Don't get irritated, instead I urge you to laugh and openly mock the sheeple. None of these clowns know how to think for themselves. They've gone from totally clueless to "informed" by watching a bunch TV lies and half-truths spread by the billions of tobacco lottery winnings... all in a few years. Seriously, their lack of reflection is disturbing. You got to hand it to the propaganda industry spawned and funded by the cigarette lawsuits. This ridiculous waste (tens of billions of dollars) has been impressively successful propaganda for the herd. Shit, the cities and counties are banning the stuff left and right. It's not like any new information has come out... All these yahoos run around suddenly choking on smoke just because of a couple of commercials. heh. my friend, it is a comedy of epic proportion. Point and laugh.
For shizzle. This bleeds like a recent SciAm article. But seriously, you are totally right. In fact a proposed Stirling converter has demonstrated 35% total system efficiency. Pretty awesome when an engine the size of a coke can is pulling the same efficiency as the avg. US coal plant. Still, lots of those NASA guys seem nervous about sending the free piston engines up in space, despite the fact the program has shattered all milestones. JPL is teh sux0rs.
I would not be surprised. I have worked with them. Unfortunately, optimum efficiency in this case is limited by the small temperature gradient. The relative efficiency of a Stirling cycle machine for this purpose is heavily constrained by cost. Efficient Stirling converters are prohibitively expensive, e.g. NASA research.
Intrigued by your sig, I dug into your journal and decided you are strict constitutionalist. In this case, what is the point of your statement? It initially comes off as some kind of praise or justification. This confuses me because I don't understand how patriotism usurps laws against murder. If your intent is something else, it is lost on me.
Thank you for giving the only interesting comment in the thread. Producing zeolites takes energy. Then doping them with Zinc and Cobalt? Two elements that we process from ore? Mining and processing?/me begins excessive sarcasm, Yeah those industries are known for their utilization of small amounts of green energy./me concludes excessive sarcasm. This is the craziest sequestration idea I've heard to date. In fact it's pure fantasy. Just chemists who need some buzztalk for their adsorption proposals.
Yes you are totally right because resources are infinite and scarcity is an academic triviality. The future earth with her hundreds of billions of human inhabitants will be a blissful, utopian paradise for all creatures. I predict there will be zero problems related to energy, water, food, and natural ecology. But uhm, seriously, the problem is straightforward to understand even in you're a basement dweller. However, the solution is complex. Unless of course we just reserve one bullet for each like you.
AC, as implemented, is a waste of energy. Just ban vapor compression AC and design better buildings or require the use of a legitimate cooling technology. Alternatives are more reliable, cheaper to run, consume less energy, and would totally blast away the price of any compressor driven system if built in the same quantity.
It doesn't seem to me like this decision should be in the hands of an IT dept? It seems crazy, isn't there some type of obligation to provide your students with industry standards? Isn't that pretty much win/nix ? I work/attend a major university and we have hoards of all types of machines. In the engineering school we have Windows and linux. Windows to support Microsoft and Adobe basically and users who are uncomfortable with nix. Otherwise, the major eng/math/science software is available for both right? What's the deal yo?
You are right. I used the word match GP. While it is not strictly correct, I think it makes sense in the context. I can't speak for the others, but I sort of took it to mean like derivative, not in the math sense. I suppose not much better, but that's about as far as I can go. I accept defeat in our language showdown.
I agree. My problem is that there are too many differences on this topic within Christianity to ever refer to the larger group. I expected it to be clear that I meant a specific group of Christians. I ran with it for lack of a better imagination I guess. Incidentally, don't most religious groups (some of which even share names with dissenting groups) claim some manifest authority when they go off and run their mouths? I thought that was the whole deal about it. heh. Anyhoo, so much for a productive Friday afternoon! Thanks for the reply.
That's fine, I most definitely am an ass and I would hate to misrepresent myself. But I think the problem is what each of us meant by Christianity (probably more of an issue with my definition than others')
well i have already decided to beat this to death so I might as well continue.
"ID, in terms of the specific positions put forth by the Discovery Institute, is not synonymous with Christianity."
I say that the specific positions of the DI are necessarily synonymous with Christianity because the entire reason for their proclamations are to push their Christianity. The problem has now become obvious to me. I have associated the word "Christianity" with whatever definition DI would like to use. Whereas I think the responses thought I was being more general. I thought the context supported that. Due to the impressive amount of differences among various religous sects, I thought about the only thing Christians can be general about is that Jman is the son of God.
