Please explain? What are they doing if not testing for ET data propagation?
The probability of success has nothing to do with it. Scientific experiments fail all the time. But when they follow the scientific method, we gain information from those failures by ruling out the tested hypothesis. We don't get that with SETI, as the fact that we didn't get a signal from that corner of the sky doesn't really tell us anything.
It says something. Namely, life is not propagating information from a specific location in the way we expect it too. So we have at least narrowed it down from "totally unknown" to 1) no ET life or 2) ET life may not broadcast as we expect. That represents new information, no?
There is a hypothesis that life may exist. They search for evidence of such life. As is frequent in the pursuit of such long shot goals, much tangential knowledge is gained during the experiment, often it overshadows the original purpose. This is SETI. What exactly about this process is not science? IMO, it seems to mirror the process that I see scientists practice everyday. Are you stuck on some notion you have about the probability of success? It's strange, but this notion has not surfaced in any descriptions of science that I know.
Really? When did it become reasonable to expect universal wireless coverage?
It is too far a stretch for me to believe that passively blocking wireless signals is the same as "hanging up their phone every time they try to make the [emergency] call." Did you really just say this? I could weaken wireless signals just by putting my building underground. If I built a basement knowing that wireless service would be deteriorated am I liable for physically hanging up their phone during an emergency call?
I don't know, have you just picked a side for the sake of arguing? Your position rests solely on the notion that we can expect universal/uninterpretable wireless coverage, which we know does not exist. Instant wireless connectivity is not some right, especially on private property. These are commerical services which are not universal and not vital.
It seems to me that if you shouldn't be responsible. I understand that it would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do with a passive cage. Thus, the legal problem has nothing to do with blocking emergency phone calls, it's simply some unrelated FCC bullshit about unauthorized broadcasting.
Only an idiot would make the claim that manufacturing is a solved problem. It exposes a great ignorance about all things science. Ever heard of "nano?" Researchers have not even started on the real manufacturing problems. The advances that allow mass production (manufacturing) at small scales will be monumental...
This is totally bull. I see bunch of adverbs and hand waving and in the end, an opinion that has never been supported by evidence.
Pictures of decapitated baby head fence posts provide many things, from humor to perspective. What exactly is not real about some guy getting his head sawed off or some girl getting her face wrapped around a pillar because of a drunk behind the wheel? These things are real. If anything they provide a vivid image of the fallout of some actions. Anything from the consequences of drunk driving all the way to the lengths to which oppressed people will go to fight for their cause. Or, maybe just provide a better idea of just exactly how f*^&ed up people can be. IMO, these things enrich us with heightened empathy and understanding. Shielding people from reality creates a bunch of deluded people who feel entitled. Cough, look around.
There are some beast reactors but they are few are far between. PRobably just confusion between reactor vs plant. I think GE must have had fire sales of the 650 & 1050 MW reactors
It is unquantifiable because it is like piracy. Most of the software/media pirates would *not* have otherwise purchased the 'stolen' goods. Similarly, the present quantity of information simply would not flow if it was up to the USPS. You see this everywhere: Efficiency drives demand. I had an energy economics book (that I unfortunately loaned out lost record of forever) that made a compelling argument that essentially declared that the road to environmental/energy salvation was burning fossil fuels as fast and furious as possible.
Air conditioning is ridiculous. That said, using a vapor compression cycle is the problem. Evaporative cooling, adsorption chillers, and desiccant dehumidification (latent heat is more than half the AC load) can by accomplished with solar thermal technology (heat water with collectors on your roof, use low delta T to drive low COP AC equipment). It's not only possible, but it's been around for decades.
I wouldn't call myself a snob. I dont' really care how people write or speak as long as I can follow. I understood GPs well, I think.
I have no special insight into econ either.
I do not distinguish between your stock market player and the people in the present transaction. I thought it would be easiest to rely on the text book definition of economic rationality to follow in the steps of GGP. Sellers want profit, buyers want utility. People often act against these interests. I think you essentially say that this means they have different interests, but I think the text book from which GGP is familiar would disagree. I suspect reality lies somewhere in between.
Complete and accurate information is an absurd notion from my understanding of physical reality. Even so, I don't understand how it can be irrelevant. To leave the realm of the extreme and bring this back where it started, complete information must include information about the market. If the buyer doesn't have access to information about the market, then the seller can overcharge. If the buyer later finds out that the going rate was less, then he may feel the transaction was not worth it, e.g. overpriced. With complete information, buyer would not have proceeded with the transaction. Am I missing something?
Your analogy is silly and irrelevant. Fortunately it did not use cars or doors.
In what type of situation might the things you say actually occur?
