The only difference that results in (resulted in, it's getting better lately) is that BSD-licensed code gets used, while GPL'ed code doesn't get used, for commercial purposes
Are you kidding, or was that a serious claim? Or does lately mean "in the last 20 years?"
Prior to the ascension of Linux in the embedded space (the vast majority of all kernels exist here), I never once encountered a BSD.
QNX, VxWorks, home-grown, but never a BSD.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you. Sounds like one of those arguments that sounds good in principle, but just isn't back up by reality.
Wait- really?
The system is both magnets... the sum of the momentum change is 0.
Now put 2 magnets in freefall, and get one of them to move another without moving itself, now you've recreated the EM Drive.
We use gravity daily to generate hydroelectric power.
Really, we use the sun to generate hydroelectric power. We use the gravity and terrain to reclaim the energy the sun gave the water in a less complicated fashion;)
the expected thrust from 10GW of power beam is 33 Newtons
And the expected thrust from 1W is 3.3 nanonewtons. See the problem? I'll give you a hint- they measured ~1millinewton/W.
They're measuring more thrust than the photons they're generating actually have to give.
The problems of no leaking emissions, thus making this not a photon drive, or what they're theoretically pushing against (magical quantum vacuum effects at microwave photon energies) are secondary to the problem that they have magically generated more momentum than they put into the system.
I totally understand what you're saying, and I agree entirely, except when it comes to conservation of momentum. It's a simple concept that is necessary for this Universe to make any sense and be stable in any way. If photons could grant a system more momentum than those photons actually possess, then there are plenty of cosmological phenomenon that could result in practically infinite momentum increase, linear or angular. That's a tough pill to swallow.
I don't know. The implication is that we can leverage more momentum from a system than we put into it. This is a concept that is going to make any Scientist's hair bristle. Even if we're pushing against the nothingness of space, using static friction against some quantum vacuum, it's still generating more momentum than we put into it in the form of low-energy photons. This is a bomb on fucking beaver cleaver-ville. It implies that there is some macro-scale reaction against the universe that is possible that allows photons to impart more momentum into a system than they actually have.
More likely, is it's a measuring error or some reaction against a local field of the test-rig/Earth.
I did RTFA, the photon rocket is relevant, because that's all the momentum they have to work with in the system, implying this is truly non-newtonian thrust. I don't buy pushing against quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, because the energy levels are too small, and the scale too macro. At any reasonable length, the quantum vacuum averages to 0. You don't get to push against it.
What will interest me, is if NASA can reproduce thrust in hard vacuum at more than 50 millionths of a Newton per kW. At that little thrust, I'm willing to accept all kinds of measuring problems with the rig, or local EM interactions with the Earth. When they start pulling thousandths of a Newton or even Newtons in hard vacuum, then I'll concede that we have in fact found out that we can push against space itself with something is meek as microwaves.
It's kind of like challenging the existence of a religious person's god.
I think it's more like showing them direct evidence that their God doesn't exist. If this isn't a measurement problem or some incredibly overlooked aspect of relativity or QED, then the world is fucked. Once conservation of momentum is violated, we might as well throw in the towel, Einstein was wrong- the Universe *isn't* comprehensible.
It is the same as if you are locked in a cage and bump yourself against the wall - the cage eventually moves. yet nothing is expelled outside of the cage.
No- it is *not* like that.
This is like you throwing yourself against the wall, and it reacting with the force of a Saturn V.
Or just being unable to find a way to have negative energy density in a volume of space required for expansion of the universe (unless there are other ways to expand spacetime, but as far as I know, the quantum physicists haven't yet found a way to replace the Einstein Tensor)... Maybe we'll get our hands on some condensed dark energy;)
Its not a violation of the laws of conventional physics.
It actually really is... We know full-well that photons have momentum, and we know exactly how much with extraordinary precision since that particular portion of QED is very well understood, and confirmed to as much accuracy as we have the technology to test for.
However, this appears, contrary to any form of common sense or known theory, to be ridiculously more powerful than a photon rocket of equivalent power and perfect efficiency (perfectly collimated, perfect e->g conversion- ie, impossible).
