The Wright brothers were VERY aware of the military uses of their invention. Also that the way to really make a lot of money on it was to sell it to the military. Their secretiveness and poor business decisions kept this from happening, though.
Humans have been observing cows for millenia. Don't you think someone would have noticed this by now? Its not like cowherds have a lot of other things on their mind when they are minding the herd.
"There is no benefit for the oil companies to develop and market an alternative technology until all the oil is gone."
Yes there is. Some refineries can only refine high-quality crude ("lighter" in the parlance). It would be very expensive to upgrade such refineries. Heavier crude is cheaper and more readily available. This technology would allow a refiner to buy heavy(er) crude nad mix it with algae-produced light sweet crude, resulting in a cheaper costs while also not having to spend hundreds of millions (even billions) in refinery upgrades.
Note that this is unusual in alternative energy technologies, in that oil companies really could see short-term benefit from the technology and the technology could be easily incorporated into the existing energy infrastructure.
Another thought I had is that the effect of the sodium's weight on Earth could perturb the experiment.
I was originally going to write "the gravitional field from Earth could perturb the experiment", but its not really the field that's the issue. The Earth's magnetic field formed in the Sun's gravitational field. But the Earth's core is in free fall around the sun, so does not feel any weight. (In the Earth's core, down is toward the center. In this experiment, down will be towards some direction outside of the sphere.)
Similarly, depending on whether they are spinning the sphere on a horizontal or vertical axis, the motion of the sodium through the Earth's gravitational field and/or magnetic field might be different than that of the Earth vs. the Sun.
Finally, the other issue with pressure is that the sodium will not experience the pressure differential that the various layers of iron in the Earth must experience.
Its not so much that cartridges can't get wet, but if you got water in an ammo can it wouldn't dry out. You'd have moldy ammo. Especially a problem for machine gun ammo where the belt was made of cloth. Also, you'd want to keep clips for the M1 Garand pretty clean, so that they would feed well.
The proposal is that the hydrogen is delivered to the car in the form of a liquid fuel which contains carbon. The fuel is broken down into hydrogen and carbon (carbon dioxide?). The hydrogen goes into the fuel cell, powering the car. The carbon is stored in the car, to be returned to the gas station the next time the car is refilled.
I like the idea of commenting the code and moving on.
Note, though, that posting code on a forum with no copyright notice does not put it in the public domain. IIRC, the lack of copyright notice means that the first move of the copyright owner can not be to sue you, they must first notify you of the violation and give you a chance to fix it. In other words, the law takes into consideration that without a copyright notice you might accidentally copy something you shouldn't and allows for the violator to fix the problem once notified.
So the worst case is that the copyright owner makes your company change the code at some point in the future. If you put the recommended comment in, your company will know (i) its not your fault and (ii) you were heads-up enough to look into the issue a little further when you noticed it.
Very few Manhattan dwellers drive their cars to work every day. Cars are generally for driving out of the city on the weekend. If you can afford a $4.7 million apartment, you are much more likely to just take a cab to/from work.
"It's been especially nice for them because none of that [game / productivity / finance / tax / edutainment / education]ware gets installed on Linux that was constantly getting installed on Windows..."
My interpretation was that the difficulty is figuring out how much fuel is left in each tank in a weightless environment where each can be at dramatically different temperatures (one on the sun-side and one on the shade-side).
The reason he would have wanted Cindy Sheehan to stop posting if she was running is precisely because the site could then be considered to be involved in her campaign activity.
When the FEC states that it is only a concern if the "major purpose is involvement in campaign activity", they define "campaign activity" only as activities that promote an individual or party conducted <i>in connection with an election</i>.
A vast majority of what DailyKos does bears no connection to any particular election (i.e. is not a campaign activity), however partisan its goals may be.
I am not in favor of the fairness doctrine, however, it does represent a significant difference from pamphletering or blogging. It only applied (would apply) to a narrow range of media that utilize a public resource for disemination -- the public airwaves.
IANAL, but the answer to this question is based in 208 years of First Amendment law. Probably too voluminous to go into on this forum. However, "press" as defined under federal law is extremely broadly defined.
The key issues that the FEC looks at are as follows:
Is the organization in question owned or controlled by any "political party, political committee, or candidate" (these are defined under the regs). If it is owned by any of these, then it is considered an arm of that group and not "press".
