A small scale pioneer plant for photobiological hydrogen is set to be built here in Co.
That's not an infrastructure. That's a novelty. When you can support hundreds of millions of vehicles then you have an infrastructure.
So we might as well slash every effort to create electrical and hydrogen vehicles and focus our attention solely on switching to nuclear? Even in the midst of this "fuel crisis" you think it'd be better for the general populace to be consuming petroleum instead of electricity?
Consuming electricity or hydrogen is consuming petroleum. Both are generated from fossil fuels. That's the problem I've been trying to make clear.
If the petroleum vehicles that produce pollution are no longer producing pollution, that would confine existing pollution to areas in which power plants reside.
Power plants that will now spew more pollution than currently since we'd have to up production to meet the increased load. Can we put that power plant in your county? Would you be ok living within 20 miles of it?
That raises an interesting point. Can the existing power generation stations handle the increased load you propose? Parts of the US already have rolling black outs in the summer.
If someone can figure out how burning fossil fuel can be made clean than this whole conversation is moot. We can do what ever we want until it runs out.
...which is far far down the line, and way beyond our lifetimes, right? Who cares?
You do. Your position is that we should burn fossil fuel and release massive greenhouse gasses in new and unique ways. That this will some how help.
Converting our source to nuclear coverts literally billions of devices to being green. It converts them with exactly zero cost to the devices and requires exactly no interaction or even knowledge of the change by those using the devices.
Converting to hydrogen would require changes to hundreds of millions of cars. It would require changes to millions of gas stations. A brand new pipeline infrastructure. A brand new tanker infrastructure. Training and education of the population. Yet after all that effort we would still be powering our cars with fossil fuels. Hydrogen is produced by refining fossil fuels, just like gasoline is. It's spending a ton of resources to do the same thing we're currently doing.
First off you say I don't get it then you agree with me in the second paragraph.
I don't think you get it. At no point do I discount privacy or say it doesn't exist.
The OP has fundamental flaws with their position. I pointed some of these out. He uninstalled windows but doesn't mention cash/plastic. That's just silly.
He appears to be a luddite or paranoid that is afraid of his name appearing in a database. The OP can't buy a house or car as that makes more info than face book or running windows public record.
I'm all for not giving out personal information. At no point did I say you should so I don't understand why you bring that up. Yes you should be weary of services that do not protect your privacy. But again my post didn't reference this and the OP didn't reference this.
Running windows does not expose personal info. Using face book does not expose personal info. Or I guess more accurately face book only exposes the personal info you want exposed.
I was trying to illustrate 2 main points. the first was that I think the OP is overly paranoid.
The second is that privacy has many forms. Sure you can go off grid and not exist anywhere. it's possible. I've done it. It has significant downsides. Now I've found that anonymity is privacy. Privacy is not necessarily alone or isolated. The mob grants privacy. That's the reason mob mentality works.
No truth is ever self evident. If they were there would be no need to discuss them. Everyone would be in agreement.
Since you're AC I'll be blunt. Maybe you're the nut job. Maybe your slight was real and his response is not what you make it to be.
Anyways your example is completely off topic. For two reasons. If someone decides to actively focus on you you can never have privacy. This was true 100o years ago and will be true in a 1000.
Your situation is an act of god occurrence that can't be protected against.
Upgrading all vehicles and the entire infrastructure is incomprehensibly expensive and difficult. It gains us nothing. We've spent a better part of a century building and refining the infrastructure. Throwing that all away to simply burn fossil fuels in a different manner is the exact definition of waste.
Instead spend that money on clean power. Hook the clean power up to the grid. *poof* Every single item plugged into the grid is now "green." Then we can figure out what to do with that power.
I'm currently doing research on algal hydrogen production, and it is a very viable third option.
Lots of things are being worked on. Lots of them never see the light of day. You don't build an infrastructure on something that might be.
My point is, what do you think the point of creating electrical and hydrogen vehicles are if we're still using oil and coal to produce this electricity?
None. More gains would be made by spending those resources on switching over to nuclear power.
How about confinement of pollution?
That's an ambiguous sentence. Please elaborate.
How about reduction of energy transportation costs (although hydrogen may not be helping this)?
