One thing I wonder is if HDMI 2.1 will be an alternate mode of USB-C. They point out that new cables will have to be labeled as "48G" to support HDMI 2.1. USB-C seems to have a max bandwidth of 40 Gbps, and HDMI 2.1 is 48 Gbps. Can HDMI 2.1 work on USB-C?
A side note on the HDMI cable naming conventions, they seemed to have fallen in the same trap as USB. The cables are "Standard", "High Speed", "Premium High Speed", and now "48G". Unless there is a chart to go with the cables describing the difference then I can imagine a lot of complaints and confusion on what is what. You'd think that people would have learned by now not to use "high speed", "advanced", and such to describe cables and speeds. Had they at least used some acronym then they could "back-ronym" things, like DVD becoming "Digital Versatile Disc" instead of "Digital Video Disc".
What happens to DisplayPort++? Will DisplayPort be able to continue using a passive adapter for HDMI? I'm sure that existing DisplayPort devices will continue to support HDMI, it's not like someone is going to come around and rip that out. DP 1.3 mandated HDMI 2.0 dual mode capability. I don't recall seeing this same dual-mode mandate in DP 1.4, is it still there? I think I might miss that backward compatibility if it goes away. DisplayPort might run into bandwidth issues too on the existing DP++ connector and USB-C connector in its next version. If DP wants to keep up with HDMI and MHL then it's going to need more bandwidth, and the current connectors might not allow that.
I believe much of what keeps HDMI alive is DP++ dual mode, USB-C alt mode, and MHL using the HDMI connector. Basically people use HDMI because it comes "free" with another standard or protocol, not for HDMI itself.
If USB-C alt mode and DP++ dual mode won't work then I see trouble for HDMI 2.1 ahead. If HDMI gets stuck at v2.0 because of bandwidth issues on connectors then HDMI in all versions might go away too. I pointed out in another post about how even older versions of HDMI seem rare any more. HDMI seems to be dead or dying already, getting 5K, 8K, or even 10K now might not save it.
HDMI 1.4 can pass 4K at 30Hz. I strain to use the word "support" in this instance since no one is making monitors or TVs with 30Hz refresh rates.
That's no different than having those old CRTs that would do 1600x1200 at headache inducing 60Hz. This is not new. Perhaps you should be thankful it supports HDMI at all?
Looking closer at the spec I see that HDMI 2.0 came out in 2009 and supports 4K/60, a 4K display that does not support HDMI 2.0 is stretching "support" to me as well. That's 8 years of not updating their HDMI support to the latest spec. Much of what separates HDMI from DisplayPort is the spec having an audio return channel and Ethernet. I'd think this stuff would be awesome for using as a dock for a tablet, smartphone, or something. Especially with the USB-C supporting an HDMI alternate mode there would be USB 2.0 in there too.
Also while looking closer I have to wonder why this is called HDMI 2.1 and not 3.0. They changed a lot of things here, making this less like old HDMI and more like DisplayPort. Instead of a data stream on 3 lanes with a separate clock it's now 4 self clocked packet lanes. DisplayPort and MHL do the same by having self clocked data lanes and packet data. HDMI 2.1 uses DSC like MHL and DisplayPort.
Is HDMI 2.1 really a new specification or just DisplayPort or MHL on the old HDMI connector? There seems to be a lot of crossover on membership between the HDMI, DisplayPort, and MHL groups, why didn't they just decide to roll HDMI into DisplayPort and/or MHL? They rewrote the HDMI spec considerably anyway, why keep them separate? So they can keep the old stuff like Ethernet, CEC, and audio return channel that nobody was using anyway? I guess they could have kept those features even with combining HDMI with another spec, just say to people that if they want to have these HDMI unique features then use the HDMI connector.
What does this mean for the DisplayPort backward compatibility with HDMI? Will that continue with HDMI 2.1 and whatever the next version of Displayport might be? Maybe we'll see this convergence of specifications yet and the DisplayPort people will declare that DisplayPort 2.0 is just HDMI 2.1 with the DisplayPort connector. I know that's wishful thinking but that would mean an end to a lot of this nonsense on what port supports which protocol.
That's nice, a new HDMI version. I'm sure it will be picked up by the industry just as well as HDMI 1.4.
HDMI 1.4 added audio return channel, an Ethernet channel, 3D, and 4K. I've started looking for a new KVM switch to replace my VGA switch, something that I know will support at least 4K for future growth. All my computers have some kind of digital output so I don't much care if the KVM is HDMI, DisplayPort, or something else. So long as any kind of adapter I'd need is cheap enough then I don't care what the connectors on the KVM switch are.
I like that HDMI allows for things like CEC, Ethernet, 3D, and more but very few devices seem to support them. I'll see "HDMI 1.3" on devices. It seems everyone has stopped there. Sure, I'll find cables that support later versions but finding devices is impossible.
If I can't get the other features that HDMI offers then all it is to me is an alternative connector for DVI and DP. I know that putting a DP to HDMI cable between devices means it's "talking" HDMI but that means nothing.
The ThunderBolt 3 spec includes support only for HDMI 1.2. Thunderbolt and HDMI can now use the same USB-C connector but is there such a thing as a laptop, tablet, or smartphone that actually puts HDMI natively on it's USB-C port? I'll see adapters for USB-C to HDMI but they are all really just converting DisplayPort or providing a GPU on USB or ThunderBolt.
If I'm to even care about HDMI anymore I'll need to actually be able to buy devices that support it beyond the ten year old version 1.3. Perhaps this diminished adoption of HDMI is a good thing. If HDMI on USB-C was actually used then that would just pile on the confusion for what kind of cable or adapter someone might need.
Getting 10K on HDMI is useless if I can't even find 4K on HDMI. It looks like everyone has moved on to DisplayPort for 4K. HDMI looks better on paper with more features and just as good of resolutions supported but I can get DisplayPort devices that support 4K (and 5K and 8K) right now.