Please measure the absurdity of you request. I prepared an equally ridiculous response. delta E*delta t > h/2. Perfect information is impossible. In an ironic turn of events you make an unsubstantiated claim that this is 'kinda bullshit'. I agree, but this changes nothing. One axiom required for GGP's text book comment is not true. I don't need examples. I've done my job in the easiest possible way.
Now, I also noticed that you didn't provide any examples of a 'situation that contradicts it'.
Apparently GPs vocabulary was not the only thing that escaped you. GP gave two important reasons as to why the GGP's claim was nonsense. The economic transactions as you an I know them are not the same as those idealized in economic fantasy land (described by GGP). This is because the fantasy land assumption set is invalid in the real world. Namely 1) The actors are not rational 2) The actors do not possess complete and accurate information. If you extend this to rigid extremes then every 'situation' contradicts the axioms of fantasy land because you will never have perfect information. Ahh the blending of Heisenberg... As for GP's language. I do not think it was overly erudite.
There's no such thing as bad luck. *Everybody* encounters bad luck. There is only lack of preparation for disaster and lack for foresight for consequences.
This is ridiculous... In other words,
I should have predicted that drunken bus driver go off a cliff while carrying my two children to school. Shucks, because then when the owners of my company stole my pension, bankrupted the company and I lost my job I'd be prepared to pay for the respirators that feed O2 to my brain dead children! Poop on me for not diversifying my investment portfolio while simultaneously saving 2x my annual income in the child coma savings account!
Your kind of absurd anti-social notion is a good reason why individualist societies are festering pits of despair.
Using celulostic conversion processes... can produce massive ammounts of ethanol easily, efficiently, and most important, cheaply.
What kind of cellulose processing is that? I don't know of any methods that can do any one of those three, let alone all of them.
I claim that processing cellulose, hemi cellulose, and lignin is difficult, inefficient, and expensive. To me, this explains why tech has not developed commercially. Since you deny each of my claims, what do you propose have been the commercial constraints?
Other than building cellulostic ethanol factories, and some ethanol pipelines, we alredy have everything else (unlike corn, sugarbeets, biodiesel, hydrogen, dirtect electric, or other proposed systems)
Um except the science. Please forward me to a description of a process that is "easy, efficient, and cheap." No top secret Company X propaganda either please.
Me and several environmentalist friends have been screaming for years Screaming nonsensical claims won't advance your agenda.
The heat has to be dumped eventually. We have the laws of the Universe to thank for that. Any heat given up by power plants to skyfuel will result in a decrease in efficiency of that power plant in favor of energy storage. There will be a net reduction in efficiency because of the added conversions (although heating is pretty damn efficient, transporting molten salt isn't necessarily so). Anyway, it is a rad idea. CSP solar thermal plants should use vast arrays of collectors to heat up salt. Store salt in behemoth tanks ( the size of a fricken stadium!) to power Rankine cycle systems when direct solar is unavailable. Something that massive would be relatively cheap to insulate. Molten salt is a nasty business though.
GP: Isn't it about time you find a more efficient way to generate power, turbines and generators that don't waste so much heat that we just went to all that trouble to make in the first place?
This speaks to me nothing about utilizing waste heat.
As an aside, the case for district heating is very good and the cost is a weak function of population density, as in it would be economical in any city over 400ppl/km^2 ( nearly every 'city' in the country ). The problem, as always when dealing with fickle minded capitalists, is that 5 - 10yr of capital is up front. An even better usage of waste heat is high temperature heat for industrial processes. There is a reactor, I want to say in the TVA system, that dumps its waste heat into a DuPont factory. The best possible use of waste heat is to build up heavy industry around all of our Rankine/Brayton plants.
The fact that the US has totally shit canned industrial scale CHP systems is one of the most grotesque engineering travesties ever. Only second to the ridiculous amounts of gas/electricity we use to heat and cool air and water in between 30C and 90C. This shit is more nonsensical than ID.
You are quite right. The AC has no idea what he is talking about. If only his grasp of "simple heat transfer" matched his arrogance. This is not a sealed chamber. The ions impart momentum to a near wall flow and destroy the boundary layer. Good mixing at the wall = good heat transfer! (The article says as much) These Purdue dudes have a lot of neat electronics cooling stuff going on. I had the pleasure of getting the whole delivery at a seminar last Fall.
This ABC article title says a device failed an FCC test. The actual article reads that broadcasters simply "fear" interference. Which is it? Do they fear signal interference or ubiquitous broadband at the expense of their decaying empire?
Slashdot Mirror
It is much easier to fool those who think in platitudes.
SETI can only be said to have results if it does indeed pick up an alien signal.
I disagree.But no way to test it. That is the key.
