I can count 7 LED's on my equipment where I'm sitting that I could pretty much do without...that doesn't really amount to much. LED's don't consume very much power at all (especially the low-power type found in electronics equipment) - you're talking on the order of a couple volts, and in the tens of milliamps. Example: Digikey # 67-1047-ND has a peak voltage of 2 volts, and a max current of 30 mA. At peak conditions, this puts out.06 Watts. Convert that to energy spent in a year, and it amounts to (assuming 8766 hours per year) about a half kilowatt-hour, or 5 cents, if you left that one LED on constantly, at peak, all year. That's 35 cents for all the LED's in my room, a total of 3 and a half kilowatt hours (a typical home burns about a thousand per month, or 12,000 per year). I'll just switch my computer off.
Speak softly and carry a big stick...and hit him with it. Unless he's got you at gunpoint...where on earth were you that you got held at gunpoint for a laptop, anyway?
Funny how that's vastly different from refunding $100, or even the $200 the phone users are out -- Apple will simply lose the production costs of the items sold under that store credit (not to mention gaining profits from any accessories bought as a result beyond the $100 credit). It's not to say such hardware prices wouldn't normally fluctuate, but a month or two is a bit quick for something that's seemingly so successful. I wonder where to draw the line between truly normal price decreases, and jacking the price on something you know will sell like hotcakes...I'm not all that business-savvy, so feel free to educate me if there is indeed such a line.
sorry, if you'll look at the time I posted, I think you'l notice I was most probably writing my reply around the same time as everyone else within the first 20.
...somehow I don't agree with you if you're insisting your only alternative is to steal it. You could sign up for cable. You could wait for the dvd's to come out and buy them. It's ridiculous to assume that stealing is the only option, as well as a right one. You could also just not watch the shows...
I offer criticism to many experiments, but I don't discount the existence of evolution. I believe the Bible to be wholly true, but that belief has come through useful skepticism. Tell me, after being skeptic of an experiment, then trying it time and time again, coming up with the same results...doesn't that eliminate the skepticism? Surely you're not skeptic of the existence of gravity because you've had a lifetime around it to know it's there...why is it any different for a Christian believing the Bible? Time and time again, I've found what it says to be true, so I believe it is.
Attacking 'creationists' by name here doesn't really jive with me, because I believe evolution to be a completely probable, possible theory. It's been shown in many experiments to be the best model for development of living organisms that we know of, by the scientific method. I also believe that God created it. Believing that God created the universe and believing that a species changes from one eon to the next as an adaptation to its environment are not mutually exclusive. I, in fact, think it's pretty dadgum cool.
None that I can post here, but yes. I've seen fuel efficiency data for the aircraft we were discussing, and I've seen charts showing winds aloft through my own aviation training. I'm not saying there are no tradeoffs, or that it's necessarily an instant win, but it seems that there is (possibly significant) opportunity.
Remember, just because a thought seems obvious doesn't mean that (a)it's been capitalized on, or (b) that it's easy.
I agree that we need vastly more information than we currently have, and further agree that I don't think the government should be micromanaging like this, but what if some companies found it profitable to do so on their own (fuel optimizations, etc.)?
Surely there is much yet to discover about our planet and the way it works, and I agree that emissions standards must be scrutinized with respect to their economic impacts...I feel that the knee-jerk reaction Al Gore seems to be trying to illicit is not in our best interests economically, but I don't see any harm in people/companies trying to lessen our impact on the world around us...unless it means killing industry as we know it. There must be a balance of some sort.
It's actually really surprising how much airlines currently *don't* do to optimize fuel costs. Aircraft get vastly different fuel economies at different altitudes and speeds, and there is quite a lot of room for optimization of these in conjunction with winds aloft for long flights. There's not only a good environmental impact, but quite a bit of savings for the airline.
Both my brothers are senior captains for well-known airlines, so this is a common talking point at the holiday dinner table. I got screwed with the colorblindness...wish I made as much per hour.
Well, it's pretty simple, actually. I believe in some way, shape or form, God created the thing. Maybe He made it evolve, maybe He made it appear out of thin air...essentially I don't know, and don't need to. Creationism and science aren't necessarily exclusive. I simply believe that the scientific reasons behind what happens exist at the behest of a supreme being.
You're right, I forgot to include anything about land-based ice, which is a large portion of the Earth's ice. Didn't mean to come across as condescending as I did.
