with anamorphic DVDs (super wide screen), there are not a lot of lines to upscale, and bumping it to 720 or higher makes a lot of these DVDs look quite blurry, and in a few cases I've seen that even PPV on digital cable looks better...
I thought the same thing, until I actually borrowed a PS3, hooked up Casino Royale, and watched it in full HD splendor.
I strictly and only watch my sports in HD today. Even Digital cable (technically HD at 480i, same as superbit DVD quality) can't compare, and cable broadcast in my area is only 720i, not even 1080...
I have an upscale DVD player that outputs in 1080p. I tried DVDs and Blu-ray disks for the same movies, and I can CLEARLY see the difference, and only on my 37" set to boot. I have not bought a DVD since, and don;t currently own a blu-ray player, but I'm buying all my movies on blu-ray anticipating the purchase of my own PS3 not long after the first of the year. I simply won't watch in DVD quality if I have a choice to see better....and it's not only the image. Blu-ray's audio is also greatly enhanced (if you have a compatible tuner like I do). Full HD lossless 7.1 is clearly better than 5.1 on DVDs. (they support 7.1 with compression on DVD, but rarely is ever do you find a disk that uses it!)
Up converting players are one thing, but actually, a big part of it is that of those I have experience with, most of the Blu-Ray players being put in living rooms either are not being connected to a 1080P TV, but a 720P or 720i, even more of them are not being connected with the proper cables, further degrading picture quality, and even more are simply plugged in without following the process for configuration of the proper outputs, leaving them in 480p or 720i default support modes.
Blu-Ray players should come equipped with ONLY HDMI 2.x ports DVI, and should include no analog or progressive outputs at all. Since the point of the player is full HD, any connection that does not provide that is piontless, and confusing to non-technical (read 98%) of consumers. If your TV does not have HDMI or DVI native support, and does not get at LEAST 1080i resolution, then Blu-Ray should NOT be sold to you.
I can CLEARLY see the difference between my upscaled DVD player and broadcast 720i HDTV. 720p looks slightly better still, 1080i not so drastic from 720p. 1080p looks PHENOMENAL, even compared to DVD upscaled to that resolution, but since there is NO HD broadcast at that qaulity, not even satellite or cable TV that supports that high quality, most people have never experienced it, and thus can not make informed sales decisions on whether or not to buy.
My personal TV is a 37" 720p set. I'll be moving that to another room after Christmas, and picking up a 1080p native TV set, a new receiver with multi-HDMI port support, and a blue-ray player.
The price of disks will normalize soon enough. DVD used to be $39.99 when VHS was 24.99. As hybrid blu-ray/DVD disks start coming out, simplifying the logistics of shipping and stocking both formats, the price will drop. also, expect that many distributors will start giving sales advantages to blu-ray, releasing weeks or even months sooner to that format than to DVD, just to push the early adopters (and stem copying slightly as well)
With the PS3 being the most popular blu-ray player today, I expect other players to come down to $249 or less, and cheaper models will likely be available for $150 or so for the Christmas season, possibly even a $99 player.
On a small TV, 32" or less, at 720i support, it's very hard to tell the difference between upscaled DVD and true HD. however, keep in mind than in a few years, when that TV gets replaced with a better one, if you bet on Blu-ray, you'll see an immediate improvement in the quality of your output.
When DVDs first came out, I bought MANY movies on it, even though my only player was in my PC, and I had just a VCR in the living room. I ripped disks to tape for a long time. When i got a DVD player finally, most of my library was already playable on it. I'm in line to repeat this with bu-ray.
well, they produce more cars, yes, but with more robots, not more workers.
Most of the existing car factories simply can't be retrofitted that way, and where they can, they have been. Workers are being laid off in large lots because either 1) they are restructuring a line to produce a newer model or different car, which takes a lot of time, and the workers on the line need to be terminated, at least for the short term, so at least they can collect benefits until a new line comes online, at which point, many of them are re-hired to new positions 2) they downsized production due to slumping sales, and thus terminated unnecessary employees, 3) they built a fancy new facility in another state, thanks to tax breaks, and fired the employees at the old facility being shut down or downsized, 4) because of a costly recall, lawsuit, or other outside interference, they cut staff to save money, 5) efficiency improvements or new automation processes require fewer workers per vehicle to manufacture (the more mature the model line gets, the engineers figure out better ways to package the components for easy assembly), or 6) they have labor intensive parts (like wiring harnesses) made overseas.
