I hope they also use mesquite in their charcoal. I like my car exhaust to have that flavor that only mesquite can deliver. Will the new engines come with a grill? Ironically charcoal has been used to fuel cars. Charcoal, Wood and other biomass solids have been gasified into an engine fuel for cars, trucks and motor bikes. This technology was used in Germany during WW2 and reappeared in the united states as a reaction to the 1973 gas shortages.
This is the chop down the forest approach to keeping the cars running, but it does work on grass cuttings too. FYI the flammable gas mixture is N,H,CO. And there are some tricks to lower the amount of Nitrogen in the mix to get better performance. Staying on topic, it is also possible to convert this biomass derived synthesis gas into Methane or Methanol... And a corncob Methane storage tank might be much lighter to carry around then a gasifier system and wood...
Personally though my favorite alternative fuel system is the wood burning turbine. It's a lot like Doc Browns Mr Fusion device, you put junk in and burn it... Very tempting to build. http://www.gas-turbines.com/nt6/index.html
Clathrates......Better to burn it before it melts on it's own from global warming It seems that just the opposite is true.
Clathrates protect us from "Iceball Earth" scenarios. Clathrates structures are more pressure sensitive then temperature sensitive. When water is deposited on land as glaciers during an ice age, sea levels fall. This destabilizes millions of years of Clathrate deposits and helps to flip the climate back into a warm cycle. At least there is a strong possibility of this.
Simply Put: Clathrates in melting permafrost contribute to global warming immensely. But Clatrates underwater protect us from death by permanent ice age. So it is quite possible that if we do find a way to harness this energy, then it's a real devils bargain we're getting into.
The answer to the riddle is not perverted. No goats.ex links, and no the monocle is not for one eyed willy, sorry to disappoint... It is not made from baby eyes or from cat eyes either, though a cat eye monocle would be cool...;) Anyway, think plastic, not eyeballs or prophylactics...:P
No offense, but the chem101 facts have changed. I'll explain...
> 2. If you went back to freshman chemistry, you'd learn that water and oil do not mix.
Gas free water and oil mix very well.
Waters high affinity for oil is a very big problem in the oil industry where oil and water
commonly form a stable solution underground.
> 1. It's actually your great-grandmother's suffering you're reliving. You see,
> the way to wash the sweat and human oils out of clothes was to take the big pot
> and make Clothes Soup over an open fire...you're going to have to use soap...
Just to be pedantic you could probably wash out oil with no soap using boiled water.
Boiling water will partially degas it and increase the waters ability to absorb oils.
This is fairly recent research and has applications in: making water soluble injectables,
food processing, and I have seen research into an air/water separation device intended
for washing machines. An amusing side note, this may mean that the airator on your sink
makes it harder for you to wash your dishes.
Getting back to the topic of engineering disasters... Injecting water into an oil well
could mean unintended problems later when unexpected mixing occures.
Ha! Made that connect didn't I!
Further, yes I do have a monocle and being a monocle bearer I will leave you with an
engineering riddle; about my monocle.
* I have a monocle I made myself
* It is not made of glass or anything clear
* It is not a mirror
* When I wear it, it corrects my vision
* It corrects vision for anyone using it
* It is a safe fairly obvious configuration that is simple to manufacture...
From this figure out how it is made and how it works.
Hints, well you don't need hints do you?
Good luck and enjoy the riddle...
"Nothing that I know of that is relevent to the current situation, but it is still a fantastic archive" Operation Northwoods is listed in that
archive
and
here and here
Northwoods was a plan by the pentagon to hijack planes to incite war with Cuba. I'd say that's relevant and a very dark hour in our history.
"I'm shocked, shocked there is gambling going on here!"
"Your winnings sir..."
"Oh thank you!"
> We're fucked! This could be what it looks like when fundamental structures wind down, like a top losing its spin over time. When the spinning stops, then we're fucked.
> - The article states that all x86 processors "could" be vulnerable. Does that > mean the *entire* series of Pentium chips, even the older PIII and PII's? If so, > are they equally as easy to compromise as the modern versions?
If so, is the "Intel 386 EX" processor in Diebold voting machines vulnerable?