Please explain? What are they doing if not testing for ET data propagation?The probability of success has nothing to do with it. Scientific experiments fail all the time. But when they follow the scientific method, we gain information from those failures by ruling out the tested hypothesis. We don't get that with SETI, as the fact that we didn't get a signal from that corner of the sky doesn't really tell us anything.
It says something. Namely, life is not propagating information from a specific location in the way we expect it too. So we have at least narrowed it down from "totally unknown" to 1) no ET life or 2) ET life may not broadcast as we expect. That represents new information, no?J
There is a hypothesis that life may exist. They search for evidence of such life. As is frequent in the pursuit of such long shot goals, much tangential knowledge is gained during the experiment, often it overshadows the original purpose. This is SETI. What exactly about this process is not science? IMO, it seems to mirror the process that I see scientists practice everyday. Are you stuck on some notion you have about the probability of success? It's strange, but this notion has not surfaced in any descriptions of science that I know.
Really? When did it become reasonable to expect universal wireless coverage?
It is too far a stretch for me to believe that passively blocking wireless signals is the same as "hanging up their phone every time they try to make the [emergency] call." Did you really just say this? I could weaken wireless signals just by putting my building underground. If I built a basement knowing that wireless service would be deteriorated am I liable for physically hanging up their phone during an emergency call?
I don't know, have you just picked a side for the sake of arguing? Your position rests solely on the notion that we can expect universal/uninterpretable wireless coverage, which we know does not exist. Instant wireless connectivity is not some right, especially on private property. These are commerical services which are not universal and not vital.
It seems to me that if you shouldn't be responsible. I understand that it would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do with a passive cage. Thus, the legal problem has nothing to do with blocking emergency phone calls, it's simply some unrelated FCC bullshit about unauthorized broadcasting.
Only an idiot would make the claim that manufacturing is a solved problem. It exposes a great ignorance about all things science. Ever heard of "nano?" Researchers have not even started on the real manufacturing problems. The advances that allow mass production (manufacturing) at small scales will be monumental...
It is scary that you are an 'adult' with children.
This is totally bull. I see bunch of adverbs and hand waving and in the end, an opinion that has never been supported by evidence. Pictures of decapitated baby head fence posts provide many things, from humor to perspective. What exactly is not real about some guy getting his head sawed off or some girl getting her face wrapped around a pillar because of a drunk behind the wheel? These things are real. If anything they provide a vivid image of the fallout of some actions. Anything from the consequences of drunk driving all the way to the lengths to which oppressed people will go to fight for their cause. Or, maybe just provide a better idea of just exactly how f*^&ed up people can be. IMO, these things enrich us with heightened empathy and understanding. Shielding people from reality creates a bunch of deluded people who feel entitled. Cough, look around.
There are some beast reactors but they are few are far between. PRobably just confusion between reactor vs plant. I think GE must have had fire sales of the 650 & 1050 MW reactors
There are many GW+ reactors, dare I say most? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#United_States_of_America
It is unquantifiable because it is like piracy. Most of the software/media pirates would *not* have otherwise purchased the 'stolen' goods. Similarly, the present quantity of information simply would not flow if it was up to the USPS. You see this everywhere: Efficiency drives demand. I had an energy economics book (that I unfortunately loaned out lost record of forever) that made a compelling argument that essentially declared that the road to environmental/energy salvation was burning fossil fuels as fast and furious as possible.
Air conditioning is ridiculous. That said, using a vapor compression cycle is the problem. Evaporative cooling, adsorption chillers, and desiccant dehumidification (latent heat is more than half the AC load) can by accomplished with solar thermal technology (heat water with collectors on your roof, use low delta T to drive low COP AC equipment). It's not only possible, but it's been around for decades.
I wouldn't call myself a snob. I dont' really care how people write or speak as long as I can follow. I understood GPs well, I think.
I have no special insight into econ either.
I do not distinguish between your stock market player and the people in the present transaction. I thought it would be easiest to rely on the text book definition of economic rationality to follow in the steps of GGP. Sellers want profit, buyers want utility. People often act against these interests. I think you essentially say that this means they have different interests, but I think the text book from which GGP is familiar would disagree. I suspect reality lies somewhere in between.
Complete and accurate information is an absurd notion from my understanding of physical reality. Even so, I don't understand how it can be irrelevant. To leave the realm of the extreme and bring this back where it started, complete information must include information about the market. If the buyer doesn't have access to information about the market, then the seller can overcharge. If the buyer later finds out that the going rate was less, then he may feel the transaction was not worth it, e.g. overpriced. With complete information, buyer would not have proceeded with the transaction. Am I missing something?
Your analogy is silly and irrelevant. Fortunately it did not use cars or doors.
In what type of situation might the things you say actually occur?