Oh, then there is MHL. That's another protocol that's best left behind unless we can see some real support on devices and cables.
According to Dr. Siemer basalt is a pound for pound replacement for limestone when used to treat soil pH. Thus turning basalt into limestone. You are taking this too literally.
Those don't show Germany leading. France reduced their CO2 output more, likely because of their nuclear reactors. Looks like half of the nations listed did better than Germany on CO2 reductions.
Also, I'm not sure what you gave is more recent data.
A container ship can only travel on water, meaning it sails from one coast to another. An aircraft still needs facilities to land but these airports can be just about anywhere, some even floating on water. An airship can also go anywhere to anywhere, presumably with minimal facilities.
I've seen proposals for hybrid lift aircraft that have a lighter than air gas envelope shaped like a wing. These can land on short runways, on water, or perhaps even vertically, depending on the design.
A modern airship isn't nearly as slow as the old ones, especially if it is a lifting body hybrid design. Not something like 0.8 to 0.9 mach like a modern jet but still not poking along at maybe 20 knots like a container ship. A common propeller craft would do about 70 knots on the low end, basically highway cruising speed, to a few hundred knots. I assume that a lifting body hybrid could also do speeds like any propeller craft but do it point to point over great distances.
The US military has been toying with the idea of hybrid lift craft for a long time. Maybe we'll see this happen soon enough. Imagine an aircraft that can carry a fully capable main battle tank, at speeds faster than any ship at sea, land on a spot no bigger than the aircraft itself, and fly halfway around the world without refueling. Such an aircraft would be huge and expensive, but then so is a C-5 Galaxy.
One thing I recall reading, and I could be wrong, what that hydrogen "dissolved" in another gas is not near as corrosive on pipes or as much of a leak risk. The chemistry is something like with another gas, like methane, the hydrogen has an affinity to "bind" or "attack" the other gas than the metal pipes. This was the theory behind another kind of "Town Gas" which was using synthesized fuels from trash and sewage to create a modern mix of gases that would be a direct replacement for natural gas. If the energy of the mix got too high, that it went outside the safe energy per volume range, then they'd simply add an inert gas like nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or argon. If for some reason the mix was less energetic than natural gas then more hydrogen would be mixed in.
This modern variation on "town gas" was, again as I recall, called "hythane". This might be a trademark or something but it's generally a mix of methane and hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas and other gaseous fuels. I wonder how far this "dissolving" or hydrogen in the methane goes, can this gas be liquefied? I also wonder how far this mix of hydrogen with other gasses can go, can a mix of just hydrogen and an inert gas work as a natural gas replacement? I suspect the presence of a hydrocarbon is important to the chemistry.
Oh, one thing that was important about the composition of the town gas, going from memory again, is that the carbon monoxide made the flame bright. A pure hydrogen flame is almost invisible. A pure CO flame is blue, I think. Mixing the two, with the other gasses, produced a yellow flame.
Finding the area on an airplane should not be difficult (wings, anyone?).
The wings are already full of fuel tanks and control surfaces. Perhaps the fuel itself could be used as the fluid to transfer the heat but that still has challenges. One issue that comes to mind is that the heat of the batteries and such that needs to be cooled could vaporize the fuel. Could it get hot enough to breakdown the fuel or ignite it? What if the cooling is "too good" and the fuel gels?
Moving the heat from a very concentrated spot in the middle of a moving high-speed 2MW fan assembly into the heat dissipation area is the trick.
No doubt. The equipment to move this heat will have some mass that will need to be accounted for in considering if this is feasible.
Considering the plan to use these batteries for take-off and landing it would seem to me that the feasibility of this might be limited to short run aircraft. If the batteries are used for maybe 1 hour on the 15 hour flight then those batteries are effectively dead weight. These aircraft already have large batteries as backups in case of engine failure to keep the radios and such running. I suspect these new batteries might serve double duty, maybe not. They already served double duty on aircraft to balance out the plane, the batteries would be somewhat movable in the original design to balance weight front to back. This meant putting the batteries in the tail usually to keep the nose up without needing down force from the elevators.
If you want to grind it down to dust and use it as a kind of "fertilizer" you could have mentioned that in your post before instead of claiming "you can convert basalt into lime stone", which you cant.
I did say it would be mined and spread over croplands. What did you think that meant? That the basalt would be cut into slabs and and farmland paved over?
Your examples of police stealing were cases of civil forfeiture, the police didn't technically steal. That was civil forfeiture and monitoring the police would not prevent this. This had to go through a lot of hands before it got to where people lost their stuff to the government. To stop that means repealing the law or getting people in office that use that law as a means of preventing and punishing crime, not being petty little tyrants.
I'm not defending civil forfeiture, far from it. Maybe the legislators had the right intentions but it is a bad law and needs to go completely, or perhaps redone so it's much more difficult to abuse. I'm just saying that this is not something that can be repaired with more oversight, the laws that allow this are simply broken.
It took me about two minutes to find that image. If you want to make a claim on something you might want to take the time to check that it's true. Perhaps more recent data will show Germany leading, if that data exists then I'd like to see it.
If you can transform basalt into line stone, you as well can transform lead into gold... or what ever.
It's not "line stone", it's limestone. Limestone is made primarily of CaCO3, calcium carbonate. Basalt is about 10% CaO, or calcium oxide, or lime. Also in basalt which is of interest is MgO, magnesium oxide, which makes up about 10% of basalt. When CaO comes into contact with CO2 there is a chemical reaction that happens resulting in CaCO3, limestone. Magnesium oxide also reacts with CO2 in the air to make a carbonate.
In reality you can turn basalt into limestone. This is chemistry, not alchemy.
