On the point about Tesla having his work seized after his death, yes, Wardencliffe Tower was supposed to have been seized and sold off for the value of its lumber to pay off debts
From what I understand, the tower wasn't seized - he sold it off in order to pay his bills. I think the FA even mentions that.
Regardless, though, let's say you're right; that kind of "seizure" is not what was (seemed to be) implied in the original statement. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see an AC making silly allegations about the FBI stealing Tesla's research and patents. It's possible that the original commenter WASN'T being a goofball, but until he clarifies the meaning of that sentence I'm going to go with my original assessment.
It's just unfortunate that some of Tesla's stuff seems to have been torn apart for the value of its materials before anyone had a chance to take a good look at it.
I agree - his work would have made for a fascinating museum exhibit, and displaying it in such a manner would have helped quell the cult following he's developed. It's easy to develop conspiracy theories when the objects being discussed have been destroyed - much harder when they're available for examination by the public.
You say that like it's a small thing. Transformation and induction have a LOT of uses that you're glossing over by a statement like that.
You're partly right - in the past, stepping up/down direct current was impractical for most applications - generally the devices needed were inefficient and expensive. However, the situation has changed significantly since then. If we were to design a grid from scratch today, it would make sense to ditch AC entirely, because we are now able to manipulate DC more effectively, and because DC transmission is more efficient.
The problem with making the switch now is the same as the one faced by Microsoft every time it tries to make major changes to it's OS - you can't make changes to the underlying infrastructure if it means breaking compatibility with all legacy devices. In order to switch the grid to DC you'd have to place converters in every building which would then convert the direct current back to alternating current for use with todays devices. That process would likely eliminate most if not all of the energy saved by using DC for transmission. There are other ways of approaching the problem, but all would be costly, and would take decades to implement fully. They'd make the current digital-TV switch look simple, in comparison.
Since you corrected your second point, I won't touch on it much, except for this bit from your follow-up comment:
I contend that the majority of electrical distribution grids are indeed AC.
That's never been under contention. As I said, at the time when we were first developing this infrastructure, it made sense to go with AC. The vast majority of electrical distribution networks are in fact AC, and will be for the foreseeable future.
you do realize that many of the technologies mentioned in the article do exist today (like wireless video transmission, stock quotes etc.) but in 1903 few people if any could explain how to make that work
Replace "few people" with "no people, including Tesla", and we'll agree 100%.
What's your point?
That such a fact-free comment was modded +5 insightful says horrible things about the credulity of the average slashdotter.
The guy came up with the idea way back in 1894 so who really cares about its efficacy.
What the heck is YOUR point? It wouldn't matter if he came up with it in 1498 - a crappy idea is a crappy idea, regardless of when it's thought up. If your "invention" requires 50,000 killowatts to power a friggin lightbulb, there's a bit of a problem there, especially when you're making use of a well known effect rather that inventing something new. Induction was discovered in 1831, so it's not like Tesla was discovering a new aspect of the physical world - he simply made use (in an extremely inefficient way) of a principle discovered by Faraday.
Everything we plug in today has Nikola Tesla's I.P. in it. AC transmission won the current war over the DC method.
Which is not necessarily a good thing. The only advantage of AC current is that it can be easily modified by transformers. Long-distance power transmission (between grids) is DC because it doesn't require phase synchronization and it's less wasteful, and the difference adds up nicely over longer distances. AC didn't replace DC - the two systems are complimentary.
Also, while Tesla did invent a three phase AC generator, he didn't exactly come up with the idea of AC current, nor was he the only one working on it.
Anyone who try's to belittle Tesla's work really has no idea what they are talking about.
Anyone who tries to deify a mad scientist isn't firing on all cylinders.
Everyone who has ever invented something useful also probably had at least 100 bad ideas as well.
Exactly - the problem here is that the Tesla Cult like to pretend that his 100 bad ideas were actually 100 GREAT ideas which we "can't understand yet". Which is, to be blunt, bullshit. You can idolize the man for the great things he did, if you want, as long as you're not trying to prop up his shitty ideas at the same time.
I never said anything of the sort. I was talking about Iraq, a country that never attacked us, and was the venue of a completely senseless war that achieved nothing but suffering for all involved.
Well, no, you weren't, because you wrote:
You know, there is a small chance that this could be a portrayal that is shocking and illustrates the futility of war.
