There was just a bit on NPR about a study where they had parents force their four-year-old kids to completely clean their plates. They found that the next day, when faced with situations where they could choose how much to eat, they would choose larger portions for themselves than children in the control group.
Interesting correlation. My daughter stayed unclamped for a couple of minutes, I think mainly due to the chaos of a very rapid labor, and she also had to be treated for jaundice. Have you read any studies on this correlation? I would hope this study would have spotted something like that.
I'll bet that another trade-off is flight stability. Minimal velocity is by definition close to stall velocity, ya? So you have less wiggle room should there be a problem. There might also be different airflow characteristics regarding the shape of the air at different speeds, and other secondary effects. Plus there the fuel-to-power ratio - it's nonlinear as well, based on the engine.
(I am no good at physics, just my untrained impressions here.)
Let's be honest, James Lovelock doesn't speak for the entire movement, whatever else you want to say about that little statement.
I suspect that you're alluding the the larger notion that climate change is merely a vehicle for the increase of "world government". I find broad international regulation to be worrisome as well, but to suggest that the entire movement is inspired by such motivations is as disrespectful to the proponents of AGW as suggesting that all skeptics are oil-company cronies.
Some of the data on which the CRU's models are built was collected and then 'normalized' to account for the varying quality and change over time of the sites. The contention of skeptics is that since the 'raw' data and the methodology for the normalization are not clearly known in some cases, this brings the data into question. CRU and people who support it say that the normalization is sufficiently accurate. I, for one, am not satisfied.
Why would I apologize? Not that I'm a basher, more of a civilized critic. This report, while it doesn't implicate him in a "conspiracy", also readily admits that he's been treating people with my point of view as mere obstructions to his mission. My impression of Mr. Jones is that he believes firmly that something must be done about CO2 and the problems that come with it, all for very good reasons.
I also suspect that he knows that the normalization of the data would not hold up to scrutiny, but in his view there is too much at stake to risk the public airing of that laundry. His heart is in the right place, but I happen to believe quite firmly that the growing apathy regarding climate change is a perfect example of why we can't put all our environmental eggs in one basket. Why can't we just focus more on particulate emissions, groundwater contamination, and dozens of other issues which have clearly visible impacts on the biological world?
Think about how police officers work. They are in and out of their vehicles in all kinds of weather. They might be doing a traffic stop or such and return to the vehicle wet from rain, and need to use the laptop. Think of fire fighters, who routinely get wet and dirty while responding to routine accidents and small fires. The insides of emergency vehicles need constant cleaning; if they didn't use a ruggedized computer the inside of the laptops would too.
Well, except for that assuming it really saves him that much fertilizer, then the fertilizer won't have to be produced, transported and handled. How much energy is used in that process?
All systems take time to start up. Many types of software add to this time, particularly 'enterprise' applications which run as system services or on startup. Users don't like to waste this time. Wasn't there an article about that recently?
Actually, I saw a documentary - on OPB I think - which showed that one of the teams had been letting their car drive them to work. That 'blender' could be out there right now...
Only on slashdot can a plumbing question turn into a gaming debate.
(In any case, a couple Myrmidons and a line of Cerebus should do the trick. But if you are afk that long your enemy will have plenty of time to drive in his Fatboy and you're screwed.)
Well, the problem is that you'll have moster loss from stringing cables that far. Wikipedia explains. And good luck insulating that monster. Ever notice that they sting them ten feet apart on transmission lines?
Well, the GP wasn't suggesting using Hydro to power automobiles, he was suggesting using it to transport energy from the SW US to the world.
That being said, if my understanding is correct, burning oil to make electrical power, turning it in to hydrogen via electrolosis, and turning it back into electrical power in a fuel cell is only marginally better than just turning the oil into gasoline and running it through your internal combustion engine, not to mention more expensive.
Of course the hydrogen method could use more efficient polution controls, and certainly helps with urban smog. And some portion of your hydrogen isn't made with fossil fuels.
I'm too tired to look up the numbers. Anyone? Straight-up efficiency from oil to car?
I think the best use for this technology would be to put it on every roof in in America (and Europe and eventually the world), and use nuclear power as a method to buffer against periods of low sunlight.
I agree that local micro power is another good peice of the puzzle. My number one goal in life is to eventually live in a home with a net energy surplus. Of course, my penchant for running Linux on old hardware might turn into a barrier to this.
While the major volcano/meteor event you mentioned could deplete the nuclear buffer, it would do that (and worse) now.
Well, given a 'minor' event like Mt. Saint Helens, light blocking would only be a minor concern to the overall energy supply as we have it now. Obviously ash and debris in equipment, supply chain interruption and so on would be another issue entirely.
