And the climate scientists who created this report aren't idealogically motivated?
Ok, so what you are saying is that our entire scientific method is invalid because scientists tend to see what they want to see. I'm sorry, but this isn't the way it's supposed to work. Papers are published for peer review first, which means that other scientists have to review and replicate the findings. If ideaology influenced this process at all, then science as we know it would likely be invalid. This can't be the case, because the models that science produces are very good at predicting the 'real world' we know that the scientific method works. This argument that climateologists are idealogically motivated is really just a red herring.
You sound like Crichton. He's an author. Just because he went to medical school doesn't mean he's a scientist. In his book (which is fiction), he presents alot of opinions based on facts of varied accuracy. When I read his book I used his own facts to draw the opposite conclusion he did - we shouldn't be experimenting on ourselves.
Besides, there are geo-political reasons to become more energy efficient these days.
I have a bad feeling about Vista now. If this blog is indeed representative, it sounds as if the key groups of developers had large levels of complexity to deal with just to implement the most basic features. Also, the word "head-strong" UI and development leads makes me think that there's a lot of conflict in the development team - I don't see how any of this could lead to good code.
I'll wager $10 that Vista will have as many security issues out of the box as WinXP did when it was released.
Is the title somehow misleading? They are looking for effect before cause. This means they are looking for an indication of a future event, not sending a signal back in time. From their frame of reference, they are seeing the effect first, which is actually a prediction of a future event. Shortly after, the prediction comes true...
... now I have a great idea on how to choose tomorrow lotto numbers, talk to you all later!
The man is so convinced that google/youtube will fail, he's actually going to jump in the ring to try to make it happen? Umm... Someone should just give this guy a hobby.
He's a billionaire, what kind of hobbies is he supposed to have? He's already tried all the 'other' hobbies...
But I agree: Here is a guy who obviously doesn't want to be wrong, so he takes on the action he's been warning about. Kinda like Russel Peter's dad saying "Somebody gunna get 'a hurt real bad...". If I were sophisticated I would know the word in the English language that describes this kind of behaviour, but alas, I'll have to rely on a fellow slashdotter (once again...).
Yes, electricity is primarily generated in coal plants. If you read my posts in full, you'd see that I stated why generating power at power stations is desirable due to it being easier to control emissions at that level. Aside from that, power is generated far more efficiently at power stations in fact, they use high-temperature turbines with heat recovery, and can pull 60-90% of the energy in coal or oil as electricity (a very efficient car, for comparison, extracts about 20%). The grid to get that power to your car is also 92% efficient, the charger is 85% efficient, and the car itself is at least 85% efficient. The overall efficiency to get from fuel to movement is then 0.60*0.92*0.85*0.85 = 39% as opposed to using gasoline which is at BEST 90% efficient well-to-station, and at best 20% efficient in the car itelf, so 0.90*0.20 = 18%. Note I've used the worst case scenario for eletric vs best case scenario for gasoline (diesel, actually) engines.
Yes, increasing fuel economy will certainly help. Making SUVs that get 30 mpg in city driving would help a great deal. However, that will do nothing for our dependence on oil, and still doesn't eliminate emissions. Part of my point is that we are advanced enough that emissions should be unnecessary.
My point of view is that there may be some benefits. However, the main effect of curbing emissions will be a lowering of the standard of living for everyone.
You can't possibly know this.
Here's an example: You can lower emissions by replacing and/or converting all vehicles to battery-electric. The technology is there to provide sufficient range, and advances in battery technology occur yearly now. Not only would such vehicles be zero-emission, but they would also require less maintenance, and are simpler machines that are easier to manufacture. If we "suddenly" went this route, we would push all the emissions to coal and oil fired plants, which could easily be regulated and could trap and bury their exhausts, unlike our cars of today. We would also have the option of moving away from oil and coal to solar or fusion in the future without having the change our mode of transportation.
