I think even if the argument is kept to what can be seen, evolution comes out first. There are plenty of resources for those willing. You don't even have to be willing.
Here's the problem for creationists. If someone wishes to believe in creationism, a god is the only "resort". (Deus ex machina, anyone?) So it seems to me that those who wish, for lifestyle reasons, to be creationist, that they are not unbiased about religion.
Crap. I blew all my mod points on that worthless nuclear reactor story. By engaging in a creationism "debate" we are lending far more credibility to the "theory" than it deserves. Better to redirect the terms of the discussion from the word go than to get bogged down in this quagmire.
If developer #5 is as worthless as you are hinting, your other team members have most likely already noticed and will rejoice when you drop the axe on the little shit. You might hurt the feelings of the tester who gave the recommendation, but I feel that morale as a whole will go up.
2. Shield the entire airplane with a time distortion device, except the cockpit, the passengers will be in "slow-time", so for them the plane would take off and land within seconds, not enough time for any terrorist to do anything.
I have been saying for a while that the next logical step in airline security is to just ship everyone via low berth.
Biodiesel produces more particulate pollution than ethanol. It's still a viable alternate, though.
The particulate emmissions is almost a non-issue at this point. Diesels built after 2006 all have systems to reduce particulates (which is why there was a massive conversion to low-sulfur diesel, the sulfur would eat the catalystic converters) Plus biodiesel produces less particulate polution than petrodiesel.
I have no beef with following other technologies. What I object to is neglecting these other technologies while we pour money into corn futures^W^W ethanol developement. If some young genious finds a way around ethanol's obvious shortcomings, the world will beat a path to her door. I see no reason to waste time and money building a superhighway in hopes that it just happens to go to the right door.
Eventually we WILL run out of oil and/or realize that our own survival is based on the presuvation of our own ecology. New technology must be developed. Based on the science I have seen, ethanol has about as much of a chance of being this technology as wood fired steam. Please. Let's take a step forward (even if it is a difficult one)
The worst product design I have ever used. The alarm temperature started at 0degF and increased ONE (1) degree per press of the increase button. Or, rather, it beeped on press and incremented on release. There was no method of increasing more than one degree at a time. Holding any button for longer than 10 seconds shutoff the device. The alarm temperature is not stored when the power is off. Cording buttons does either nothing or reset the device.
Therefore, if you want to set the alarm for 250degF, you must press (and release) the button TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY times. I got to about 130 before I took a hammer to it. All other frustrations have seemed petty in the face of pressing (and releasing) that stupid button over and over.
I knew a guy who recorded the *beep* and then played it back as his greeting. So you would be halfway through your message when you hear another beep and have to start all over.
What is better is when your 1 yr old daughter discovers that the "power" button is also the "learn a new curse word from mama" button. My wife insisted we buy a new keyboard with as few extraneous keys as possible.
Where do you think those 1,000,000 Joules come from? Sure as hell isn't rainbows and fairy farts. It is all fine and dandy to talk about some future state where ethanol is produced in some carbon neutral manner, but for the foreseeable future ethanol production generates significantly more CO2 than just burning the oil.
Furthermore, converting to E85 requires new pumps, new tanks, new vehicles, new farming practices, new refining capability, new distribution systems, etc. Why are we spending all these resources on something we know a priori is not the most efficient use of carbon? If we have to rejigger the economy anyway, why not go with biodiesel, or electric, or even hydrogen? Something we know will be a better solution in the end.
"Environmental groups have argued that producing ethanol -- whether from corn, beets, wheat or other crops -- takes more energy than is derived from the product."
No shit. Unless it violates certain laws of thermodynamics, of course the energy derived is less than the energy required to produce. But they don't talk about where that energy comes from. Maybe it's all from the sun, or from other renewal resources. Do they mean that the same amount of net fossil-fuel based carbon is released? Who knows, the article is incomplete or misleading.