I agree with everything you said in this comment. But I would still say that the DI's ideas about ID are most definitely synonymous with whatever crazy-ass brand of Christianity they push.
OK, I don't understand the conflict that lead you to post. There is only one apple I addressed: the discovery institute.
GP says that DI's notion of ID is not strictly Christian. I countered with a legal ruling that DIs purpose is religious and Christian. Please explain your retort in this context. I did not make any comments about Christians.
Are you insane? You don't even have to click the link.
"A federal court recently ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[9] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[10][11]"
Your inflexibility is unreasonable and your universal characterization of addicts is insulting.
The insult isn't to me; I'm mildly amused at your total cluelessness. But I maintain several relationships with addicts who would be pretty upset by your characterization of them. From my own meager experiences with addicts and recovery, I can tell that you have no idea what you're talking about. In fact, I recall two people who are complete slaves to their addiction. One has probably been legally drunk continuously for 20 years and another has been used some type or another of opioid for even longer. Contrary to your expectation, both produce for society. They have virtually eliminated personal relationships and made other various sacrifices in favor of their drug, but that has been their choice. Unfortunately, my relationship with the latter was permanently severed because of this choice. On the other hand, I also know people as you describe, who have been utterly and completely incapacitated. The point is that chemical addiction does not treat people the same, thus, your mandates are inappropriate. Addiction is not black and white as you make it out to be. Gee, how many times have you said that about an issue to someone else? You've chosen a line that suits you and declared it fit for society. I notice just in this series of comments no others share your opinion. As I have concluded in the past, it is a shame you conceal thoughtful contributions behind such an absurd presentation.
Alternatively, why don't you support letting addicts just die in the street? Shit, that ought to free up some tax dollars. Do you support the death penalty for drug abusers? Are there any other pre emptive actions you would like to take against me due to the minority chance that I may spend your future tax dollars? Guns? High fructose corn syrup? Subversive literature? Burning oil?
A commonly employed tactic, you have just narrowed your scope such that you can criticize nuclear energy.
2. Not a problem. More people would understand this if fear hadn't reigned and nuclear research didn't take a nose dive decades ago.
3. Also not an imaginary problem. Proper (well documented) reactor design will eliminate this concern. IT would be a done deal if we maintained the nuke program from the 60s through today. Even existing tech would allow us to burn other elements, which are more plentiful than uranium. On second thought, why aren't you concerned with Hubbert's Peak for the sun or the universe? The timescales of these peaks are not really of a concern same as those for uranium, unless you really think you can plan for 100+ generations out.
4. There is enough unused "waste" sitting around for thousands of years. Plenty hiding around down under too.
5. Actually the lack of off-peak energy is a massive problem, mostly for economic reasons. IT is probably the single largest cost barrier for both wind and solar, which typically enjoy moderate to peak output less than 20% of the time. In other words, to reach cost parity with coal they actually need to be 5 times cheaper.
6. Ultimately it doesn't matter? Um, yes of course if you are so narrowly focused that you don't consider things like economies and social welfare. Why isn't nuclear renewable? Just as renewable as our sun if you ask me.
p.s. pv isn't carbon neutral either
p.s.s. Life is destructive. take it or leave it.
Don't kid yourself. Nuclear energy is at least as good an option as solar or wind for decades. At least until fancy PV arrives at 100s of GW of annual production. But then again theres no difference between fear of nuclear energy and whatever other boogieman is out there.
You know, the funny thing about calling someone an ignorant fool... You can be damn sure readers will read your response with extra scrutiny. Some tips for next time, speaking from experience, of course. The overdose of adverbs make you look silly, lay off the kool aid, read up on gas cycles, don't try to predict the future, don't intimate a knowledge that is beyond your understanding, and leave the technical evaluations to scientists and engineers.
P.S. Where did you get the phrase "thermal variance process"?
Slashdot Mirror
Worthless diatribe. Smart men sometimes believe stupid things. Let's change that. Religion has nothing to offer man. Get the fuck over it already.