One project I will do at some point is create a solar collector that will concentrate 10m^2 (3.2x3.2 m) of sunlight onto a 10x10 cm high-efficiency solar cell (35% efficient and will cost about $1000 to buy). I'd also run a block to cool it using fluid pumped underground to cool. 10m^2 of sunlight is 3000 Watts. I can run my house off of that power, and still have enough to sell back to the grid during the day, and could just use grid power by night. I'd get free heat by trapping heat from the coolant underground, then pumping fluid through the warm earth into my house in the winter. With such a system, would I have a lower standard of living? No! Do I use less fossil fuel? Absolutely. A nice side benefit is that on sunny days I give back more power than I'd use. This is also nothing new. They've been doing something like this type of thing in Sweden for years.
I see, well in that case I would not agree that I'm thinking of a "One Percent Doctrine", as an analysis is required to choose the right response.
As for reduced emission resulting in reduced freedom (I can only assume you mean mobility), I very strongly disagree. Our current use of energy for transport is so incredibly inefficient that there is vast room for improvement. Some of this improvement is already happening, but it's a slow process. I think Tesla Motors is a good example of technological advancement being applied to maintain our lifestyle by improving efficiency. Their's is a car that can run with the best, go a significant distance, and still has the potential for conveniece that were are used to.
I don't at all agree that we need to comprimise our lifestyle to optimize our energy efficiency, and the sooner we do it the better.
I haven't read that book, but it does seem interesting. I'll have to have a look...
Anyway, as I said:
"We should act as though the most likely of dire consequences will transpire"
We don't necessarily assume the case that is the most severe and what we believe has a 1% chance of happening, unless, of course, the severity results in "all humans suffer long, hideous, painful deaths" or something like that. We would take the most likely worst-case scenario and act against it. It's really a cost/risk balancing act.
As for Calvin Collidge's philosophy, I'd be hopeful that the one problem that does bite you isn't the most severe. "Do nothing and hope for the best" is probably not always the best approach. Furthermore, in the case of global warming, the 'solution' to all the potential problems in the same: reduce emissions. It would not matter which consequence hit us, because we could have averted them all the same way (hopefully).
We could probably argue over what global warming is or isn't, who said what, and what we think will happen. Both sides are motivated to make their case: global warming pundits want to either (a) keep their jobs or (b) warn us of grave danger. Global warming opponents want to debunk global warming so we all can carry on as we are.
Given that the consequences range from beneficial to dire, the right approach is caution: We should act as though the most likely of dire consequences will transpire, and change our behaviour accordingly. To ignore a *potential* threat that we don't or can't understand ('can't' because of the politics involved).
People like to take sides and get religious about things. For any major political issue, there is always alot of fighting and mutual debunking that goes on. To me, this merely identifies that there is a measurable issue of some kind. In this case, it tells me that 'global warming' basically means 'we are influencing our climate', which I think should be an absolute given: We must be influcing it somehow, whether it's measureable or not is a different issue, and is the hot issue of 'global warming' (no pun intended).
IMO, we need to act as though we could be making a significant influence on the climate, because we can't seem to figure out if we are or are not. There ARE other benefits to acting this way: lower energy needs (wants) and perhaps even better energy flexibility, ie. independence on "foreign oil".
"Parents who try and win an arms race with kids WILL lose."
Ah the children of slashdot...
Some parents will lose, others will win. My parents won against my much younger sister, because I assisted them. To this day, she isn't aware of how much they knew.
Lithium batteries could already offer this kind of range and recharge time (http://www.a123systems.com/).
This type of power storage would be even better if
It lasted more cycles than Lithium (ie. > 1,000 at 80% DOD)
It was lighter than lithium
Also, it will only recharge in 5 minutes if you have sufficient current. At 240V, you'd probably need about 50,000 amps to "fill" the capacitor in a reasonable amount of time to give you a 500 mile range (assuming 15 hp sustained on average for 500 miles).
They should just make a printer (and ink) that can erase and reuse printed pages. I maybe not want something to disappear after 16 hours, or I might decide to keep it after printing it out, or any other number or reasons. I can see wanting emails to self-erase for security reasons, but you'd be able to print it and photograph it so what would be the point?
There is a difference between trusting your teens and keeping an eye on them. Frankly, I've known so few teenagers who are worthy of the "trust" given to them (most just abuse it) that I give absolutely no credance to your argument that teens do stupid things when not trusted.
