my mother did NOT have a friend who died after riding their bike into a pole. Sure, she survived riding into the Pole, but she died after the collision with the Hungarian...
Today's kids are medicated more than any other generation in history, and yet, by high school, they have worse mental health than any other generation in history! Obviously, we're not giving these kids enough drugs!
That "wasted energy" is where the noise immunity comes from. Drop the signal to just above the noise level, and the error rate goes way up. I think most people would rather pay higher energy costs than drop more packets, but for mobile devices the inverse might be true.
How can I get an invite? I've got a Champions Online membership, but only those people that were in the Champions Online open beta automatically received an invite to the StarTrek Online open beta.
I remember slot cars as if it were just last week. Any "obsolete" passtime you can think of, their is probably somebody out there doing it at this very minute.
39 years ago (in 1981), the Catholic Church finally got around to forgiving Galileo for insisting that the Earth was not the center of the universe! Nobody can say the Pope isn't up to speed on all the latest issues!
You are correct, the radon is not what makes coal environmentally damaging. Sulphur in high amounts is believed to cause acid rain, and carbon dioxide is believed to contribute to climate change. I'm not an expert on the other particulate matter released by coal plants, and by far biggest by-product released during coal energy production is simply H20 in the form of steam. While diesel or oil fired generation may also release high levels of pollutants, they do less damages precisely because they are more expensive and thus less widely used (generally reserved for backup capacity). Yes, a lot of the environmental impact attributed to coal may be ascribed to it's widespread usage due to favorable economics, so we really should be discussing things in terms of environmental impact per unit of energy delivered, where coal might fare slightly better. All energy sources leave a footprint; even solar and wind power have impact from their construction and transportation to job site.
Alzheimers! I'd love to be able to hide my own Easter eggs, and every time you make love to your wife, it feels like a whole new experience! Plus, you can laugh at the same old jokes several times (like the ones my father tells over and over and over again!)
Yep, Alzheimers is definitely the way to go! Uh... what was the question again?
Driving 30 in a 55mph zone, with their left turn signal on for the entire trip, yes. In fact, I believe I was behind this woman on my trip into work this morning!
If the amount of radiation released by burning coal is too small to have health effects, then by extension shouldn't the far smaller amount released by nuclear plants ALSO be too small to have health effects? And yet, people are deathly afraid of nuclear power plants (which have no carbon footprint) while at the same time they think nothing of living around coal fired plants. Ultimately no energy source is a panacea (hydrogen isn't even an energy source); what is required is a complex web of different technologies which like you say are distributed so as not to have too much impact on any one area.
Doesn't this same argument apply to nuclear power as well? All the Uranium used in nuclear reactors was already in existence in the earth's crust, and would have emitted the same amount of radiation even if it had been left in the ground. Processing may have transformed it to a form with a shorter half-life (meaning more radiation per unit time), but I don't believe it did anything to increase the total amount of radiation emitted.
In defense of the shuttle, I believe it was originally designed to be launched from atop a 747 (much like SpaceShipOne), and the decision to switch to strapping it to a cheap booster instead of an airplane was made at the last moment. Perhaps the shuttle would have fared better had NASA scientists actually been able to bring the original design to fruition.
The shuttle had a fundamental design flaw: it put the vehicle carrying precious human cargo beside the huge disposable booster instead of on top of it like every previous spacecraft. This made the shuttle vulnerable to being damaged by foam dislodging from the booster. While the concept of a reusable launch/reentry vehicle seems laudable, in practice the shuttle's implementation of this idea was far from being economically competitive with less sophisticated methods of getting cargo into orbit. As such, I consider the shuttle a failed experiment, and won't have much trouble letting go of it.
The ideal energy source is a huge glacier fed lake on a very steep mountain right next to a major city...You mean like this one? Yes, it's an anomaly, but cool nonetheless.
Coal plants make up the vast majority of the power plants in the US and are definitely the most environmentally damaging form of energy production on the planet. Fixed that for you. Coal plant emit more radioactive material (radon) than nuclear plants, in addition to sulphur, other pollutants, and carbon dioxide. Some of this could be cleaned up through better smokestack scrubbers, but from an environmental impact standpoint coal is definitely the most expensive energy source.
If you mean they'll probably use acrylic or some translucent plastic cloth much lighter and stronger than glass, then yes they will. But that's not as funny!
A 4 square mile greenhouse in the middle of the dessert? No, that shouldn't be expensive to maintain... and keep the glass panels clean and unbroken in!
A valid point -- my smartphone display is virtually unreadable in direct sunlight. I guess I must spend most of my time in the dark! Combining both in a single device might just be a "best of both worlds" solution -- provided it doesn't make it too expensive.
I don't want to use an eBook like a regular book. I want to scroll through text instead of paging (paper books tend to page break in awkward places, like right in the middle of a word), and I want to search though text to find specific phrases. Preferably the eBook should combine the advantages of paper with the advantages of a laptop, and let me choose between the functional equivalent of the two when there is a conflict. If done right, a touchscreen should be a big win over a mouse for navigation (worse resolution since as a pointing device a finger sucks, but more intuitive).
Slashdot Mirror
my mother did NOT have a friend who died after riding their bike into a pole. Sure, she survived riding into the Pole, but she died after the collision with the Hungarian...
We learn by making mistakes Well, those that survive do, anyway...
I think the problem you're hinting at is that with smaller and smaller families, kids are no longer considered expendable.
