Ahhh! Now I see the problem. Google misspelled "sponsored". You'd think they could afford a spell checker. No, Laebshade misspelled "sponsored". It's spelled correctly in the Google search results.
On a different note, I would like to say that if someone is effing stupid enough to sue (or whatever) over that fact that they can't tell that the advertisements on Google's search results page are, in fact, advertisements then they need to get off the internet and to back to doing whatever it is that people like that do in their spare time.
Now, I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't realize that they are adds are dumb. There are certainly valid reasons for that, such as dyslexia, poor reading skills, or outmoded computer hardware. It's just that holding Google responsible for your own inadequacies is an extremely foolish (to say the least) thing to do.
He does what I do. You write and write and write all over the net. Sometimes as a troll, sometimes honestly, sometimes just to take the piss. Then you archive everything you write waiting for the right article to post in. But, if it would make you happy, I have a ton of documentation I've written for applications that may at some time in the future exist. If you have an app that matched, I'd be happy to send you a copy.:) Awesome! I have an app that automagically filters out the B.S. from political speeches. I've been over the algorithm several times and it really should work, but for some reason I never get any output. Oh, well; better luck next time, I guess.
But on the brighter side the sky won't look like a television tuned to a dead channel.
What, you mean a funky shade of blue? Or is this a reference to the Early Pleistocene age, when dead channels hissed and had random black and white speckles?
That wasn't a very expert flame. You should have called him a dog bothering bucket of lard with a face like a crash-test chimpanzee, less brains than a road killed possum and smelling about as bad as one too. Also he loves Hitler.
That's a proper flame.
My hat's off to you. That was indeed a proper flame.
I should probably stick to sarcasm; it comes more naturally to me than flaming does.
I'm sure that we will eventually figure out a way to get energy from fusing the garden-variety hydrogen that is available pretty much everywhere.
If by "garden variety" you mean the regular hydrogen (i.e. not the heavier isotopes), I think that it is still way off. There are several disadvantages to this reaction versus reactions involving the heavier hydrogen isotopes.
Yes, I mean regular hydrogen, and yes, it will likely be a while. That's why I'm not holding my breath (despite my sardonic comment earlier).
As I said at the outset, I'm really not in a position to judge. More explicitly, I'm incredibly lazy in every sense, not just intellectually. (There is a very good chance that my purpose here on earth is to be an object lesson.)
NASA is working on just such a fission reactor as that which you're thinking: Project Prometheus. Unfortunately, the project's budget has been drastically cut. So the technology isn't quite there for space use yet, and it looks like it will be delayed.
Yeah, I would imagine that developing a powerplant specifically for use in space would be a bit different from designing one for large-scale electrical generation on Earth. For one thing, making it light and compact would be much more important if they're going to use it in space. For another thing, they need to make sure that it would work properly in zero gee -- not a trivial concern, as anyone who has used a space toilet can attest to:-). Anyway, it looks like they have changed the project a bit. For one thing, they're talking about developing a reactor for use on Mars.
OK, you do have a grasp on the problems with the idea. You should have specified the problems instead of just dismissing the idea.
Probably. The reason I just dismissed it is that it felt wrong. I actually had to think about it for a bit to figure out why. Call it intellectual laziness; I didn't want to devote energy to figuring out what I intuitively knew wouldn't work very well. I'll try to curb that impulse in the future.
However, I think you're mistaken about the "fact is that modern nuclear reactors are compact, safe, and work in the absence of random passing space rocks". I think you're thinking of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators which work off the natural decay of radioactive materials, not fission.
RTGs would indeed work, and are in fact used in space probes. What I was thinking of specifically was true fission reactors of modern design, as opposed to the 50-year-old (or thereabouts) designs that are in current use. Modern designs are much safer and more efficient than older designs (in theory, at least), but because of antiquated regulations no one can actually use the new designs in new nuclear power plants. This is why, in spite of major advances in knowledge over the past 50 years, the advantages of new designs remains theoretical.