Hell, we could sell of the surplus nuclear energy to subsidize projects like the complete mechanization of food production, -- obviously using our nearly free energy. Or just lower taxes (though I would prefer the former)
Well, that's a different question, one I hadn't considered too deeply. Still, until we develop a 'perfect' single energy source a la Mr. Fusion, there will have to be a wide variety of energy sources in order to have a stable energy system. Nuclear/fossil systems require finite and largely imported fuel. Wind, solar and geothermal require specific geography. Hydroelectric fsks up the ecosystem. Each has its place in the ideal system, however limited.
Hydrogen conversion has its own inefficiency, so that's out.
That statistic is simply an illustration in any case. Obviously there are some other places in the world where such installations could be put; perhaps some less sunny ones would require more space to reach equivalent capacity.
In any case, I think that a 100% solar earth is unlikely:
* Much of the time it is night, and storing that much juice in batteries is impractical. Things like hydroelectric storage and thermal solar plants could help with this problem, but its a whole different research issue. * In the event of, say, a major volcanic eruption or meteor impact, world power production would plummet. That could be the least of our worries.
Solar and wind are like the icing on the clean power cake. They are great for the role they serve, but you can't have them for dinner without getting a stomach ache.
Well, over the years I've done a lot of mac repair work, and I will tell you that while the community will cover you, Apple will not deal with you at all. One time I needed to replace the DC in board on my 18-month-old iBook - due to my own mangling of the adapter. This is a major labor part, requiring about 90% disassembly. Apple refused to let me do the work myself, despite the fact that I'd already disassembled the thing and my living room was covered in little labeled tupperware. The various dealers were afraid that I'd get them in trouble with Apple somehow. I suspect that Apple does sting operations, much like your local police might send a minor in to a liquor store to buy booze. Anyhow, I ended up finding a cooperative service manager at a dealer 100 miles away.
Since then, you can get pretty much anything on the net, at least for second-generation stuff. Not that I can afford any first generation Apple stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
There was just a bit on NPR about a study where they had parents force their four-year-old kids to completely clean their plates. They found that the next day, when faced with situations where they could choose how much to eat, they would choose larger portions for themselves than children in the control group.
Link escapes me.
Interesting correlation. My daughter stayed unclamped for a couple of minutes, I think mainly due to the chaos of a very rapid labor, and she also had to be treated for jaundice. Have you read any studies on this correlation? I would hope this study would have spotted something like that.
Because if it doesn't come back up, and they send a tech from the hosting provider to put hands on it, the bill will be a bitch.
I'll bet that another trade-off is flight stability. Minimal velocity is by definition close to stall velocity, ya? So you have less wiggle room should there be a problem. There might also be different airflow characteristics regarding the shape of the air at different speeds, and other secondary effects. Plus there the fuel-to-power ratio - it's nonlinear as well, based on the engine.
(I am no good at physics, just my untrained impressions here.)
$ whoami
$ wget http://www.google.com/
$ sudo rm -rf /
$ vim
$ emacs
$ nano
Now I will cheat and read the source code.
Let's be honest, James Lovelock doesn't speak for the entire movement, whatever else you want to say about that little statement.
I suspect that you're alluding the the larger notion that climate change is merely a vehicle for the increase of "world government". I find broad international regulation to be worrisome as well, but to suggest that the entire movement is inspired by such motivations is as disrespectful to the proponents of AGW as suggesting that all skeptics are oil-company cronies.
Did I miss something, or isn't it temporary, and he might be re-instated once the investigation is complete?
Some of the data on which the CRU's models are built was collected and then 'normalized' to account for the varying quality and change over time of the sites. The contention of skeptics is that since the 'raw' data and the methodology for the normalization are not clearly known in some cases, this brings the data into question. CRU and people who support it say that the normalization is sufficiently accurate. I, for one, am not satisfied.
Why would I apologize? Not that I'm a basher, more of a civilized critic. This report, while it doesn't implicate him in a "conspiracy", also readily admits that he's been treating people with my point of view as mere obstructions to his mission. My impression of Mr. Jones is that he believes firmly that something must be done about CO2 and the problems that come with it, all for very good reasons.
I also suspect that he knows that the normalization of the data would not hold up to scrutiny, but in his view there is too much at stake to risk the public airing of that laundry. His heart is in the right place, but I happen to believe quite firmly that the growing apathy regarding climate change is a perfect example of why we can't put all our environmental eggs in one basket. Why can't we just focus more on particulate emissions, groundwater contamination, and dozens of other issues which have clearly visible impacts on the biological world?
"consumer-grade hardware"
Speak for yourself. Some of us use enterprise-level hardware for our Linux machines.