Trust is earned. The best way to earn the trust if your parents would be to show them you are responsible when they aren't present. They can only do that if they are monitoring you to some degree, without your knowlege.
The teens I see acting like idiots do so because they are allowed to, (usually) not because of their parents. Teens learn things from each other more than they learn them from their parents - teen years are all about peer influence.
The government does not put food in my mouth or a roof over my head - last I checked, I pay them for "service". This is not "Big Brother", this is giving parents the tools they need to do supervision - It's oranges to the "Big Brother" topic being apples.
There is nothing wrong with parents tracking their kids. Parents supply them with food, shelter, education, and (often) money. Like it or not, kids belong to their parents until they decide to leave home.
If you don't like being monitored by your parents (which is responsible for them to do - you should see wtf teens do around my neighborhood at night), move out. If you want to be treated like a responsible adult, then become one.
Most "kids" and "teens" take issue with being monitored because they are want to go out and do things they aren't supposed to. My parents required me to call in all the time if I was out, at least until I was 17.
Parents should have the ability to monitor everything their kids do, including TV shows, browsing, computer/console game use, location (are they safe? are they kidnapped?), etc. Kids, now more than ever, need to be watched over, and they NEED to be disciplined!
They are still only adults in training, and quite frankly, they are terrible at it.
I think parents should have full access to knowing their children's whereabouts and activities 24/7, 365 days per year (366 on leap years) until their children leave home. Teens are adults in training, not adults.
Seems to me the first one will be much more efficient, especially when Toshiba's new Lithium batteries are available (in 2008 I heard). As long as it only takes a few minute to "recharge" your car, I'm sure range won't matter so much.
Slashdot Mirror
And the climate scientists who created this report aren't idealogically motivated?
Ok, so what you are saying is that our entire scientific method is invalid because scientists tend to see what they want to see. I'm sorry, but this isn't the way it's supposed to work. Papers are published for peer review first, which means that other scientists have to review and replicate the findings. If ideaology influenced this process at all, then science as we know it would likely be invalid. This can't be the case, because the models that science produces are very good at predicting the 'real world' we know that the scientific method works. This argument that climateologists are idealogically motivated is really just a red herring.
You sound like Crichton. He's an author. Just because he went to medical school doesn't mean he's a scientist. In his book (which is fiction), he presents alot of opinions based on facts of varied accuracy. When I read his book I used his own facts to draw the opposite conclusion he did - we shouldn't be experimenting on ourselves.
Besides, there are geo-political reasons to become more energy efficient these days.
If they can be decypted, they no longer have restrictive DRM, right?
I have a bad feeling about Vista now. If this blog is indeed representative, it sounds as if the key groups of developers had large levels of complexity to deal with just to implement the most basic features. Also, the word "head-strong" UI and development leads makes me think that there's a lot of conflict in the development team - I don't see how any of this could lead to good code.
I'll wager $10 that Vista will have as many security issues out of the box as WinXP did when it was released.
Is the title somehow misleading? They are looking for effect before cause. This means they are looking for an indication of a future event, not sending a signal back in time. From their frame of reference, they are seeing the effect first, which is actually a prediction of a future event. Shortly after, the prediction comes true...
... now I have a great idea on how to choose tomorrow lotto numbers, talk to you all later!
The man is so convinced that google/youtube will fail, he's actually going to jump in the ring to try to make it happen? Umm... Someone should just give this guy a hobby.
He's a billionaire, what kind of hobbies is he supposed to have? He's already tried all the 'other' hobbies...
But I agree: Here is a guy who obviously doesn't want to be wrong, so he takes on the action he's been warning about. Kinda like Russel Peter's dad saying "Somebody gunna get 'a hurt real bad...". If I were sophisticated I would know the word in the English language that describes this kind of behaviour, but alas, I'll have to rely on a fellow slashdotter (once again...).