Please measure the absurdity of you request. I prepared an equally ridiculous response. delta E*delta t > h/2. Perfect information is impossible. In an ironic turn of events you make an unsubstantiated claim that this is 'kinda bullshit'. I agree, but this changes nothing. One axiom required for GGP's text book comment is not true. I don't need examples. I've done my job in the easiest possible way.
Now, I also noticed that you didn't provide any examples of a 'situation that contradicts it'.
Apparently GPs vocabulary was not the only thing that escaped you. GP gave two important reasons as to why the GGP's claim was nonsense. The economic transactions as you an I know them are not the same as those idealized in economic fantasy land (described by GGP). This is because the fantasy land assumption set is invalid in the real world. Namely 1) The actors are not rational 2) The actors do not possess complete and accurate information. If you extend this to rigid extremes then every 'situation' contradicts the axioms of fantasy land because you will never have perfect information. Ahh the blending of Heisenberg... As for GP's language. I do not think it was overly erudite.
Dell ships a package manager with Windows? You can use to grab free software?
How can you separate the two? ?
Oversimplification is the key to this delusional disease, aided by a healthy dose of arrogance.
There's no such thing as bad luck. *Everybody* encounters bad luck. There is only lack of preparation for disaster and lack for foresight for consequences.
This is ridiculous... In other words, I should have predicted that drunken bus driver go off a cliff while carrying my two children to school. Shucks, because then when the owners of my company stole my pension, bankrupted the company and I lost my job I'd be prepared to pay for the respirators that feed O2 to my brain dead children! Poop on me for not diversifying my investment portfolio while simultaneously saving 2x my annual income in the child coma savings account!
Your kind of absurd anti-social notion is a good reason why individualist societies are festering pits of despair.
Using celulostic conversion processes ... can produce massive ammounts of ethanol easily, efficiently, and most important, cheaply.
What kind of cellulose processing is that? I don't know of any methods that can do any one of those three, let alone all of them. I claim that processing cellulose, hemi cellulose, and lignin is difficult, inefficient, and expensive. To me, this explains why tech has not developed commercially. Since you deny each of my claims, what do you propose have been the commercial constraints?
Other than building cellulostic ethanol factories, and some ethanol pipelines, we alredy have everything else (unlike corn, sugarbeets, biodiesel, hydrogen, dirtect electric, or other proposed systems)
Um except the science. Please forward me to a description of a process that is "easy, efficient, and cheap." No top secret Company X propaganda either please.
Me and several environmentalist friends have been screaming for years
Screaming nonsensical claims won't advance your agenda.
The heat has to be dumped eventually. We have the laws of the Universe to thank for that. Any heat given up by power plants to skyfuel will result in a decrease in efficiency of that power plant in favor of energy storage. There will be a net reduction in efficiency because of the added conversions (although heating is pretty damn efficient, transporting molten salt isn't necessarily so). Anyway, it is a rad idea. CSP solar thermal plants should use vast arrays of collectors to heat up salt. Store salt in behemoth tanks ( the size of a fricken stadium!) to power Rankine cycle systems when direct solar is unavailable. Something that massive would be relatively cheap to insulate. Molten salt is a nasty business though.
GP: Isn't it about time you find a more efficient way to generate power, turbines and generators that don't waste so much heat that we just went to all that trouble to make in the first place?
This speaks to me nothing about utilizing waste heat.
As an aside, the case for district heating is very good and the cost is a weak function of population density, as in it would be economical in any city over 400ppl/km^2 ( nearly every 'city' in the country ). The problem, as always when dealing with fickle minded capitalists, is that 5 - 10yr of capital is up front. An even better usage of waste heat is high temperature heat for industrial processes. There is a reactor, I want to say in the TVA system, that dumps its waste heat into a DuPont factory. The best possible use of waste heat is to build up heavy industry around all of our Rankine/Brayton plants.
The fact that the US has totally shit canned industrial scale CHP systems is one of the most grotesque engineering travesties ever. Only second to the ridiculous amounts of gas/electricity we use to heat and cool air and water in between 30C and 90C. This shit is more nonsensical than ID.
How else do you reply to a GP you insinuates we engineer around the Second Law?
You are quite right. The AC has no idea what he is talking about. If only his grasp of "simple heat transfer" matched his arrogance. This is not a sealed chamber. The ions impart momentum to a near wall flow and destroy the boundary layer. Good mixing at the wall = good heat transfer! (The article says as much) These Purdue dudes have a lot of neat electronics cooling stuff going on. I had the pleasure of getting the whole delivery at a seminar last Fall.
This ABC article title says a device failed an FCC test. The actual article reads that broadcasters simply "fear" interference. Which is it? Do they fear signal interference or ubiquitous broadband at the expense of their decaying empire?