This isn't a bunch of highly educated scientists just now learning the Kzinti Lesson, this is a bunch of highly educated scientists scratched their head because the conservation of momentum appears violated.
There are quite a few arbitrary precision libraries out there. Sure, not "unlimited", but close enough for the video. These days, with multi-core machines, you can even generate images of decent resolution, far beyond the useful precision of double precision floats, *fast*. And since distributed computing is all the rage, these days, you can do even better: http://www.ultrafractal.com/
You really need to share some of the drugs you are taking. They must be awesome. So, what kind of photosynthesis does a car do?
It of course doesn't, but you knew that.
However, you feed it carbon, and it spits it back out. In, out. No sequestration of carbon. Neutral.
Building a trillion cars adds 0 carbon to the carbon cycle, only adds steps to the cycle. It's the extraction of carbon from outside of the cycle that is not neutral.
This is unlike a tree, which takes atmospheric carbon, and builds this stuff called wood out of it.
Sequestration.
Yes, for a little while. In the fastest growing period. Once the forest is somewhat established, the rotting processes etc in that forest will produce as much carbon as the forest consumes. Sure, the growth stage is semi-long in human terms, but it is both far too slow and far too inefficient to do anything about our current emissions.
You still miss the point. Sure the forest becomes carbon neutral. Who cares. A car is carbon neutral. But that forest didn't spring forth magically from the ground. It took several metric fucktons of carbon to create that new chunk of carbon cycle right there. The existence of the forest is a net negative in atmospheric carbon, even if the forest's regular non-growing respiration is not.
Quit thinking about it in terms of emissions. Emissions aren't the problem. If you mean to say that we couldn't plant trees quick enough to offset the carbon we're injecting into the cycle from the depths of the Earth, then sure, you're probably right, at least in a long-term. The solution is to stop fucking adding that carbon to the cycle, or to offset that added carbon with more sink capability (trees) as much as possible. There is a fixed amount of carbon in the cycle, + what we are adding via hydrocarbon extraction. We want more of that carbon to be in the form of biomass than CO2. That means trees.
As for cars, putting any kind of restrictions on cars to curb CO2 emissions is retarded, since personal transport constitutes a tiny part (4-5%) of the total CO2 emissions. Going electrical is retarded since the electricity used to drive the car is, in the end, produced by burning coal. None of the current efforts to curb CO2 emissions have any theoretical possibility of making a dent in CO2 emissions since they do not encourage, or enforce, a reduction in (or stopping of) the burning of coal.
Curbing CO2 emissions is retarded, directly speaking. But it has the added bonus of reducing the demand for the actual bad aspect here- the carbon being added to the cycle from below the ground.
Electricity to drive the car comes from many sources. Here in Seattle, I assure you it is not coal. For all of the electric cars in the midwest and the south, I'm sure you're absolutely right.
Germany has gone to 30-40% electricity production using renewable energy. Still, their CO2 emissions have increased at exactly the same rate as the rest of the world. For two main reasons - 1/ The morons are shutting down nuclear plants, and 2/ when mixing renewable energy and fossil burning, the fossil burning becomes far less efficient and the CO2 emissions from coal and oil increases quite significantly.
I don't see how fossil burning becomes less efficient, at all when mixed with renewable energy. The base load is quite stable. I'm pretty sure reason #1 is the only real reason their CO2 output has increased... But what does that have to do with the conversation? We're talking about sequestering carbon in the form of trees...
Sorry to disappoint you, but a car is carbon neutral as well. It produces as much carbon as it consumes.
Come on, dude. Certainly you understand that the addition of a forest where previously there was not is a carbon sink, and even if that new sink is neutral, it still represents a net decrease of unsequestered carbon floating around in the fscking atmosphere?
Bingo. The primary problem isn't that we're producing too much CO2, it's that we're putting Carbon that has been out of the cycle for a very long time back into it. If we source our carbon from the cycle, we're not adding anything to it. Whether that can be done is anyone's guess, but we need to stop adding carbon back into the cycle, otherwise we will *never* find magical ways to sequester it. That coal comes from a time when the entire damn planet was covered in trees. It can't be that way again. One hole. Trees go in it. Plant more trees. Rinse and repeat until carbon cycle contains desired amount of carbon.
