Why is it that we are stuck with stick-frame construction when there are so many other and better methods to construct houses?
There are other methods, but better? Not in my area. Stick frame is strong, and easy to insulate. Adobe and Rammed earth are fine for dry areas with a hot day and cold night, because the mass evens the temperatures out. However in cold areas the lack of insulation makes them too expensive to heat. Rammed earth (I know nothing about adobe) doesn't stand up to rain too well either.
Stick frames these days means 2x6 walls, not 2x4 - at least in my area.
Why is solar water heating not standard on most homes?
Because in climates where it freezes even once in a while the maintenance of keeping these systems from freezing means that most people don't bother. I can't speak for other climates other than to note that they give the most heat when you need it least. (though it seems like a good idea for some areas)
Why aren't homes built and oriented to take advantage of the sun? Just about anywhere in North America can use some form of solar heating.
Because you get the most solar heat when you need it least.
Even a simple passive "greenhouse" attached to the house properly can warm a home if built right.
(In addition to the above) Greenhouses are really hard to get right. Most people with greenhouses have discovered that even on the coldest days they are too hot, while on the coldest nights they are too cold.
Why do we stick with square-frame houses which take more energy to heat and cool (because of surface area among other reasons) than using dome structures (monolithic dome structures are cheaper to build, take less energy to heat and cool, and have lower maintenance issues)?
Because people and the thing they use are not round. The corners are wasted space in every room, and a circle contains an infinite number of corners. While the corners are not as big as what a square room has, practically they add up to much more useless space than a regular square room has.
There are tons of ways we could be doing things better, using energy wiser, using the energy from the sun - all of these little methods and changes (among many, many more which I haven't mentioned), if they were implemented and used by society - they would all go a long way to lessening our dependence on oil as a fuel source, while being cheaper in so many ways in the long run. I bet that if we were to all do these things, we would see a drastic reduction in our fuel needs, possibly more so than the equivalent reduction we would see from better/different automobiles. Performed in concert with automobile changes, the difference we would see would likely be enormous...
Agreed, but only if we are intelligent about how we change things. Many have got off on the wrong track because they take what looks like a good idea on the surface and end up wasting a lot of energy to capture a little.
I don't see how these tree farms can be considered environmentally friendly. Forest in their natural state are biologically diverse whereas tree farms are typically monocultures, thus have less species than natural forests.
Not in my area. In my area tree farms are whatever brush grows up naturally after they clear cut the forest. This process happens fast enough that they don't worry about the clear cutting. (Actually the clear cut just a small part of the forest. Maybe 5 acres here, 5 there, out of thousands of acres of forest)
These forests are more diverse the 'virgin' forest, because virgin forest is mostly whatever can crowd everything else out. Deer prefer new growth because the food (sticks) are close to the ground where they can get at it.
However I only know about the forests in my area which are used for paper. Things might be different in other areas.
I have taken engines apart on newer cars. There are a few more wires, which makes it look hard (It looks like a rats nest), but in fact once you dig in your discover that rebuilding a modern engine is little different from the engine of yesteryear. In most cases each wire connector is different so you cannot make a mistake. (Other than connecting the spark plugs wrong which you could do before).
Now rebuilding the computer is impossible. However computers are reliable so this is rarely an issue. With OBDII you just connect the tool and it tells you what is wrong - a lot more information than you used to get at best. (And at worse you still have more information than you had before)
Engine technology hasn't changed that much. Chevy still makes the same small block V8s, as they did in the 1960s, with only minor changes.
I have a ppro-200 system. It works just fine running KDE. Yes a newer CPU would save time, but even if I was working 80 hours/week, it wouldn't save an hour for office applications.
Of course my newer systems are faster, and thus more fun. However those old systems still work just great.
Of course, 90%+ of people don't do that--they don't have the initiative/motivation/desire to start a company and work/risk that, so instead they get employed
It doesn't matter. The days where you could squat on some farmland in "Indian territory" and grow enough food for your own use, are over. Today you cannot live anywhere without paying taxes (perhaps as a part of rent), so you need some goods that can be traded for currency to pay your taxes (Even in the days of Indian territory there wasn't enough land for most people to do this, and whites were taking more Indian territory into their taxes required land).
Work for yourself is great. You can earn more money doing it. You might earn less though. Either way you have to deal with customers, and make enough happy that you can earn more money in the future.
