The problem is that our economy is based on cheap gas. If everyone lived in a city with public transportation, and we had ports within a hundred miles of every major city, there wouldn't be a problem.
According to the International Energy Agency, as of the year 2001, renewable energy sources (water, solar, geothermal, combustible and waste renewables, and wind) comprised 13.8 percent of the world's primary energy supply and 19 percent of all electricity production. Of that 13.8 percent, wind power accounted for only.0026 percent.
That doesn't seem like much, but wind power is one of the fastest-growing sources of energy in both the United States and abroad. While the use of renewable energy sources as a whole has annually by 2 percent since 1971, wind-power generation has increased at an average of 52.1 percent every year between 1971 and 2000.
The American Wind Energy Association estimates that an additional 6,500 megawatts of wind-energy generating capacity were added worldwide in 2001, accounting for about $7 billion in electricity sales. The U.S. alone added 1,700 megawatts worth of generating equipment. [1] Fact is, they are ready. They just aren't quite as cheap (not accounting for environmental impact) as coal.
The reason is of course that force is the only way to have authority. Force is the only way to have unjust authority. Weather or not just authority can prevail without force has never been seen, because we have never seen just authority.
Just as your right to swing your fist stops where it meets my nose, your right to free speech is not absolute. You don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded is one oft-quoted example. Similarly, your right to continuously defame me in public is not an absolute right. If I ask a judge to tell you to stop, and perhaps seek damages through a libel suit, and he agrees, you stop. If he wants to consider the evidence further, but wants to avoid further damage to my reputation in the interim, he can and likely will ask you to stop for a while until the verdict is in. In other words, these are not 'inalienable' rights, if by that you mean they have no limits. Nowhere. Not in any jurisdiction you can think of, for many good reasons. A citizen of the US has the right to free speech at all times! A citizen of the US has the right to free speech at all times! A citizen of the US has the right to free speech at all times!
You're confusing the right to free speech and immunity to a suit. Causing a riot in a movie theater is against the law. Weather or not you used free speech is irrelevant.
You can be put in jail for shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theater IF it causes a riot, or such was your intention. However, if you are not in jail, you CANNOT be kept from doing it again. That would be prior restraint.
Hence, gag orders are unconstitutional in the US.
However, this article is about NZ, so nothing I just said applies.
I didn't edit the wikipedia page. However, if it had previously said that CdTe cells were the majority it was completely wrong.
Silicon cells are by far the majority, with CIS and CIGS becoming viable alternatives. CdTe is being considered for its simplicity, and because Cadmium salts are actually quite stable.
The vast majority of commercial solar cells are made from polysilicon. Amorphous Silicon has received a lot of research, but is less stable than polysilicon.
Newer generation (read still being commercialized) solar cells include CIS,CIGS,CdTe/CdSe,aSi.
Cadmium is actually quite harmless in salt form (of which CdTe and CdSe are included). Cadmuim is a byproduct of zinc mining. In fact, it is safer for it to be in these salt forms than for it be put back into the ground.
However, since my original comment was on the harmlessness of the PV in general, and since Silicon cells make up the vast majority, I will concede that Cadmium is somewhat dangerous. This still is not an argument against PV, though. It is only an argument against CdTe PV.
I don't see the need for a god, and until recently, I thought it was obvious that there wasn't one.
However, an argument to the contrary struck me one day.
If I were a supernatural (by our definition) intelligence with limitless power who was all alone, what would I do? I might quite possibly create different universes and watch them unfold. If one came around that happened to contain interesting little creatures, I might watch them evolve and begin to question their own existence. If I lived "forever", such events might be slightly amusing. However, I would have no compulsion to alter the events in any significant way. If I got bored, would I bother end the game, or would I just go on to another one?
Anyways, my point is we are getting to the point were we may soon be able to create artificial intelligence. It is not impossible to imagine a being more intelligent than us that could create something even more complicated, like a "universe" - even if it is just running on such a being's computer.
I imagine that knowing as much about the brain as neuroscientists do, makes it easy to believe in supernatural influence simply because the brain is so incredibly complicated. The more I read about the functionality of the human (and even nonhuman) brain, the more amazed I become.
