Yes let's have permanent depression and war, so we can avoid the problems that come with trying to prevent depression and war. One of the reasons "Austrianism" stuck as a name is from what happened to Austria under Dollfuss was chancellor and Hayek his close economic advisor.
"It's been ad hoc with no code review for over 3 billion years."
This again, is immensely stupid. First, natural selection is constantly weeding out undesirable variations, and second the genome is highly tectonic, constantly removing or altering pathways. It's not teleological, but DNA is the coding mechanism precisely because it is not a passive storage medium.
This is the dumbest thing, not related to football, that I have read all day. "obviously" hierarchical? That's utterly idiotic. And I mean utterly, betraying a complete lack of any experience with metabolic processes. Many, perhaps even most, protiens do many things in many circumstances, and have dynamic equilibria within more than one metabolic chain, as do many of the small molecules which are produced.
However that period represents a usurious interest rate, the second part (of not allowing a monopoly price) is as important as the first, which needs to be set in stone.
Were it up to me I would require makers to offer a sim replaceable version of their phones, because other wise it is an attempt to leverage a monopoly. When we get out of carbon dependency, we can tax resource countries be means other than austerity or seigniorage, when we can tax the global wealthy, there will be no need to allow concentration of corporations and concentration of control (which is what most wealth is) and at that point we can go back to a small is beautiful capital system.
Freedom is possible, slavery grows out of the exhaust pipe of an internal combustion engine.
FCC should allow unlocking of phones after the subsidy period is completed (essentially rent to own) and there should be a usury limit on exactly what the effective rate of interest is, because, as a previous commenter pointed out, that is what is going on.
Your comment is beneath contemptibly stupid. While potable water can be in short supply, water is virtually everywhere: sea water, ice, even in the air.
The second part shows you are a gun-nut randwanker. Don't you have the next chapter of your book on how Obama is a muslim marxist born in Kenya to capitalize?
You have it reversed: the silnanparts plus water, represent the energy storage, when energy is needed, the two are combined, the resulting hydrogen is immediately used in a fuel cell, which liberates the energy. The silnaparts represent a potentially economically viable way of getting around the hydrogen problem. Thus one possible applicatio cycle would be: store energy from either renewable or nuclear source (both of which are not on demand) in the form of silnaparts, generate energy on demand from water. This would replace kerosene turbines and other forms of "peak" generation, which have terrible carbon density. The hydrogen is only around long enough to feed the fuel cell.
If this better than batteries or gravity storage, it could mean recapturing a great deal of lost power and lowering carbon emissions. However, some variables are not answered in the paper.
That's a gross overstatement: this is competing with lithium batteries, gravity storage, and the like. It has to be better at creating applications for at least some range of circumstances than current energy storage. This could be a small set, or quite large.
Actually the LCA of petroleum is excellent, that's one of the reasons it took over the world.
It just has unfortunate side effects: it is killing us, and killing our ecosystem, which we are rather dependent on, there being no other garden worlds.
Both this question and the next one roll into what is called the "Life Cycle Analysis" the net output per unit input.
Remember, there is energy extraction, and energy packaging. Petroleum is a huge win, because it is both - refining is relatively cheap, and it packages the result. This is not energy extraction - there is a large input, but it makes a convenient fuel cell package that gets around the problem of storing hydrogen. Since hydrogen is very chemically reactive, it's a big problem in having a hydrogen based energy chain.
The input cost is essential, especially the theoretical efficiency, against other forms of energy storage. This would include how stable the nano-particles are, because water is ubiquitous.
However it could be great for renewables, because the onsite wind farm or what have you, could be used to generate the silnaparts and this stores them. It could also be good for nuclear power, which runs continuously, and thus reduce the need for peak capacity, which is heavily carbon dominated. Even if not very efficient it could significantly reduce carbon footprint, because there would be no concern about the major problems of current bulk energy storage: gravity is environmentally destructive, and batteries have rather low cycle limits.