First let me point out (moderators) that this post directly relates to peoples concerns about Drone Planes.
Declassified document shows government plan to stage terrorist attacks with Remote Control 747's in 1962. "Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of 'college students off on a holiday'. This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff." -Wikipedia
This is unsettling but important to my argument in that the Pentagons documented plan to attack US citizens with remote control planes establishes reasonable doubt.
> The government and military plan for eventualities......Substitute "sneak attack", "insurgency", or > "hurricane" (or any other force majeur) into that sentence if you like. Similarity or congruency are > simply coincedence in the absence of evidence that proves a direct connection.
The Operation Northwoods proposal was not a preparedness plan for hurricanes. It uses plain language proposing terrorist activity led by the Pentagon using remote control planes. It was an action considered by our government and the document is now available to the public. The thing we don't know is, if fifty years ago the government was considering staging terrorism using 747's to start a war, would they do it today, and did they. That is a smoking gun.
> I noticed you did not answer my question about what evidence would change your mind on this theory. > Here's mine: Present me with real conclusive proof of this specific conspiracy theory and I will > sit up and take notice: a person who helped set the charges...paperwork showing that thousands > of pounds of explosives were delivered to the WTC by a military contractor...maintenance workers > who saw barrels of explosives in empty offices...etc. I need direct, cause-and-effect > evidence...often referred to as a "smoking gun." Allusion and supposition don't do it for me. > > How about you?
What you are asking for, is the same as I said I would want, but we used slightly different words. I outlined the bizarre unanswered questions of 9/11 and the fact that the 9/11 investigators stated that they did not have enough funds to complete a full investigation. I don't have a billion dollars in my bank account to do it myself. But generally what you are saying in the above comment is that you would require these things to be checked in a full investigation and I feel the same way.
How the towers fell is only one problem with 9/11 and as I said, they certainly would not have required explosive in the shape of barrels to bring them down. But investigating military contracts would be a smart place to start looking. Also needing investigation are the presidents connections to the Binladins, Osama Binladin being the leader of the terrorists. And considering that planes were used, perhaps we should investigate the governments past documented plans to use airliners in terrorist attacks.
Regarding allusion, it can be appropriate when making an argument. For example: Two men and a woman in a room, the lights go out. The lights go on and two men are alive and the woman is shot. One is a white man fresh out of jail for attempted murder. One is an black man fresh from college. The police let the white man go without questioning? The white man is an allusion for the Pentagons past planning of Operation Northwoods.
Getting back to the article. In the future could "Iranian Terrorists" lour in remote control police drones and digitally hijack them? Could our government stage a "false flag" operation using drones and lour us into war? These questions must be asked for a country to be secure from tirany as well as terrorism. It may be that we are safer not having police drones just as we are safer not having off switches around all our necks.
Many people want more evidence. A recent CNN poll showed that 82% of the public believes the government covered up some of the 9/11 events.
> I'll buy something if it's well sold--this theory is not. The truth is rarely well sold.
> Please be specific about what evidence you still require. First the Bush Administration tried to block a 9/11 investigation. The investigation that finally was conducted, by a government team, stated that they did not get the budget they required. They only got a couple million; less then was spent investigating former president Clinton's sex scandal. In the least, a new investigation should take place and it should get the funding it requires. If we can spend a Trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan because we were upset about 9/11. Then we should be able to set aside a billion dollars to check under Washington rocks for scum. Or at the least we should spend as much money as we did investigating Clintons Cock.
Sorry. But until then you may as well be covering up the truth. The investigation was inadequate and did not sufficiently address the following 11 points.
> firefighters are not experts in controlled demolition. You aren't supposed to pull buildings in NYC without supervision by police and fire. If anyone on the scene has watched over controlled demolitions in NYC it is their firefighters. And what they heard reminded them of their experience observing controlled demolitions. But that is only one fish in the fish market.
>> Why are you assuming that charges would be visible to the public? > Because as far as I know it's not possible to turn hundreds of 55-gallon drums and > miles of wire invisible. This is a very good point, but the WTC was one of the few buildings that could make this possible.
