Copyright law is a great evil in society, and it's important that children are taught to question it. Without copyright law, the power of the GPL would be zilch, zippo, nada. The entire evolution of the GNU operating system environment would probably not exist, and you'd be all using pirated versions of Windows XP (or probably ME, since MSFT would probably not have invested anything like the money and resources they have into their OS's.
Open standards is the only solution to abusive monopolies, and that applies across many industry sectors. The GPL effectively promotes openness, and standardisation is obtained by the demand and market share of any given technology. It's a kind of standards democracy at the most granular level.
But No.6/Bunker-C is all the residual shit that can't be used for anything else. It'll get burnt somewhere, somehow. Refiners will find a way to sell it.
Given the amount of interference that a GSM phone typically causes to most analog radio reception, it wouldn't be too hard to determine if your phone was being used as a bugging device when you're about to have a non-phone conversation of sensitive nature.
It appears that you're trying to send unencrypted content over the TOR network... Would you like to send a copy of your communications to the CIA/NSA/FSB?
And before anybody mentions reprocessing, it should be pointed out that reprocessing operations are, in fact, the messiest part of the cycle, with toxicity risks in addition to radiation risks. There have been several leaks (contained or otherwise) and criticality accidents at fuel reprocessing facilites.
While these accidents are not on the scale of Chernobyl, such accidents have occured much more frequently than the type of accidents (Chernobyl, TMI etc) that get discussed in the nuclear 'public debate'.
I think solid state drives will be like digital cameras. The price and usability (read size) will appear not to be mainstream enough, that is, until you've just made that "big" investment in the latest incarnation of the superseded technology.
It happened to me. I bought a new (not that expensive) film SLR about 18 months prior to digital cameras having sufficient resolution/cost ratio to supersede film for everyday use. Coming from a generation where cameras tend to last almost a lifetime (having been used to my father's Minolta SR-T 101, purchased about the time I was born). The concept of a camera becoming almost obsolete in that short timeframe was a bit annoying, at the time.
Porous borders and associated large foreign populations might have somewhat to do with your assertion. What Mexico equivalent does Canada have within walking distance?
I could be talking out of my hat here, but it strikes me that the video signal could be used to trigger a transistor type relay circuit. The power to drive the mechanical relay (switching on the mains power) would come from the capacitor, which would remain charged for an extended period while there was no video signal.
There would be no need for a constant current draw, since the initial energy to trigger/monitor would come from the video signal itself.
After months or years, the spring will lose tension strength and wait a longer time (if nothing trips it) and it will eventually be all the way back to it's beginning. This is not true. Your symptoms might occur after repeated cycles of energising/de-energising the spring, but at normal ambient temperatures, creep does not occur (in metallic materials).
Capacitors (to return to the monitor standby topic) will lose their charge over time, which is presumably what the solar cells are to mitigate in this application.
Dude... Think about it. They're using capacitors and relays in order to detect a video signal and respond to it. Think of it like a mousetrap. It can remain armed for a long time without using any of the stored energy. The mousetrap is not powered while on standby mode, nor does it draw-down the energy from the spring.
No. Economics doesn't work that way. What it is is enormous investment in captial equipment combined with the lag between initial investement and full scale procution eventually leads to market oversupply, which is why the prices are reducing. Prices are lowered, margins get tighter, so production is ramped up to compensate.
Unless there is an opportunity to continue introducing 'premium' products (i.e. large capacity, or new features) using the same production technologies, then the margins get so tight that the weakest producer goes bust and/or is bought out by one of the stronger players.
Unfortuately, you do sound like a jerk. How many start-up business ventures are cash-flow positive in the first year? The guy freely admits that they haven't put in a big effort.
The transition of parking methods might be painless, but what this technology will do is increase the number of cars on the road. As the cars have to be 'unstacked' to be driven, they will take up the same amount of room (width x following distance) on the road as an ordinary Fiat Punto or similar. So, dumping more cars in the centre of Milan will not be painless in the long term.
Thanks for your comments. I'd just like to point out that most of those (perhaps with the exception of waste disposal) all pretty much require inputs from fossil fuel.
Looking at cement production in particular: Sure, the cement calcining reaction produces some additional CO2, but all cement kilns are fired by fossil fuels, and a bit more than half the total CO2 emission is derived from the calcination. Globally, however, cement production accounts for around 2.5% of CO2 emissions derived from industrialization.
Having said that, I think you missed my point, which was to say that fossil fuel producers have an incentive to sell product. These companies will always make the fuel available, and the user-base of fossil fuels is so diverse, it is a difficult and complex problem to control their emissions. Far better to limit fossil fuel production itself, and then let the market sort out the priority of fossil fuel uses.
If anybody really came up with a genuine CO2 abatement technology and implemented it, then allowance could be made to add to the fossil fuel production quota accordingly. Most current proposed CO2 sequestration technologies are pipe-dreams that won't see light of day till well after the horse has bolted.
What a bureaucratic nightmare. There is a simple formula for determining the amount of CO2 emitted from a process.
C + O2 -> CO2
So the simple way of capping carbon emissions, is to cap the supply of carbon based fuels. This is the only way that any useful CO2 emmissions reduction will take place, as the carbon-based fuels vendors will surely find other ways/markets in which to sell their product. Unless regulated by government (or geology), nothing will change: They aren't in the business to limit the growth or reduce their market share.
So: You wanna cap emissions to X percent of 1990 levels? Then limit production of carbon-based fuels to X percent of 1990 production levels. Obviously, you can't do that in one fell swoop, but certainly you could ramp down fossil fuel production over time to meet that target.
Having said that, economic recession would almost be assured. However, it certainly would get corporations thinking hard about their energy supplies, and renewables would automatically become more cost-effective.