The foreign guys build a lot of cars here, but much of the car is actually made overseas, and simply assembled here. All the really complicated parts like the wiring, engine, transmission, etc, are made overseas and shipped here, and the American companies are catching on too. Of course, many of the American lines are actually made in Canada or Mexico today.
Our "alleged" influence is actually FACT. We HAVE increased the CO2 levels beyond by our own actions, we are continuing to increase them at record paces, and we KNOW the earth is warmed by it. The exact areas where CO2 is absorbed or not is actually irrelevant to the fact that we are causing an issue.
We were not giving off this CO2 200 years ago. The environment does constantly balance itself, but only after hundreds of years. Are you saying that it's OK for the oceans to rise 12 feet before mother nature self corrects, of that it's OK that half of the cities in the world will be swept clean by the next glacial advance?
Whether we know what the impact is or not, or what the environment does or not, we know what our emissions are, and we should control them, as they are not part of the basic process of this planet.
We know well enough about this process without being able to account for each molecule's interaction individually. There's a TON of science backing up what we know today. All we've discovered is a minor, and relatively unimportant detail in the process. That detail might lead us to new ways to sequester CO2, but it does NOT change the fact that we MUST reduce our output, or offset that output.
All of this of course is completely independent of the market and resource factors that also drive actions like CAFE. The engine makers are not sufficiently self regulating, so we need to do it for them. If they comply, noone pays extra. Taxing gas makes everyone pay extra, and further penalizes the lower class as they can't typically just swap out their cars for more efficient ones, especially under increaed burdens of higher taxes.
Exactly. This is not some NEW CO2 sink, it's already been doing it. Our discovery of this process only reduces the value of what we believed was being sequestered by other processes. Fact is, we still have a net gain, and the pace of that gain is far more then the environment can cope with.
Whether or not we can prove to what extent CO2 has on the environment, the fact is, we're contributing to the environment in ways outside of natural course. The idea of "take only pictures, leave only footprints" should be loosely extended to all of what we do. This CO2 wasn't going in to the system before, it should not be going into the system now unless we can counter balance it by also removing an equal amount, or by using only renewable resources to produce it.
I also doubt we'll see server OS as a web based model, and a large pportion of their revenue if from servers and server licencing. and I do expect the corporate desktop and advanced business editions of office would cost more as well. Of course, many of the businesses already are on a subscription model (Volume Licence plus Software Assurance = free copies on new release for nominal yearly fees)
Even at $10/gallon (which we'll have Windfuels competing with at $3.50 a gallon) at 12,000 miles per year, and 150MPG average use, we're talking $160 per year savings at 20% reclamation. Over a 10 year vehicle lifespan, assuming maintenance or material replacement is nominal, you'd still need to have this total system cost less than $1600, with no impact on engine efficiency at 20% re-use. I assume there will be some engine impact. and although the material may make 20%, that assumes constant contact with the heat source. unfortunately, most of the heat will pass right by the material, never contacting the sides of the pipes, as it spewes out the rear end.
The cars we'll be running already have regenerative breaking, so that's another non-issue. $4 per gallong should last the year, by next summer we'll be aproaching $4.50, maybe $5. Predictions are $6 by 2012 and we won't cross $10 until after 2015, worst case (the economy will likely fail if it accelerates faster than that, and it won't be fun for anyone at that pace.
WindFulels should be entering the market within 3 years. Full electric hybrids this coming year with more than half the cars produced being full electrci hybrids by 2015. Many others will be home converting their old cars to electric gas hybrids (a guy here in Columbia SC already convertid his 1980-something pickup into a plug-in electric, and did it for less than $3000 in his own garage, others will follow).
Even if it was on the market in 3 years, and we started putting it in 50% of new cars by 2015, the cars you're talking about adding it to will have the $80 annual benefit I'm talking about. This technology won't benefit ICE powered cars, since generating electrcity through heat, even to produce electricity for interior items, accessories, lights, etc, does not remove the need for an alternator nor improve overall MPG in older cars. Maybe it would have 1 or 2 MPG difference if you put in a bigger battery, giving battery only drive until enough heat was being generated to recycle back to the battery through this system, but on short, less than 10 mile trips, you'd have issues since the engine won't get hot enough to add engough energy back to the battery.