As for practical fusion reactor, I believe that the general scientific consensus seems to be that we're about 25 years away from having a functional fusion reactor. Back in the 1950s, they were saying that it was about 30 years away. Hey, we're making progress!
Air is free, and it seems pretty good to me. Do you use Air.net or are you one of those OpenAir hippies? Either way, you really should upgrade to Air Professional Corporate Edition which is only $399.99 and includes one year of free support.
Pushing down the default page via GPO sonuds pretty responsible to me. It helps prevent users default pages getting hijacked with porn sites, among other things. What does that even mean, hijacked? Does IE let random sites change your default page? Oddly enough, yes.
Way too much trouble for way too little return. Just use some type of nuclear power; I'm sure that we will eventually figure out a way to get energy from fusing the garden-variety hydrogen that is available pretty much everywhere. Until then, plain old fission power is probably the best source of energy for long-term space exploration.
1) He was offering you a proof-of-concept of how one might harvest the energy in angular momentum. A very interesting and creative proof, I might add. Not sure where angular momentum comes into it. It looks more like he was extracting the energy from the velocity difference between a space ship and random passing rocks (which are quite rare) by firing tethers at the rocks. If you extract all of the energy, you will bring the rock to a complete halt relative to your ship. You would also change the velocity of the ship. If the rock was going the way you wanted to go, then it's all good, but otherwise you will have to expend energy to correct your spacecraft's course.
2) On what basis did you determine that it was "too much trouble for way too little return"? You mean, as compared to flipping a switch on your turnkey nuclear generator? Or will we be able to generate energy from all the "eventually figure out a way to get energy from fusing the garden-variety hydrogen" hand waving? "Turnkey" is your word, not mine. The fact is that modern nuclear reactors are compact, safe, and work in the absence of random passing space rocks. As for your "hand waving" comment, as I said before, I'm sure that we will eventually figure out a way. For the time being, it's not really an issue since we do have alternatives (i.e. fission power).
There are other difficulties in the idea presented by networkBoy, but at least he expended thought on the matter. I'm really in no position to judge (despite my harsh tone*), but I'd say his response betrays a scientist's outlook, while yours demonstrates that of a sciencefictionist. You can say it all you want; that doesn't make it true. I happen to have a pretty good layman's knowledge of real-world physics and space travel. Despite what you see in science fiction movies, space is really, really empty. Even in the asteroid belt, asteroids are extremely rare. Any power-generation system that relies on having random asteroids fly by close enough to fire a line out to are quite likely never going to be used, simply for the lack of any opportunity to use them.
The technology to run on water has been around for a while now. Do a search on youtube.com for "HHO" for the technology behind it. Here's a video showing the car & inventor -> Water car... Daniel Dingel Meh. Here's a car that really runs on water.
// you can stop holding your breath now.;) /// I read it on the internet... it must be true Yeah, well, ya got me there.:-)
To be fair, you can post any question just about anywhere and it will devolve into a 20 post long thread with people going back and forth about who's right and who's wrong. Humans are a highly fucking disagreeable lot.
No we're not, and furthermore I strongly resent that accusation.
Your argument is deeply flawed. Hydrogen and Oxygen do have potential energy, but as water that energy has been expended, leaving the molecule at a lower energy state. Yes, I'm quite aware of the reasons why you can't burn water to get power. It's the whole "you can't get something for nothing" principle. And no, I'm not really holding my breath waiting for a water-burning car.
There is already proof of concept for changing kinetic energy to electricity, the piazo-electric stuff the MIT guys put on the steps comes to mind.
Heck, in a Rube Goldberg sort of way I could imagine the following:
Large ship of large mass wants to capture angular momentum from small asteroid:
Capture rock in net on long string
as string unwinds it spins a flywheel
at end of string release rock
wheel string back with flywheel
use remaining spin on flywheel (energy imparted by (string + rock) - energy used to wind back (string !rock)) to run generator.
The only way I know of to burn water either uses pressure and heat we can not create, or requires more energy to be imparted to the reaction than is received back.