Don't get irritated, instead I urge you to laugh and openly mock the sheeple. None of these clowns know how to think for themselves. They've gone from totally clueless to "informed" by watching a bunch TV lies and half-truths spread by the billions of tobacco lottery winnings... all in a few years. Seriously, their lack of reflection is disturbing. You got to hand it to the propaganda industry spawned and funded by the cigarette lawsuits. This ridiculous waste (tens of billions of dollars) has been impressively successful propaganda for the herd. Shit, the cities and counties are banning the stuff left and right. It's not like any new information has come out... All these yahoos run around suddenly choking on smoke just because of a couple of commercials. heh. my friend, it is a comedy of epic proportion. Point and laugh.
For shizzle. This bleeds like a recent SciAm article. But seriously, you are totally right. In fact a proposed Stirling converter has demonstrated 35% total system efficiency. Pretty awesome when an engine the size of a coke can is pulling the same efficiency as the avg. US coal plant. Still, lots of those NASA guys seem nervous about sending the free piston engines up in space, despite the fact the program has shattered all milestones. JPL is teh sux0rs.
booya
I would not be surprised. I have worked with them. Unfortunately, optimum efficiency in this case is limited by the small temperature gradient. The relative efficiency of a Stirling cycle machine for this purpose is heavily constrained by cost. Efficient Stirling converters are prohibitively expensive, e.g. NASA research.
70% is a lie. A total conversion efficieny beyond 5% is probably thermodynamically impossible.
Intrigued by your sig, I dug into your journal and decided you are strict constitutionalist. In this case, what is the point of your statement? It initially comes off as some kind of praise or justification. This confuses me because I don't understand how patriotism usurps laws against murder. If your intent is something else, it is lost on me.
Thank you for giving the only interesting comment in the thread. Producing zeolites takes energy. Then doping them with Zinc and Cobalt? Two elements that we process from ore? Mining and processing? /me begins excessive sarcasm, Yeah those industries are known for their utilization of small amounts of green energy. /me concludes excessive sarcasm. This is the craziest sequestration idea I've heard to date. In fact it's pure fantasy. Just chemists who need some buzztalk for their adsorption proposals.
Yes you are totally right because resources are infinite and scarcity is an academic triviality. The future earth with her hundreds of billions of human inhabitants will be a blissful, utopian paradise for all creatures. I predict there will be zero problems related to energy, water, food, and natural ecology. But uhm, seriously, the problem is straightforward to understand even in you're a basement dweller. However, the solution is complex. Unless of course we just reserve one bullet for each like you.
AC, as implemented, is a waste of energy. Just ban vapor compression AC and design better buildings or require the use of a legitimate cooling technology. Alternatives are more reliable, cheaper to run, consume less energy, and would totally blast away the price of any compressor driven system if built in the same quantity.
It doesn't seem to me like this decision should be in the hands of an IT dept? It seems crazy, isn't there some type of obligation to provide your students with industry standards? Isn't that pretty much win/nix ? I work/attend a major university and we have hoards of all types of machines. In the engineering school we have Windows and linux. Windows to support Microsoft and Adobe basically and users who are uncomfortable with nix. Otherwise, the major eng/math/science software is available for both right? What's the deal yo?
You are right. I used the word match GP. While it is not strictly correct, I think it makes sense in the context. I can't speak for the others, but I sort of took it to mean like derivative, not in the math sense. I suppose not much better, but that's about as far as I can go. I accept defeat in our language showdown.
I agree. My problem is that there are too many differences on this topic within Christianity to ever refer to the larger group. I expected it to be clear that I meant a specific group of Christians. I ran with it for lack of a better imagination I guess. Incidentally, don't most religious groups (some of which even share names with dissenting groups) claim some manifest authority when they go off and run their mouths? I thought that was the whole deal about it. heh. Anyhoo, so much for a productive Friday afternoon! Thanks for the reply.
That's fine, I most definitely am an ass and I would hate to misrepresent myself. But I think the problem is what each of us meant by Christianity (probably more of an issue with my definition than others')
well i have already decided to beat this to death so I might as well continue. "ID, in terms of the specific positions put forth by the Discovery Institute, is not synonymous with Christianity." I say that the specific positions of the DI are necessarily synonymous with Christianity because the entire reason for their proclamations are to push their Christianity. The problem has now become obvious to me. I have associated the word "Christianity" with whatever definition DI would like to use. Whereas I think the responses thought I was being more general. I thought the context supported that. Due to the impressive amount of differences among various religous sects, I thought about the only thing Christians can be general about is that Jman is the son of God.