If the pain of staying where I am gets high enough I will find a new job. I don't like selling though (which is why I don't start my own company - company owners must always sell their company), so I'm sticking here longer than I should. If my company was smart they would realize that I'm tired of no cost of living increases, and they would find a way to compensate me. (We are a small start up with little money. However I have no stock [options], and have not had a raise in over a year) If I leave they will have to hire someone else. That new person may demand more than I'm making now, plus they they have to teach that person. They could give me a raise to what I'm worth on the open market and avoid the whole bother of hiring someone else.
It is their call if they give me a raise or not. However it is my call if I choose to stay here or not. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. Depends on what the other offers I get are like.
In my experience these filter out not the bad coders, but those who are honest, as HR will not allow your resume on if you don't meet the requirements, no matter how good you are.
I live in the midwest. Last I checked, most places looking for java and.net wanted 10 years of the latter, and 5 of the former. (Java was released in 1994,.net in 2002, you figure out how many people can have that much experience with either)
I'm slightly interested, though I prefer to stick with hardware. Post some user info or something.
I'd like to agree, but there are many teachers out there who teach bad programming.
As an example, Comments are good, but many teachers take that to mean each line needs a comment. So you end up with:
a = a + 1 # add one to a
Which should take off points, but instead is the only way to get points. A real programmer will know from the first part what it is doing, but will be wondering why add 1 to a right here.
If you can find a good course, yes you should take it. However at the beginner level you are not qualified to evaluate the quality of your teachers.
I recommend you start with python, for two reasons: there is a good book How to Think Like a Computer Scientist, and because the enforced whitespace will start getting you into good habits as far as code formating from the start.
Note that I said start. Python is a great language, I use it a lot for my real world stuff. It is not the be all, end all of programing. Programmers I trust strongly recommend Ruby. (I have not got around to learning it yet) You will need to learn both LISP (Scheme is great) and assembly (any assembly, doesn't matter which, x86 is about the worst choice you could choose to learn though) at some point if you want to become a good programmer. Do not get stuck in the rut of thinking that your first language is perfect for everything.
While you can learn perl, php, C, Java, C++, C#, basic, etc, I recommend you avoid them until you need them (though I have different reasons to not recommend each). Unfortunately all are fairly popular, so odds are you will be called upon to use one. They are however ugly, so you should avoid them until latter.
It has been said that it is impossible to become a good programmer if you start with basic. While this isn't strictly true, there is a lot of truth behind it.
Real programmers do not think about language. Real programmers know that all languages are Turing complete, and thus if you can do it in one language you can do it in another. (though sometimes the language will try to get in your way) Real programmers are concerned about data structures, algorithms, and other such things that have nothing to do with the syntax of the language. While you are learning the language keep in the back of your mind that the language itself isn't what is important.
I'm torn about the recommendation that you take a class. While classes can be good, there are a lot of teachers out there who know nothing about programing, but think they do. If you get a good teacher, take the class. However a bad teacher can teach bad habits. (Comments are good, but run from any teacher who makes you comment every line) Sadly as a beginner you will be unable to tell the difference between a good teacher, and a bad teacher.
I don't mind sleeping rough under a tree, unless it's really wet or cold.
You just made my point... You need shelter. Somedays sleeping under the stars is fine, but in most areas it rains once in a while and you need more. In the areas where it doesn't rain/snow (Chilie is the only one I know of) you need something to protect yourself from the sun, part shelter, and part clothing.
I couldn't give a toss if people wear cloths or not.
Goes with shelter. When it is cold you will care if you wear clothes are not. In climates where it never gets cold or too hot (Hawaii) clothes are optional, but few areas are like that. Maybe during the day you can get by without clothing in cold areas, but what do you wear to bed? In hot areas you really need extra protection from the sun. Where I live you cannot go outside most of the year without more protection than your skin.
And I find myself entertainment enough.
Fine, but that is still entertainment. This was last for a reason - it is the only one that can be optional.
So really you are only debating 1 at a time. If you have a sufficiently advanced shelter, and can deal with being inside it for months on end, you don't need clothing. OTOH, if you have sufficient clothing you can get by with no shelter.
Knowing that the book exists and is is useful to your topic is a big help. You can now decide what to do about it.