Some recent journal articles actually have conflicting numbers as to whether or not the ice is receding on the poles. A major ice shelf in Antarctica, previously thought to be losing 13.1 gigatons per year, was measured with a more accurate method to be gaining 26.1 gigatons per year -- that's the equivalent of a shelf 5 feet thick the size of New Hampshire. Either way, though, the caveat is the error in the measurement. The error in the 13.1 value from before was plus or minus 13 gigatons. The more accurate method had an uncertainty of 5 gigatons. Either way, the data we're basing a lot of these decisions on isn't good.
I agree completely with your statement "This is the root of the debate, global warming is happening, there are a number of contributing factors and we cannot stop it." I think that's a very conscientious way to say it. I think we need to do what we can to slow down our effects on our environment, but by the same token, people won't give up reliable electricity for the CO2 rationing currently under consideration for legislation. There are definite consequences to the energy infrastructure.
We continue on this path because in the morning, a large percentage of the American (and world) populace expects a light to come on when they throw a switch. The energy that's dumping mercury in our water is essential to many processes people won't even start to think about. Water purification is highly energy intensive. Overseas production and transportation of many consumer items is highly energy intensive. People, however, won't take shorter showers, and people won't stop shopping at Wal-Mart because it's not convenient to them.
As for Mercury in fish...hell, I work in a fluorescent lamp plant. I inhale mercury all day. Tuna's not going to kill you. The better fish for you are the ones that won't soak up all the Hg anyhow. That's why I stick to elk:)
Do you understand why ice floats? Do you understand the concept of water displacement? Tell you what, go put 4 ice cubes in a glass, and then fill it until the top has a reverse meniscus. Let the ice melt, and see what happens to the fluid level. Physics tells us that the water level will recede. Pertaining to your question, the water will go nowhere...in fact, the water will get more dense than the ice was...before you post a flaming reply, please take the time to understand why.
Comments like this are exactly what scare me. People are willing to scream up and down like they know everything because they watched the 7 o'clock news and read Al Gore's book (which hasn't a single piece of data in it)...the reality is, we don't know exactly what's going on. To act without a rational plan based on accurate knowledge is irresponsible, and what's more, unethical for any engineer. See this. It should be no different for the people exerting the constraints.
I'm not against being green, I'm against being stupid about it.
What pressure are you talking about? Remember, a pump simply changes the pressure across itself, not the pipe behind it. This has less to do with the air pressure at the other end, and more to do with the pump itself. Therefore, if you need to pump water up a 10-story building (let's assume 100 feet), then you need a pump capable of providing 100 feet of pressure head. When you then pump the fluid from atmospheric pressure to 100 feet of pressure, it will be enough to lift the fluid up the pipe (assuming flow is laminar, etc.), and the fluid coming out the other end will be P1 (atmospheric pressure) - P2 (pressure heighth of column, in feet of water) + P3 (pressure added by pump), and lo and behold - atmospheric pressure!
This being said, rarely do peopole use a vacuum pump to 'lift' the water up, as it would cavitate until the fluid got all the way up to it - it's much more economical to use a simpler centrifugal pump at the bottom of the column. For special applications, however, self-priming pumps like this do exist. So, to answer your questions, 32 feet is not a limit. The only limit is the ability of the pump to change pressure.
I agree - it's as if someone looks at the Mona Lisa, enjoys it, and thus paints their own version. Knowing the picture, even down to its minutest details, is in no way an infringement of the original artist's rights. If they don't want their art emulated, they shouldn't put it out for the masses to enjoy.
This is honestly the type of thing that their lawyers are fighting, and exactly the kind of thing that is exacerbating the problem. Remember the Pilgrims who came here came so they could practice their own religions without persecution. Remember in the USA, a religion has the right to practice the way it wants, so long as it doesn't break any US laws in doing so, no matter if it is Satanism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or anything else.
I agree that the arrest as read in the article doesn't seem constitutional at all, and I don't think it will hold up in a court of appeals, HOWEVER - I also don't think it's right to expose texts of the Church of Scientology that they don't want exposed. Should we take a video camera into the Holy of Holies and post it on the internet? I think a better response is to support the defendant and his civil rights, but stop the attacking nonsense. It's only a war because you make it one.
The whole idea is to let the other religions (kooky as they may be) do as they please, until something like this happens. Certainly there are legal battles to be fought, but fight them in the right way.
Slashdot Mirror
I still recommend the original readings by Douglas Adams himself. They are hilarious.