1. Miles of Wires: WTC was on of the most wired set of buildings in history, phone company wiring headquarters, stock exchange and government offices... Also lets remember that reliable control signals can be transferred in many ways in such buildings. Wifi, network cabling, electrical wiring, infrared though windows if you want to be tricky, infrasound if you really want to do things the hard way, and of course micky-mouse clocks with wires stuck to the handles. I don't see arranging control systems to be a problem.
2. Where would hundreds of 55-gallon drums be? The answer: real-estate. The WTC was built at the worst time in the worst location. There was and still is a glut of office space on Wall Street and they were never able to fill the trade centers. Most of the levels were empty and there were the machine levels, installed security equipment... So these buildings had lots of space. Space coincidentally secured by relatives of the president.
3. The security company that looked over the trade centers happens to be owned by relatives of President Bush. Of course President Bush also happened to be business partners Osama Bin Ladin, who as you know happened to be involved with the collapse. Those are just some facts, not proof of anything. But very strange facts.
4. People- The buildings did not constantly have people going in and out. Several weeks before the attacks one of the buildings was completely powered down for a weekend and vacated. All the security systems the building were off. This is very unusual. No video, no business people, just Bush family security staff. Would this have been a time they could have moved in explosives to unoccupied floors?
I don't think so, because that wouldn't have been necessary. The simpler way to carry that out would be: Somewhere a couple people had a military job loading boxes with explosives for storage in a warehouse. A normal thing... Then make it part of their job to put an inventory control "tracking device" in each box. If the tracking device was a wifi explosives control system... Then you have a where-house loaded with sealed unmarked boxes to be moved anywhere you like. Tell a second loading crew they are loading boxes of government
Lots of things can end up under a couch. Spilled nuts, drained teabags, old bannana peals, the secretaries un... But I digress. Maybe he just stores them there because he's like a squirrel. He likes to chew on nuts. While posting on slashdot. Flame on!
Before that, the exhaustion of coal was the fun thing to predict.
Coal for steel, electrical power and synfuels are growing markets. With that in mind, depletion of our coal resources is a serious concern. So lets see what the facts are.
Article:
Years of reserves remaining is easy enough to calculate: one only need determine how many tons of coal remain in the ground (available from the EIA) and divide by the production for that year. If we look at the year 2000, we can see that we have 255 years of coal remaining. However, if we look at other years, we see something strange: there were 300 years of coal reserves in 1988, 1000 years reserves in 1904, and 10,000 years reserves in 1868! As each year goes by, we use our coal more quickly and we see that the standard formulation of 'years remaining' is nearly meaningless.
Using the EIA's assumptions, coal will peak in 2060. However, The Annual Energy Outlook 2004 was published before it was widely accepted that U.S. gas production had peaked and that growth of LNG would be difficult. If we assume that U.S. gas consumption cannot grow beyond 2002 levels (2003 gas consumption was less than 2002) due to the North American gas production peak and limited LNG imports, then growth in electrical demand must be met by coal instead of gas. In this second scenario, coal is forecast to peak in 2053. The final scenario assumes that in addition to flat natural gas consumption, oil will peak in 2010 and synfuels will be produced from coal for use in vehicles. It is further assumed that these synfuels will be produced using the process currently employed by the Sasol Company in South Africa. While this is a rather inefficient process, it has been proven at large scales over many years. In this scenario, coal is forecast to peak in 2035.
(As Coke and energy from oil becomes unavailable)
Recent interviews with coal and rail companies have revealed that metallurgical coal demand in the Spring of 2004 has been unexpectedly high. If industrial coal demand does increase, this will also cause coal to peak at an earlier date. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_c oal_peak.html
If you get punched in the face every time you drop a cigarrette butt on the ground, you're going to stop dropping them. The same principle should apply here. Punish the user for bad behavior, and they'll eventually stop.
"AOL also uses their web filters to promote a political agenda. For example, children can visit the home page of the Republican National Committee, but not the Democratic National Committee."
http://www.computergripes.com/Aol.html
AOL is a good example of this, but I have found censorship to be a big problem with a few other cheap internet providers.