If you are just interested, but it isn't important, you ask the local librarian if they can get a copy. Most books were published in large numbers, so there is a reasonable chance that your local librarian can find a copy much closer and get it for you. (I don't know of any public library that doesn't have an arrangement with all the other libraries in the state or a wider area to borrow books).
If this really is a one of a kind, and you really need it, you now know where it is. Nearly all collectors will be happy to let you read it - if you have a need, and can prove you can take care of the book. You might have to fly there, but if you really need the book plane tickets are cheap. (relatively)
If you don't know that the book exists, you don't have any options to get it. If you discover it exists, but decide it isn't worth the price to go to it, you are no worse off than before.
Everything is about Food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment. More or less in that order. (though you can argue about the order of shelter and clothing)
Energy is a factor in several of them, but not in itself a basic need. You need energy for anything more than subsistence farming. You need energy for heating your shelter. You need energy to create clothing by modern process. (I'm not counting human input as a part of energy for this - though clearly that is a form of energy).
If there is too much rain, crops will die of overwatering, no matter how much energy you have. However if there were crops that could stand this over watering, and you bet your life savings them, you would have the same effect, even though energy was not a significant factor.
Despite your wish to think otherwise, energy is a much smaller part of the economy than previously. Now it was one of the (if not the) fastest growing parts last year, but will that continue? IP is growing too, and could replace energy. All it takes is a breakthrough in ethanol/biodiesel producting and energy will go down, while IP goes up farther (fueled by the breakthrough.
Personally I'm betting on such a breakthrough coming along fast. Though not with all my assets. Ethanol is already energy positive by.34, and shows promise of getting over 1 (that is for every energy input we get 2 out). Biodiesel can reach 3 in the lab. If I'm right, energy will have a short blossom, and then fade again like it has been for years. I've been wrong before though.
A coal plant's worst case scenario is a giant smog cloud.
Not to mention tons of radioactive waste. For a given amount of energy out, there is more waste uranium in coal than nuclear power.
A nuclear plants worst case scenario is the permanent evacuation of the highly populated region surrounding Chernobyl, and a significant rise in lukemia rates, etc, etc.
If you use stupid designs like Chernobyl the above is true. If you use intelligent designs that cannot happen. Nuclear power plants are governed by the laws of physics, not your imagination.
But nuclear power gives us all that lovely radioactive waste which quite simply has to be thrown in big holes and the lid sealed up for over 40,000 years!
Only if you are stupid and throw it into a big hole. France doesn't throw their waste into a big hole, they recycle it.
Oh, but oil and gas are contributing to the greenhouse effect! Well yes they are, but does that justify building more reactors,
Well you can go back to a hunter gather
lifestyle if you want. I've considered it, and I don't want to. Nuclear power is the only long term solution so long as we remain on earth.
generating more nuclear waste,
Not a problem, see above.
AND more nuclear warheads?
Where did that come from? Nuclear warheads are a very different subjects. Governments that want one will get them, with or withour nuclear power plants.
There' this thing called the sun. Provides loads of energy. The Wind! Water? Is nothing else viable?
Well yes, the sun does provide loads of energy. Most of it is not directed at the earth though. Even then it is hard to deal with. Many question if enough strikes the earth for our use, even at 100% conversion efficiency. 40% efficiency is the max we have got from a solar cell, and to get that much required a lot of special effort which does not scale to large scale production. Everything else is much worse than that.
Sadly I have to work in the real world. I have never seen a hiring manager who wasn't looking for specialization no matter what.
In the real world you shouldn't even bother to apply unless you have 15 years of Java and 5 years of.net. The people who make this decision are high enough to enforce it, and also high enough that they don't need to know details like not even the creators of Java have 15 years experience, and.net is not yet 5 years old. So only liars can get a job.
I found an exception to that rule, and that was only after looking for a long time. I wish I had a clue where I could find another, as they are not profitable (yet they claim) so my job is potentially in danger should the investors pull out which I've seen happen before.
Indeed, the "Informative" you received on the gibberish above will be a good test case
I was in fact wondering what idiot would mod that informative. On re-reading it, it makes sense, but I had to slow down to understand it. So gibberish is a little harsh. Still, even if it was perfectly written, it does not deserve any mod at all.
Let me see if I can fix it: When meta-moderating, if I see something marked informative that is false I will mod it down. Even if it is clearly sarcastic humor. Humor is interesting, but it is not informative.