Think about how police officers work. They are in and out of their vehicles in all kinds of weather. They might be doing a traffic stop or such and return to the vehicle wet from rain, and need to use the laptop. Think of fire fighters, who routinely get wet and dirty while responding to routine accidents and small fires. The insides of emergency vehicles need constant cleaning; if they didn't use a ruggedized computer the inside of the laptops would too.
Well, except for that assuming it really saves him that much fertilizer, then the fertilizer won't have to be produced, transported and handled. How much energy is used in that process?
That being said, it sounds too good to be true.
mothers'
Don't(tm) forget(tm) a whole lot(tm) of registered trademarks(tm)
There is this thing, though, called snake oil. Politicians love it, these days even more so when it's 'Green Snake Oil'.
All systems take time to start up. Many types of software add to this time, particularly 'enterprise' applications which run as system services or on startup. Users don't like to waste this time. Wasn't there an article about that recently?
Somehow I suspect that this law wasn't passed by the US Congress...
Actually, I saw a documentary - on OPB I think - which showed that one of the teams had been letting their car drive them to work. That 'blender' could be out there right now...
Only on slashdot can a plumbing question turn into a gaming debate.
(In any case, a couple Myrmidons and a line of Cerebus should do the trick. But if you are afk that long your enemy will have plenty of time to drive in his Fatboy and you're screwed.)
Well, the problem is that you'll have moster loss from stringing cables that far. Wikipedia explains. And good luck insulating that monster. Ever notice that they sting them ten feet apart on transmission lines?
Well, the GP wasn't suggesting using Hydro to power automobiles, he was suggesting using it to transport energy from the SW US to the world.
That being said, if my understanding is correct, burning oil to make electrical power, turning it in to hydrogen via electrolosis, and turning it back into electrical power in a fuel cell is only marginally better than just turning the oil into gasoline and running it through your internal combustion engine, not to mention more expensive.
Of course the hydrogen method could use more efficient polution controls, and certainly helps with urban smog. And some portion of your hydrogen isn't made with fossil fuels.
I'm too tired to look up the numbers. Anyone? Straight-up efficiency from oil to car?
I think the best use for this technology would be to put it on every roof in in America (and Europe and eventually the world), and use nuclear power as a method to buffer against periods of low sunlight.
I agree that local micro power is another good peice of the puzzle. My number one goal in life is to eventually live in a home with a net energy surplus. Of course, my penchant for running Linux on old hardware might turn into a barrier to this.
While the major volcano/meteor event you mentioned could deplete the nuclear buffer, it would do that (and worse) now.
Well, given a 'minor' event like Mt. Saint Helens, light blocking would only be a minor concern to the overall energy supply as we have it now. Obviously ash and debris in equipment, supply chain interruption and so on would be another issue entirely.
Hell, we could sell of the surplus nuclear energy to subsidize projects like the complete mechanization of food production, -- obviously using our nearly free energy. Or just lower taxes (though I would prefer the former)
Well, that's a different question, one I hadn't considered too deeply. Still, until we develop a 'perfect' single energy source a la Mr. Fusion, there will have to be a wide variety of energy sources in order to have a stable energy system. Nuclear/fossil systems require finite and largely imported fuel. Wind, solar and geothermal require specific geography. Hydroelectric fsks up the ecosystem. Each has its place in the ideal system, however limited.
Hydrogen conversion has its own inefficiency, so that's out.
That statistic is simply an illustration in any case. Obviously there are some other places in the world where such installations could be put; perhaps some less sunny ones would require more space to reach equivalent capacity.
In any case, I think that a 100% solar earth is unlikely:
* Much of the time it is night, and storing that much juice in batteries is impractical. Things like hydroelectric storage and thermal solar plants could help with this problem, but its a whole different research issue.
* In the event of, say, a major volcanic eruption or meteor impact, world power production would plummet. That could be the least of our worries.
Solar and wind are like the icing on the clean power cake. They are great for the role they serve, but you can't have them for dinner without getting a stomach ache.
Well, over the years I've done a lot of mac repair work, and I will tell you that while the community will cover you, Apple will not deal with you at all. One time I needed to replace the DC in board on my 18-month-old iBook - due to my own mangling of the adapter. This is a major labor part, requiring about 90% disassembly. Apple refused to let me do the work myself, despite the fact that I'd already disassembled the thing and my living room was covered in little labeled tupperware. The various dealers were afraid that I'd get them in trouble with Apple somehow. I suspect that Apple does sting operations, much like your local police might send a minor in to a liquor store to buy booze. Anyhow, I ended up finding a cooperative service manager at a dealer 100 miles away.
Since then, you can get pretty much anything on the net, at least for second-generation stuff. Not that I can afford any first generation Apple stuff.
archaeologists also discovered: hyroglyphs depicting a story called 'The Antikythera Mechanism is for Porn'.