-nB Way too much trouble for way too little return. Just use some type of nuclear power; I'm sure that we will eventually figure out a way to get energy from fusing the garden-variety hydrogen that is available pretty much everywhere. Until then, plain old fission power is probably the best source of energy for long-term space exploration.
He wasn't her ex at the time. Also, as legally defined by many societies, the ring takes precedent over blood ties. If you don't agree with that, get a living will before you get your marriage license. Both are legal documents, and this is purely a matter of law. Many people have found more fulfillment in their own nuclear families through marriage than they had through their blood relatives... so it can go either way. There is nothing "tragic" about it. Regardless, I was still quite disturbed by the whole thing.
Angular momentum is energy. I for one am willing to assume that any technology capable of getting here in a short time span can also convert angular momentum to other usable energy.
-nB I'm waiting for the day when the make cars that burn water. After all, hydrogen and oxygen have chemical energy.
*takes deep breath and holds it*
I've seen Microsoft fanboys dismiss Linux (and Unix in general) as well as MacOS just as completely as the whiniest of Mac fanboys or fervent of Linux zealots dismiss Windows. Technology zealotry is very much alive in all aspects of the IT world. And when IT decision makers are also the Windows zealots, anyone who wants to use something different has a hard path ahead of them. Speaking for myself, I don't dislike Windows because I'm a Linux zealot. On the contrary, I switched to Linux because I grew to detest Windows so much. The switch was painful -- Linux does (or at least did back then) have a nasty learning curve if you jump straight from Windows -- but I never regretted the switch.
If someone is brain dead and nothing, then it doesnt matter, they are zippo , but ultimately, a person by marriage
is at most 25% as important as genetic parents.
Is it possible to form a corporation between your self and parents to give them more rights than your partner?
Well said. I was appalled when I heard that her ex had the power to end her life. It's tragic.
No, what's been proven is that the world needs less "harmless" anti-social behaviors that need "harmless" lies to hide. I'm puzzled. Are you saying that having a cell phone is an anti-social behavior?
"... built from the ground up on highly modular and light components with project and document orientation in mind, in order to allow users to create their own workflow by reshaping or recombining provided Services (aka Applications), Components etc. Flexibility and modularity on both User Interface and code level should allow us to scale from PDA to computer environment."
All that's missing from that description is "synergy" and "paradigm." Throw those in there and the VC money will start flowing in;)
"... built from the ground up on highly modular and light components with project and document orientation in mind, in order to allow users to create their own synergy paradigm by reshaping or recombining provided Services (aka Applications), Components etc..."
I guess you haven't seen any Skittles commercials lately. Bunnies are creepy. Good point. I'll have to add "singing bunnies" to my list of Bunnies Not to be Trusted.
As we've had to see for the past seven+ years, there is absolutely NOTHING which conservatives don't live in terror of.
It's little wonder groups like Al Qaeda are outmaneuvering Bush and the other conservatives: the Bushites are so fearful, they only know what they can see from their "undisclosed location". Conservative = coward.
Cowardservatives!
"there is absolutely NOTHING which conservatives don't live in terror of" you say? Hmmm, I consider myself to be somewhat conservative, and yet there are quite a few things that I don't live in terror of. For instance, I'm not at all scared of bunny rabbits. Well, perhaps if I met the bunny rabbit that was featured in the absolutely terrifying documentary "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", I might be scared, but I certainly hold no fear of your average garden-variety bunny rabbit.
Oh, yeah, plush Cthulhu toys. They don't scare me. Well, as long as they're not the plush Cthulhu slippers of course, but that goes without saying.
Kiwi fruit. Sure, they scare me, but I think that "terror" is pushing it a bit far. I might cross the street to avoid one, but I've never yet run screaming from a Kiwi fruit.
In conclusion, I would like to state that your characterization of conservatives as being terrified of absolutely everything is not only inaccurate, but comes close to li . . . libe . . . written slander. Sorry, I've always been terrified of that word.