I can count 7 LED's on my equipment where I'm sitting that I could pretty much do without...that doesn't really amount to much. LED's don't consume very much power at all (especially the low-power type found in electronics equipment) - you're talking on the order of a couple volts, and in the tens of milliamps. Example: Digikey # 67-1047-ND has a peak voltage of 2 volts, and a max current of 30 mA. At peak conditions, this puts out .06 Watts. Convert that to energy spent in a year, and it amounts to (assuming 8766 hours per year) about a half kilowatt-hour, or 5 cents, if you left that one LED on constantly, at peak, all year. That's 35 cents for all the LED's in my room, a total of 3 and a half kilowatt hours (a typical home burns about a thousand per month, or 12,000 per year). I'll just switch my computer off.
Speak softly and carry a big stick...and hit him with it. Unless he's got you at gunpoint...where on earth were you that you got held at gunpoint for a laptop, anyway?
Funny how that's vastly different from refunding $100, or even the $200 the phone users are out -- Apple will simply lose the production costs of the items sold under that store credit (not to mention gaining profits from any accessories bought as a result beyond the $100 credit). It's not to say such hardware prices wouldn't normally fluctuate, but a month or two is a bit quick for something that's seemingly so successful. I wonder where to draw the line between truly normal price decreases, and jacking the price on something you know will sell like hotcakes...I'm not all that business-savvy, so feel free to educate me if there is indeed such a line.
sorry, if you'll look at the time I posted, I think you'l notice I was most probably writing my reply around the same time as everyone else within the first 20.
...somehow I don't agree with you if you're insisting your only alternative is to steal it. You could sign up for cable. You could wait for the dvd's to come out and buy them. It's ridiculous to assume that stealing is the only option, as well as a right one. You could also just not watch the shows...
How long do you suppose before someone is able to crack the iphone to use a wifi connection for internet calling?
I offer criticism to many experiments, but I don't discount the existence of evolution. I believe the Bible to be wholly true, but that belief has come through useful skepticism. Tell me, after being skeptic of an experiment, then trying it time and time again, coming up with the same results...doesn't that eliminate the skepticism? Surely you're not skeptic of the existence of gravity because you've had a lifetime around it to know it's there...why is it any different for a Christian believing the Bible? Time and time again, I've found what it says to be true, so I believe it is.
Attacking 'creationists' by name here doesn't really jive with me, because I believe evolution to be a completely probable, possible theory. It's been shown in many experiments to be the best model for development of living organisms that we know of, by the scientific method. I also believe that God created it. Believing that God created the universe and believing that a species changes from one eon to the next as an adaptation to its environment are not mutually exclusive. I, in fact, think it's pretty dadgum cool.
...we can't seem to do a good job of controlling problems with climate, etc. in our own world - shouldn't we focus on that first?
None that I can post here, but yes. I've seen fuel efficiency data for the aircraft we were discussing, and I've seen charts showing winds aloft through my own aviation training. I'm not saying there are no tradeoffs, or that it's necessarily an instant win, but it seems that there is (possibly significant) opportunity.
Remember, just because a thought seems obvious doesn't mean that (a)it's been capitalized on, or (b) that it's easy.
I agree that we need vastly more information than we currently have, and further agree that I don't think the government should be micromanaging like this, but what if some companies found it profitable to do so on their own (fuel optimizations, etc.)?
Surely there is much yet to discover about our planet and the way it works, and I agree that emissions standards must be scrutinized with respect to their economic impacts...I feel that the knee-jerk reaction Al Gore seems to be trying to illicit is not in our best interests economically, but I don't see any harm in people/companies trying to lessen our impact on the world around us...unless it means killing industry as we know it. There must be a balance of some sort.
It's actually really surprising how much airlines currently *don't* do to optimize fuel costs. Aircraft get vastly different fuel economies at different altitudes and speeds, and there is quite a lot of room for optimization of these in conjunction with winds aloft for long flights. There's not only a good environmental impact, but quite a bit of savings for the airline.
Both my brothers are senior captains for well-known airlines, so this is a common talking point at the holiday dinner table. I got screwed with the colorblindness...wish I made as much per hour.
Oops, replied to wrong parent...
TRUE
Based on some factual history and some faith.
Well, it's pretty simple, actually. I believe in some way, shape or form, God created the thing. Maybe He made it evolve, maybe He made it appear out of thin air...essentially I don't know, and don't need to. Creationism and science aren't necessarily exclusive. I simply believe that the scientific reasons behind what happens exist at the behest of a supreme being.
You're right, I forgot to include anything about land-based ice, which is a large portion of the Earth's ice. Didn't mean to come across as condescending as I did.