Yes, electricity is primarily generated in coal plants. If you read my posts in full, you'd see that I stated why generating power at power stations is desirable due to it being easier to control emissions at that level. Aside from that, power is generated far more efficiently at power stations in fact, they use high-temperature turbines with heat recovery, and can pull 60-90% of the energy in coal or oil as electricity (a very efficient car, for comparison, extracts about 20%). The grid to get that power to your car is also 92% efficient, the charger is 85% efficient, and the car itself is at least 85% efficient. The overall efficiency to get from fuel to movement is then 0.60*0.92*0.85*0.85 = 39% as opposed to using gasoline which is at BEST 90% efficient well-to-station, and at best 20% efficient in the car itelf, so 0.90*0.20 = 18%. Note I've used the worst case scenario for eletric vs best case scenario for gasoline (diesel, actually) engines.
Yes, increasing fuel economy will certainly help. Making SUVs that get 30 mpg in city driving would help a great deal. However, that will do nothing for our dependence on oil, and still doesn't eliminate emissions. Part of my point is that we are advanced enough that emissions should be unnecessary.
My point of view is that there may be some benefits. However, the main effect of curbing emissions will be a lowering of the standard of living for everyone.
You can't possibly know this.
Here's an example: You can lower emissions by replacing and/or converting all vehicles to battery-electric. The technology is there to provide sufficient range, and advances in battery technology occur yearly now. Not only would such vehicles be zero-emission, but they would also require less maintenance, and are simpler machines that are easier to manufacture. If we "suddenly" went this route, we would push all the emissions to coal and oil fired plants, which could easily be regulated and could trap and bury their exhausts, unlike our cars of today. We would also have the option of moving away from oil and coal to solar or fusion in the future without having the change our mode of transportation.
One project I will do at some point is create a solar collector that will concentrate 10m^2 (3.2x3.2 m) of sunlight onto a 10x10 cm high-efficiency solar cell (35% efficient and will cost about $1000 to buy). I'd also run a block to cool it using fluid pumped underground to cool. 10m^2 of sunlight is 3000 Watts. I can run my house off of that power, and still have enough to sell back to the grid during the day, and could just use grid power by night. I'd get free heat by trapping heat from the coolant underground, then pumping fluid through the warm earth into my house in the winter. With such a system, would I have a lower standard of living? No! Do I use less fossil fuel? Absolutely. A nice side benefit is that on sunny days I give back more power than I'd use. This is also nothing new. They've been doing something like this type of thing in Sweden for years.
I see, well in that case I would not agree that I'm thinking of a "One Percent Doctrine", as an analysis is required to choose the right response.
As for reduced emission resulting in reduced freedom (I can only assume you mean mobility), I very strongly disagree. Our current use of energy for transport is so incredibly inefficient that there is vast room for improvement. Some of this improvement is already happening, but it's a slow process. I think Tesla Motors is a good example of technological advancement being applied to maintain our lifestyle by improving efficiency. Their's is a car that can run with the best, go a significant distance, and still has the potential for conveniece that were are used to.
I don't at all agree that we need to comprimise our lifestyle to optimize our energy efficiency, and the sooner we do it the better.
I haven't read that book, but it does seem interesting. I'll have to have a look...
Anyway, as I said:
"We should act as though the most likely of dire consequences will transpire"
We don't necessarily assume the case that is the most severe and what we believe has a 1% chance of happening, unless, of course, the severity results in "all humans suffer long, hideous, painful deaths" or something like that. We would take the most likely worst-case scenario and act against it. It's really a cost/risk balancing act.
As for Calvin Collidge's philosophy, I'd be hopeful that the one problem that does bite you isn't the most severe. "Do nothing and hope for the best" is probably not always the best approach. Furthermore, in the case of global warming, the 'solution' to all the potential problems in the same: reduce emissions. It would not matter which consequence hit us, because we could have averted them all the same way (hopefully).
We could probably argue over what global warming is or isn't, who said what, and what we think will happen. Both sides are motivated to make their case: global warming pundits want to either (a) keep their jobs or (b) warn us of grave danger. Global warming opponents want to debunk global warming so we all can carry on as we are.
Given that the consequences range from beneficial to dire, the right approach is caution: We should act as though the most likely of dire consequences will transpire, and change our behaviour accordingly. To ignore a *potential* threat that we don't or can't understand ('can't' because of the politics involved).