In college, I think I was trying compuserve, but they blocked lots of sites. With them, I could not do political research for my sociology class at home. I would have had to go to the computer lab to do real research. That made me angry, so back then I decided not to switch and to keep my $24 a month Earthlink account:P I didn't like Earthlinks webmail system or their customer service or their price, but at least they gave me the same level of internet access as I got in the computer labs.
It makes me wonder about people looking for a good deal (poor people) and how this affects their political views.
FOX NEWS INTERNET Explosions, Warnings, and none of those boring educated LIBERALS!
Funny comment, but are you getting paid to be here? I see your sig leads to an insurance add. Therefore, you suck:P Whats next? Will microsoft be paying people to blog smack against linux?
Putting the article in perspective is good reporting. The article conflicts with what Gates is telling you. It puts this rich persons dreams next to a bit of reality that everyone can understand. And that's the right thing to do.
Kiev is Kiev, not "The Kiev" Ukraine is Ukraine, not "The Ukraine"
I will let you off easy this time since you referred to soviet Russia. In soviet Russian Ukraine was called "The Ukraine", so I can understand why you might think Kiev is called "The Kiev":)
The US is The US, perhaps because we're not as united by law as many other counties. Which could be why people in Ukraine flooded the streets when they felt there was injustice in their election. They could not go some other state, they had to deal with the problem they felt was urgent at the time, because they had no other state to run too.
There is merit in having to face ones problem as there is merit in having a place to run away. But I think as places to run away erode and people adjust to tyranny. Outcry can be crushed much easier in a system of states then in a system truly united by law.
Slashdot Mirror
Will the new engines come with a grill? Ironically charcoal has been used to fuel cars. Charcoal, Wood and other biomass solids have been gasified into an engine fuel for cars, trucks and motor bikes. This technology was used in Germany during WW2 and reappeared in the united states as a reaction to the 1973 gas shortages.
Some pictures of charcoal fueled vehicles:
http://www.woodgas.com/images/Mel_Strand_Truck_an
http://www.gengas.nu/bilder/werner/Bild313.jpg
http://www.gengas.nu/bilder/werner/Bild120.jpg
http://www.gengas.nu/bilder/werner/Bild287.jpg
http://www.gengas.nu/bilder/rolf_barry_berg/rolf_
http://www.woodgas.com/images/NASMotorcycle.jpg
You could put a grill top on this open gasifier http://www.gengas.nu/bilder/pics/pv2.jpg
This is the chop down the forest approach to keeping the cars running, but it does work on grass cuttings too. FYI the flammable gas mixture is N,H,CO. And there are some tricks to lower the amount of Nitrogen in the mix to get better performance. Staying on topic, it is also possible to convert this biomass derived synthesis gas into Methane or Methanol... And a corncob Methane storage tank might be much lighter to carry around then a gasifier system and wood...
Personally though my favorite alternative fuel system is the wood burning turbine. It's a lot like Doc Browns Mr Fusion device, you put junk in and burn it... Very tempting to build. http://www.gas-turbines.com/nt6/index.html
Clathrates protect us from "Iceball Earth" scenarios. Clathrates structures are more pressure sensitive then temperature sensitive. When water is deposited on land as glaciers during an ice age, sea levels fall. This destabilizes millions of years of Clathrate deposits and helps to flip the climate back into a warm cycle. At least there is a strong possibility of this.
Simply Put: Clathrates in melting permafrost contribute to global warming immensely. But Clatrates underwater protect us from death by permanent ice age. So it is quite possible that if we do find a way to harness this energy, then it's a real devils bargain we're getting into.
http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hyper text/WWW/MarkUp/Tags.html#20
A NAME=xxx HREF=XXX
They new what it would be used for, those sly dogs!
I'm mostly frozen retrovirus genome?C
Like my mailbox, full of SPAM!
ACAAGATvI@grAGCCAV1agr@TTGTCC3nl@rge2d@y!CCCGGC
The answer to the riddle is not perverted. No goats.ex links, and no the monocle is not for one eyed willy, sorry to disappoint... It is not made from baby eyes or from cat eyes either, though a cat eye monocle would be cool... ;) Anyway, think plastic, not eyeballs or prophylactics... :P
...but you are so close ;) I'm glad you're enjoying the riddle. Just give it 5 seconds more thought and you've got it.