There's a measure for determining the quality of agricultural lime called "CCE", or calcium carbonate equivalent. It measures the ability of a ton of a given material to treat land compared to a ton of pure calcium carbonate. A CCE of 100 means it acts like pure calcium carbonate in the soil, pound for pound. No stone, even limestone, is pure calcium carbonate but common limestone has such a high concentration of calcium carbonate that a ton of milled limestone will often test with a CCE near enough to 100 that it's considered "pure".
A mineral, like magnesium oxide, can exceed a CCE of 100. Pure MgO will have a CCE of about 250, and pure CaO will have a CCE of about 180. Basalt, even though it's only made up of 1/4 of what would be considered "lime" (the rest of basalt is basically just sand) will actually have a CCE close to that of milled limestone. People use these CCE numbers because it turns the problem of liming into simple arithmetic. If the fields need 100 tons CCE and the material being offered has a CCE of 50 then there needs to be 200 tons applied to the fields. If the material offered has a CCE of 200 then there needs to be only 50 tons applied.
So, why aren't farmers using basalt for liming their fields already if it's so good for the environment? That's a good question, and I suspect Dr. Siemer would like to get that answered.
Imagine a drug dealer getting caught for selling drugs. In the case the cell phone records are used in the conviction. This drug dealer goes to prison and while there runs into someone that's smart enough to hide his tracks well but caused enough trouble that significant resources were used to catch him. This white collar criminal is now teaching the drug dealer in prison how to not get caught again by not carrying a cell phone but instead using a different device to communicate.
Sure, they can leave their phone at home but that means less business selling drugs since the people they sell to can't communicate as easily.
This drug dealer is successful not being caught again and others want to know why. He gets his friends hooked up on this idea. This drug dealer may not know how it works, only that it does. In this game of "telephone" the rules on how to not get caught will be broken and people will by a process of elimination learn what works and what does not.
What happens is they learn to use an "iPad Micro" and a certain set of software to not get caught. Again, these people may not have the mental capacity to understand how it works but enough capacity to follow the recipe laid out by someone smart enough to figure it out in the first place.
What can happen is a cultural shift, where people want to have live some elements of this drug dealer lifestyle and so the use of these devices and software becomes the norm. The dealers and buyers use this stuff to not get caught, but the friends of these people use this because it's "cool" to do so.
These kinds of shifts happen relatively quickly. I have a suspicion that this kind of shift is already in place, that some drug dealer somewhere figured out how to use a cellphone like device, such as an iPod Touch, to keep in touch with his clients but there's no cellphone network tracking him.
Imagine a city that has created a metro wide WiFi network for all the poor poor people in the city to read books, get the weather, and take college courses from home. Now imagine this same city is arresting drug dealers, pick pockets, and petty criminals based on their cell phone location data. A cell phone is required to have accurate location data for 911 service. Removing the SIM card will still allow a phone to call 911 and get it's location. Presumably someone that tries to remove a personal connection between a phone and the person that carries it will be difficult so long as the phone is functional.
So, the petty criminals of the city learn that a "iPad Micro" or other pocket sized computing device will let them send and receive messages, even make phone calls with the right kind of software, but they don't have the hardware to do GPS. These drug dealers know to buy these devices with cash, or second hand, so there is no record to connect the person and the device.
What if the city tracks MAC addresses? Then the petty criminals find ways to randomize that. Then search the device for identifying data? The criminals put data self destruct timeouts on the device, if they don't punch in the passcode every hour or so the device is wiped clean.
I will say that the tracking of cell phones is not just a problem in law that can be fixed in the courts and legislatures. This is a problem with technology which can be fixed with technology. I expect people to get devices that allow themselves to communicate but the government will not be able to track so easily. They can pass laws on things like identifying data for the purchase, or that the manufacturers cannot have useful encryption, or whatever the legislators might think up next. This is something that cannot be fixed by banning things, when the law bans untraceable cell phones then only the criminals will have untraceable cell phones.
(Yes, I know an "iPad Micro" is effectively an iPod Touch. Kids these days don't seem to even know what an iPod is any more, but they know that an iPad is a tablet computer. It seems that any tablet computer is called an iPad even if it's not made by Apple.)
The lesson is to always buy mayo if you're buying other ham and cheese sandwich stuff.
But I never put mayo on my ham and cheese sandwiches. I'll put on onions and mustard but never mayonnaise. If I buy a sandwich, and it happens to have mayonnaise on it, I'll eat it happily but I don't put it on myself. To me mayonnaise is for french fries and tater tots. I don't even have ketchup in my house, except maybe some packets I save from when I grab a burger and the person packing the bag tosses in ketchup without asking. If someone stops by to eat and they want ketchup then I offer those packets.
This "but everyone does this" argument can be shown to fail in specific cases. I recall a case of constructive possession of a gun where the argument was that a passenger in a car could obviously see the gun behind the driver's seat. In court the defense raised this point and then the accused removed his false eye. For him to see the gun would have required an impossible contortion. The case was dropped.
While we're talking about strip clubs I'll mention a hardware store I visited once that had a strip club across the street. They did good business from people going to the hardware store to buy something, anything, to "prove" that their presence near the strip club was legitimate to anyone that might ask. You can claim I was at the strip club getting a lap dance, because my phone was in the vicinity, but I have a receipt for a set of wrenches that I bought that day showing I was just chatting it up with the nice young man behind the counter for an hour or two.
Are the conservatives forcing these same people to fuck? Pretty sure that if you don't want kids that you shouldn't put tab A into slot B. Far more effective than any contraception, also safer for women than abortion.
We don't currently have any way to reduce the carbon level.
We do in fact. Dr. Darryl Seimer, a nuclear engineer and chemistry professor, has a proposal to do just that.
The first step is to stop digging. We need to stop producing CO2 and to do that we need lots of nuclear power.