WTF? Seriously? Do you know people who want more?
How about vehicles that can use electricity and hydrogen efficiently for when we do improve clean coal?
If someone can figure out how burning fossil fuel can be made clean than this whole conversation is moot. We can do what ever we want until it runs out.
1. Splitting water. No one does this because the efficiency sucks. But assuming you do. You have a very wasteful coal powered bike.
2. Burn fossil fuel to produce steam to use to crack methane, releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide, to produce hydrogen. You have a fossil fuel powered bike.
In either case you're doing nothing green and nothing renewable. We need a clean source of power. Until then changing the end of the consumer end of the supply chain is a waste.
Short Version: No one is going to pay attention to you unless to invite that attention.
Computers are stupid. The volume of data you're worried about is mind boggling huge. Your google search history is tucked in there with billions on billions of other web requests. If you don't keep cookies between sessions then your thousands of individual search histories are tucked in there with billions of other web requests. This is far too complex for a computer to solve. Someone would have to specifically focus on you to assemble anything useful.
This is the case with just about everything. The volume of data is so large that unless you're doing something to stand out the fact that they have some of your information is meaningless.
If you're doing something to stand out then people will focus on you. That's when things get dicey. Until then you just get lost in the crowd.
Here's what you should ask yourself. Why the fuck would anyone bother with you? I'm not being mean. Seriously who would give a fuck about your web history? Most privacy concerns are simply ego. You're really not as important as you think you are.
You also fail to mention a lot of things. Do you have cable? Do you have your own internet? Do you only use cash? Do you drive on toll roads? The fact that you focus online and not on some of the worse real world things makes worry about you.
If you don't pay for literally _everything_ in cash you're giving away infinitely more intimate information than you'll ever find on facebook.
Do you have a cable box? If so you're entire viewing history ever may be available.
Your entire web history goes through your ISPs servers. Trivial to log. Are you using an encrypted pipe to a proxy? Do you control that proxy? Physically?
if you drive on toll roads there may be a record of all your travels. If you use a transponder to auto pay tolls then there must be.
No, instead, let's power an electric car with a hydrogen fuel cell. Then, at the end of the fuel cell's life, dispose of the basically harmless components.
Just a minor question. How exactly does this fuel cell work? Where does the input energy come from? There is no magic box that produces hydrogen or electricity.
But you do seem to have this consistent hard-on for direct electric vehicles.
You couldn't be more wrong. One look at my posting history shows I abhor electric cars. I want us to clean the grid first. If you clean the grid every single thing in your house becomes "green". Electric and hydrogen cars are worse for the environment since they're fossil fuel powered cars. More expansive, less efficient fossil fuel powered cars.
No they're not. That's my point. I wish they were but every single hydrogen or electric solutions is simply a more inefficient way of burning fossil fuels. More inefficient because they all throw in extra steps.
For example let's look at what you propose.
Generate electricity from nuclear Split water into hydrogen and oxygen (highly inefficient which is why hydrogen is currently refined from fossil fuels) Burn hydrogen.
As opposed to the following:
Generate electricity from nuclear. Power car from electricity.
As a nice side benefit every electrical object everywhere is now "greener." This applies with yours to but it's all predicated on a clean source.
Simply using dirty power in a different manner is not "green." Changing usage is meaningless until we change the source.
Changing the end doesn't matter until you change the source.
What you describe is simply a more expensive and more complex method of burning fossil fuels. Hydrogen is not a product of water. That's a lab experiment.
Hydrogen is directly refined from fossil fuels. Let me repeat that. Hydrogen is directly refined from fossil fuels.
Fixing the grid is significantly cheaper, simpler, and easier than what you describe.
What you describe requires scrapping the entire infrastructure and every vehicle on the road. What's the cost, waste, and damage of obsoleting/retrofitting every car on the road and created a parallel energy infrastructure? Fixing the grid requires only that we switch to nuclear, the only viable proven tech at the moment. Poof! Instantly everything in your home is "green". With literally zero retrofitting.
The majority of electricity comes from coal and natural gas. Congrats you still have a fossil fuel powered motor-cycle. Now with increased pollution from the strong acid/bases used as the electrolyte.