No offense, but the chem101 facts have changed. I'll explain...
> 2. If you went back to freshman chemistry, you'd learn that water and oil do not mix.
Gas free water and oil mix very well.
Waters high affinity for oil is a very big problem in the oil industry where oil and water
commonly form a stable solution underground.
> 1. It's actually your great-grandmother's suffering you're reliving. You see,
> the way to wash the sweat and human oils out of clothes was to take the big pot
> and make Clothes Soup over an open fire...you're going to have to use soap...
Just to be pedantic you could probably wash out oil with no soap using boiled water.
Boiling water will partially degas it and increase the waters ability to absorb oils.
This is fairly recent research and has applications in: making water soluble injectables,
food processing, and I have seen research into an air/water separation device intended
for washing machines. An amusing side note, this may mean that the airator on your sink
makes it harder for you to wash your dishes.
Getting back to the topic of engineering disasters... Injecting water into an oil well
could mean unintended problems later when unexpected mixing occures.
Ha! Made that connect didn't I!
Further, yes I do have a monocle and being a monocle bearer I will leave you with an
engineering riddle; about my monocle.
* I have a monocle I made myself
* It is not made of glass or anything clear
* It is not a mirror
* When I wear it, it corrects my vision
* It corrects vision for anyone using it
* It is a safe fairly obvious configuration that is simple to manufacture...
From this figure out how it is made and how it works.
Hints, well you don't need hints do you?
Good luck and enjoy the riddle...
"Nothing that I know of that is relevent to the current situation, but it is still a fantastic archive"
Operation Northwoods is listed in that archive and here and here Northwoods was a plan by the pentagon to hijack planes to incite war with Cuba. I'd say that's relevant and a very dark hour in our history.
"I'm shocked, shocked there is gambling going on here!"
"Your winnings sir..."
"Oh thank you!"
> We're fucked!
This could be what it looks like when fundamental structures wind down, like a top losing its spin over time. When the spinning stops, then we're fucked.
> - The article states that all x86 processors "could" be vulnerable. Does that
> mean the *entire* series of Pentium chips, even the older PIII and PII's? If so,
> are they equally as easy to compromise as the modern versions?
If so, is the "Intel 386 EX" processor in Diebold voting machines vulnerable?
Vote early, vote often!
First let me point out (moderators) that this post directly relates to peoples concerns about Drone Planes.
...Substitute "sneak attack", "insurgency", or
Declassified document shows government plan to stage terrorist attacks with Remote Control 747's in 1962.
"Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of 'college students off on a holiday'. This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
-Wikipedia
For all those who don't know, Wiki or Google for 1962 Operation Northwoods.
This is unsettling but important to my argument in that the Pentagons documented plan to attack US citizens with remote control planes establishes reasonable doubt.
> The government and military plan for eventualities...
> "hurricane" (or any other force majeur) into that sentence if you like. Similarity or congruency are
> simply coincedence in the absence of evidence that proves a direct connection.
The Operation Northwoods proposal was not a preparedness plan for hurricanes. It uses plain language proposing terrorist activity led by the Pentagon using remote control planes. It was an action considered by our government and the document is now available to the public. The thing we don't know is, if fifty years ago the government was considering staging terrorism using 747's to start a war, would they do it today, and did they. That is a smoking gun.
> I noticed you did not answer my question about what evidence would change your mind on this theory.
> Here's mine: Present me with real conclusive proof of this specific conspiracy theory and I will
> sit up and take notice: a person who helped set the charges...paperwork showing that thousands
> of pounds of explosives were delivered to the WTC by a military contractor...maintenance workers
> who saw barrels of explosives in empty offices...etc. I need direct, cause-and-effect
> evidence...often referred to as a "smoking gun." Allusion and supposition don't do it for me.
>
> How about you?
What you are asking for, is the same as I said I would want, but we used slightly different words. I outlined the bizarre unanswered questions of 9/11 and the fact that the 9/11 investigators stated that they did not have enough funds to complete a full investigation. I don't have a billion dollars in my bank account to do it myself. But generally what you are saying in the above comment is that you would require these things to be checked in a full investigation and I feel the same way.