:)
Some recent journal articles actually have conflicting numbers as to whether or not the ice is receding on the poles. A major ice shelf in Antarctica, previously thought to be losing 13.1 gigatons per year, was measured with a more accurate method to be gaining 26.1 gigatons per year -- that's the equivalent of a shelf 5 feet thick the size of New Hampshire. Either way, though, the caveat is the error in the measurement. The error in the 13.1 value from before was plus or minus 13 gigatons. The more accurate method had an uncertainty of 5 gigatons. Either way, the data we're basing a lot of these decisions on isn't good.
I agree completely with your statement "This is the root of the debate, global warming is happening, there are a number of contributing factors and we cannot stop it." I think that's a very conscientious way to say it. I think we need to do what we can to slow down our effects on our environment, but by the same token, people won't give up reliable electricity for the CO2 rationing currently under consideration for legislation. There are definite consequences to the energy infrastructure.
We continue on this path because in the morning, a large percentage of the American (and world) populace expects a light to come on when they throw a switch. The energy that's dumping mercury in our water is essential to many processes people won't even start to think about. Water purification is highly energy intensive. Overseas production and transportation of many consumer items is highly energy intensive. People, however, won't take shorter showers, and people won't stop shopping at Wal-Mart because it's not convenient to them.
As for Mercury in fish...hell, I work in a fluorescent lamp plant. I inhale mercury all day. Tuna's not going to kill you. The better fish for you are the ones that won't soak up all the Hg anyhow. That's why I stick to elk
Do you understand why ice floats? Do you understand the concept of water displacement? Tell you what, go put 4 ice cubes in a glass, and then fill it until the top has a reverse meniscus. Let the ice melt, and see what happens to the fluid level. Physics tells us that the water level will recede. Pertaining to your question, the water will go nowhere...in fact, the water will get more dense than the ice was...before you post a flaming reply, please take the time to understand why.
Comments like this are exactly what scare me. People are willing to scream up and down like they know everything because they watched the 7 o'clock news and read Al Gore's book (which hasn't a single piece of data in it)...the reality is, we don't know exactly what's going on. To act without a rational plan based on accurate knowledge is irresponsible, and what's more, unethical for any engineer. See this. It should be no different for the people exerting the constraints.
I'm not against being green, I'm against being stupid about it.
What pressure are you talking about? Remember, a pump simply changes the pressure across itself, not the pipe behind it. This has less to do with the air pressure at the other end, and more to do with the pump itself. Therefore, if you need to pump water up a 10-story building (let's assume 100 feet), then you need a pump capable of providing 100 feet of pressure head. When you then pump the fluid from atmospheric pressure to 100 feet of pressure, it will be enough to lift the fluid up the pipe (assuming flow is laminar, etc.), and the fluid coming out the other end will be P1 (atmospheric pressure) - P2 (pressure heighth of column, in feet of water) + P3 (pressure added by pump), and lo and behold - atmospheric pressure!
This being said, rarely do peopole use a vacuum pump to 'lift' the water up, as it would cavitate until the fluid got all the way up to it - it's much more economical to use a simpler centrifugal pump at the bottom of the column. For special applications, however, self-priming pumps like this do exist. So, to answer your questions, 32 feet is not a limit. The only limit is the ability of the pump to change pressure.
It's not so much that the Cold War is starting all over again, but that it never really ended.
I agree - it's as if someone looks at the Mona Lisa, enjoys it, and thus paints their own version. Knowing the picture, even down to its minutest details, is in no way an infringement of the original artist's rights. If they don't want their art emulated, they shouldn't put it out for the masses to enjoy.
OK, let's fire up a robot and check his work...
My robots caresses your moons. You're right, baby this sh- is hot.
True, but the Stirling engine is actually in the process of revolutionizing the way we refrigerate as well as new ways to extract significant power from heat sources. Just to let you know Stirling isn't as impractical as it at first seems.
It is important, though, to keep in mind what the parent says, and that sometimes theories and applications don't quite match up.
This is honestly the type of thing that their lawyers are fighting, and exactly the kind of thing that is exacerbating the problem. Remember the Pilgrims who came here came so they could practice their own religions without persecution. Remember in the USA, a religion has the right to practice the way it wants, so long as it doesn't break any US laws in doing so, no matter if it is Satanism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or anything else.
I agree that the arrest as read in the article doesn't seem constitutional at all, and I don't think it will hold up in a court of appeals, HOWEVER - I also don't think it's right to expose texts of the Church of Scientology that they don't want exposed. Should we take a video camera into the Holy of Holies and post it on the internet? I think a better response is to support the defendant and his civil rights, but stop the attacking nonsense. It's only a war because you make it one.
The whole idea is to let the other religions (kooky as they may be) do as they please, until something like this happens. Certainly there are legal battles to be fought, but fight them in the right way.