I use all the tools I have to improve slashdot as a place for geeks interested in science to hang out. It often feels like loosing battle.
Google is not infringing on copyright. There are fair use rights that apply to everything. You can take a small part of any text you want and copy it in any way you want. So long as the amount you copy is tiny in comparison to the whole work you are just fine.
The media is trying to assert a right that they do not have.
Now if Google was not only making copies, but in anyway making them available as a whole, that would be infringement. They are not though, all their copies are incidental consequence of their indexing. Google is betting (and likely right) that that courts will see it this way.
Publishers are not that type of filter. They need to make money. The ecconomics of publishing means a popular auther will have a best seller with absolute garbage. An unknown author will sell essentially nothing with the best book written that year.
There are many good authors who are unknown. More than the publishers can publish in fact if they are to make money. So they publish the garbage to make money, and try to find room in the budget for a good novel that will not make money. (Publishers tend to be readers, so they are willing to make investments in authors that are unlikely to become popular. They need to get the popular stuff out first though, because they need to eat.
Your are incorrect, but the reasons are complex. First of all, many countries are able to feed their people. Lets ignore them though, and focus on the rest.
In some cases, those who are unable to feed the people are in areas where the government is intentionally starving people. Sending food will result in a photo-op of some starving person (perhaps a few hundred so the photo looks like masses are eating) eating that food on the docks. Then the reporters will leave, and guards will force everyone away from the food, while it rots on the docks.
In the other areas, good is being given to them. This means the farmers who do grow plenty of food, have to compete with free food! They of course can't do this at a profit. They have enough food for themselves, but are unable to sell any food to pay their taxes, so the government takes their land, thus compounding the problem of starving people!
Note that the second may lead into the first.
Thus the best way to encourage Africa is to make sure developed countries use all their food, and have demand for more. (but be careful that the governments don't go the opposite way, starve their people to export food)
Therefore I run ethanol in my car (I don't have a diesel, but bio-diesel would be good as well). It may not be energy positive (though I believe the studies that make that claim are flawed), but it does use local food supplies. If more people would do this, it would create world demands for more food production, and Africa is one place where plenty could be gained in food production, which would lift their people.
You need a dose of your own medicine. Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, Contrast to: Africa is a big place, don't generalize
I don't know how many languages they speak in Africa. I know it is more than 1 though. Even if you don't count French and English which were imported, there is more than one native "African language".
I think we are making the same point, but I'm not sure.
I need to go from Point A to Point B. I know I can walk from Point A to Point B. I can also bicycle, I can drive a vehicle, I can ride a horse, a donkey, or a very large dog.
You have still forgotten the helicopter, airplane. Maybe we would have teleportation by now if all the energy that went into space went into physics research (they have teleported elementary particles a few feet in the lab, though it isn't clear if this can generalize to anything bigger). Today all 3 of those are infeasible for the average person. (my office has a place to park my car, but no runway or helicopter pad)
I'm also not arguing that space research hasn't benefited us. I'm arguing that perhaps it wasn't as much benefit as something else we could have done instead.
That used to work in the US. I'm told that police departments are onto that trick here, and now keep up to date records as a matter of course just to foil that angle.
IF the speed limits are too slow, then have your representative change them. This is hard, but in the long run it is the best course of action.
This depends on the situation. If they accuse you of DWI, and you blow a negative in the Breathalyzer, that is enough. However if the accusation is stronger, then you want more evidence.
A friend of mine T-boned a car at 65MPH (Speed limit minus a few feet of breaking), while driving a loaded work truck. The accident wasn't his fault, but the girl in the car died (her fault, she had a stop sign). As a business owner in a company truck, my friend knew that it would be worth a lawyers while to win a lawsuit. He demanded they take a blood sample right away. Several days latter some lawyer started sending accusations for every offense imaginable (mostly illegal drugs), but when referred to the blood test results everything was quickly dropped.
So when making the decision, do so intelligently. If your only possible accusers are the police, than a negative breath test is enough. If there has been some other damage and lawyers will be trying to get you for everything you got (particularly when you have something to get), get a blood test because it is most accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that we are stuck with stick-frame construction when there are so many other and better methods to construct houses?
There are other methods, but better? Not in my area. Stick frame is strong, and easy to insulate. Adobe and Rammed earth are fine for dry areas with a hot day and cold night, because the mass evens the temperatures out. However in cold areas the lack of insulation makes them too expensive to heat. Rammed earth (I know nothing about adobe) doesn't stand up to rain too well either.