I agree with everything you said in this comment. But I would still say that the DI's ideas about ID are most definitely synonymous with whatever crazy-ass brand of Christianity they push.
OK, I don't understand the conflict that lead you to post. There is only one apple I addressed: the discovery institute. GP says that DI's notion of ID is not strictly Christian. I countered with a legal ruling that DIs purpose is religious and Christian. Please explain your retort in this context. I did not make any comments about Christians.
Are you insane? You don't even have to click the link.
"A federal court recently ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[9] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[10][11]"
Your inflexibility is unreasonable and your universal characterization of addicts is insulting.
The insult isn't to me; I'm mildly amused at your total cluelessness. But I maintain several relationships with addicts who would be pretty upset by your characterization of them. From my own meager experiences with addicts and recovery, I can tell that you have no idea what you're talking about. In fact, I recall two people who are complete slaves to their addiction. One has probably been legally drunk continuously for 20 years and another has been used some type or another of opioid for even longer. Contrary to your expectation, both produce for society. They have virtually eliminated personal relationships and made other various sacrifices in favor of their drug, but that has been their choice. Unfortunately, my relationship with the latter was permanently severed because of this choice. On the other hand, I also know people as you describe, who have been utterly and completely incapacitated. The point is that chemical addiction does not treat people the same, thus, your mandates are inappropriate. Addiction is not black and white as you make it out to be. Gee, how many times have you said that about an issue to someone else? You've chosen a line that suits you and declared it fit for society. I notice just in this series of comments no others share your opinion. As I have concluded in the past, it is a shame you conceal thoughtful contributions behind such an absurd presentation.
Alternatively, why don't you support letting addicts just die in the street? Shit, that ought to free up some tax dollars. Do you support the death penalty for drug abusers? Are there any other pre emptive actions you would like to take against me due to the minority chance that I may spend your future tax dollars? Guns? High fructose corn syrup? Subversive literature? Burning oil?
I agree with everything you said. heh heh My electricity bill is 82 cents of wind electricity vs 13.xx in fees. Amazing isn't it?
A commonly employed tactic, you have just narrowed your scope such that you can criticize nuclear energy. 2. Not a problem. More people would understand this if fear hadn't reigned and nuclear research didn't take a nose dive decades ago. 3. Also not an imaginary problem. Proper (well documented) reactor design will eliminate this concern. IT would be a done deal if we maintained the nuke program from the 60s through today. Even existing tech would allow us to burn other elements, which are more plentiful than uranium. On second thought, why aren't you concerned with Hubbert's Peak for the sun or the universe? The timescales of these peaks are not really of a concern same as those for uranium, unless you really think you can plan for 100+ generations out. 4. There is enough unused "waste" sitting around for thousands of years. Plenty hiding around down under too. 5. Actually the lack of off-peak energy is a massive problem, mostly for economic reasons. IT is probably the single largest cost barrier for both wind and solar, which typically enjoy moderate to peak output less than 20% of the time. In other words, to reach cost parity with coal they actually need to be 5 times cheaper. 6. Ultimately it doesn't matter? Um, yes of course if you are so narrowly focused that you don't consider things like economies and social welfare. Why isn't nuclear renewable? Just as renewable as our sun if you ask me. p.s. pv isn't carbon neutral either p.s.s. Life is destructive. take it or leave it. Don't kid yourself. Nuclear energy is at least as good an option as solar or wind for decades. At least until fancy PV arrives at 100s of GW of annual production. But then again theres no difference between fear of nuclear energy and whatever other boogieman is out there.
yes funny, because the opposite philosophy is such an airtight plan for global utopia. get a grip.
uhh wow someone riding a bike seems like a biker to me.
Use more collector area or buy vacuum collectors. HVAC and water heating supplied by electricity or gas is a grave injustice to the universe...
You know, the funny thing about calling someone an ignorant fool... You can be damn sure readers will read your response with extra scrutiny. Some tips for next time, speaking from experience, of course. The overdose of adverbs make you look silly, lay off the kool aid, read up on gas cycles, don't try to predict the future, don't intimate a knowledge that is beyond your understanding, and leave the technical evaluations to scientists and engineers. P.S. Where did you get the phrase "thermal variance process"?