Changing how the energy is used is meaningless until we change where the energy comes from.
Don't forget the greenhouse gases from the fossil fuels used to split the water. Congrats you've moved from a gas powered cycle to a coal powered cycle.
There is an obvious logical disconnect in allowing people under one section of the law to do certain things that the vast majority will be unable to do because of provisions in another section of the law. The rationale is that tools enabling DRM-circumventing "use" will naturally also enable DRM-circumventing "access," which is a no-no.
From the bill's author's stand point there is no logical disconnect. You can't outlaw fair-use. That would not fly and might even face constitutional challenge. The DMCA is a rather elegant solution. Everyone still has their fair-use rights but effectively no one can make use of them.
This is a perfect example of the evil of the law. People weren't protesting it because they wanted free stuff they were protesting it because it de facto outlaws fair-use.
1) That's not true. It can be a one time only thing at install. 2) That's the case with WoW. Please see Blizzard V bnetd for precedent. It's impossible for a game EULA to be unconscionable. You can just not buy the game (decline the contract). It's purely a luxury good. Unconscionable != unfair. 3) http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html In bold big letters at the top. "IF YOU REJECT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER PURCHASING THE GAME, YOU MAY CALL (800)757-7707 TO REQUEST A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE."
Slashdot Mirror
A small scale pioneer plant for photobiological hydrogen is set to be built here in Co.
That's not an infrastructure. That's a novelty. When you can support hundreds of millions of vehicles then you have an infrastructure.
So we might as well slash every effort to create electrical and hydrogen vehicles and focus our attention solely on switching to nuclear? Even in the midst of this "fuel crisis" you think it'd be better for the general populace to be consuming petroleum instead of electricity?
Consuming electricity or hydrogen is consuming petroleum. Both are generated from fossil fuels. That's the problem I've been trying to make clear.
If the petroleum vehicles that produce pollution are no longer producing pollution, that would confine existing pollution to areas in which power plants reside.
Power plants that will now spew more pollution than currently since we'd have to up production to meet the increased load. Can we put that power plant in your county? Would you be ok living within 20 miles of it?
That raises an interesting point. Can the existing power generation stations handle the increased load you propose? Parts of the US already have rolling black outs in the summer.
If someone can figure out how burning fossil fuel can be made clean than this whole conversation is moot. We can do what ever we want until it runs out.
...which is far far down the line, and way beyond our lifetimes, right? Who cares?
You do. Your position is that we should burn fossil fuel and release massive greenhouse gasses in new and unique ways. That this will some how help.
Converting our source to nuclear coverts literally billions of devices to being green. It converts them with exactly zero cost to the devices and requires exactly no interaction or even knowledge of the change by those using the devices.
Converting to hydrogen would require changes to hundreds of millions of cars. It would require changes to millions of gas stations. A brand new pipeline infrastructure. A brand new tanker infrastructure. Training and education of the population. Yet after all that effort we would still be powering our cars with fossil fuels. Hydrogen is produced by refining fossil fuels, just like gasoline is. It's spending a ton of resources to do the same thing we're currently doing.
That's fucking brilliant.
First off you say I don't get it then you agree with me in the second paragraph.
I don't think you get it. At no point do I discount privacy or say it doesn't exist.
The OP has fundamental flaws with their position. I pointed some of these out. He uninstalled windows but doesn't mention cash/plastic. That's just silly.
He appears to be a luddite or paranoid that is afraid of his name appearing in a database.
The OP can't buy a house or car as that makes more info than face book or running windows public record.
I'm all for not giving out personal information. At no point did I say you should so I don't understand why you bring that up. Yes you should be weary of services that do not protect your privacy. But again my post didn't reference this and the OP didn't reference this.
Running windows does not expose personal info. Using face book does not expose personal info. Or I guess more accurately face book only exposes the personal info you want exposed.
I was trying to illustrate 2 main points. the first was that I think the OP is overly paranoid.
The second is that privacy has many forms. Sure you can go off grid and not exist anywhere. it's possible. I've done it. It has significant downsides. Now I've found that anonymity is privacy. Privacy is not necessarily alone or isolated. The mob grants privacy. That's the reason mob mentality works.