You didn't write "the futility of THE war" or "futility of the Iraq war". You wrote "the futility of war". As in ALL war.
Now, if you want to go back and change that, hey, no problem. I'm sure there's still plenty we'd disagree on, but you'd at least be removing the most absurd part of your comment - and I'd be more than happy to amend my response accordingly. Just don't pretend that you're talking about one specific war, while making generalizations that encompass all wars.
What part of my post gave you the impression that I couldn't see things from others' points of view?
That'd be this part:
"In that case, wouldn't it be in the best interests of the families of the fallen that it be seen, as a warning to society not to continue down that path?"
If you truly understood that (most of) the "families of the fallen" see the situation from a completely different perspective, you would have never written something so silly.
It's akin to saying "Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the Muslims to convert to Christianity?". Sure - from a Christian viewpoint that'd be just peachy. However, Muslims might disagree.
In that case, wouldn't it be in the best interests of the families of the fallen that it be seen, as a warning to society not to continue down that path?
You think it would be in the best interest of dead soldiers families for their country to turn into a bunch of surrender monkeys?...
You really don't get it, do you? The world isn't composed solely of people who think the way you do. In fact, people with your views make up a teeny-tiny minority on a global scale. If you have any integrity, you'll at least try to see things from the point-of-view of others, even if you disagree with them.
Since exactly when are pigs a new source of food? I seem to remember enjoying bacon my entire life.
Don't be silly. That's like arguing that nobody had a right to patent a nuclear power plant, because electricity produced with steam and turbines had been around for centuries.
Man... I'm just about the least religious person you'll ever run into... and I despise organized religion in all it's many forms. Yet even I agree that your comments should be moded "troll" or "flamebait". You are accusing almost 80%+ of the human race of being evil, and suggesting that terrorism is equivalent to proselytizing. Either you're being willfully insulting, or you're just plain stupid.
Actually, I'd go with the latter explanation, since it takes a special kind of ignorance to use the Big Bang Theory as a security blanket. Either way, though, your comments should be down-moded into oblivion.
Well they did censor federally funded research that indicated that global warming was occurring:
Really? Can you prove it? That link you sent talks only about a random survey and unproven allegations made by James Hansen.
Surveys tell you more about the agenda of the person publishing them than they do about the truth, and Hansen is a zealot who once suggested that oil company executives should be put on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature". Therefore, I've got good reason to distrust his claims, as well as the results of that survey. If you've got any actual evidence, I'd be willing to reconsider my position.
Meanwhile, this:
So that pretty much shows they were only willing to pay for research that showed it wasn't occurring.
Is completely wrong. First off, Hansen, for one, constantly published research which showed that AGW was a real phenomenon, and he kept getting paid. So you fail, right off the bat. But, in addition to that, you've done nothing to show that the feds ever paid for even one single bit of research which contravened the AGW theory. So instead of showing that AGW detractors were funded and it's proponents were not, you've shown the exact opposite.
That was a completely inappropriate use of that sound. I've heard/seen his joke before, however, it's always told using the word algoriTHM not algoriSM. Using an inappropriate word kills what little humour value was present to begin with.
I bet a climate scientist could have gotten plenty of money from the Bush Administration for arguing that manmade CO2 wasn't causing climate change
I'll take that bet! Can you demonstrate one such case? Just one? They had 8 years to pull it off, and Bushitler obviously hates polar bears, so surely there must be THOUSANDS, but I'll be happy with just one.
I didn't realize that the idea of the white man's burden was still alive and well.
It's not the white man's burden, you stupid bastard; it's the burden of all of humanity, and, more importantly, it's our own self-interest. It doesn't matter whether the people who fuck up the world have skin that's white, black, brown, yellow, or a pinkish shade of turquoise, the end result is the same.
I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest pollute
Depends on how you define it. First off, if you accept that CO2 is a pollutant, then as far as total CO2 output goes, the US is first. However, on a per-capita basis, the US comes in 5th. If we exclude CO2 and look at real waste, the situation is even better - on a per-capita basis the US comes in 4th amongst 16 first-world nations, which puts it ahead of such wonderfully progressive nations like the Netherlands, and the UK. And if we look at freshwater pollution, the US comes in 30th in a list of only 68.
So, all in all, I think it's safe to conclude that you're completely wrong.
