are much cleaner than coal. It is only for backroom politics we still depend on the stuff.
How about solar (must cut down trees or cover grass to install)?
Yep, lots of trees and grass in the desert. But jeeze! The iguana population is gonna explode with all the shade.
Is your problem with coal or just energy in general?
I don't understand the question.
OK, you got me. Solar power is good for deserts. Now, how about the other 75% of the US where they are ALSO putting up solar? How about all the trees that are cut down to run the wires from the deserts to the cities?
And if all those other energies are much cleaner than coal, why are you not down at your state capitol telling those hippies that are protesting the proposed nuclear plant to shut the hell up?!!? No, instead, you are here with them telling me how bad coal is and that you will oppose coal no matter how clean we can get power from it because... well, it's coal. It's evil!
In space they can dump it overboard. Got a place to put all that CO2? Check out the raw tonnage you're dealing with before you answer.
Um... where is all that CO2 now? We are not creating it, we are releasing it. How bout we put it into plants, the way nature intended? Maybe we could put into your Mountain Dew. There's a thousand other uses for CO2.
Or, is your problem not with coal and CO2, but something else:
Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day, says the Heartland Institute.
While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.
According to Columbia University physicist Klaus Lackner, who is leading the research team:
* Producing a large number of CO2 scrubbers can keep to a minimum any rise in atmospheric CO2 without the economically painful elimination of inexpensive energy sources.
* This technology would allow people to use fossil fuels, which they will be using anyway, without destroying the planet.
Environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace have consistently opposed similar technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, because they do not address what they see as the root of the problem, says the Heartland Institute.
"This is just one more piece of evidence that environmentalists aren't concerned about solving a problem," said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. "Every problem, as they see it, is one way to restrict people's lifestyles, and if you come up with a technological fix that can solve a problem but doesn't require sacrifice and lets us go about our business the way we were before, they're not happy about it, even if it solves the problem."
The use of coal, no matter what you convert it to, will never be clean.
Define "clean". Is nuclear "clean"? Wind power (kills birds and blocks the view)? How about solar (must cut down trees or cover grass to install)?
So tell me, please: What is "clean" energy by your own definition? Is your problem with coal or just energy in general?
Clean coal doesn't exist. Saying it is a clean energy form is like saying fusion is a clean energy form: regardless of whatever merits you can come up with for the system, carbon capture and sequestration (clean coal), like fusion, has no working plants (and probably won't for at least a decade) and is more a gimmick for public support and research funding than anything else. Money would be better spent on the efficiency efforts mentioned and commercially viable forms of clean energy that can be bought in the market today.
So all of the other posts here explaining technologies that convert coal to another, cleaner form of energy are all wrong, and you are right? Even if it's something as simple as taking the scrubber technology we've had since the birth of the space program and attaching that to smoke stack to remove the CO2... it doesn't exist, right? (how do all those space guys breath?)
Guess you are the only smart one here, as usual.
Pfft! Yeah right. Pull the other one.
Funny. Nearly every other post here is about converting coal to some other form of cleaner energy. So are you wrong or is everyone else?
What about video? We've been told we'd have video phones for as long as we've been promised flying cars. Seriously, how hard would it be to integrate video into this phone system?
OK, sure there are hardware and protocol requirements. But nearly any current "chat" service offers video. Even if you didn't want to do this directly from you computer, Google could sell or license phones that connect directly to your wireless router that have a small screen and camera. They could even sell a device that connects to your TV. Of course, for now, it would require both sides to have Google's phone service, but there's no reason this couldn't be an open protocol that would allow video calls from say, Vonage and Google customers.
Looks like they are thinking big, but they could think bigger!
What's the deal with this statement in the summary?
"Sadly, the voicemail didn't integrate very nicely w/ my phone back in the day, so I guess I should give it a shot."
What's different between that and, "Sadly, Windows didn't work well for me in 2002, so I guess I should try Windows 7?" Or "Sadly, I hated my Nissan Altima from 2004, so my next purchase should be an Altima from 2009?"
I'm not saying your shouldn't try it out, but that sentence reads like a big fat non sequitur.
Actually, it would be more like, "I loved Windows 3.11, but it didn't connect to the Internet well. Maybe I'll give XP a shot."
It's not that he didn't like the system. One feature did not work well for him. That feature was a deal breaker. Now that a new version is out, he's hoping that one feature will work so he can benefit from the rest.
Listen, I've tried PS3 linux before, I know what the hardware is, and I know what the limitations of PS3 linux are. These have not changed (apart from the bluetooth thing), and these are not bound to change. ie: the 2nd half of memory will always be basically useless, and the RSX will never be fully accessible from PS3 linux.
So effectively, there is no hope PS3 linux will get more useful than it already is, which is how it was when I checked it out. I've been running it for a few months which was about a year ago, and back then it broke 3 times on firmware updates. How you would know better how much time I spent with it eludes me...
If you don't believe what I'm saying about PS3 linux: go ahead and try it anyway, I couldn't care less, not my PS3, not my spare time. Just find out yourself how terrific it works and how much I'm trolling here. Don't see why I would be trolling about PS3 linux on Slashdot anyway but hey, some people here obviously feel better screaming troll all the time.
But does it run a web browser, email app, word processor and download porn? After that, everything else is just gravy.
Anti-abortionists are going to have a field day with this. If stem cells can be harvested from aborted fetuses, and stem cells actually fulfill their promise as everyone expects they will, then getting an abortion suddenly becomes not so much the destruction of one life but the preservation of many.
Embryonic stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses, at least not from the traditional type of abortion. Embryonic stem cells come from left over fertilized eggs at fertility clinics that are to be thrown away. These are thawed, encouraged to begin development, then harvested for stem cells, which destroys them.
(I find it ironic that the last time stem cells came up, someone accused pro-lifers of trying to say that stem comes come from abortions)
I'm not sure where you live where they force you to ride the bus, but if someone says that making you ride the bus is to stop global warming, then they're unable to apply the proper sense of scale to their problem-solving.
Actually, not a problem where I live. Ever been to New York or Chicago? Granted, it's been expensive to drive in either place for years, but it's getting worse. Now, instead of taxing and tolling to need to pay to build and maintain roads, they are doing so in the name of climate change. Obama wants to set up a "cap and trade" program, which is fancy talk for "energy tax". I will pay that energy tax. You will pay that energy tax too. We already pay for corn subsidies in both taxes and higher corn prices due to ethanol regulations.
So, no. No one is forcing anyone to take the bus, train, subway or whatever. They do, however, make driving your own vehicle so expensive that only the wealthy can afford to do so.