No truth is ever self evident. If they were there would be no need to discuss them. Everyone would be in agreement.
Since you're AC I'll be blunt. Maybe you're the nut job. Maybe your slight was real and his response is not what you make it to be.
Anyways your example is completely off topic. For two reasons. If someone decides to actively focus on you you can never have privacy. This was true 100o years ago and will be true in a 1000.
Your situation is an act of god occurrence that can't be protected against.
That's brilliant! I'm off to patent it!
Don't put the buggy before the horse.
Upgrading all vehicles and the entire infrastructure is incomprehensibly expensive and difficult. It gains us nothing. We've spent a better part of a century building and refining the infrastructure. Throwing that all away to simply burn fossil fuels in a different manner is the exact definition of waste.
Instead spend that money on clean power. Hook the clean power up to the grid. *poof* Every single item plugged into the grid is now "green." Then we can figure out what to do with that power.
I'm currently doing research on algal hydrogen production, and it is a very viable third option.
Lots of things are being worked on. Lots of them never see the light of day. You don't build an infrastructure on something that might be.
My point is, what do you think the point of creating electrical and hydrogen vehicles are if we're still using oil and coal to produce this electricity?
None. More gains would be made by spending those resources on switching over to nuclear power.
How about confinement of pollution?
That's an ambiguous sentence. Please elaborate.
How about reduction of energy transportation costs (although hydrogen may not be helping this)?
WTF? Seriously? Do you know people who want more?
How about vehicles that can use electricity and hydrogen efficiently for when we do improve clean coal?
If someone can figure out how burning fossil fuel can be made clean than this whole conversation is moot. We can do what ever we want until it runs out.
I don't understand your point.
There are two cases.
1. Splitting water. No one does this because the efficiency sucks. But assuming you do. You have a very wasteful coal powered bike.
2. Burn fossil fuel to produce steam to use to crack methane, releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide, to produce hydrogen. You have a fossil fuel powered bike.
In either case you're doing nothing green and nothing renewable. We need a clean source of power. Until then changing the end of the consumer end of the supply chain is a waste.
Short Version: No one is going to pay attention to you unless to invite that attention.
Computers are stupid. The volume of data you're worried about is mind boggling huge. Your google search history is tucked in there with billions on billions of other web requests. If you don't keep cookies between sessions then your thousands of individual search histories are tucked in there with billions of other web requests. This is far too complex for a computer to solve. Someone would have to specifically focus on you to assemble anything useful.
This is the case with just about everything. The volume of data is so large that unless you're doing something to stand out the fact that they have some of your information is meaningless.
If you're doing something to stand out then people will focus on you. That's when things get dicey. Until then you just get lost in the crowd.
Here's what you should ask yourself. Why the fuck would anyone bother with you? I'm not being mean. Seriously who would give a fuck about your web history? Most privacy concerns are simply ego. You're really not as important as you think you are.
You also fail to mention a lot of things. Do you have cable? Do you have your own internet? Do you only use cash? Do you drive on toll roads? The fact that you focus online and not on some of the worse real world things makes worry about you.
If you don't pay for literally _everything_ in cash you're giving away infinitely more intimate information than you'll ever find on facebook.
Do you have a cable box? If so you're entire viewing history ever may be available.
Your entire web history goes through your ISPs servers. Trivial to log. Are you using an encrypted pipe to a proxy? Do you control that proxy? Physically?
if you drive on toll roads there may be a record of all your travels. If you use a transponder to auto pay tolls then there must be.
I know this is hugely dependent on how the hydrogen is created
Hydrogen is currently created by refining fossil fuels. This motorcycle is simply a less efficient way to burn fossil fuels.
No, instead, let's power an electric car with a hydrogen fuel cell. Then, at the end of the fuel cell's life, dispose of the basically harmless components.
Just a minor question.
How exactly does this fuel cell work? Where does the input energy come from? There is no magic box that produces hydrogen or electricity.
But you do seem to have this consistent hard-on for direct electric vehicles.