How the towers fell is only one problem with 9/11 and as I said, they certainly would not have required explosive in the shape of barrels to bring them down. But investigating military contracts would be a smart place to start looking. Also needing investigation are the presidents connections to the Binladins, Osama Binladin being the leader of the terrorists. And considering that planes were used, perhaps we should investigate the governments past documented plans to use airliners in terrorist attacks.
Regarding allusion, it can be appropriate when making an argument. For example: Two men and a woman in a room, the lights go out. The lights go on and two men are alive and the woman is shot. One is a white man fresh out of jail for attempted murder. One is an black man fresh from college. The police let the white man go without questioning? The white man is an allusion for the Pentagons past planning of Operation Northwoods.
Getting back to the article. In the future could "Iranian Terrorists" lour in remote control police drones and digitally hijack them? Could our government stage a "false flag" operation using drones and lour us into war? These questions must be asked for a country to be secure from tirany as well as terrorism. It may be that we are safer not having police drones just as we are safer not having off switches around all our necks.
Will
Many people want more evidence. A recent CNN poll showed that 82% of the public believes the government covered up some of the 9/11 events.
> I'll buy something if it's well sold--this theory is not.
The truth is rarely well sold.
> Please be specific about what evidence you still require.
First the Bush Administration tried to block a 9/11 investigation. The investigation that finally was conducted, by a government team, stated that they did not get the budget they required. They only got a couple million; less then was spent investigating former president Clinton's sex scandal. In the least, a new investigation should take place and it should get the funding it requires. If we can spend a Trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan because we were upset about 9/11. Then we should be able to set aside a billion dollars to check under Washington rocks for scum. Or at the least we should spend as much money as we did investigating Clintons Cock.
Sorry. But until then you may as well be covering up the truth. The investigation was inadequate and did not sufficiently address the following 11 points.
> firefighters are not experts in controlled demolition.
You aren't supposed to pull buildings in NYC without supervision by police and fire. If anyone on the scene has watched over controlled demolitions in NYC it is their firefighters. And what they heard reminded them of their experience observing controlled demolitions. But that is only one fish in the fish market.
>> Why are you assuming that charges would be visible to the public?
> Because as far as I know it's not possible to turn hundreds of 55-gallon drums and
> miles of wire invisible.
This is a very good point, but the WTC was one of the few buildings that could make this possible.
1. Miles of Wires: WTC was on of the most wired set of buildings in history, phone company wiring headquarters, stock exchange and government offices... Also lets remember that reliable control signals can be transferred in many ways in such buildings. Wifi, network cabling, electrical wiring, infrared though windows if you want to be tricky, infrasound if you really want to do things the hard way, and of course micky-mouse clocks with wires stuck to the handles. I don't see arranging control systems to be a problem.
2. Where would hundreds of 55-gallon drums be? The answer: real-estate. The WTC was built at the worst time in the worst location. There was and still is a glut of office space on Wall Street and they were never able to fill the trade centers. Most of the levels were empty and there were the machine levels, installed security equipment... So these buildings had lots of space. Space coincidentally secured by relatives of the president.
3. The security company that looked over the trade centers happens to be owned by relatives of President Bush. Of course President Bush also happened to be business partners Osama Bin Ladin, who as you know happened to be involved with the collapse. Those are just some facts, not proof of anything. But very strange facts.
4. People- The buildings did not constantly have people going in and out. Several weeks before the attacks one of the buildings was completely powered down for a weekend and vacated. All the security systems the building were off. This is very unusual. No video, no business people, just Bush family security staff. Would this have been a time they could have moved in explosives to unoccupied floors?
I don't think so, because that wouldn't have been necessary. The simpler way to carry that out would be: Somewhere a couple people had a military job loading boxes with explosives for storage in a warehouse. A normal thing... Then make it part of their job to put an inventory control "tracking device" in each box. If the tracking device was a wifi explosives control system... Then you have a where-house loaded with sealed unmarked boxes to be moved anywhere you like. Tell a second loading crew they are loading boxes of government
Well this is slashdot ;)
Lots of things can end up under a couch. Spilled nuts, drained teabags, old bannana peals, the secretaries un... But I digress. Maybe he just stores them there because he's like a squirrel. He likes to chew on nuts. While posting on slashdot. Flame on!