Again, great technology in some areas, but since there's no real impact on older cars (without massive redesign and thousand of dolars in labor, more expensive likely than simply trading in for a used electric hybrid), and since the value in new cars would top out at about $160 per year, even at $10/gallon, (and about $80 per year now) it's simply not an economical addition to the car.
The material may be inexpensive, and light, and similar to a cat converter, but then we have to take that electricity through a system to balance the load, syncronize the current frequency, and safely add that current to the battery. You can't just feed randomly generated energy into the cars systems... This is where the weight and complexity will come into play. This is made worse since a car will not produce a consistant amount of heat, nor will it produce much at all for the first few minutes of driving.
We have a dozen ways to improve vehicle efficiency before such a system as this makes sense. Those ways can be put in place today. Further, since we now know how to make unlimited fuel without Oil, the market pressures and CO2 generation limits are no longer issues, so vehicle efficiency improvements beyond 2015 will not be for environmental or consumption reasons, but for cost lowering. This system increases costs, which means it unmarketable.
In power plants, yes, constant heat, steam pressure does not really effect power generation, and we can capture that heat to make more electricity. Sure, it still needs to be made in a grid syncronous way, and it will be expensive. It will only be likely to be deployed if collecting that 20% costs less than simply generating more electricity (which it likely won't be, since power plants are about 70% efficient), or if we legislate a requirement to use it.
1) if your song got on someone elses machine, they still have a burden of proof to meet to establish that you "willingfully" provided it through your own action. If someone hacked your machine (likely because your security was not up to snuff, or you fell to a phishing attack), managed to get a port out through your firewall (because you did not use outgoing port blocking rules), and downloaded your collection without your permission (without you noticing the banmdwidth hit and system activity spike), then at that point, you deserve at least to be investigated, which basically would involve the authorities actually getting a wire tap warent on your system, at which point they might determine either you'd closed the hole and were no longer sharing files (leaving them with no evidence with whioch to proceed with a case against you, since although someone has your files, they can't prove you traded them willingly), or that files were actively being downloaded, but only to a known virus collection source which should automatically show you as innocent. Potentially, the virus could be made in such a way as to make it look like youre simply uploading files to a P2P at which point they might actually go through with a seisure order and confiscate your system. The inconvenience for a few days of not having your PC while they in fact determine that you were the victim of a known ITW virus or hack attack would certainly convince you to increase your security in the future. You'd be found innocent, with little fuss, and be back to life.
2) people will not INCREASE their illegal activity. This is simply a moronic statemnt. Buying somehting legally only puts you at risk if you are WILLINGLY uploading files. Stating that people will CHOOSE to ILLEGALLY acquire files, well, you obviosly missed the part about them running their own P2P systems that track illegal downloaders. Generally, they'll go after dowloaders first, since they're quick and easy cases, and they'll investigate distributors only when patterns of distribution emerge, after which they have to investigate, collect real evidence, then seize the system and prove the offence. They won't do this every time they find one random PC with your files on it.
Again, the purpose of watermarked files is exactly this: You don;t know wether it just belongs to someone else, wether it's clean or not, or if it actually BELONGS to the FBI or RIAA. Downloading, except from people you know and trust personally, and for whom you can be certain themselves won't get caught by the RIAA, is basically russian roulette. Sooner or later, you WILL download one of their poisoned files. The ONLY way to be certain of being immune to their watchful eye is to STRICTLY buy legitimate files, and ensure you are not sharing those files with anyone.
If you were too cheap (or don't know better) to make sure you can't be hacked, and keep proper security measures in place, then you're no more safe than people who keep money in their matresses. We know people will get hacked, but the only people this will inconvenience are the people who don't care enough to operate a computer safely on the net, and maybe there concequence for being dumb can simply be the inconvenience or occasionally having your PC confiscated and inspected before it's returned to you (possibly wiped clean).
Again, with their current hopes of 10%, 20 sounds like quite a bit off from now in time. Also, can that 20% be maintained without adding back pressure to the engine, reducing it's efficiency, and also, what will this system add in vehicle costs, space requirements, maintenance charges, complexity, and weight?