The next thing is to enhance a natural process of turning basalt (a kind of bedrock) into limestone (also a kind of bedrock). We do this by mining the basalt and spreading it on croplands. Why would farmers agree to this? Because this is a variation on an ancient and continuing practice of putting agricultural lime in fields to restore nutrients to the soil. The current means to get this lime produces a lot of CO2, which involves mining limestone and heating it up "cook" out the CO2 and turning it into lime. Using basalt for the source of this lime is CO2 negative.
Dr. Seimer believes this using of basalt for agricultural lime would be economically feasible. It appears that others that have examined this proposal have agreed. Leave the oil, coal, and limestone in the ground. Mine for uranium, thorium, and basalt.
Maybe this proposal will not work, but can we at least take a closer look at this? Maybe try some pilot programs?
We'll dump money into solar panels, windmills, and buying new cars for rich people but all this does is slow down the growth of CO2 output. We need to not only stop but to go into reverse. Let's put some money into this, development money. There's two parts to R&D, we've gone about as far as we can with research, time to do some development. Yes, that means actually digging in the dirt with large machines.
this is migration on a vast scale and will cause war.
First, how is this different than today? We already have mas migrations and wars. Been that way for centuries, go read a history book.
Second, things will be just fine in the USA. We got nuclear power, oil, and natural gas, more than enough energy for powering the machines to building up the infrastructure we need. This is a change that will take decades to happen. We can build a lot of dams, bridges, and whatever else we need in that time. The rest of the world might be fucked, with their wars and migration, but we got vast oceans that separate us from most of the suck.
If the problem is global warming from CO2 production then we have a lot of nations going about the problem the wrong way. It looks like Germany still hasn't figured out that shutting down nuclear power will increase their CO2 output. Sure, they saw some reductions recently, that's what happens when energy prices go up and people can't afford to by as much. Japan learned their lesson, they finally shut down a bunch of old nuclear power plants and are starting to build bigger and safer ones to replace them. Seeing energy prices go up 30% and a cloud of smog slowly build over the cities will do that, I guess.
Tens of millions of people, many of them with no resource whatsoever, moving to higher ground and rebuilding
You are correct, that is not going to happen. How do we get these people the resources the need? They need energy. With energy water can be made clean enough to drink, trees can be turned to lumber (and new tress planted), food can be grown, buildings erected, rail lines laid, and so on. They need energy. They can get cheap coal, get nuclear (like Japan), or keep living in the suck they have. We've been trying to give everyone solar panels and windmills but that doesn't seem to be working, at least not fast enough.
I remember seeing a physician out in an African village trying to run his little clinic from solar collectors. He wanted a diesel generator so he could run his refrigerator and the lights in his examination room at all hours. He said denying these people access to the coal and oil in the ground is asking them to commit suicide.
The world is committing a slow suicide by denying themselves access to energy that is inexpensive, reliable, and plentiful. Or, rather, the rest of the world is committing suicide. The USA will be doing just fine.
These attempts at using a fingerprint, voiceprint, or "faceprint", always seem to be broken. It has to account for both natural variation but not too much or it's easily broken. I'd like to see more use of those random number generator tokens for verification. They are highly secure and seem pretty simple to use.
If reading a number from a tiny screen is too hard then have the token beep out the touch tones with a button press, or put in a USB interface to type it in for the user. If the device used for the transaction has a camera then put the key in view and let the device read the numbers for the user. I know these things can get lost but then so can a lot of things, keep them small so people can put them in a wallet or on a keyring. People lose wallets and keys too but they also tend to keep these things with them and notice quickly when they are missing.
I suspect that hardware tokens are difficult to manage and therefore have a high cost. This cost is most likely what keeps companies from using them more often. At some point the desire for security and the cost of implementation will meet at a point where hardware tokens become attractive. Right?
When a nuclear power plant spreads radioactive gases and particles into the environment that's considered a failure. When a coal power plant does that it's considered normal operation.
When a nuclear power plant kills birds flying overhead that's considered a failure. When wind and solar do that it's considered normal operation.
When a nuclear power plant kills fish that's considered a failure. When hydroelectric dams shred the fish into bits that's considered normal operation.
Instead of focusing on the handful of failures of nuclear power plants that kill people and wildlife, spread radiation, and contaminate the environment, I suggest we focus on the energy sources that do these things in normal operation. There are something like 400 nuclear reactors in the world operating safely right now, providing clean and reliable energy, maybe we should talk about those. We can use coal, we can use nuclear, or we can watch the lights go out.
Germany tried to get away from nuclear and it's not going well for them. Japan just decided to build more nuclear power plants. If you want to avoid another disaster like Fukushima then we need to shut down old nuclear and replace them with new nuclear.
Nuclear power is the worst energy source except all the others. Hanford and Fukushima are terrible and costly. How much does it cost in lives and property to keep this effective ban on nuclear power we have in much of the world? Burning coal costs lives. A lack of energy costs lives. We don't talk about the lives lost to solar power much either but that's a real thing too.
Again, no sources for your claims. You can tell me the sky is blue and I might believe you. You can show me the sky is blue and I cannot deny it. If you want to make a claim about solar energy then show me. I got my numbers from the US Department of Energy, if you want to tell me they are mistaken, lying, or something then you need to have someone at least as credible to provide proof.
You are still mixing up "dispatchable" with reliable.
Dispatchablity describes one thing and reliability describes another. Something can be both, one, the other, or neither.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing I wonder is if HDMI 2.1 will be an alternate mode of USB-C. They point out that new cables will have to be labeled as "48G" to support HDMI 2.1. USB-C seems to have a max bandwidth of 40 Gbps, and HDMI 2.1 is 48 Gbps. Can HDMI 2.1 work on USB-C?
A side note on the HDMI cable naming conventions, they seemed to have fallen in the same trap as USB. The cables are "Standard", "High Speed", "Premium High Speed", and now "48G". Unless there is a chart to go with the cables describing the difference then I can imagine a lot of complaints and confusion on what is what. You'd think that people would have learned by now not to use "high speed", "advanced", and such to describe cables and speeds. Had they at least used some acronym then they could "back-ronym" things, like DVD becoming "Digital Versatile Disc" instead of "Digital Video Disc".