I have never been drawn to supernatural explanations for anything, but thats just how my brain functions. There is definitely a beauty in the idea of the supernatural that I miss out on due to my innate skepticism. But there is also vast beauty in the knowledge I have acquired simply because the "it's just magic" answer was never enough for me.
There is most assuredly beauty in the genius simplicity of the laws of our universe. Every time I learn something new about the world, I feel more and more pity for the people who will never venture outside their ignorance. And don't be offended by the word "ignorance". It should not be an offensive word. It is a simple fact that we are all ignorant.
Directly from the link you gave:
The four canonical Gospels (most commonly estimated to have been written between 65 and 110 A.D[6]) and the writings of Paul of the New Testament are among the earliest known documents relating to Jesus' life. So you are saying that Jesus was never written about until over 30 years after his death? What do you think the average lifetime was in those days? What age were the disciples when Jesus died?
Also, these wouldn't require the noxious chemicals solar panels are made of, and wouldn't require as much maintenance (I think). Noxious chemicals?
Silicon, and trace amounts of boron and phosphorous are noxious? You need to go back to chemistry class. Not only is silicon one of the most abundant elements on earth, it is one of the least harmful to humans.
Also, solar cells don't really require maintenance. You would want to clean them occasionally to get optimal power, but that involves spraying them off with a hose. That is the beauty of photovoltaics - there are no moving parts to break.
I don't understand why people try to apply electric motors to linear propulsion. The reason animals use linear propulsion is because they use linear "motors" called muscles.
If we were to develop synthetic muscles, then and only then does linear propulsion make sense. I suppose hydraulics are somewhat similar, but they are not nearly as robust as something based on fibers could be.
I find it odd that you claim the poster doesn't know how long patents last, yet you give no correction.
On the topic of what is *actually* wrong with the patent system, I don't think it is the issues people on/. would lead you to believe.
I believe the problem with the patent system is that their one goal should be to advance the state of the art. The monopoly is simple a means to the end. By offering a monopoly on the technology, you persuade people to publish the patent, and make the technology well known. The solution?
Patents should be written in plain language, or at least require a section of them to be written thusly, so that people interested in using the technology can do so without studying law for 4 years. They should be written like a scientific paper - the sole goal of which is to communicate how to apply the method or process.
As soon as a patent is submitted, it should immediately be available for the public to read it (not a year or two later).
In order for a company to be able to renew a patent, it should have passed a number of requirements, including having released a working implementation of the method or process, or having licensed the technology to another company who has done so. If they fail these requirements, the patent would expire after 5 years (or some applicable length of time).
Cutting a metal cylinder is easy with a saw. Gluing into the plastic housing is easy with a clamp. Wrapping wire for a engine is easy, as is buying one online for a few bucks.
The point is we have an easy way to make plastic parts that otherwise would have to be special ordered. This would complete any garage as a prototype fab. It would be amazing for lab work in which I always want a piece of plastic of a certain shape, but end up having to wait a week to get it made out of much more expensive metal in the machine shop.
The picture makes the child device look like a cheap piece of crap. But, i guess if it works, who cares.
I would galdly pay $300 to build on of these if it could build new plastic caps for the back of remote controls.
There are so many little pieces of plastic that break and make a product useless. If I could replace them after an hours work, I would be sooooo happy.
Yeah, but it is only reclaimable if you heat it above the evaporation point of the oil. Good luck doing that in air. The risk of combustion is too high.
Doing so in a nitrogen environment is possible, but is it really any cheaper than just making another sheet?
Yes, the US has very productive farm land. However, much of it is irrigated with aquifers, and the aquifers are not being replenished as fast as they are being depleted.
I'm not an expert on the area, but i think it is easy to say that the climate can and does change. Land that is perfect for farming now may not be in 50 years. Just look at the countries past - the great dust bowl? Sure some of that was caused by bad farming practices, but much of it was caused by drought.
Science has the characteristic of making predictions based on current knowledge. To the best of our knowledge, it is unlikely that life would arise in such extreme conditions. However, that is only a hypothesis, and in order to attempt to prove it wrong we are performing experiments.