Stick frames these days means 2x6 walls, not 2x4 - at least in my area.
Why is solar water heating not standard on most homes?
Because in climates where it freezes even once in a while the maintenance of keeping these systems from freezing means that most people don't bother. I can't speak for other climates other than to note that they give the most heat when you need it least. (though it seems like a good idea for some areas)
Why aren't homes built and oriented to take advantage of the sun? Just about anywhere in North America can use some form of solar heating.
Because you get the most solar heat when you need it least.
Even a simple passive "greenhouse" attached to the house properly can warm a home if built right.
(In addition to the above) Greenhouses are really hard to get right. Most people with greenhouses have discovered that even on the coldest days they are too hot, while on the coldest nights they are too cold.
Why do we stick with square-frame houses which take more energy to heat and cool (because of surface area among other reasons) than using dome structures (monolithic dome structures are cheaper to build, take less energy to heat and cool, and have lower maintenance issues)?
Because people and the thing they use are not round. The corners are wasted space in every room, and a circle contains an infinite number of corners. While the corners are not as big as what a square room has, practically they add up to much more useless space than a regular square room has.
There are tons of ways we could be doing things better, using energy wiser, using the energy from the sun - all of these little methods and changes (among many, many more which I haven't mentioned), if they were implemented and used by society - they would all go a long way to lessening our dependence on oil as a fuel source, while being cheaper in so many ways in the long run. I bet that if we were to all do these things, we would see a drastic reduction in our fuel needs, possibly more so than the equivalent reduction we would see from better/different automobiles. Performed in concert with automobile changes, the difference we would see would likely be enormous...
Agreed, but only if we are intelligent about how we change things. Many have got off on the wrong track because they take what looks like a good idea on the surface and end up wasting a lot of energy to capture a little.
I don't see how these tree farms can be considered environmentally friendly. Forest in their natural state are biologically diverse whereas tree farms are typically monocultures, thus have less species than natural forests.
Not in my area. In my area tree farms are whatever brush grows up naturally after they clear cut the forest. This process happens fast enough that they don't worry about the clear cutting. (Actually the clear cut just a small part of the forest. Maybe 5 acres here, 5 there, out of thousands of acres of forest)
These forests are more diverse the 'virgin' forest, because virgin forest is mostly whatever can crowd everything else out. Deer prefer new growth because the food (sticks) are close to the ground where they can get at it.
However I only know about the forests in my area which are used for paper. Things might be different in other areas.
I have taken engines apart on newer cars. There are a few more wires, which makes it look hard (It looks like a rats nest), but in fact once you dig in your discover that rebuilding a modern engine is little different from the engine of yesteryear. In most cases each wire connector is different so you cannot make a mistake. (Other than connecting the spark plugs wrong which you could do before).
Now rebuilding the computer is impossible. However computers are reliable so this is rarely an issue. With OBDII you just connect the tool and it tells you what is wrong - a lot more information than you used to get at best. (And at worse you still have more information than you had before)
Engine technology hasn't changed that much. Chevy still makes the same small block V8s, as they did in the 1960s, with only minor changes.
I have a ppro-200 system. It works just fine running KDE. Yes a newer CPU would save time, but even if I was working 80 hours/week, it wouldn't save an hour for office applications.
Of course my newer systems are faster, and thus more fun. However those old systems still work just great.
Of course, 90%+ of people don't do that--they don't have the initiative/motivation/desire to start a company and work/risk that, so instead they get employed
It doesn't matter. The days where you could squat on some farmland in "Indian territory" and grow enough food for your own use, are over. Today you cannot live anywhere without paying taxes (perhaps as a part of rent), so you need some goods that can be traded for currency to pay your taxes (Even in the days of Indian territory there wasn't enough land for most people to do this, and whites were taking more Indian territory into their taxes required land).
Work for yourself is great. You can earn more money doing it. You might earn less though. Either way you have to deal with customers, and make enough happy that you can earn more money in the future.
If the pain of staying where I am gets high enough I will find a new job. I don't like selling though (which is why I don't start my own company - company owners must always sell their company), so I'm sticking here longer than I should. If my company was smart they would realize that I'm tired of no cost of living increases, and they would find a way to compensate me. (We are a small start up with little money. However I have no stock [options], and have not had a raise in over a year) If I leave they will have to hire someone else. That new person may demand more than I'm making now, plus they they have to teach that person. They could give me a raise to what I'm worth on the open market and avoid the whole bother of hiring someone else.