No... at its best it represents a poorly written, rather unhelpful bit of meaningless prose the net effect of which may be at most "here's a bunch of links regarding what you were looking for." So . . . don't use it. You seem to be getting really worked up over something that isn't actually that important.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhh! Now I see the problem. Google misspelled "sponsored". You'd think they could afford a spell checker. No, Laebshade misspelled "sponsored". It's spelled correctly in the Google search results. On a different note, I would like to say that if someone is effing stupid enough to sue (or whatever) over that fact that they can't tell that the advertisements on Google's search results page are, in fact, advertisements then they need to get off the internet and to back to doing whatever it is that people like that do in their spare time. Now, I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't realize that they are adds are dumb. There are certainly valid reasons for that, such as dyslexia, poor reading skills, or outmoded computer hardware. It's just that holding Google responsible for your own inadequacies is an extremely foolish (to say the least) thing to do.
What, you mean a funky shade of blue? Or is this a reference to the Early Pleistocene age, when dead channels hissed and had random black and white speckles?
That's a proper flame.
My hat's off to you. That was indeed a proper flame.
I should probably stick to sarcasm; it comes more naturally to me than flaming does.
If by "garden variety" you mean the regular hydrogen (i.e. not the heavier isotopes), I think that it is still way off. There are several disadvantages to this reaction versus reactions involving the heavier hydrogen isotopes.
Yes, I mean regular hydrogen, and yes, it will likely be a while. That's why I'm not holding my breath (despite my sardonic comment earlier).NASA is working on just such a fission reactor as that which you're thinking: Project Prometheus. Unfortunately, the project's budget has been drastically cut. So the technology isn't quite there for space use yet, and it looks like it will be delayed.
Yeah, I would imagine that developing a powerplant specifically for use in space would be a bit different from designing one for large-scale electrical generation on Earth. For one thing, making it light and compact would be much more important if they're going to use it in space. For another thing, they need to make sure that it would work properly in zero gee -- not a trivial concern, as anyone who has used a space toilet can attest to :-). Anyway, it looks like they have changed the project a bit. For one thing, they're talking about developing a reactor for use on Mars.
Probably. The reason I just dismissed it is that it felt wrong. I actually had to think about it for a bit to figure out why. Call it intellectual laziness; I didn't want to devote energy to figuring out what I intuitively knew wouldn't work very well. I'll try to curb that impulse in the future.
However, I think you're mistaken about the "fact is that modern nuclear reactors are compact, safe, and work in the absence of random passing space rocks". I think you're thinking of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators which work off the natural decay of radioactive materials, not fission.RTGs would indeed work, and are in fact used in space probes. What I was thinking of specifically was true fission reactors of modern design, as opposed to the 50-year-old (or thereabouts) designs that are in current use. Modern designs are much safer and more efficient than older designs (in theory, at least), but because of antiquated regulations no one can actually use the new designs in new nuclear power plants. This is why, in spite of major advances in knowledge over the past 50 years, the advantages of new designs remains theoretical.
As for practical fusion reactor, I believe that the general scientific consensus seems to be that we're about 25 years away from having a functional fusion reactor. Back in the 1950s, they were saying that it was about 30 years away. Hey, we're making progress!
Every day, my computer runs [. . .] Notes database replication [. . .]
They make you use Lotus Notes? Those bastards.1) He was offering you a proof-of-concept of how one might harvest the energy in angular momentum. A very interesting and creative proof, I might add.