Your work and courage in pursuing conclusions that observation provided should be an example and inspiration to everyone in the sciences. I am sure it has not only been a long road, but one filled with landmines and pot holes. For this, you are owed many more thanks than can be expressed only in words.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry you can't read above a third grade level, you should work on that.
Did I tell you how shocked I am? Really, I'm so shocked.
Yes let's have permanent depression and war, so we can avoid the problems that come with trying to prevent depression and war. One of the reasons "Austrianism" stuck as a name is from what happened to Austria under Dollfuss was chancellor and Hayek his close economic advisor.
Keep up the good work.
Nature doesn't design out of Knuth, and it is a big mistake to act or think like we will find nice analogs of human type design.
"It's been ad hoc with no code review for over 3 billion years." This again, is immensely stupid. First, natural selection is constantly weeding out undesirable variations, and second the genome is highly tectonic, constantly removing or altering pathways. It's not teleological, but DNA is the coding mechanism precisely because it is not a passive storage medium.
This is the dumbest thing, not related to football, that I have read all day. "obviously" hierarchical? That's utterly idiotic. And I mean utterly, betraying a complete lack of any experience with metabolic processes. Many, perhaps even most, protiens do many things in many circumstances, and have dynamic equilibria within more than one metabolic chain, as do many of the small molecules which are produced.
Why Am I Not Surprised?
is called "public domain."
I worked on the Transact product at Open Market.
I'd sign on board for that.
However that period represents a usurious interest rate, the second part (of not allowing a monopoly price) is as important as the first, which needs to be set in stone.
Freedom is possible, slavery grows out of the exhaust pipe of an internal combustion engine.
Any wonder why I make factor passwords and keys a coding standard?
FCC should allow unlocking of phones after the subsidy period is completed (essentially rent to own) and there should be a usury limit on exactly what the effective rate of interest is, because, as a previous commenter pointed out, that is what is going on.
The second part shows you are a gun-nut randwanker. Don't you have the next chapter of your book on how Obama is a muslim marxist born in Kenya to capitalize?
If this better than batteries or gravity storage, it could mean recapturing a great deal of lost power and lowering carbon emissions. However, some variables are not answered in the paper.
That's a gross overstatement: this is competing with lithium batteries, gravity storage, and the like. It has to be better at creating applications for at least some range of circumstances than current energy storage. This could be a small set, or quite large.
It just has unfortunate side effects: it is killing us, and killing our ecosystem, which we are rather dependent on, there being no other garden worlds.
Theoretical efficiency could be a great deal lower. We are about as good at producing nano anything as Assyrians were at producing steel.
Remember, there is energy extraction, and energy packaging. Petroleum is a huge win, because it is both - refining is relatively cheap, and it packages the result. This is not energy extraction - there is a large input, but it makes a convenient fuel cell package that gets around the problem of storing hydrogen. Since hydrogen is very chemically reactive, it's a big problem in having a hydrogen based energy chain.
The input cost is essential, especially the theoretical efficiency, against other forms of energy storage. This would include how stable the nano-particles are, because water is ubiquitous.
However it could be great for renewables, because the onsite wind farm or what have you, could be used to generate the silnaparts and this stores them. It could also be good for nuclear power, which runs continuously, and thus reduce the need for peak capacity, which is heavily carbon dominated. Even if not very efficient it could significantly reduce carbon footprint, because there would be no concern about the major problems of current bulk energy storage: gravity is environmentally destructive, and batteries have rather low cycle limits.
How much energy to create the silicon nanoparticles.
Your work and courage in pursuing conclusions that observation provided should be an example and inspiration to everyone in the sciences. I am sure it has not only been a long road, but one filled with landmines and pot holes. For this, you are owed many more thanks than can be expressed only in words.
Both lies, try again.
The point is to put the White House on record as saying, "Why Yes, we hound hackers as a matter of policy."