You're right, of course. However, forest mass is loosely correlated with forest area, and the latter is simpler for people to grok, lest the conversation devolve into people saying: "Ha! What happens when the tree you planted dies?! All that carbon back in the atmosphere!"
Problem absolutely solved. After tree dies, new tree grows. Atmosphere now has -1 trees worth of carbon in its atmosphere as the new forest attains carbon neutrality, minus the mass required to grow it. Adding more machinery to the cycle necessarily consumes more energy, where cycle is the life and death of trees in a forest, and the energy is CO2. Unless of course you believe in perpetual motion.
Current levels are not even "average" in the context of history.
What kind of timescale are we talking about? Hundred years? Thousand? Ten thousand? Millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions? You could be very wrong, or very right with that assertion. I'm going to assume you're right, and we'll talk hundreds of millions.
It's amusing you cite the Sun in any fashion because it wasn't all that long ago than any mention of the Sun with regards to climate change was dismissed out of hand.
I had assumed in the first quote, you were defining history as "a really fucking long time", which humorously enough, is the exact timescale where the Sun's variance over time starts to play a real part in the Earth's thermodynamic equilibrium game. Turns out solar evolution is a pretty slow process. Of course, now that you've asserted that short-term variations in solar output are driving climate change, I can see I you've just attempted to change the definition of "history" that you initially assigned to fit a contradicting argument. Seems legit.
What you are doing is making shit up on the fly and talking in circles just avoid the fact that the CO2 concentrations today pale with what the traditionally have been.
At least he isn't changing definitions every other statement to support his assertion. Ignorant, or trolling? Can't tell.
None of your points are wrong, however replacing deforested areas with forests is a net loss in atmospheric carbon. Sure they don't magically sit there and scrub the atmosphere, but the existence of the forest is sequestered carbon that was previously in the air.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't explain his straw man to him, he knows why he did it.
I'm not sure that's an attestation to the quality of work produced under the license. Kind of like the most popular food in America being McDonalds.
The only difference that results in (resulted in, it's getting better lately) is that BSD-licensed code gets used, while GPL'ed code doesn't get used, for commercial purposes
Are you kidding, or was that a serious claim? Or does lately mean "in the last 20 years?"
Prior to the ascension of Linux in the embedded space (the vast majority of all kernels exist here), I never once encountered a BSD.
QNX, VxWorks, home-grown, but never a BSD.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you. Sounds like one of those arguments that sounds good in principle, but just isn't back up by reality.
Alpha Centauri??? With a perpetual motion drive? To hell with that. I'll see you at the end of the Universe.
Wait- really?
The system is both magnets... the sum of the momentum change is 0.
Now put 2 magnets in freefall, and get one of them to move another without moving itself, now you've recreated the EM Drive.
We use gravity daily to generate hydroelectric power.
Really, we use the sun to generate hydroelectric power. We use the gravity and terrain to reclaim the energy the sun gave the water in a less complicated fashion ;)
the expected thrust from 10GW of power beam is 33 Newtons
And the expected thrust from 1W is 3.3 nanonewtons. See the problem? I'll give you a hint- they measured ~1millinewton/W.
They're measuring more thrust than the photons they're generating actually have to give.
The problems of no leaking emissions, thus making this not a photon drive, or what they're theoretically pushing against (magical quantum vacuum effects at microwave photon energies) are secondary to the problem that they have magically generated more momentum than they put into the system.
I totally understand what you're saying, and I agree entirely, except when it comes to conservation of momentum. It's a simple concept that is necessary for this Universe to make any sense and be stable in any way. If photons could grant a system more momentum than those photons actually possess, then there are plenty of cosmological phenomenon that could result in practically infinite momentum increase, linear or angular. That's a tough pill to swallow.
I don't know. The implication is that we can leverage more momentum from a system than we put into it. This is a concept that is going to make any Scientist's hair bristle. Even if we're pushing against the nothingness of space, using static friction against some quantum vacuum, it's still generating more momentum than we put into it in the form of low-energy photons. This is a bomb on fucking beaver cleaver-ville. It implies that there is some macro-scale reaction against the universe that is possible that allows photons to impart more momentum into a system than they actually have.