It is their call if they give me a raise or not. However it is my call if I choose to stay here or not. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. Depends on what the other offers I get are like.
It also filters out the honest.
In my experience these filter out not the bad coders, but those who are honest, as HR will not allow your resume on if you don't meet the requirements, no matter how good you are.
After some thought, I have to concede the point. Clothing is a part of shelter, not a basic need in itself.
Of course for the sake of my eyes I hope you wear clothes, but that is different discussion.
I live in the midwest. Last I checked, most places looking for java and .net wanted 10 years of the latter, and 5 of the former. (Java was released in 1994, .net in 2002, you figure out how many people can have that much experience with either)
I'm slightly interested, though I prefer to stick with hardware. Post some user info or something.
I'd like to agree, but there are many teachers out there who teach bad programming.
As an example, Comments are good, but many teachers take that to mean each line needs a comment. So you end up with:
a = a + 1 # add one to a
Which should take off points, but instead is the only way to get points. A real programmer will know from the first part what it is doing, but will be wondering why add 1 to a right here.
If you can find a good course, yes you should take it. However at the beginner level you are not qualified to evaluate the quality of your teachers.
I recommend you start with python, for two reasons: there is a good book How to Think Like a Computer Scientist , and because the enforced whitespace will start getting you into good habits as far as code formating from the start.
Note that I said start. Python is a great language, I use it a lot for my real world stuff. It is not the be all, end all of programing. Programmers I trust strongly recommend Ruby. (I have not got around to learning it yet) You will need to learn both LISP (Scheme is great) and assembly (any assembly, doesn't matter which, x86 is about the worst choice you could choose to learn though) at some point if you want to become a good programmer. Do not get stuck in the rut of thinking that your first language is perfect for everything.
While you can learn perl, php, C, Java, C++, C#, basic, etc, I recommend you avoid them until you need them (though I have different reasons to not recommend each). Unfortunately all are fairly popular, so odds are you will be called upon to use one. They are however ugly, so you should avoid them until latter.
It has been said that it is impossible to become a good programmer if you start with basic. While this isn't strictly true, there is a lot of truth behind it.
Real programmers do not think about language. Real programmers know that all languages are Turing complete, and thus if you can do it in one language you can do it in another. (though sometimes the language will try to get in your way) Real programmers are concerned about data structures, algorithms, and other such things that have nothing to do with the syntax of the language. While you are learning the language keep in the back of your mind that the language itself isn't what is important.
I'm torn about the recommendation that you take a class. While classes can be good, there are a lot of teachers out there who know nothing about programing, but think they do. If you get a good teacher, take the class. However a bad teacher can teach bad habits. (Comments are good, but run from any teacher who makes you comment every line) Sadly as a beginner you will be unable to tell the difference between a good teacher, and a bad teacher.
I don't mind sleeping rough under a tree, unless it's really wet or cold.
You just made my point... You need shelter. Somedays sleeping under the stars is fine, but in most areas it rains once in a while and you need more. In the areas where it doesn't rain/snow (Chilie is the only one I know of) you need something to protect yourself from the sun, part shelter, and part clothing.
I couldn't give a toss if people wear cloths or not.
Goes with shelter. When it is cold you will care if you wear clothes are not. In climates where it never gets cold or too hot (Hawaii) clothes are optional, but few areas are like that. Maybe during the day you can get by without clothing in cold areas, but what do you wear to bed? In hot areas you really need extra protection from the sun. Where I live you cannot go outside most of the year without more protection than your skin.
And I find myself entertainment enough.
Fine, but that is still entertainment. This was last for a reason - it is the only one that can be optional.
So really you are only debating 1 at a time. If you have a sufficiently advanced shelter, and can deal with being inside it for months on end, you don't need clothing. OTOH, if you have sufficient clothing you can get by with no shelter.
Knowing that the book exists and is is useful to your topic is a big help. You can now decide what to do about it.
If you are just interested, but it isn't important, you ask the local librarian if they can get a copy. Most books were published in large numbers, so there is a reasonable chance that your local librarian can find a copy much closer and get it for you. (I don't know of any public library that doesn't have an arrangement with all the other libraries in the state or a wider area to borrow books).
