This actually implies that the energy extracted from entanglement is equal to or greater than the energy required to entangle and separate. This doesn't violate classical thermodynamics, because it isn't really a closed system.
Nonsense, utilities are generally sitting on large cash hoards, and waste large amounts of power that isn't traces. I've spent time in the industry, investments could be made at current electricity prices, but cannot be made if large payouts in the utilities and generation industries continue. Where ever you are, chances are, you are being soaked as a residential customer, because individually, you are round off error in the profit picture. It's the ToD and commercial tariff - large commercial tariff - customers that get attention.
They are different problems. Stationary power generation and distribution – as well as the correct ratios of losses in the two - is different from transportation, which is driven by power to weight ratios and delivery curves.
Which, sadly, have been shown to happen, and which, sadly, have outsized and unavoidable - and therefore high dread - risks.
Thorium as a breeder reactor is slower than Uranium cylces, and requires processing that is at least, if not more, dangerous than known U-Pu cycle breeders.
And as the data shows, the predicted systematic error doesn't appear.
i.e. Watts has made an error in his unpublished paper that he somehow failed to make in his published paper. I eagerly await his retraction of his peer reviewed results any day now.
To break it down into grunts: if siting were the problem, then we would see warming trends exacerbated in areas where siting makes a difference, we don't. Instead the data shows uniform increases in areas far from human inhabitation, where stations are not going to be affected by siting.
Excluding externalized costs, yet, including them, no. Economics always sides with dumping the problem on someone else, that is, until that some one else gets angry enough to do something very uneconomical about it.
Indeed, that's why there is the (growing) Climate Reference Network. The USCRN is a smaller subset of stations which are carefully chosen in terms of siting and instrumentation and carefully monitored in a way that couldn't realistically be done with all stations. The results from the USCRN are then compared with the broader results in both localized and aggregate comparisons and used A) to help refine the adjustment algorithms used to detect and compensate for localization biases, and B) to determine the accuracy of the aggregate results.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent observations. "Mod parent up" is I believe the local lingo.
You just argued that you gave up the right to personal privacy, which means the ability to search. You can't have it both ways.
It destabilizes prices, and that is what traders trade.
stopping people from getting information about sex and contraception was supposed to solve some problem or other.
So you are ok with them asking for your email password? After all, you give up privacy when you send all those bits across the internet right?
Always funny with a post and it's sig contradict each other.
This actually implies that the energy extracted from entanglement is equal to or greater than the energy required to entangle and separate. This doesn't violate classical thermodynamics, because it isn't really a closed system.
But losing trillions makes you qualified to profit from society by force.
You can bet the earthlings wouldn't be happy being short the technology.
That is because they can't voluntarily leave the country.
It isn't your data. You don't own your brain, you merely license it from the copyright policy. Have a nice day citizen.
Nonsense, utilities are generally sitting on large cash hoards, and waste large amounts of power that isn't traces. I've spent time in the industry, investments could be made at current electricity prices, but cannot be made if large payouts in the utilities and generation industries continue. Where ever you are, chances are, you are being soaked as a residential customer, because individually, you are round off error in the profit picture. It's the ToD and commercial tariff - large commercial tariff - customers that get attention.
They are different problems. Stationary power generation and distribution – as well as the correct ratios of losses in the two - is different from transportation, which is driven by power to weight ratios and delivery curves.
Thorium as a breeder reactor is slower than Uranium cylces, and requires processing that is at least, if not more, dangerous than known U-Pu cycle breeders.
Until someone becomes the google/microsoft/apple/verizon of tracking.
The value of bad software is the pain of switching from it.
db2 for zos maintains 72 character limits for lines of code.
The peace treaty is that MS will continue to make Office for Mac. The absence of it severely hurt apple in the enterprise market for years.
Your money is gone, and they quickly book the sale.
i.e. Watts has made an error in his unpublished paper that he somehow failed to make in his published paper. I eagerly await his retraction of his peer reviewed results any day now.
To break it down into grunts: if siting were the problem, then we would see warming trends exacerbated in areas where siting makes a difference, we don't. Instead the data shows uniform increases in areas far from human inhabitation, where stations are not going to be affected by siting.
Better luck next planet, petrolls.
The government just lost the next election in India.
If they can't run an old style grid, then running more volatile technologies is inadvisable.
Excluding externalized costs, yet, including them, no. Economics always sides with dumping the problem on someone else, that is, until that some one else gets angry enough to do something very uneconomical about it.
Borehole reconstructions are routinely done and consistent with other proxies as well as with the instrumental surface record.
Good point.
Indeed, that's why there is the (growing) Climate Reference Network. The USCRN is a smaller subset of stations which are carefully chosen in terms of siting and instrumentation and carefully monitored in a way that couldn't realistically be done with all stations. The results from the USCRN are then compared with the broader results in both localized and aggregate comparisons and used A) to help refine the adjustment algorithms used to detect and compensate for localization biases, and B) to determine the accuracy of the aggregate results.
Mod this one up if you have the points.