What happens to DisplayPort++? Will DisplayPort be able to continue using a passive adapter for HDMI? I'm sure that existing DisplayPort devices will continue to support HDMI, it's not like someone is going to come around and rip that out. DP 1.3 mandated HDMI 2.0 dual mode capability. I don't recall seeing this same dual-mode mandate in DP 1.4, is it still there? I think I might miss that backward compatibility if it goes away. DisplayPort might run into bandwidth issues too on the existing DP++ connector and USB-C connector in its next version. If DP wants to keep up with HDMI and MHL then it's going to need more bandwidth, and the current connectors might not allow that.
I believe much of what keeps HDMI alive is DP++ dual mode, USB-C alt mode, and MHL using the HDMI connector. Basically people use HDMI because it comes "free" with another standard or protocol, not for HDMI itself.
If USB-C alt mode and DP++ dual mode won't work then I see trouble for HDMI 2.1 ahead. If HDMI gets stuck at v2.0 because of bandwidth issues on connectors then HDMI in all versions might go away too. I pointed out in another post about how even older versions of HDMI seem rare any more. HDMI seems to be dead or dying already, getting 5K, 8K, or even 10K now might not save it.
HDMI 1.4 can pass 4K at 30Hz. I strain to use the word "support" in this instance since no one is making monitors or TVs with 30Hz refresh rates.
That's no different than having those old CRTs that would do 1600x1200 at headache inducing 60Hz. This is not new. Perhaps you should be thankful it supports HDMI at all?
Looking closer at the spec I see that HDMI 2.0 came out in 2009 and supports 4K/60, a 4K display that does not support HDMI 2.0 is stretching "support" to me as well. That's 8 years of not updating their HDMI support to the latest spec. Much of what separates HDMI from DisplayPort is the spec having an audio return channel and Ethernet. I'd think this stuff would be awesome for using as a dock for a tablet, smartphone, or something. Especially with the USB-C supporting an HDMI alternate mode there would be USB 2.0 in there too.
Also while looking closer I have to wonder why this is called HDMI 2.1 and not 3.0. They changed a lot of things here, making this less like old HDMI and more like DisplayPort. Instead of a data stream on 3 lanes with a separate clock it's now 4 self clocked packet lanes. DisplayPort and MHL do the same by having self clocked data lanes and packet data. HDMI 2.1 uses DSC like MHL and DisplayPort.
Is HDMI 2.1 really a new specification or just DisplayPort or MHL on the old HDMI connector? There seems to be a lot of crossover on membership between the HDMI, DisplayPort, and MHL groups, why didn't they just decide to roll HDMI into DisplayPort and/or MHL? They rewrote the HDMI spec considerably anyway, why keep them separate? So they can keep the old stuff like Ethernet, CEC, and audio return channel that nobody was using anyway? I guess they could have kept those features even with combining HDMI with another spec, just say to people that if they want to have these HDMI unique features then use the HDMI connector.
What does this mean for the DisplayPort backward compatibility with HDMI? Will that continue with HDMI 2.1 and whatever the next version of Displayport might be? Maybe we'll see this convergence of specifications yet and the DisplayPort people will declare that DisplayPort 2.0 is just HDMI 2.1 with the DisplayPort connector. I know that's wishful thinking but that would mean an end to a lot of this nonsense on what port supports which protocol.
That's nice, a new HDMI version. I'm sure it will be picked up by the industry just as well as HDMI 1.4.
HDMI 1.4 added audio return channel, an Ethernet channel, 3D, and 4K. I've started looking for a new KVM switch to replace my VGA switch, something that I know will support at least 4K for future growth. All my computers have some kind of digital output so I don't much care if the KVM is HDMI, DisplayPort, or something else. So long as any kind of adapter I'd need is cheap enough then I don't care what the connectors on the KVM switch are.
I like that HDMI allows for things like CEC, Ethernet, 3D, and more but very few devices seem to support them. I'll see "HDMI 1.3" on devices. It seems everyone has stopped there. Sure, I'll find cables that support later versions but finding devices is impossible.
If I can't get the other features that HDMI offers then all it is to me is an alternative connector for DVI and DP. I know that putting a DP to HDMI cable between devices means it's "talking" HDMI but that means nothing.
The ThunderBolt 3 spec includes support only for HDMI 1.2. Thunderbolt and HDMI can now use the same USB-C connector but is there such a thing as a laptop, tablet, or smartphone that actually puts HDMI natively on it's USB-C port? I'll see adapters for USB-C to HDMI but they are all really just converting DisplayPort or providing a GPU on USB or ThunderBolt.
If I'm to even care about HDMI anymore I'll need to actually be able to buy devices that support it beyond the ten year old version 1.3. Perhaps this diminished adoption of HDMI is a good thing. If HDMI on USB-C was actually used then that would just pile on the confusion for what kind of cable or adapter someone might need.
Getting 10K on HDMI is useless if I can't even find 4K on HDMI. It looks like everyone has moved on to DisplayPort for 4K. HDMI looks better on paper with more features and just as good of resolutions supported but I can get DisplayPort devices that support 4K (and 5K and 8K) right now.
Oh, then there is MHL. That's another protocol that's best left behind unless we can see some real support on devices and cables.
According to Dr. Siemer basalt is a pound for pound replacement for limestone when used to treat soil pH. Thus turning basalt into limestone. You are taking this too literally.
Also, the basalt might be only 10% CaO but it's also 15% MgO. Both MgO and CaO are considered lime for most uses. Basalt may be 75% sand but it's 25% lime. It might be considered "dolomitic lime" or "magnesian limestone" for being rich in magnesium but it's lime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's something on CCE here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Those don't show Germany leading. France reduced their CO2 output more, likely because of their nuclear reactors. Looks like half of the nations listed did better than Germany on CO2 reductions.