If this really is a one of a kind, and you really need it, you now know where it is. Nearly all collectors will be happy to let you read it - if you have a need, and can prove you can take care of the book. You might have to fly there, but if you really need the book plane tickets are cheap. (relatively)
If you don't know that the book exists, you don't have any options to get it. If you discover it exists, but decide it isn't worth the price to go to it, you are no worse off than before.
Everything is about Food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment. More or less in that order. (though you can argue about the order of shelter and clothing)
Energy is a factor in several of them, but not in itself a basic need. You need energy for anything more than subsistence farming. You need energy for heating your shelter. You need energy to create clothing by modern process. (I'm not counting human input as a part of energy for this - though clearly that is a form of energy).
If there is too much rain, crops will die of overwatering, no matter how much energy you have. However if there were crops that could stand this over watering, and you bet your life savings them, you would have the same effect, even though energy was not a significant factor.
Despite your wish to think otherwise, energy is a much smaller part of the economy than previously. Now it was one of the (if not the) fastest growing parts last year, but will that continue? IP is growing too, and could replace energy. All it takes is a breakthrough in ethanol/biodiesel producting and energy will go down, while IP goes up farther (fueled by the breakthrough.
Personally I'm betting on such a breakthrough coming along fast. Though not with all my assets. Ethanol is already energy positive by .34, and shows promise of getting over 1 (that is for every energy input we get 2 out). Biodiesel can reach 3 in the lab. If I'm right, energy will have a short blossom, and then fade again like it has been for years. I've been wrong before though.
A coal plant's worst case scenario is a giant smog cloud.
Not to mention tons of radioactive waste. For a given amount of energy out, there is more waste uranium in coal than nuclear power.
A nuclear plants worst case scenario is the permanent evacuation of the highly populated region surrounding Chernobyl, and a significant rise in lukemia rates, etc, etc.
If you use stupid designs like Chernobyl the above is true. If you use intelligent designs that cannot happen. Nuclear power plants are governed by the laws of physics, not your imagination.
But nuclear power gives us all that lovely radioactive waste which quite simply has to be thrown in big holes and the lid sealed up for over 40,000 years!
Only if you are stupid and throw it into a big hole. France doesn't throw their waste into a big hole, they recycle it.
Oh, but oil and gas are contributing to the greenhouse effect! Well yes they are, but does that justify building more reactors,
Well you can go back to a hunter gather lifestyle if you want. I've considered it, and I don't want to. Nuclear power is the only long term solution so long as we remain on earth.
generating more nuclear waste,
Not a problem, see above.
AND more nuclear warheads?
Where did that come from? Nuclear warheads are a very different subjects. Governments that want one will get them, with or withour nuclear power plants.
There' this thing called the sun. Provides loads of energy. The Wind! Water? Is nothing else viable?
Well yes, the sun does provide loads of energy. Most of it is not directed at the earth though. Even then it is hard to deal with. Many question if enough strikes the earth for our use, even at 100% conversion efficiency. 40% efficiency is the max we have got from a solar cell, and to get that much required a lot of special effort which does not scale to large scale production. Everything else is much worse than that.
Sadly I have to work in the real world. I have never seen a hiring manager who wasn't looking for specialization no matter what.
In the real world you shouldn't even bother to apply unless you have 15 years of Java and 5 years of .net. The people who make this decision are high enough to enforce it, and also high enough that they don't need to know details like not even the creators of Java have 15 years experience, and .net is not yet 5 years old. So only liars can get a job.
I found an exception to that rule, and that was only after looking for a long time. I wish I had a clue where I could find another, as they are not profitable (yet they claim) so my job is potentially in danger should the investors pull out which I've seen happen before.
Indeed, the "Informative" you received on the gibberish above will be a good test case
I was in fact wondering what idiot would mod that informative. On re-reading it, it makes sense, but I had to slow down to understand it. So gibberish is a little harsh. Still, even if it was perfectly written, it does not deserve any mod at all.
Let me see if I can fix it: When meta-moderating, if I see something marked informative that is false I will mod it down. Even if it is clearly sarcastic humor. Humor is interesting, but it is not informative.
I use all the tools I have to improve slashdot as a place for geeks interested in science to hang out. It often feels like loosing battle.