Today's kids are medicated more than any other generation in history, and yet, by high school, they have worse mental health than any other generation in history! Obviously, we're not giving these kids enough drugs!
That "wasted energy" is where the noise immunity comes from. Drop the signal to just above the noise level, and the error rate goes way up. I think most people would rather pay higher energy costs than drop more packets, but for mobile devices the inverse might be true.
Has anyone ever seen sampenzus and Katz in the same place at the same time? Could they actually be... one and the same?
How can I get an invite? I've got a Champions Online membership, but only those people that were in the Champions Online open beta automatically received an invite to the StarTrek Online open beta.
I remember slot cars as if it were just last week. Any "obsolete" passtime you can think of, their is probably somebody out there doing it at this very minute.
Correction, it was 18 years ago, in 1992 that the Church forgave Galileo.
39 years ago (in 1981), the Catholic Church finally got around to forgiving Galileo for insisting that the Earth was not the center of the universe! Nobody can say the Pope isn't up to speed on all the latest issues!
You are correct, the radon is not what makes coal environmentally damaging. Sulphur in high amounts is believed to cause acid rain, and carbon dioxide is believed to contribute to climate change. I'm not an expert on the other particulate matter released by coal plants, and by far biggest by-product released during coal energy production is simply H20 in the form of steam. While diesel or oil fired generation may also release high levels of pollutants, they do less damages precisely because they are more expensive and thus less widely used (generally reserved for backup capacity). Yes, a lot of the environmental impact attributed to coal may be ascribed to it's widespread usage due to favorable economics, so we really should be discussing things in terms of environmental impact per unit of energy delivered, where coal might fare slightly better. All energy sources leave a footprint; even solar and wind power have impact from their construction and transportation to job site.
Alzheimers! I'd love to be able to hide my own Easter eggs, and every time you make love to your wife, it feels like a whole new experience! Plus, you can laugh at the same old jokes several times (like the ones my father tells over and over and over again!) Yep, Alzheimers is definitely the way to go! Uh... what was the question again?
Were the mice allowed to use the cell phones to make booty calls?
Driving 30 in a 55mph zone, with their left turn signal on for the entire trip, yes. In fact, I believe I was behind this woman on my trip into work this morning!
If the amount of radiation released by burning coal is too small to have health effects, then by extension shouldn't the far smaller amount released by nuclear plants ALSO be too small to have health effects? And yet, people are deathly afraid of nuclear power plants (which have no carbon footprint) while at the same time they think nothing of living around coal fired plants. Ultimately no energy source is a panacea (hydrogen isn't even an energy source); what is required is a complex web of different technologies which like you say are distributed so as not to have too much impact on any one area.
Doesn't this same argument apply to nuclear power as well? All the Uranium used in nuclear reactors was already in existence in the earth's crust, and would have emitted the same amount of radiation even if it had been left in the ground. Processing may have transformed it to a form with a shorter half-life (meaning more radiation per unit time), but I don't believe it did anything to increase the total amount of radiation emitted.
In defense of the shuttle, I believe it was originally designed to be launched from atop a 747 (much like SpaceShipOne), and the decision to switch to strapping it to a cheap booster instead of an airplane was made at the last moment. Perhaps the shuttle would have fared better had NASA scientists actually been able to bring the original design to fruition.
The shuttle had a fundamental design flaw: it put the vehicle carrying precious human cargo beside the huge disposable booster instead of on top of it like every previous spacecraft. This made the shuttle vulnerable to being damaged by foam dislodging from the booster. While the concept of a reusable launch/reentry vehicle seems laudable, in practice the shuttle's implementation of this idea was far from being economically competitive with less sophisticated methods of getting cargo into orbit. As such, I consider the shuttle a failed experiment, and won't have much trouble letting go of it.
The ideal energy source is a huge glacier fed lake on a very steep mountain right next to a major city... You mean like this one? Yes, it's an anomaly, but cool nonetheless.
Coal plants make up the vast majority of the power plants in the US and are definitely the most environmentally damaging form of energy production on the planet. Fixed that for you. Coal plant emit more radioactive material (radon) than nuclear plants, in addition to sulphur, other pollutants, and carbon dioxide. Some of this could be cleaned up through better smokestack scrubbers, but from an environmental impact standpoint coal is definitely the most expensive energy source.
If you mean they'll probably use acrylic or some translucent plastic cloth much lighter and stronger than glass, then yes they will. But that's not as funny!
True, but the Wankers are slightly better organized.
That's one protest where throwing rocks might actually be a particularly effective strategy. "Those who live in glass houses..."
A 4 square mile greenhouse in the middle of the dessert? No, that shouldn't be expensive to maintain... and keep the glass panels clean and unbroken in!
A valid point -- my smartphone display is virtually unreadable in direct sunlight. I guess I must spend most of my time in the dark! Combining both in a single device might just be a "best of both worlds" solution -- provided it doesn't make it too expensive.
I don't want to use an eBook like a regular book. I want to scroll through text instead of paging (paper books tend to page break in awkward places, like right in the middle of a word), and I want to search though text to find specific phrases. Preferably the eBook should combine the advantages of paper with the advantages of a laptop, and let me choose between the functional equivalent of the two when there is a conflict. If done right, a touchscreen should be a big win over a mouse for navigation (worse resolution since as a pointing device a finger sucks, but more intuitive).