The real fear for the environment is that India and China are coming out of poverty.
Yes - which is why they should never have been excluded from the Kyoto protocol. Indira Gandhi was wrong; there is a bigger polluter than poverty, and that is the step out of poverty. Why? Because the sources of pollution which exist in an impoverished state don't immediately disappear as soon as you start industrializing, and, worse yet, emergent economies are unlikely to implement the environmental protection measures which 1st world nations now use as a matter of course. You can expect pollution output of India and China to dwarf the rest of the planet combined for at least a few decades before they're able (or willing) to implement the kind of measures which we take for granted.
If the Kyoto members really wanted to make a difference, they would have figured out a way to encourage these nations to reign in their pollution during the industrialization process. Or, better yet, they could have created an international organization for research into sustainable energy. If each of the Kyoto signatories contributed just $100 million a year for 10 years, you'd have a budget of 183 billion dollars. Obviously you'd have to screw with the numbers and adjust them by GDP, but even if you end up with only half of that number it will still buy you a hell of a lot of research. The total cost of the LHC is something like 9 billion. The ITER fusion-research effort will cost about the same.
I think the word you're thinking of is "algorithm". The word "Algorism" doesn't exist, but, if it did, it would probably be defined as "hypocritical preaching regarding a subject in which the speaker holds no qualifications".
I guess since "Bushism" is a word in common usage, there's no reason why Gore shouldn't get one too...
Unfortunately, you are more likely to radicalize him with the accidental death of his relatives than you are to kill someone he believes to be a terrorist.
The problem is that your hypothetical potential-terrorist is likely to get radicalized without any intervention on your part. Given that fact, you loose nothing by attempting to intervene. At worst you make no difference, at best you create an environment where future indoctrination is less likely.
I often wonder if the same people who decry guerilla tactics and $200 IEDs would just roll over if China started flying jets over our airspace, and rolling tanks through our streets. It's a question that doesn't get asked because I don't think anyone wants to hear themselves answer it.
I'm more than happy to answer it: if my nation were to become a theocratic dictatorship which insisted on controlling every aspect of my life, I'd be more than happy to stand aside and let the Chinese have free reign. More likely, though, I'd be joining the rebuilt police force or army, in order to assist the Chinese in wiping out the remaining zealots and provide peace and security in which to build a future for my children.
The "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq isn't the Taliban or AQI. It's the brave men who put on an IP, ING, or ANA uniform, and place their lives on the line every day so that their nation may prosper. They're the ones fighting for freedom.
Meanwhile, $75,000 would build a school, supply it, and provide money for staff for five years in Afghanistan.
And $200 in the hands of the Taliban would demolish it.
So when you're trying to prevent a young muslim from becoming a radical, what's the better option - allowing him the chance to have an education, or blowing up his brother's wedding party and then air dropping him some pudding cups with little American flags on them?
False dichotomy - the third option is blowing up the people who are trying to radicalize him.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand, the tower wasn't seized - he sold it off in order to pay his bills. I think the FA even mentions that.
Regardless, though, let's say you're right; that kind of "seizure" is not what was (seemed to be) implied in the original statement. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see an AC making silly allegations about the FBI stealing Tesla's research and patents. It's possible that the original commenter WASN'T being a goofball, but until he clarifies the meaning of that sentence I'm going to go with my original assessment.
I agree - his work would have made for a fascinating museum exhibit, and displaying it in such a manner would have helped quell the cult following he's developed. It's easy to develop conspiracy theories when the objects being discussed have been destroyed - much harder when they're available for examination by the public.
You're partly right - in the past, stepping up/down direct current was impractical for most applications - generally the devices needed were inefficient and expensive. However, the situation has changed significantly since then. If we were to design a grid from scratch today, it would make sense to ditch AC entirely, because we are now able to manipulate DC more effectively, and because DC transmission is more efficient.
The problem with making the switch now is the same as the one faced by Microsoft every time it tries to make major changes to it's OS - you can't make changes to the underlying infrastructure if it means breaking compatibility with all legacy devices. In order to switch the grid to DC you'd have to place converters in every building which would then convert the direct current back to alternating current for use with todays devices. That process would likely eliminate most if not all of the energy saved by using DC for transmission. There are other ways of approaching the problem, but all would be costly, and would take decades to implement fully. They'd make the current digital-TV switch look simple, in comparison.