You couldn't be more wrong. One look at my posting history shows I abhor electric cars. I want us to clean the grid first. If you clean the grid every single thing in your house becomes "green". Electric and hydrogen cars are worse for the environment since they're fossil fuel powered cars. More expansive, less efficient fossil fuel powered cars.
If I have a hard on for anything its nuclear.
I can knock it based on our current method of hydrogen production.
Hydrogen is directly refined from fossil fuels.
It's a fossil fuel powered vehicle but with extra steps added to the energy supply chain in to increase waste.
No they're not. That's my point. I wish they were but every single hydrogen or electric solutions is simply a more inefficient way of burning fossil fuels. More inefficient because they all throw in extra steps.
For example let's look at what you propose.
Generate electricity from nuclear
Split water into hydrogen and oxygen (highly inefficient which is why hydrogen is currently refined from fossil fuels)
Burn hydrogen.
As opposed to the following:
Generate electricity from nuclear.
Power car from electricity.
As a nice side benefit every electrical object everywhere is now "greener." This applies with yours to but it's all predicated on a clean source.
Simply using dirty power in a different manner is not "green." Changing usage is meaningless until we change the source.
Changing the end doesn't matter until you change the source.
What you describe is simply a more expensive and more complex method of burning fossil fuels. Hydrogen is not a product of water. That's a lab experiment.
Hydrogen is directly refined from fossil fuels. Let me repeat that. Hydrogen is directly refined from fossil fuels.
Fixing the grid is significantly cheaper, simpler, and easier than what you describe.
What you describe requires scrapping the entire infrastructure and every vehicle on the road. What's the cost, waste, and damage of obsoleting/retrofitting every car on the road and created a parallel energy infrastructure? Fixing the grid requires only that we switch to nuclear, the only viable proven tech at the moment. Poof! Instantly everything in your home is "green". With literally zero retrofitting.
Hydrogen generation is achieved by breaking down hydrocarbons. This is also known as burning fossil fuels.
Huge cash spent. Same end result as the current system.
That's nice for that one bike. It's a novelty. Big fucking deal. Hydrogen generation at scale needed for mass production is fossil fuel powered.
The majority of electricity comes from coal and natural gas. Congrats you still have a fossil fuel powered motor-cycle. Now with increased pollution from the strong acid/bases used as the electrolyte.
Changing how the energy is used is meaningless until we change where the energy comes from.
Don't forget the greenhouse gases from the fossil fuels used to split the water. Congrats you've moved from a gas powered cycle to a coal powered cycle.
What are the byproducts of producing the hydrogen?
There is an obvious logical disconnect in allowing people under one section of the law to do certain things that the vast majority will be unable to do because of provisions in another section of the law. The rationale is that tools enabling DRM-circumventing "use" will naturally also enable DRM-circumventing "access," which is a no-no.
From the bill's author's stand point there is no logical disconnect. You can't outlaw fair-use. That would not fly and might even face constitutional challenge. The DMCA is a rather elegant solution. Everyone still has their fair-use rights but effectively no one can make use of them.
This is a perfect example of the evil of the law. People weren't protesting it because they wanted free stuff they were protesting it because it de facto outlaws fair-use.
Is Diablo 3 going to use any of the Warden rootkit technology to police online play?
1) That's not true. It can be a one time only thing at install.
2) That's the case with WoW. Please see Blizzard V bnetd for precedent. It's impossible for a game EULA to be unconscionable. You can just not buy the game (decline the contract). It's purely a luxury good. Unconscionable != unfair.
3) http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html In bold big letters at the top. "IF YOU REJECT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER PURCHASING THE GAME, YOU MAY CALL (800)757-7707 TO REQUEST A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE."
There's no assumption needed. In the USA they are. The case that set this precedent was ProCD v Zeidenberg.
The 7th Circuit Court of the USA disagrees with you. EULA are legal, binding, contracts. The case that set this precedent was ProCD v Zeidenberg.
But if the coder doesn't play WoW then he can't be violating the license. Only the end user would be.
This of course raises complications on how you'd actually write the thing.
What are the legal remifications of having someone other than the coder agree to the license and then swap seats.
At that point they can ban the account for sharing but the producer of the bot has never agreed to the license.
EULA are contracts not law.