More likely, is it's a measuring error or some reaction against a local field of the test-rig/Earth.
I did RTFA, the photon rocket is relevant, because that's all the momentum they have to work with in the system, implying this is truly non-newtonian thrust. I don't buy pushing against quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, because the energy levels are too small, and the scale too macro. At any reasonable length, the quantum vacuum averages to 0. You don't get to push against it.
What will interest me, is if NASA can reproduce thrust in hard vacuum at more than 50 millionths of a Newton per kW. At that little thrust, I'm willing to accept all kinds of measuring problems with the rig, or local EM interactions with the Earth. When they start pulling thousandths of a Newton or even Newtons in hard vacuum, then I'll concede that we have in fact found out that we can push against space itself with something is meek as microwaves.
100,000x as much, in fact.
It's kind of like challenging the existence of a religious person's god.
I think it's more like showing them direct evidence that their God doesn't exist. If this isn't a measurement problem or some incredibly overlooked aspect of relativity or QED, then the world is fucked. Once conservation of momentum is violated, we might as well throw in the towel, Einstein was wrong- the Universe *isn't* comprehensible.
It is the same as if you are locked in a cage and bump yourself against the wall - the cage eventually moves. yet nothing is expelled outside of the cage.
No- it is *not* like that.
This is like you throwing yourself against the wall, and it reacting with the force of a Saturn V.
Or just being unable to find a way to have negative energy density in a volume of space required for expansion of the universe (unless there are other ways to expand spacetime, but as far as I know, the quantum physicists haven't yet found a way to replace the Einstein Tensor)... Maybe we'll get our hands on some condensed dark energy ;)
Its not a violation of the laws of conventional physics.
It actually really is ... We know full-well that photons have momentum, and we know exactly how much with extraordinary precision since that particular portion of QED is very well understood, and confirmed to as much accuracy as we have the technology to test for.
However, this appears, contrary to any form of common sense or known theory, to be ridiculously more powerful than a photon rocket of equivalent power and perfect efficiency (perfectly collimated, perfect e->g conversion- ie, impossible).
This isn't a bunch of highly educated scientists just now learning the Kzinti Lesson, this is a bunch of highly educated scientists scratched their head because the conservation of momentum appears violated.
If you look hard, you'll see he never really left the halls of Congress.
There are quite a few arbitrary precision libraries out there. Sure, not "unlimited", but close enough for the video. These days, with multi-core machines, you can even generate images of decent resolution, far beyond the useful precision of double precision floats, *fast*. And since distributed computing is all the rage, these days, you can do even better: http://www.ultrafractal.com/
You really need to share some of the drugs you are taking. They must be awesome. So, what kind of photosynthesis does a car do?
It of course doesn't, but you knew that.
However, you feed it carbon, and it spits it back out. In, out. No sequestration of carbon. Neutral.
Building a trillion cars adds 0 carbon to the carbon cycle, only adds steps to the cycle. It's the extraction of carbon from outside of the cycle that is not neutral.
This is unlike a tree, which takes atmospheric carbon, and builds this stuff called wood out of it.
Sequestration.
Yes, for a little while. In the fastest growing period. Once the forest is somewhat established, the rotting processes etc in that forest will produce as much carbon as the forest consumes. Sure, the growth stage is semi-long in human terms, but it is both far too slow and far too inefficient to do anything about our current emissions.
You still miss the point. Sure the forest becomes carbon neutral. Who cares. A car is carbon neutral. But that forest didn't spring forth magically from the ground. It took several metric fucktons of carbon to create that new chunk of carbon cycle right there. The existence of the forest is a net negative in atmospheric carbon, even if the forest's regular non-growing respiration is not.
Quit thinking about it in terms of emissions. Emissions aren't the problem. If you mean to say that we couldn't plant trees quick enough to offset the carbon we're injecting into the cycle from the depths of the Earth, then sure, you're probably right, at least in a long-term. The solution is to stop fucking adding that carbon to the cycle, or to offset that added carbon with more sink capability (trees) as much as possible. There is a fixed amount of carbon in the cycle, + what we are adding via hydrocarbon extraction. We want more of that carbon to be in the form of biomass than CO2. That means trees.