Since you corrected your second point, I won't touch on it much, except for this bit from your follow-up comment:
That's never been under contention. As I said, at the time when we were first developing this infrastructure, it made sense to go with AC. The vast majority of electrical distribution networks are in fact AC, and will be for the foreseeable future.
Replace "few people" with "no people, including Tesla", and we'll agree 100%.
What's your point?
That such a fact-free comment was modded +5 insightful says horrible things about the credulity of the average slashdotter.
What the heck is YOUR point? It wouldn't matter if he came up with it in 1498 - a crappy idea is a crappy idea, regardless of when it's thought up. If your "invention" requires 50,000 killowatts to power a friggin lightbulb, there's a bit of a problem there, especially when you're making use of a well known effect rather that inventing something new. Induction was discovered in 1831, so it's not like Tesla was discovering a new aspect of the physical world - he simply made use (in an extremely inefficient way) of a principle discovered by Faraday.
Which is not necessarily a good thing. The only advantage of AC current is that it can be easily modified by transformers. Long-distance power transmission (between grids) is DC because it doesn't require phase synchronization and it's less wasteful, and the difference adds up nicely over longer distances. AC didn't replace DC - the two systems are complimentary.
Also, while Tesla did invent a three phase AC generator, he didn't exactly come up with the idea of AC current, nor was he the only one working on it.
Anyone who tries to deify a mad scientist isn't firing on all cylinders.
Exactly - the problem here is that the Tesla Cult like to pretend that his 100 bad ideas were actually 100 GREAT ideas which we "can't understand yet". Which is, to be blunt, bullshit. You can idolize the man for the great things he did, if you want, as long as you're not trying to prop up his shitty ideas at the same time.
Uhuh. I see this kind of claim all the time from creators of perpetual motion machines:
"Well, of course those 'scientists' can't replicate my results! It's because they don't understand my genius!"
Uhh ... no. If we're unable to get it to work, chances are it never worked in the first place.
Yeah, seized by the Stonemasons! Just ask Homer ...
Grow up.
Well, no, you weren't, because you wrote:
You know, there is a small chance that this could be a portrayal that is shocking and illustrates the futility of war.
You didn't write "the futility of THE war" or "futility of the Iraq war". You wrote "the futility of war". As in ALL war.
Now, if you want to go back and change that, hey, no problem. I'm sure there's still plenty we'd disagree on, but you'd at least be removing the most absurd part of your comment - and I'd be more than happy to amend my response accordingly. Just don't pretend that you're talking about one specific war, while making generalizations that encompass all wars.
That'd be this part:
"In that case, wouldn't it be in the best interests of the families of the fallen that it be seen, as a warning to society not to continue down that path?"
If you truly understood that (most of) the "families of the fallen" see the situation from a completely different perspective, you would have never written something so silly.
It's akin to saying "Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the Muslims to convert to Christianity?". Sure - from a Christian viewpoint that'd be just peachy. However, Muslims might disagree.
and .... ?
If Martians invaded Earth, they'd have big three-legged walking machines with death beams!
You think it would be in the best interest of dead soldiers families for their country to turn into a bunch of surrender monkeys? ...
You really don't get it, do you? The world isn't composed solely of people who think the way you do. In fact, people with your views make up a teeny-tiny minority on a global scale. If you have any integrity, you'll at least try to see things from the point-of-view of others, even if you disagree with them.
John Kerry? Is that you?
sudo apt-get remove head-from-anus
He didn't make any statements worth responding to.
I don't know - you'd have to ask him why he assumed that.
Yes. I also liked this phrase:
Like any self-respected bunch of grad students
Apparently it's impossible to write about alcohol research without first sampling some of the experimental results.
Don't be silly. That's like arguing that nobody had a right to patent a nuclear power plant, because electricity produced with steam and turbines had been around for centuries.
Man ... I'm just about the least religious person you'll ever run into ... and I despise organized religion in all it's many forms. Yet even I agree that your comments should be moded "troll" or "flamebait". You are accusing almost 80%+ of the human race of being evil, and suggesting that terrorism is equivalent to proselytizing. Either you're being willfully insulting, or you're just plain stupid.