You aren't the first person to consider an alternate hypothesis. Many people with much more knowledge of this topic have considered the possibility, and determined it to be of low probability. However, we do not have enough information to be positive. Hence, the phoenix mission.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. We need to go back to cold war and Teddy Roosevelt tactics.
The problem is that our economy is based on cheap gas. If everyone lived in a city with public transportation, and we had ports within a hundred miles of every major city, there wouldn't be a problem.
That doesn't seem like much, but wind power is one of the fastest-growing sources of energy in both the United States and abroad. While the use of renewable energy sources as a whole has annually by 2 percent since 1971, wind-power generation has increased at an average of 52.1 percent every year between 1971 and 2000.
The American Wind Energy Association estimates that an additional 6,500 megawatts of wind-energy generating capacity were added worldwide in 2001, accounting for about $7 billion in electricity sales. The U.S. alone added 1,700 megawatts worth of generating equipment. [1] Fact is, they are ready. They just aren't quite as cheap (not accounting for environmental impact) as coal.
[1] http://www.pbs.org/now/science/wind.html
You're confusing the right to free speech and immunity to a suit. Causing a riot in a movie theater is against the law. Weather or not you used free speech is irrelevant.
You can be put in jail for shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theater IF it causes a riot, or such was your intention. However, if you are not in jail, you CANNOT be kept from doing it again. That would be prior restraint.
Hence, gag orders are unconstitutional in the US.
However, this article is about NZ, so nothing I just said applies.
I didn't edit the wikipedia page. However, if it had previously said that CdTe cells were the majority it was completely wrong.
Silicon cells are by far the majority, with CIS and CIGS becoming viable alternatives. CdTe is being considered for its simplicity, and because Cadmium salts are actually quite stable.
The vast majority of commercial solar cells are made from polysilicon. Amorphous Silicon has received a lot of research, but is less stable than polysilicon.
Newer generation (read still being commercialized) solar cells include CIS,CIGS,CdTe/CdSe,aSi.
Cadmium is actually quite harmless in salt form (of which CdTe and CdSe are included). Cadmuim is a byproduct of zinc mining. In fact, it is safer for it to be in these salt forms than for it be put back into the ground.
However, since my original comment was on the harmlessness of the PV in general, and since Silicon cells make up the vast majority, I will concede that Cadmium is somewhat dangerous. This still is not an argument against PV, though. It is only an argument against CdTe PV.
I don't see the need for a god, and until recently, I thought it was obvious that there wasn't one.
However, an argument to the contrary struck me one day.
If I were a supernatural (by our definition) intelligence with limitless power who was all alone, what would I do? I might quite possibly create different universes and watch them unfold. If one came around that happened to contain interesting little creatures, I might watch them evolve and begin to question their own existence. If I lived "forever", such events might be slightly amusing. However, I would have no compulsion to alter the events in any significant way. If I got bored, would I bother end the game, or would I just go on to another one?
Anyways, my point is we are getting to the point were we may soon be able to create artificial intelligence. It is not impossible to imagine a being more intelligent than us that could create something even more complicated, like a "universe" - even if it is just running on such a being's computer.
I imagine that knowing as much about the brain as neuroscientists do, makes it easy to believe in supernatural influence simply because the brain is so incredibly complicated. The more I read about the functionality of the human (and even nonhuman) brain, the more amazed I become.
I have never been drawn to supernatural explanations for anything, but thats just how my brain functions. There is definitely a beauty in the idea of the supernatural that I miss out on due to my innate skepticism. But there is also vast beauty in the knowledge I have acquired simply because the "it's just magic" answer was never enough for me.
There is most assuredly beauty in the genius simplicity of the laws of our universe. Every time I learn something new about the world, I feel more and more pity for the people who will never venture outside their ignorance. And don't be offended by the word "ignorance". It should not be an offensive word. It is a simple fact that we are all ignorant.
If flywheels were only used to temporarily store braking energy until you started moving again, precession would not be much of a problem.