Google is not infringing on copyright. There are fair use rights that apply to everything. You can take a small part of any text you want and copy it in any way you want. So long as the amount you copy is tiny in comparison to the whole work you are just fine.
The media is trying to assert a right that they do not have.
Now if Google was not only making copies, but in anyway making them available as a whole, that would be infringement. They are not though, all their copies are incidental consequence of their indexing. Google is betting (and likely right) that that courts will see it this way.
Publishers are not that type of filter. They need to make money. The ecconomics of publishing means a popular auther will have a best seller with absolute garbage. An unknown author will sell essentially nothing with the best book written that year.
There are many good authors who are unknown. More than the publishers can publish in fact if they are to make money. So they publish the garbage to make money, and try to find room in the budget for a good novel that will not make money. (Publishers tend to be readers, so they are willing to make investments in authors that are unlikely to become popular. They need to get the popular stuff out first though, because they need to eat.
I quit reading the whole think after about book 6. At point it became clear that the books were not going anywhere, because there was no plot.
I'm not sure what to call it, but plot summary is not correct for what you are reading. Maybe happenings summary?
I read a lot of books, and I'm always looking for more. Some books are not worth the effort of reading though.
Though I metamoderation informative mods to something false down.
I'm always amazed at how many bad mods the meta-mod system finds for me to examine.
Your are incorrect, but the reasons are complex. First of all, many countries are able to feed their people. Lets ignore them though, and focus on the rest.
In some cases, those who are unable to feed the people are in areas where the government is intentionally starving people. Sending food will result in a photo-op of some starving person (perhaps a few hundred so the photo looks like masses are eating) eating that food on the docks. Then the reporters will leave, and guards will force everyone away from the food, while it rots on the docks.
In the other areas, good is being given to them. This means the farmers who do grow plenty of food, have to compete with free food! They of course can't do this at a profit. They have enough food for themselves, but are unable to sell any food to pay their taxes, so the government takes their land, thus compounding the problem of starving people!
Note that the second may lead into the first.
Thus the best way to encourage Africa is to make sure developed countries use all their food, and have demand for more. (but be careful that the governments don't go the opposite way, starve their people to export food)
Therefore I run ethanol in my car (I don't have a diesel, but bio-diesel would be good as well). It may not be energy positive (though I believe the studies that make that claim are flawed), but it does use local food supplies. If more people would do this, it would create world demands for more food production, and Africa is one place where plenty could be gained in food production, which would lift their people.
You need a dose of your own medicine. Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, Contrast to: Africa is a big place, don't generalize
I don't know how many languages they speak in Africa. I know it is more than 1 though. Even if you don't count French and English which were imported, there is more than one native "African language".
I think we are making the same point, but I'm not sure.
I need to go from Point A to Point B. I know I can walk from Point A to Point B. I can also bicycle, I can drive a vehicle, I can ride a horse, a donkey, or a very large dog.
You have still forgotten the helicopter, airplane. Maybe we would have teleportation by now if all the energy that went into space went into physics research (they have teleported elementary particles a few feet in the lab, though it isn't clear if this can generalize to anything bigger). Today all 3 of those are infeasible for the average person. (my office has a place to park my car, but no runway or helicopter pad)
I'm also not arguing that space research hasn't benefited us. I'm arguing that perhaps it wasn't as much benefit as something else we could have done instead.
That used to work in the US. I'm told that police departments are onto that trick here, and now keep up to date records as a matter of course just to foil that angle.
IF the speed limits are too slow, then have your representative change them. This is hard, but in the long run it is the best course of action.
This depends on the situation. If they accuse you of DWI, and you blow a negative in the Breathalyzer, that is enough. However if the accusation is stronger, then you want more evidence.
A friend of mine T-boned a car at 65MPH (Speed limit minus a few feet of breaking), while driving a loaded work truck. The accident wasn't his fault, but the girl in the car died (her fault, she had a stop sign). As a business owner in a company truck, my friend knew that it would be worth a lawyers while to win a lawsuit. He demanded they take a blood sample right away. Several days latter some lawyer started sending accusations for every offense imaginable (mostly illegal drugs), but when referred to the blood test results everything was quickly dropped.
So when making the decision, do so intelligently. If your only possible accusers are the police, than a negative breath test is enough. If there has been some other damage and lawyers will be trying to get you for everything you got (particularly when you have something to get), get a blood test because it is most accurate.