Actually, I'd go with the latter explanation, since it takes a special kind of ignorance to use the Big Bang Theory as a security blanket. Either way, though, your comments should be down-moded into oblivion.
lol
I know you are, but what am I? :)
Really? Can you prove it? That link you sent talks only about a random survey and unproven allegations made by James Hansen.
Surveys tell you more about the agenda of the person publishing them than they do about the truth, and Hansen is a zealot who once suggested that oil company executives should be put on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature". Therefore, I've got good reason to distrust his claims, as well as the results of that survey. If you've got any actual evidence, I'd be willing to reconsider my position.
Meanwhile, this:
Is completely wrong. First off, Hansen, for one, constantly published research which showed that AGW was a real phenomenon, and he kept getting paid. So you fail, right off the bat. But, in addition to that, you've done nothing to show that the feds ever paid for even one single bit of research which contravened the AGW theory. So instead of showing that AGW detractors were funded and it's proponents were not, you've shown the exact opposite.
That was a completely inappropriate use of that sound. I've heard/seen his joke before, however, it's always told using the word algoriTHM not algoriSM. Using an inappropriate word kills what little humour value was present to begin with.
I'll take that bet! Can you demonstrate one such case? Just one? They had 8 years to pull it off, and Bushitler obviously hates polar bears, so surely there must be THOUSANDS, but I'll be happy with just one.
It's not the white man's burden, you stupid bastard; it's the burden of all of humanity, and, more importantly, it's our own self-interest. It doesn't matter whether the people who fuck up the world have skin that's white, black, brown, yellow, or a pinkish shade of turquoise, the end result is the same.
Depends on how you define it. First off, if you accept that CO2 is a pollutant, then as far as total CO2 output goes, the US is first. However, on a per-capita basis, the US comes in 5th. If we exclude CO2 and look at real waste, the situation is even better - on a per-capita basis the US comes in 4th amongst 16 first-world nations, which puts it ahead of such wonderfully progressive nations like the Netherlands, and the UK. And if we look at freshwater pollution, the US comes in 30th in a list of only 68.
So, all in all, I think it's safe to conclude that you're completely wrong.
Yes - which is why they should never have been excluded from the Kyoto protocol. Indira Gandhi was wrong; there is a bigger polluter than poverty, and that is the step out of poverty. Why? Because the sources of pollution which exist in an impoverished state don't immediately disappear as soon as you start industrializing, and, worse yet, emergent economies are unlikely to implement the environmental protection measures which 1st world nations now use as a matter of course. You can expect pollution output of India and China to dwarf the rest of the planet combined for at least a few decades before they're able (or willing) to implement the kind of measures which we take for granted.
If the Kyoto members really wanted to make a difference, they would have figured out a way to encourage these nations to reign in their pollution during the industrialization process. Or, better yet, they could have created an international organization for research into sustainable energy. If each of the Kyoto signatories contributed just $100 million a year for 10 years, you'd have a budget of 183 billion dollars. Obviously you'd have to screw with the numbers and adjust them by GDP, but even if you end up with only half of that number it will still buy you a hell of a lot of research. The total cost of the LHC is something like 9 billion. The ITER fusion-research effort will cost about the same.
I think the word you're thinking of is "algorithm". The word "Algorism" doesn't exist, but, if it did, it would probably be defined as "hypocritical preaching regarding a subject in which the speaker holds no qualifications".
I guess since "Bushism" is a word in common usage, there's no reason why Gore shouldn't get one too ...
The problem is that your hypothetical potential-terrorist is likely to get radicalized without any intervention on your part. Given that fact, you loose nothing by attempting to intervene. At worst you make no difference, at best you create an environment where future indoctrination is less likely.
I'm more than happy to answer it: if my nation were to become a theocratic dictatorship which insisted on controlling every aspect of my life, I'd be more than happy to stand aside and let the Chinese have free reign. More likely, though, I'd be joining the rebuilt police force or army, in order to assist the Chinese in wiping out the remaining zealots and provide peace and security in which to build a future for my children.
The "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq isn't the Taliban or AQI. It's the brave men who put on an IP, ING, or ANA uniform, and place their lives on the line every day so that their nation may prosper. They're the ones fighting for freedom.
And $200 in the hands of the Taliban would demolish it.
False dichotomy - the third option is blowing up the people who are trying to radicalize him.
Depends on the situation. Would you give weapons to Stalin? Before WW2? During? After?