In fact, I can imagine such a system could use mechanical, rather than electrical charging. Whichever ends up being cheaper/lighter would be better.
Silicon, and trace amounts of boron and phosphorous are noxious? You need to go back to chemistry class. Not only is silicon one of the most abundant elements on earth, it is one of the least harmful to humans.
Also, solar cells don't really require maintenance. You would want to clean them occasionally to get optimal power, but that involves spraying them off with a hose. That is the beauty of photovoltaics - there are no moving parts to break.
I think you meant to say:
If you think this country is bad off now, just wait until I've fixed it.
I don't understand why people try to apply electric motors to linear propulsion. The reason animals use linear propulsion is because they use linear "motors" called muscles.
If we were to develop synthetic muscles, then and only then does linear propulsion make sense. I suppose hydraulics are somewhat similar, but they are not nearly as robust as something based on fibers could be.
I would be happy with 300 dpi. And it needs to have decent refresh rate. Hopefully no more than 500ms. And none of that flashing back and forth.
Wow... You just insulted our entire economy...
/. would lead you to believe.
Harsh.. Just harsh...
I find it odd that you claim the poster doesn't know how long patents last, yet you give no correction.
On the topic of what is *actually* wrong with the patent system, I don't think it is the issues people on
I believe the problem with the patent system is that their one goal should be to advance the state of the art. The monopoly is simple a means to the end. By offering a monopoly on the technology, you persuade people to publish the patent, and make the technology well known. The solution?
Patents should be written in plain language, or at least require a section of them to be written thusly, so that people interested in using the technology can do so without studying law for 4 years. They should be written like a scientific paper - the sole goal of which is to communicate how to apply the method or process.
As soon as a patent is submitted, it should immediately be available for the public to read it (not a year or two later).
In order for a company to be able to renew a patent, it should have passed a number of requirements, including having released a working implementation of the method or process, or having licensed the technology to another company who has done so. If they fail these requirements, the patent would expire after 5 years (or some applicable length of time).
BUT, it bars your actual asshole from pooping (at least temporarily).
Hence, it's a very appropriate metaphor.
Cutting a metal cylinder is easy with a saw. Gluing into the plastic housing is easy with a clamp. Wrapping wire for a engine is easy, as is buying one online for a few bucks.
The point is we have an easy way to make plastic parts that otherwise would have to be special ordered. This would complete any garage as a prototype fab. It would be amazing for lab work in which I always want a piece of plastic of a certain shape, but end up having to wait a week to get it made out of much more expensive metal in the machine shop.
The picture makes the child device look like a cheap piece of crap. But, i guess if it works, who cares.
I would galdly pay $300 to build on of these if it could build new plastic caps for the back of remote controls.
There are so many little pieces of plastic that break and make a product useless. If I could replace them after an hours work, I would be sooooo happy.
Yeah, like that time this Jesus guy found an overflow in the kill process routine, and was able to resurrect himself after 3 days.
I heard God banned him for 3,000 years.
Unless, of course, the particle were sitting on the other side of the spacetime "sheet". What that means physically is hard to say, though.
New jingle for selling toilets:
Once you poop, you can't stop.
Yeah, but it is only reclaimable if you heat it above the evaporation point of the oil. Good luck doing that in air. The risk of combustion is too high.
Doing so in a nitrogen environment is possible, but is it really any cheaper than just making another sheet?
Yes, the US has very productive farm land. However, much of it is irrigated with aquifers, and the aquifers are not being replenished as fast as they are being depleted.
I'm not an expert on the area, but i think it is easy to say that the climate can and does change. Land that is perfect for farming now may not be in 50 years. Just look at the countries past - the great dust bowl? Sure some of that was caused by bad farming practices, but much of it was caused by drought.
Science has the characteristic of making predictions based on current knowledge. To the best of our knowledge, it is unlikely that life would arise in such extreme conditions. However, that is only a hypothesis, and in order to attempt to prove it wrong we are performing experiments.
You aren't the first person to consider an alternate hypothesis. Many people with much more knowledge of this topic have considered the possibility, and determined it to be of low probability. However, we do not have enough information to be positive. Hence, the phoenix mission.