I think you misunderstand the negative energy balance. Even if you take one of the most optimistic estimates, to get 1 gal of ethanol you need to invest 1.35 gal petroleum. I.e. both suffer from thermodynamic inefficiencies, but ethanol's is greater that the petroleum used to produce it. "Petroleum" includes a variety of factors from fertilizers for the corn to thermal energy for distillation to diesel for the tractors. Yes, large portions of that 1.35 can come from other sources. But which would you rather have 1 unit of ethanol or 1.35 units of these other sources? Ethanol failed in the marketplace because it was an inefficient process (too much fertilizer, too much heat in distillation, etc.) to create an inefficient fuel (poor energy density). Carbon neutrality will not magically improve its efficiency and (IMHO) our energy would be better spent on conservation and the technologies that facilitate conservation.
Oh please. Trammel was created shortly after EQ was realeased to reduce the userbase hemoraging. PvP started to suck because your supply of sheep found a harrassement-free way to play the game.
Dude, the fleet battle in RotJ? IMHO, both scenes were pretty awesome. You can easily argue that the Serenity has better visuals, but they also have better fx technology. But both have the same OMFG impact in context with the plot.
Silly. Quit your job. Go work for a small company. Then the only person with input on the color of the bike shed is you (and maybe your boss). You will still have to do the lame non-engineering stuff. But the McGuyver moments are much more common working for a small company.
Slashdot Mirror
Raph? Is that you?
5 minutes?!?!? Who has that kind of time?
By all means, lets convert this to a more personal system of units. The spacecraft is now approximately 9.14E12 Smoots away.
I think even if the argument is kept to what can be seen, evolution comes out first. There are plenty of resources for those willing. You don't even have to be willing.
Here's the problem for creationists. If someone wishes to believe in creationism, a god is the only "resort". (Deus ex machina, anyone?) So it seems to me that those who wish, for lifestyle reasons, to be creationist, that they are not unbiased about religion.
Crap. I blew all my mod points on that worthless nuclear reactor story. By engaging in a creationism "debate" we are lending far more credibility to the "theory" than it deserves. Better to redirect the terms of the discussion from the word go than to get bogged down in this quagmire.
Some of the Bush apologists are insisting that Bush is, in fact, brilliant. He was just misled by ignorant and corrupt advisers.
Marketing.
In the future all restaurants will be Taco Bell.
If developer #5 is as worthless as you are hinting, your other team members have most likely already noticed and will rejoice when you drop the axe on the little shit. You might hurt the feelings of the tester who gave the recommendation, but I feel that morale as a whole will go up.
Been done, actually. And it is even cooler than you might guess.
Is humming an attempt at infringement? I listening?
Erm... Are you sure the problem is not with the "good input" bit?
What the hell? I closed that tag! It even previewed fine. Stupid /.
Well, 62 gigapascals is quite a lot, as well. Factor of safety is critically important. The 62 GPa figure is based on a shambling pile of assumptions. They may be good assumptions, but many of the stresses experienced by a space elevator cannot be simulated. While aerospace applications often have a FoS of around 1.5, the amount of capital and potential loss of life in your average NASA mission pale in comparison to what might happen if a space elevator should fail. IMHO, a space elevator does not properly fall under aerospace and is more properly civil engineering. As such, I would consider 2.0 to be the minimum FoS (and 3.0 a far more reasonable figure for such a critical component). So, until you find someone who manufactures (present tense, not "thinks they can manufacture") a material with 186 GPa tensile, stay away from snake oil^W^W space elevators.
I have been saying for a while that the next logical step in airline security is to just ship everyone via low berth.
PP: You can't say that! It's slander! JJJ: It is NOT! ... pause ...
JJJ: It's libel. Slander is spoken.
Biodiesel produces more particulate pollution than ethanol. It's still a viable alternate, though.