People like to take sides and get religious about things. For any major political issue, there is always alot of fighting and mutual debunking that goes on. To me, this merely identifies that there is a measurable issue of some kind. In this case, it tells me that 'global warming' basically means 'we are influencing our climate', which I think should be an absolute given: We must be influcing it somehow, whether it's measureable or not is a different issue, and is the hot issue of 'global warming' (no pun intended).
IMO, we need to act as though we could be making a significant influence on the climate, because we can't seem to figure out if we are or are not. There ARE other benefits to acting this way: lower energy needs (wants) and perhaps even better energy flexibility, ie. independence on "foreign oil".
I would say Utube has more clout than many of your realize, as they may know the internets better than any of us...
I'm sorry Matt, we just didn't have time to slot you in the for the role of Kirk, could you come back tomorrow?
"Parents who try and win an arms race with kids WILL lose."
Ah the children of slashdot...
Some parents will lose, others will win. My parents won against my much younger sister, because I assisted them. To this day, she isn't aware of how much they knew.
This type of power storage would be even better if
- It lasted more cycles than Lithium (ie. > 1,000 at 80% DOD)
- It was lighter than lithium
Also, it will only recharge in 5 minutes if you have sufficient current. At 240V, you'd probably need about 50,000 amps to "fill" the capacitor in a reasonable amount of time to give you a 500 mile range (assuming 15 hp sustained on average for 500 miles).They should just make a printer (and ink) that can erase and reuse printed pages. I maybe not want something to disappear after 16 hours, or I might decide to keep it after printing it out, or any other number or reasons. I can see wanting emails to self-erase for security reasons, but you'd be able to print it and photograph it so what would be the point?
You mean, like a series of tubes instead of a slow truck.
It did contain the tag "duh", but still....
There is a difference between trusting your teens and keeping an eye on them. Frankly, I've known so few teenagers who are worthy of the "trust" given to them (most just abuse it) that I give absolutely no credance to your argument that teens do stupid things when not trusted.
Trust is earned. The best way to earn the trust if your parents would be to show them you are responsible when they aren't present. They can only do that if they are monitoring you to some degree, without your knowlege.
The teens I see acting like idiots do so because they are allowed to, (usually) not because of their parents. Teens learn things from each other more than they learn them from their parents - teen years are all about peer influence.
The government does not put food in my mouth or a roof over my head - last I checked, I pay them for "service". This is not "Big Brother", this is giving parents the tools they need to do supervision - It's oranges to the "Big Brother" topic being apples.
There is nothing wrong with parents tracking their kids. Parents supply them with food, shelter, education, and (often) money. Like it or not, kids belong to their parents until they decide to leave home.
If you don't like being monitored by your parents (which is responsible for them to do - you should see wtf teens do around my neighborhood at night), move out. If you want to be treated like a responsible adult, then become one.
Most "kids" and "teens" take issue with being monitored because they are want to go out and do things they aren't supposed to. My parents required me to call in all the time if I was out, at least until I was 17.
Parents should have the ability to monitor everything their kids do, including TV shows, browsing, computer/console game use, location (are they safe? are they kidnapped?), etc. Kids, now more than ever, need to be watched over, and they NEED to be disciplined!
They are still only adults in training, and quite frankly, they are terrible at it.
I think parents should have full access to knowing their children's whereabouts and activities 24/7, 365 days per year (366 on leap years) until their children leave home. Teens are adults in training, not adults.
I still the electricity is the way to go. At least then, the process would be:
Fuel->Generator->Power Grid->Car
Instead of
Fuel->Generator->Power Grid->Hydrogen Refinery->Transport->Car
Seems to me the first one will be much more efficient, especially when Toshiba's new Lithium batteries are available (in 2008 I heard). As long as it only takes a few minute to "recharge" your car, I'm sure range won't matter so much.
"But seriously folks, 28 year-old mechanical engineers are notorious for their ability to do everything." ... but not at once, and if so, not well ;P
So THAT'S why I can't download anything anymore on any of the P2P services... Whew, I was thinking it was just my internet connection.
They SURE showed those crezzee P2P softwarez. I for one feel completely and utterly owned by the RIAA.
gg RIAA! You sure gave the beat down on that one. No one new is joining P2P services anymore, nosireebob.