Vista Bob ;)
Before that, the exhaustion of coal was the fun thing to predict.
c oal_peak.html
Coal for steel, electrical power and synfuels are growing markets. With that in mind, depletion of our coal resources is a serious concern. So lets see what the facts are.
Article: Years of reserves remaining is easy enough to calculate: one only need determine how many tons of coal remain in the ground (available from the EIA) and divide by the production for that year. If we look at the year 2000, we can see that we have 255 years of coal remaining. However, if we look at other years, we see something strange: there were 300 years of coal reserves in 1988, 1000 years reserves in 1904, and 10,000 years reserves in 1868! As each year goes by, we use our coal more quickly and we see that the standard formulation of 'years remaining' is nearly meaningless.
Using the EIA's assumptions, coal will peak in 2060. However, The Annual Energy Outlook 2004 was published before it was widely accepted that U.S. gas production had peaked and that growth of LNG would be difficult. If we assume that U.S. gas consumption cannot grow beyond 2002 levels (2003 gas consumption was less than 2002) due to the North American gas production peak and limited LNG imports, then growth in electrical demand must be met by coal instead of gas. In this second scenario, coal is forecast to peak in 2053. The final scenario assumes that in addition to flat natural gas consumption, oil will peak in 2010 and synfuels will be produced from coal for use in vehicles. It is further assumed that these synfuels will be produced using the process currently employed by the Sasol Company in South Africa. While this is a rather inefficient process, it has been proven at large scales over many years. In this scenario, coal is forecast to peak in 2035.
(As Coke and energy from oil becomes unavailable) Recent interviews with coal and rail companies have revealed that metallurgical coal demand in the Spring of 2004 has been unexpectedly high. If industrial coal demand does increase, this will also cause coal to peak at an earlier date.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_
If you get punched in the face every time you drop a cigarrette butt on the ground, you're going to stop dropping them. The same principle should apply here. Punish the user for bad behavior, and they'll eventually stop.
Yeah, punch em in the face!
http://www.gal.co.za/gallery/album02/030223_Funny_ ToiletCubicle
"AOL also uses their web filters to promote a political agenda. For example, children can visit the home page of the Republican National Committee, but not the Democratic National Committee." http://www.computergripes.com/Aol.html
:P I didn't like Earthlinks webmail system or their customer service or their price, but at least they gave me the same level of internet access as I got in the computer labs.
AOL is a good example of this, but I have found censorship to be a big problem with a few other cheap internet providers.
In college, I think I was trying compuserve, but they blocked lots of sites. With them, I could not do political research for my sociology class at home. I would have had to go to the computer lab to do real research. That made me angry, so back then I decided not to switch and to keep my $24 a month Earthlink account
It makes me wonder about people looking for a good deal (poor people) and how this affects their political views.
FOX NEWS INTERNET Explosions, Warnings, and none of those boring educated LIBERALS!
Does Censorship = Profit? For who?
- Your friendly neighborhood systems analyst
Funny comment, but are you getting paid to be here? I see your sig leads to an insurance add. Therefore, you suck :P Whats next? Will microsoft be paying people to blog smack against linux?
That being said, order office today!
Putting the article in perspective is good reporting. The article conflicts with what Gates is telling you. It puts this rich persons dreams next to a bit of reality that everyone can understand. And that's the right thing to do.
How would you move Mount Fugi?
By realising the truth. The mountain moves, as does the world it stands on.
There is no spoon.
Kiev is Kiev, not "The Kiev"
Ukraine is Ukraine, not "The Ukraine"
I will let you off easy this time since you referred to soviet Russia. In soviet Russian Ukraine was called "The Ukraine", so I can understand why you might think Kiev is called "The Kiev"
The US is The US, perhaps because we're not as united by law as many other counties. Which could be why people in Ukraine flooded the streets when they felt there was injustice in their election. They could not go some other state, they had to deal with the problem they felt was urgent at the time, because they had no other state to run too.
There is merit in having to face ones problem as there is merit in having a place to run away. But I think as places to run away erode and people adjust to tyranny. Outcry can be crushed much easier in a system of states then in a system truly united by law.