As for cars, putting any kind of restrictions on cars to curb CO2 emissions is retarded, since personal transport constitutes a tiny part (4-5%) of the total CO2 emissions. Going electrical is retarded since the electricity used to drive the car is, in the end, produced by burning coal. None of the current efforts to curb CO2 emissions have any theoretical possibility of making a dent in CO2 emissions since they do not encourage, or enforce, a reduction in (or stopping of) the burning of coal.
Curbing CO2 emissions is retarded, directly speaking. But it has the added bonus of reducing the demand for the actual bad aspect here- the carbon being added to the cycle from below the ground.
Electricity to drive the car comes from many sources. Here in Seattle, I assure you it is not coal. For all of the electric cars in the midwest and the south, I'm sure you're absolutely right.
Germany has gone to 30-40% electricity production using renewable energy. Still, their CO2 emissions have increased at exactly the same rate as the rest of the world. For two main reasons - 1/ The morons are shutting down nuclear plants, and 2/ when mixing renewable energy and fossil burning, the fossil burning becomes far less efficient and the CO2 emissions from coal and oil increases quite significantly.
I don't see how fossil burning becomes less efficient, at all when mixed with renewable energy. The base load is quite stable. I'm pretty sure reason #1 is the only real reason their CO2 output has increased... But what does that have to do with the conversation? We're talking about sequestering carbon in the form of trees...
Sorry to disappoint you, but a car is carbon neutral as well. It produces as much carbon as it consumes.
Come on, dude. Certainly you understand that the addition of a forest where previously there was not is a carbon sink, and even if that new sink is neutral, it still represents a net decrease of unsequestered carbon floating around in the fscking atmosphere?
Bingo. The primary problem isn't that we're producing too much CO2, it's that we're putting Carbon that has been out of the cycle for a very long time back into it. If we source our carbon from the cycle, we're not adding anything to it. Whether that can be done is anyone's guess, but we need to stop adding carbon back into the cycle, otherwise we will *never* find magical ways to sequester it. That coal comes from a time when the entire damn planet was covered in trees. It can't be that way again. One hole. Trees go in it. Plant more trees. Rinse and repeat until carbon cycle contains desired amount of carbon.
You're right, of course. However, forest mass is loosely correlated with forest area, and the latter is simpler for people to grok, lest the conversation devolve into people saying: "Ha! What happens when the tree you planted dies?! All that carbon back in the atmosphere!"
Problem absolutely solved. After tree dies, new tree grows. Atmosphere now has -1 trees worth of carbon in its atmosphere as the new forest attains carbon neutrality, minus the mass required to grow it. Adding more machinery to the cycle necessarily consumes more energy, where cycle is the life and death of trees in a forest, and the energy is CO2. Unless of course you believe in perpetual motion.
Current levels are not even "average" in the context of history.
What kind of timescale are we talking about? Hundred years? Thousand? Ten thousand? Millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions? You could be very wrong, or very right with that assertion. I'm going to assume you're right, and we'll talk hundreds of millions.
It's amusing you cite the Sun in any fashion because it wasn't all that long ago than any mention of the Sun with regards to climate change was dismissed out of hand.
I had assumed in the first quote, you were defining history as "a really fucking long time", which humorously enough, is the exact timescale where the Sun's variance over time starts to play a real part in the Earth's thermodynamic equilibrium game. Turns out solar evolution is a pretty slow process. Of course, now that you've asserted that short-term variations in solar output are driving climate change, I can see I you've just attempted to change the definition of "history" that you initially assigned to fit a contradicting argument. Seems legit.
What you are doing is making shit up on the fly and talking in circles just avoid the fact that the CO2 concentrations today pale with what the traditionally have been.
At least he isn't changing definitions every other statement to support his assertion. Ignorant, or trolling? Can't tell.
None of your points are wrong, however replacing deforested areas with forests is a net loss in atmospheric carbon. Sure they don't magically sit there and scrub the atmosphere, but the existence of the forest is sequestered carbon that was previously in the air.
You're already like +1832, Insightful, so I'll save my mod points-
You're a word-smith. Beautifully written.