Also, I'm not sure what you gave is more recent data.
A container ship can only travel on water, meaning it sails from one coast to another. An aircraft still needs facilities to land but these airports can be just about anywhere, some even floating on water. An airship can also go anywhere to anywhere, presumably with minimal facilities.
I've seen proposals for hybrid lift aircraft that have a lighter than air gas envelope shaped like a wing. These can land on short runways, on water, or perhaps even vertically, depending on the design.
A modern airship isn't nearly as slow as the old ones, especially if it is a lifting body hybrid design. Not something like 0.8 to 0.9 mach like a modern jet but still not poking along at maybe 20 knots like a container ship. A common propeller craft would do about 70 knots on the low end, basically highway cruising speed, to a few hundred knots. I assume that a lifting body hybrid could also do speeds like any propeller craft but do it point to point over great distances.
The US military has been toying with the idea of hybrid lift craft for a long time. Maybe we'll see this happen soon enough. Imagine an aircraft that can carry a fully capable main battle tank, at speeds faster than any ship at sea, land on a spot no bigger than the aircraft itself, and fly halfway around the world without refueling. Such an aircraft would be huge and expensive, but then so is a C-5 Galaxy.
One thing I recall reading, and I could be wrong, what that hydrogen "dissolved" in another gas is not near as corrosive on pipes or as much of a leak risk. The chemistry is something like with another gas, like methane, the hydrogen has an affinity to "bind" or "attack" the other gas than the metal pipes. This was the theory behind another kind of "Town Gas" which was using synthesized fuels from trash and sewage to create a modern mix of gases that would be a direct replacement for natural gas. If the energy of the mix got too high, that it went outside the safe energy per volume range, then they'd simply add an inert gas like nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or argon. If for some reason the mix was less energetic than natural gas then more hydrogen would be mixed in.
This modern variation on "town gas" was, again as I recall, called "hythane". This might be a trademark or something but it's generally a mix of methane and hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas and other gaseous fuels. I wonder how far this "dissolving" or hydrogen in the methane goes, can this gas be liquefied? I also wonder how far this mix of hydrogen with other gasses can go, can a mix of just hydrogen and an inert gas work as a natural gas replacement? I suspect the presence of a hydrocarbon is important to the chemistry.
Oh, one thing that was important about the composition of the town gas, going from memory again, is that the carbon monoxide made the flame bright. A pure hydrogen flame is almost invisible. A pure CO flame is blue, I think. Mixing the two, with the other gasses, produced a yellow flame.
Finding the area on an airplane should not be difficult (wings, anyone?).
The wings are already full of fuel tanks and control surfaces. Perhaps the fuel itself could be used as the fluid to transfer the heat but that still has challenges. One issue that comes to mind is that the heat of the batteries and such that needs to be cooled could vaporize the fuel. Could it get hot enough to breakdown the fuel or ignite it? What if the cooling is "too good" and the fuel gels?
Moving the heat from a very concentrated spot in the middle of a moving high-speed 2MW fan assembly into the heat dissipation area is the trick.
No doubt. The equipment to move this heat will have some mass that will need to be accounted for in considering if this is feasible.
Considering the plan to use these batteries for take-off and landing it would seem to me that the feasibility of this might be limited to short run aircraft. If the batteries are used for maybe 1 hour on the 15 hour flight then those batteries are effectively dead weight. These aircraft already have large batteries as backups in case of engine failure to keep the radios and such running. I suspect these new batteries might serve double duty, maybe not. They already served double duty on aircraft to balance out the plane, the batteries would be somewhat movable in the original design to balance weight front to back. This meant putting the batteries in the tail usually to keep the nose up without needing down force from the elevators.
If you want to grind it down to dust and use it as a kind of "fertilizer" you could have mentioned that in your post before instead of claiming "you can convert basalt into lime stone", which you cant.
I did say it would be mined and spread over croplands. What did you think that meant? That the basalt would be cut into slabs and and farmland paved over?
Perhaps as a total amount, but not as a percentage of its previous output or per capita output.
You didn't even bother to click on the link, did you? That image showed percentages.
Facepalm.
Indeed.
Newspapers are not trustworthy anyway, I rather would google for an official report ;D
Then google for an official report and link to it, prove me wrong.
Your examples of police stealing were cases of civil forfeiture, the police didn't technically steal. That was civil forfeiture and monitoring the police would not prevent this. This had to go through a lot of hands before it got to where people lost their stuff to the government. To stop that means repealing the law or getting people in office that use that law as a means of preventing and punishing crime, not being petty little tyrants.
I'm not defending civil forfeiture, far from it. Maybe the legislators had the right intentions but it is a bad law and needs to go completely, or perhaps redone so it's much more difficult to abuse. I'm just saying that this is not something that can be repaired with more oversight, the laws that allow this are simply broken.
Looks like Germany is the counry in the world that has reduced its CO2 output the most ...
No, pretty sure that the USA is #1 on this.
https://www.washingtontimes.co...
It took me about two minutes to find that image. If you want to make a claim on something you might want to take the time to check that it's true. Perhaps more recent data will show Germany leading, if that data exists then I'd like to see it.
If you can transform basalt into line stone, you as well can transform lead into gold ... or what ever.
It's not "line stone", it's limestone. Limestone is made primarily of CaCO3, calcium carbonate. Basalt is about 10% CaO, or calcium oxide, or lime. Also in basalt which is of interest is MgO, magnesium oxide, which makes up about 10% of basalt. When CaO comes into contact with CO2 there is a chemical reaction that happens resulting in CaCO3, limestone. Magnesium oxide also reacts with CO2 in the air to make a carbonate.
In reality you can turn basalt into limestone. This is chemistry, not alchemy.