If it is not owned by any of these, then the next question is whether the "major purpose [of the organization] is involvement in campaign activity". If the answer is yes, then it is considered a political committee (see above).
Note that campaign activity is specifically meant to be narrowly defined as involved in a federal election campaign. It does not encompass political activity broadly.
So as long as an organization publishing to the web cannot be considered owned or controlled by any political part, political committee, or candidate and its major purpose is not to be involved in campaign activity, then its protected from these regulations.
"Are there even that many undeveloped, practical miles left in the US?"
I don't know what you mean by "practical", but keep in mind that less than 10% of US land is developed while an additional 15% is used for farmland and an additional 35% for pasture land.
That means there are roughly 4 million square kilometers of unused land in the US. So 34,000 square kilomenters is less than 1% of the unused land. A meaningful chunk, no doubt, but there is still lots of empty land out there.
Another way to look at this is that approximately 125,000 square kilometers of formerly used farm and pastureland was removed from use between 1982 and 1997. In other words, you would only have to put back into production one-third of the land taken out of production between 1982 and 1997.
Notes: I use "less than 10%" for developed land, because the only estimate I could find was 4.3% in 1997 and I know there has been significant development in the last ten years, but I can't imagine developed land has more than doubled in that time period. Similarly, the numbers listed for 1997 for farmland and pastureland were 16% and 36%, respectively, but both have been in long-term decline for decades. Finally, the 125,000 square kilometers of land removed from agricultural production is net of development. That is, there was actually 225,000 sqkm taken out of production but 100,000 sqkm was developed for other uses, netting 125,000 sqkm net removed from use.
Slashdot Mirror
The Wright brothers were VERY aware of the military uses of their invention. Also that the way to really make a lot of money on it was to sell it to the military. Their secretiveness and poor business decisions kept this from happening, though.
The process described in the article would work for any atmospheric turbulence.
Humans have been observing cows for millenia. Don't you think someone would have noticed this by now? Its not like cowherds have a lot of other things on their mind when they are minding the herd.
But that only works if the file format supports comments.
"There is no benefit for the oil companies to develop and market an alternative technology until all the oil is gone."
Yes there is. Some refineries can only refine high-quality crude ("lighter" in the parlance). It would be very expensive to upgrade such refineries. Heavier crude is cheaper and more readily available. This technology would allow a refiner to buy heavy(er) crude nad mix it with algae-produced light sweet crude, resulting in a cheaper costs while also not having to spend hundreds of millions (even billions) in refinery upgrades.
Note that this is unusual in alternative energy technologies, in that oil companies really could see short-term benefit from the technology and the technology could be easily incorporated into the existing energy infrastructure.
Another thought I had is that the effect of the sodium's weight on Earth could perturb the experiment.
I was originally going to write "the gravitional field from Earth could perturb the experiment", but its not really the field that's the issue. The Earth's magnetic field formed in the Sun's gravitational field. But the Earth's core is in free fall around the sun, so does not feel any weight. (In the Earth's core, down is toward the center. In this experiment, down will be towards some direction outside of the sphere.)
Similarly, depending on whether they are spinning the sphere on a horizontal or vertical axis, the motion of the sodium through the Earth's gravitational field and/or magnetic field might be different than that of the Earth vs. the Sun.
Finally, the other issue with pressure is that the sodium will not experience the pressure differential that the various layers of iron in the Earth must experience.
Its not so much that cartridges can't get wet, but if you got water in an ammo can it wouldn't dry out. You'd have moldy ammo. Especially a problem for machine gun ammo where the belt was made of cloth. Also, you'd want to keep clips for the M1 Garand pretty clean, so that they would feed well.
The proposal is that the hydrogen is delivered to the car in the form of a liquid fuel which contains carbon. The fuel is broken down into hydrogen and carbon (carbon dioxide?). The hydrogen goes into the fuel cell, powering the car. The carbon is stored in the car, to be returned to the gas station the next time the car is refilled.
I like the idea of commenting the code and moving on.
Note, though, that posting code on a forum with no copyright notice does not put it in the public domain. IIRC, the lack of copyright notice means that the first move of the copyright owner can not be to sue you, they must first notify you of the violation and give you a chance to fix it. In other words, the law takes into consideration that without a copyright notice you might accidentally copy something you shouldn't and allows for the violator to fix the problem once notified.