The particulate emmissions is almost a non-issue at this point. Diesels built after 2006 all have systems to reduce particulates (which is why there was a massive conversion to low-sulfur diesel, the sulfur would eat the catalystic converters) Plus biodiesel produces less particulate polution than petrodiesel.
I have no beef with following other technologies. What I object to is neglecting these other technologies while we pour money into corn futures^W^W ethanol developement. If some young genious finds a way around ethanol's obvious shortcomings, the world will beat a path to her door. I see no reason to waste time and money building a superhighway in hopes that it just happens to go to the right door.
Eventually we WILL run out of oil and/or realize that our own survival is based on the presuvation of our own ecology. New technology must be developed. Based on the science I have seen, ethanol has about as much of a chance of being this technology as wood fired steam. Please. Let's take a step forward (even if it is a difficult one)
The worst product design I have ever used. The alarm temperature started at 0degF and increased ONE (1) degree per press of the increase button. Or, rather, it beeped on press and incremented on release. There was no method of increasing more than one degree at a time. Holding any button for longer than 10 seconds shutoff the device. The alarm temperature is not stored when the power is off. Cording buttons does either nothing or reset the device.
Therefore, if you want to set the alarm for 250degF, you must press (and release) the button TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY times. I got to about 130 before I took a hammer to it. All other frustrations have seemed petty in the face of pressing (and releasing) that stupid button over and over.
I knew a guy who recorded the *beep* and then played it back as his greeting. So you would be halfway through your message when you hear another beep and have to start all over.
What is better is when your 1 yr old daughter discovers that the "power" button is also the "learn a new curse word from mama" button. My wife insisted we buy a new keyboard with as few extraneous keys as possible.
Where do you think those 1,000,000 Joules come from? Sure as hell isn't rainbows and fairy farts. It is all fine and dandy to talk about some future state where ethanol is produced in some carbon neutral manner, but for the foreseeable future ethanol production generates significantly more CO2 than just burning the oil.
Furthermore, converting to E85 requires new pumps, new tanks, new vehicles, new farming practices, new refining capability, new distribution systems, etc. Why are we spending all these resources on something we know a priori is not the most efficient use of carbon? If we have to rejigger the economy anyway, why not go with biodiesel, or electric, or even hydrogen? Something we know will be a better solution in the end.
No shit. Unless it violates certain laws of thermodynamics, of course the energy derived is less than the energy required to produce. But they don't talk about where that energy comes from. Maybe it's all from the sun, or from other renewal resources. Do they mean that the same amount of net fossil-fuel based carbon is released? Who knows, the article is incomplete or misleading.
I think you misunderstand the negative energy balance. Even if you take one of the most optimistic estimates, to get 1 gal of ethanol you need to invest 1.35 gal petroleum. I.e. both suffer from thermodynamic inefficiencies, but ethanol's is greater that the petroleum used to produce it. "Petroleum" includes a variety of factors from fertilizers for the corn to thermal energy for distillation to diesel for the tractors. Yes, large portions of that 1.35 can come from other sources. But which would you rather have 1 unit of ethanol or 1.35 units of these other sources? Ethanol failed in the marketplace because it was an inefficient process (too much fertilizer, too much heat in distillation, etc.) to create an inefficient fuel (poor energy density). Carbon neutrality will not magically improve its efficiency and (IMHO) our energy would be better spent on conservation and the technologies that facilitate conservation.
Oh please. Trammel was created shortly after EQ was realeased to reduce the userbase hemoraging. PvP started to suck because your supply of sheep found a harrassement-free way to play the game.
Dude, the fleet battle in RotJ? IMHO, both scenes were pretty awesome. You can easily argue that the Serenity has better visuals, but they also have better fx technology. But both have the same OMFG impact in context with the plot.
Silly. Quit your job. Go work for a small company. Then the only person with input on the color of the bike shed is you (and maybe your boss). You will still have to do the lame non-engineering stuff. But the McGuyver moments are much more common working for a small company.