Not sure where angular momentum comes into it. It looks more like he was extracting the energy from the velocity difference between a space ship and random passing rocks (which are quite rare) by firing tethers at the rocks. If you extract all of the energy, you will bring the rock to a complete halt relative to your ship. You would also change the velocity of the ship. If the rock was going the way you wanted to go, then it's all good, but otherwise you will have to expend energy to correct your spacecraft's course. 2) On what basis did you determine that it was "too much trouble for way too little return"? You mean, as compared to flipping a switch on your turnkey nuclear generator? Or will we be able to generate energy from all the "eventually figure out a way to get energy from fusing the garden-variety hydrogen" hand waving? "Turnkey" is your word, not mine. The fact is that modern nuclear reactors are compact, safe, and work in the absence of random passing space rocks. As for your "hand waving" comment, as I said before, I'm sure that we will eventually figure out a way. For the time being, it's not really an issue since we do have alternatives (i.e. fission power). There are other difficulties in the idea presented by networkBoy, but at least he expended thought on the matter. I'm really in no position to judge (despite my harsh tone*), but I'd say his response betrays a scientist's outlook, while yours demonstrates that of a sciencefictionist. You can say it all you want; that doesn't make it true. I happen to have a pretty good layman's knowledge of real-world physics and space travel. Despite what you see in science fiction movies, space is really, really empty. Even in the asteroid belt, asteroids are extremely rare. Any power-generation system that relies on having random asteroids fly by close enough to fire a line out to are quite likely never going to be used, simply for the lack of any opportunity to use them.
Meh. Here's a car that really runs on water.
No we're not, and furthermore I strongly resent that accusation.
Besides, I'm right and you're wrong. So there.
No we're not, you stupid git.
Wait a minute . . . D'oh!
Heck, in a Rube Goldberg sort of way I could imagine the following:
Large ship of large mass wants to capture angular momentum from small asteroid:
Capture rock in net on long string
as string unwinds it spins a flywheel
at end of string release rock
wheel string back with flywheel
use remaining spin on flywheel (energy imparted by (string + rock) - energy used to wind back (string !rock)) to run generator.
The only way I know of to burn water either uses pressure and heat we can not create, or requires more energy to be imparted to the reaction than is received back.
-nB Way too much trouble for way too little return. Just use some type of nuclear power; I'm sure that we will eventually figure out a way to get energy from fusing the garden-variety hydrogen that is available pretty much everywhere. Until then, plain old fission power is probably the best source of energy for long-term space exploration.
-nB I'm waiting for the day when the make cars that burn water. After all, hydrogen and oxygen have chemical energy. *takes deep breath and holds it*
Speaking for myself, I don't dislike Windows because I'm a Linux zealot. On the contrary, I switched to Linux because I grew to detest Windows so much. The switch was painful -- Linux does (or at least did back then) have a nasty learning curve if you jump straight from Windows -- but I never regretted the switch.
If someone is brain dead and nothing, then it doesnt matter, they are zippo , but ultimately, a person by marriage
is at most 25% as important as genetic parents.
Is it possible to form a corporation between your self and parents to give them more rights than your partner?
Well said. I was appalled when I heard that her ex had the power to end her life. It's tragic.
All that's missing from that description is "synergy" and "paradigm." Throw those in there and the VC money will start flowing in
"... built from the ground up on highly modular and light components with project and document orientation in mind, in order to allow users to create their own synergy paradigm by reshaping or recombining provided Services (aka Applications), Components etc..."
4) Profit!
I snicker at the irony of your statement. :-P
It's little wonder groups like Al Qaeda are outmaneuvering Bush and the other conservatives: the Bushites are so fearful, they only know what they can see from their "undisclosed location". Conservative = coward.
Cowardservatives!
"there is absolutely NOTHING which conservatives don't live in terror of" you say? Hmmm, I consider myself to be somewhat conservative, and yet there are quite a few things that I don't live in terror of. For instance, I'm not at all scared of bunny rabbits. Well, perhaps if I met the bunny rabbit that was featured in the absolutely terrifying documentary "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", I might be scared, but I certainly hold no fear of your average garden-variety bunny rabbit.
Oh, yeah, plush Cthulhu toys. They don't scare me. Well, as long as they're not the plush Cthulhu slippers of course, but that goes without saying.
Kiwi fruit. Sure, they scare me, but I think that "terror" is pushing it a bit far. I might cross the street to avoid one, but I've never yet run screaming from a Kiwi fruit.
In conclusion, I would like to state that your characterization of conservatives as being terrified of absolutely everything is not only inaccurate, but comes close to li . . . libe . . . written slander. Sorry, I've always been terrified of that word.