There's a measure for determining the quality of agricultural lime called "CCE", or calcium carbonate equivalent. It measures the ability of a ton of a given material to treat land compared to a ton of pure calcium carbonate. A CCE of 100 means it acts like pure calcium carbonate in the soil, pound for pound. No stone, even limestone, is pure calcium carbonate but common limestone has such a high concentration of calcium carbonate that a ton of milled limestone will often test with a CCE near enough to 100 that it's considered "pure".
A mineral, like magnesium oxide, can exceed a CCE of 100. Pure MgO will have a CCE of about 250, and pure CaO will have a CCE of about 180. Basalt, even though it's only made up of 1/4 of what would be considered "lime" (the rest of basalt is basically just sand) will actually have a CCE close to that of milled limestone. People use these CCE numbers because it turns the problem of liming into simple arithmetic. If the fields need 100 tons CCE and the material being offered has a CCE of 50 then there needs to be 200 tons applied to the fields. If the material offered has a CCE of 200 then there needs to be only 50 tons applied.
So, why aren't farmers using basalt for liming their fields already if it's so good for the environment? That's a good question, and I suspect Dr. Siemer would like to get that answered.
Imagine a drug dealer getting caught for selling drugs. In the case the cell phone records are used in the conviction. This drug dealer goes to prison and while there runs into someone that's smart enough to hide his tracks well but caused enough trouble that significant resources were used to catch him. This white collar criminal is now teaching the drug dealer in prison how to not get caught again by not carrying a cell phone but instead using a different device to communicate.
Sure, they can leave their phone at home but that means less business selling drugs since the people they sell to can't communicate as easily.
This drug dealer is successful not being caught again and others want to know why. He gets his friends hooked up on this idea. This drug dealer may not know how it works, only that it does. In this game of "telephone" the rules on how to not get caught will be broken and people will by a process of elimination learn what works and what does not.
What happens is they learn to use an "iPad Micro" and a certain set of software to not get caught. Again, these people may not have the mental capacity to understand how it works but enough capacity to follow the recipe laid out by someone smart enough to figure it out in the first place.
What can happen is a cultural shift, where people want to have live some elements of this drug dealer lifestyle and so the use of these devices and software becomes the norm. The dealers and buyers use this stuff to not get caught, but the friends of these people use this because it's "cool" to do so.
These kinds of shifts happen relatively quickly. I have a suspicion that this kind of shift is already in place, that some drug dealer somewhere figured out how to use a cellphone like device, such as an iPod Touch, to keep in touch with his clients but there's no cellphone network tracking him.
Define a cell phone? This is a serious question.
Imagine a city that has created a metro wide WiFi network for all the poor poor people in the city to read books, get the weather, and take college courses from home. Now imagine this same city is arresting drug dealers, pick pockets, and petty criminals based on their cell phone location data. A cell phone is required to have accurate location data for 911 service. Removing the SIM card will still allow a phone to call 911 and get it's location. Presumably someone that tries to remove a personal connection between a phone and the person that carries it will be difficult so long as the phone is functional.
So, the petty criminals of the city learn that a "iPad Micro" or other pocket sized computing device will let them send and receive messages, even make phone calls with the right kind of software, but they don't have the hardware to do GPS. These drug dealers know to buy these devices with cash, or second hand, so there is no record to connect the person and the device.
What if the city tracks MAC addresses? Then the petty criminals find ways to randomize that. Then search the device for identifying data? The criminals put data self destruct timeouts on the device, if they don't punch in the passcode every hour or so the device is wiped clean.
I will say that the tracking of cell phones is not just a problem in law that can be fixed in the courts and legislatures. This is a problem with technology which can be fixed with technology. I expect people to get devices that allow themselves to communicate but the government will not be able to track so easily. They can pass laws on things like identifying data for the purchase, or that the manufacturers cannot have useful encryption, or whatever the legislators might think up next. This is something that cannot be fixed by banning things, when the law bans untraceable cell phones then only the criminals will have untraceable cell phones.
(Yes, I know an "iPad Micro" is effectively an iPod Touch. Kids these days don't seem to even know what an iPod is any more, but they know that an iPad is a tablet computer. It seems that any tablet computer is called an iPad even if it's not made by Apple.)
The lesson is to always buy mayo if you're buying other ham and cheese sandwich stuff.
But I never put mayo on my ham and cheese sandwiches. I'll put on onions and mustard but never mayonnaise. If I buy a sandwich, and it happens to have mayonnaise on it, I'll eat it happily but I don't put it on myself. To me mayonnaise is for french fries and tater tots. I don't even have ketchup in my house, except maybe some packets I save from when I grab a burger and the person packing the bag tosses in ketchup without asking. If someone stops by to eat and they want ketchup then I offer those packets.
This "but everyone does this" argument can be shown to fail in specific cases. I recall a case of constructive possession of a gun where the argument was that a passenger in a car could obviously see the gun behind the driver's seat. In court the defense raised this point and then the accused removed his false eye. For him to see the gun would have required an impossible contortion. The case was dropped.
While we're talking about strip clubs I'll mention a hardware store I visited once that had a strip club across the street. They did good business from people going to the hardware store to buy something, anything, to "prove" that their presence near the strip club was legitimate to anyone that might ask. You can claim I was at the strip club getting a lap dance, because my phone was in the vicinity, but I have a receipt for a set of wrenches that I bought that day showing I was just chatting it up with the nice young man behind the counter for an hour or two.
Are the conservatives forcing these same people to fuck? Pretty sure that if you don't want kids that you shouldn't put tab A into slot B. Far more effective than any contraception, also safer for women than abortion.
It's SCIENCE!
I was wondering what that noise was.
We don't currently have any way to reduce the carbon level.
We do in fact. Dr. Darryl Seimer, a nuclear engineer and chemistry professor, has a proposal to do just that.