Except that to hold the equivalent energy, the capacitor stores it as increasing voltage (since there is no conversion from electrical energy to chemical energy). So that 7560A will more likely have be a few tens of amps (perhaps) and a few tens of thousands of volts (haven't done the calcs for this).
Slashdot Mirror
Open standards is the only solution to abusive monopolies, and that applies across many industry sectors. The GPL effectively promotes openness, and standardisation is obtained by the demand and market share of any given technology. It's a kind of standards democracy at the most granular level.
Profit never comes before question marks.
But No.6/Bunker-C is all the residual shit that can't be used for anything else. It'll get burnt somewhere, somehow. Refiners will find a way to sell it.
So a kite that provides most of the ship's power can only afford a 50% reduction in fuel consumption? Hmmm...
My goodness. You really do know how to waste time on Slashdot.
Given the amount of interference that a GSM phone typically causes to most analog radio reception, it wouldn't be too hard to determine if your phone was being used as a bugging device when you're about to have a non-phone conversation of sensitive nature.
And before anybody mentions reprocessing, it should be pointed out that reprocessing operations are, in fact, the messiest part of the cycle, with toxicity risks in addition to radiation risks. There have been several leaks (contained or otherwise) and criticality accidents at fuel reprocessing facilites.
While these accidents are not on the scale of Chernobyl, such accidents have occured much more frequently than the type of accidents (Chernobyl, TMI etc) that get discussed in the nuclear 'public debate'.
I think solid state drives will be like digital cameras. The price and usability (read size) will appear not to be mainstream enough, that is, until you've just made that "big" investment in the latest incarnation of the superseded technology.
It happened to me. I bought a new (not that expensive) film SLR about 18 months prior to digital cameras having sufficient resolution/cost ratio to supersede film for everyday use. Coming from a generation where cameras tend to last almost a lifetime (having been used to my father's Minolta SR-T 101, purchased about the time I was born). The concept of a camera becoming almost obsolete in that short timeframe was a bit annoying, at the time.
Porous borders and associated large foreign populations might have somewhat to do with your assertion. What Mexico equivalent does Canada have within walking distance?
I could be talking out of my hat here, but it strikes me that the video signal could be used to trigger a transistor type relay circuit. The power to drive the mechanical relay (switching on the mains power) would come from the capacitor, which would remain charged for an extended period while there was no video signal.
There would be no need for a constant current draw, since the initial energy to trigger/monitor would come from the video signal itself.
Now I'll go and read the article.
Capacitors (to return to the monitor standby topic) will lose their charge over time, which is presumably what the solar cells are to mitigate in this application.
Dude... Think about it. They're using capacitors and relays in order to detect a video signal and respond to it. Think of it like a mousetrap. It can remain armed for a long time without using any of the stored energy. The mousetrap is not powered while on standby mode, nor does it draw-down the energy from the spring.
No. Economics doesn't work that way. What it is is enormous investment in captial equipment combined with the lag between initial investement and full scale procution eventually leads to market oversupply, which is why the prices are reducing. Prices are lowered, margins get tighter, so production is ramped up to compensate.
Unless there is an opportunity to continue introducing 'premium' products (i.e. large capacity, or new features) using the same production technologies, then the margins get so tight that the weakest producer goes bust and/or is bought out by one of the stronger players.
WTF are the parents doing around while their kids are on their first date?
Unfortuately, you do sound like a jerk. How many start-up business ventures are cash-flow positive in the first year? The guy freely admits that they haven't put in a big effort.
Need? Any business start-up won't expect to make the sort of money equivalent to a 'day job' in the first year. Where's your commitment?
The transition of parking methods might be painless, but what this technology will do is increase the number of cars on the road. As the cars have to be 'unstacked' to be driven, they will take up the same amount of room (width x following distance) on the road as an ordinary Fiat Punto or similar. So, dumping more cars in the centre of Milan will not be painless in the long term.
Thanks for your comments. I'd just like to point out that most of those (perhaps with the exception of waste disposal) all pretty much require inputs from fossil fuel.
Looking at cement production in particular: Sure, the cement calcining reaction produces some additional CO2, but all cement kilns are fired by fossil fuels, and a bit more than half the total CO2 emission is derived from the calcination. Globally, however, cement production accounts for around 2.5% of CO2 emissions derived from industrialization.
Having said that, I think you missed my point, which was to say that fossil fuel producers have an incentive to sell product. These companies will always make the fuel available, and the user-base of fossil fuels is so diverse, it is a difficult and complex problem to control their emissions. Far better to limit fossil fuel production itself, and then let the market sort out the priority of fossil fuel uses.
If anybody really came up with a genuine CO2 abatement technology and implemented it, then allowance could be made to add to the fossil fuel production quota accordingly. Most current proposed CO2 sequestration technologies are pipe-dreams that won't see light of day till well after the horse has bolted.
So: You wanna cap emissions to X percent of 1990 levels? Then limit production of carbon-based fuels to X percent of 1990 production levels. Obviously, you can't do that in one fell swoop, but certainly you could ramp down fossil fuel production over time to meet that target.
Having said that, economic recession would almost be assured. However, it certainly would get corporations thinking hard about their energy supplies, and renewables would automatically become more cost-effective.
Thanks for clarifying/correcting. You could, possibly, calculate a logarithmic mean, in order to quantify a charging rate.
We're talking about recharging rate. Who's the retard?
Yep. (In Australia) a standard 10A wall socket can pull 2400W. I think you could charge your shaver pretty quickly with that power input...
Except that to hold the equivalent energy, the capacitor stores it as increasing voltage (since there is no conversion from electrical energy to chemical energy). So that 7560A will more likely have be a few tens of amps (perhaps) and a few tens of thousands of volts (haven't done the calcs for this).