So the worst case is that the copyright owner makes your company change the code at some point in the future. If you put the recommended comment in, your company will know (i) its not your fault and (ii) you were heads-up enough to look into the issue a little further when you noticed it.
Have you ever been to Detroit? I'd pick Moscow.
Very few Manhattan dwellers drive their cars to work every day. Cars are generally for driving out of the city on the weekend. If you can afford a $4.7 million apartment, you are much more likely to just take a cab to/from work.
http://www.architectmagazine.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=1006&articleID=549698
And I was clearly trying to imply the following:
"It's been especially nice for them because none of that [game / productivity / finance / tax / edutainment / education]ware gets installed on Linux that was constantly getting installed on Windows..."
"It's been especially nice for them because none of that crap gets installed on Linux that was constantly getting installed on Windows..."
You mean software?
"IEEE Spectrum looks at current trends in artificial technology..."
Is that in contrast to natural technology?
"The designers say it could be 20 to 30 years before such a habitat could be up and running on the moon."
That's perfect timing. That's exactly when fusion reactors should be available to power the thing.
"I also generally have no real lack of companionship when I want it."
;)
Your cat doesn't count.
My interpretation was that the difficulty is figuring out how much fuel is left in each tank in a weightless environment where each can be at dramatically different temperatures (one on the sun-side and one on the shade-side).
He has a lifetime appointment.
Would you like to rethink your statement, now?
The reason he would have wanted Cindy Sheehan to stop posting if she was running is precisely because the site could then be considered to be involved in her campaign activity.
When the FEC states that it is only a concern if the "major purpose is involvement in campaign activity", they define "campaign activity" only as activities that promote an individual or party conducted <i>in connection with an election</i>.
A vast majority of what DailyKos does bears no connection to any particular election (i.e. is not a campaign activity), however partisan its goals may be.
I am not in favor of the fairness doctrine, however, it does represent a significant difference from pamphletering or blogging. It only applied (would apply) to a narrow range of media that utilize a public resource for disemination -- the public airwaves.
IANAL, but the answer to this question is based in 208 years of First Amendment law. Probably too voluminous to go into on this forum. However, "press" as defined under federal law is extremely broadly defined.
The key issues that the FEC looks at are as follows:
Is the organization in question owned or controlled by any "political party, political committee, or candidate" (these are defined under the regs). If it is owned by any of these, then it is considered an arm of that group and not "press".
If it is not owned by any of these, then the next question is whether the "major purpose [of the organization] is involvement in campaign activity". If the answer is yes, then it is considered a political committee (see above).
Note that campaign activity is specifically meant to be narrowly defined as involved in a federal election campaign. It does not encompass political activity broadly.
So as long as an organization publishing to the web cannot be considered owned or controlled by any political part, political committee, or candidate and its major purpose is not to be involved in campaign activity, then its protected from these regulations.
Economies are not zero-sum games.
"Are there even that many undeveloped, practical miles left in the US?"
t m
I don't know what you mean by "practical", but keep in mind that less than 10% of US land is developed while an additional 15% is used for farmland and an additional 35% for pasture land.
That means there are roughly 4 million square kilometers of unused land in the US. So 34,000 square kilomenters is less than 1% of the unused land. A meaningful chunk, no doubt, but there is still lots of empty land out there.
Another way to look at this is that approximately 125,000 square kilometers of formerly used farm and pastureland was removed from use between 1982 and 1997. In other words, you would only have to put back into production one-third of the land taken out of production between 1982 and 1997.
Notes: I use "less than 10%" for developed land, because the only estimate I could find was 4.3% in 1997 and I know there has been significant development in the last ten years, but I can't imagine developed land has more than doubled in that time period. Similarly, the numbers listed for 1997 for farmland and pastureland were 16% and 36%, respectively, but both have been in long-term decline for decades. Finally, the 125,000 square kilometers of land removed from agricultural production is net of development. That is, there was actually 225,000 sqkm taken out of production but 100,000 sqkm was developed for other uses, netting 125,000 sqkm net removed from use.
All numbers taken from this EPA report:
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roeLandU.h
Although maybe a judge would use slightly different wording. ;)