The first step is to stop digging. We need to stop producing CO2 and to do that we need lots of nuclear power.
The next thing is to enhance a natural process of turning basalt (a kind of bedrock) into limestone (also a kind of bedrock). We do this by mining the basalt and spreading it on croplands. Why would farmers agree to this? Because this is a variation on an ancient and continuing practice of putting agricultural lime in fields to restore nutrients to the soil. The current means to get this lime produces a lot of CO2, which involves mining limestone and heating it up "cook" out the CO2 and turning it into lime. Using basalt for the source of this lime is CO2 negative.
Dr. Seimer believes this using of basalt for agricultural lime would be economically feasible. It appears that others that have examined this proposal have agreed. Leave the oil, coal, and limestone in the ground. Mine for uranium, thorium, and basalt.
Maybe this proposal will not work, but can we at least take a closer look at this? Maybe try some pilot programs?
We'll dump money into solar panels, windmills, and buying new cars for rich people but all this does is slow down the growth of CO2 output. We need to not only stop but to go into reverse. Let's put some money into this, development money. There's two parts to R&D, we've gone about as far as we can with research, time to do some development. Yes, that means actually digging in the dirt with large machines.
this is migration on a vast scale and will cause war.
First, how is this different than today? We already have mas migrations and wars. Been that way for centuries, go read a history book.
Second, things will be just fine in the USA. We got nuclear power, oil, and natural gas, more than enough energy for powering the machines to building up the infrastructure we need. This is a change that will take decades to happen. We can build a lot of dams, bridges, and whatever else we need in that time. The rest of the world might be fucked, with their wars and migration, but we got vast oceans that separate us from most of the suck.
If the problem is global warming from CO2 production then we have a lot of nations going about the problem the wrong way. It looks like Germany still hasn't figured out that shutting down nuclear power will increase their CO2 output. Sure, they saw some reductions recently, that's what happens when energy prices go up and people can't afford to by as much. Japan learned their lesson, they finally shut down a bunch of old nuclear power plants and are starting to build bigger and safer ones to replace them. Seeing energy prices go up 30% and a cloud of smog slowly build over the cities will do that, I guess.
Tens of millions of people, many of them with no resource whatsoever, moving to higher ground and rebuilding
You are correct, that is not going to happen. How do we get these people the resources the need? They need energy. With energy water can be made clean enough to drink, trees can be turned to lumber (and new tress planted), food can be grown, buildings erected, rail lines laid, and so on. They need energy. They can get cheap coal, get nuclear (like Japan), or keep living in the suck they have. We've been trying to give everyone solar panels and windmills but that doesn't seem to be working, at least not fast enough.
I remember seeing a physician out in an African village trying to run his little clinic from solar collectors. He wanted a diesel generator so he could run his refrigerator and the lights in his examination room at all hours. He said denying these people access to the coal and oil in the ground is asking them to commit suicide.
The world is committing a slow suicide by denying themselves access to energy that is inexpensive, reliable, and plentiful. Or, rather, the rest of the world is committing suicide. The USA will be doing just fine.
These attempts at using a fingerprint, voiceprint, or "faceprint", always seem to be broken. It has to account for both natural variation but not too much or it's easily broken. I'd like to see more use of those random number generator tokens for verification. They are highly secure and seem pretty simple to use.
If reading a number from a tiny screen is too hard then have the token beep out the touch tones with a button press, or put in a USB interface to type it in for the user. If the device used for the transaction has a camera then put the key in view and let the device read the numbers for the user. I know these things can get lost but then so can a lot of things, keep them small so people can put them in a wallet or on a keyring. People lose wallets and keys too but they also tend to keep these things with them and notice quickly when they are missing.
I suspect that hardware tokens are difficult to manage and therefore have a high cost. This cost is most likely what keeps companies from using them more often. At some point the desire for security and the cost of implementation will meet at a point where hardware tokens become attractive. Right?
the US incarcerates more people than any other country in the world
We're number one!!! WOOOO! Yeah!
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
When a nuclear power plant spreads radioactive gases and particles into the environment that's considered a failure. When a coal power plant does that it's considered normal operation.
When a nuclear power plant kills birds flying overhead that's considered a failure. When wind and solar do that it's considered normal operation.
When a nuclear power plant kills fish that's considered a failure. When hydroelectric dams shred the fish into bits that's considered normal operation.
Instead of focusing on the handful of failures of nuclear power plants that kill people and wildlife, spread radiation, and contaminate the environment, I suggest we focus on the energy sources that do these things in normal operation. There are something like 400 nuclear reactors in the world operating safely right now, providing clean and reliable energy, maybe we should talk about those. We can use coal, we can use nuclear, or we can watch the lights go out.
Germany tried to get away from nuclear and it's not going well for them. Japan just decided to build more nuclear power plants. If you want to avoid another disaster like Fukushima then we need to shut down old nuclear and replace them with new nuclear.
Nuclear power is the worst energy source except all the others. Hanford and Fukushima are terrible and costly. How much does it cost in lives and property to keep this effective ban on nuclear power we have in much of the world? Burning coal costs lives. A lack of energy costs lives. We don't talk about the lives lost to solar power much either but that's a real thing too.
Bullshit.
Whatever.
If your data is crap, it gets thrown out. It matters not one fucking bit if I have a better answer, or if we just don't know.
If you don't have a better answer then how can you tell me my data is crap?
I have to wonder if you are being serious.
Again, no sources for your claims. You can tell me the sky is blue and I might believe you. You can show me the sky is blue and I cannot deny it. If you want to make a claim about solar energy then show me. I got my numbers from the US Department of Energy, if you want to tell me they are mistaken, lying, or something then you need to have someone at least as credible to provide proof.
You are still mixing up "dispatchable" with reliable.
Dispatchablity describes one thing and reliability describes another. Something can be both, one, the other, or neither.