I think the system is great for large scale applications, but my understanding of the technology is that it 1) does not translate well to extremely small scale (the inside surface of an exhaust system) 2) works less efficiently on gasses than on liquids (maybe we use the radiator to capure the heat from the engine block, then transfer that to the reclaimer), 3) is a somewhat complex system, which, in the end produces electricity, not propulsion, so we still have to recycle that energy further through a hybrid engine, and at 150MPG or better average on new hybrids (electric drive, engine for battery charging only) the 20% of 150MPG would boil down to a whopping $64 per year saved (at $4 per gallon) I assume this system will cost a lot more than $600, a fair break even point for an average car over 10 years. Also, if we're using this to offset charging, but look at it across short commutes, we're competing at $2 per 150 miles, not 4, as charging at home is about half the cost, so this recouping would only be a benefit on trips longer thanh 60 miles in any given day.
If the system CAN be installed in electric drive crossover hybrids without dramatically increasing vehicle weight, or reducing cargo space beyond marketable limitsa, and if it's cost is less than $1000 over the LIFE of the vehicle (additional maintenance included) then I'm onboard, especially if we're talking about using it in larger less efficient personal vehicles. If it will cost more, there is no market reason to work on the technology on this scale. We can simply use WindFuels in place of oil based gasoline, and the cost issues and environmental impact issues both become non-issues, rendering the technology on this scale pointless.
You sond like you have some understanding of this process. I'd suggest you look more in detail at the Doty Energy RFTS process. They have made dramatic improvements to the process, and have proven the technique in small scale systems, they just lack the financial backing to built their 5MW scale proofing facility to take it to the next step.
Using what they have today, $80 a barrel is completely feasible. Once they have the chance to further refine the larger scale process first at a 5MW facility, then at a a larger facility, before a full scale facility is built (which is simply multiple mid scale processors under one roof), they are very confident in a $60 per barrel target cost. I'd be happy if they could make it work at $100 per barel honestly... Certainly, the cost will rise over time, as materials involved in the process rise in cost due to natural inflation, but if the price at the pump does nothing mroe than go up with inflation, then we've won.
If you want more details, I suggest offering up $45 for a copy of their complete analysis, and also looking into the patents they have recently been granted on the technology.
Well, I can speak from experience here. Wether there's a "No Parking" sign or not, the only time people tend to obey that sign is when they feel they're at risk of getting a ticket. The only time they feed the meter, is when they reasonably expect to be fined if they don't. People will naturally take all they can when there is no fear of concequence.
He's right, if we make it easy to fine people, say by taking them to small claims court for a simple 3X damages, and we can do that because instead of using DRM which is easy to crack and hard to track, we use digital watermarks with individual serial numbers, which are easy to tie to the original purchaser through various databases (and court orders to access those databases), then people will begin to understand the increased risk of getting caught.
My brain can completely understand a multi-million dollar fine, and that my inability to pay it would put my family on the street and me in prison for a long time. However, I also understand that 1) it's very difficult for me to get caught, very difficult for them to prove their case, very expensive for them to try, and thus 2) I have an extremely low probability of being a target of them unless I go nuts and dowload everything in sight and 3) based on current court victory/defeat, I'd have a good shot at getting out of it anyway. I still have no pirated information on my computers, and no duped DVDs (other than my own backup copies, since I don't want the kids scrathing the originals, which in my interpretation of the law is completely legal)
Now, I know that a DRM cracked file can't be traced. I also know I've successfully removed the DRM simply because it will play correctly. As for watermarks, they'll play in any device, cracked or not. I can't possibly know if a file is watermarked or not when I download it, and I also know that randomized digital watermarks are nearly mathematically impossible to remove (without a key file defining the watermark pattern in the file, or a copy of the original proof sample without the watermark). Each file is unique, so no simple encryption crack can universally clean all these files.
If i 1) download a watermarked file, I have no way of knowing it's clean. The presence of someone elses file on my PC is incrimination by itself. 2) I can't guarantee I can clean a file successfully, so I fear to upload it as I don't trust that who I send it to won't get themselves cought, thereby incriminating me as a distributor. If I can't be sure, and there's a defined risk, I won;t do it. Neither will most other people. I know it would be difficult today to catch me downloading, but it is conceivable if I pull a file from one of their servers, which I can't differentiate from any other john doe.
I know for a FACT today that the RIAA (and other organizations) are running P2P servers and they're sharing files that are specially marked as property of the RIAA using hidden watermarks. As these files are downloaded, they're tracking who does, and they're also looking around through the service to see who's sharing those files out further. Sooner or later, they're going to pull the trigger, and a mass court order for all the people involved in redistributing those poisoned files will make it through the courts, and hundreds of people are going to get burned by it. I expect the fines to be relatively sane (less than $50 per track), but it should be an eye opener to a lot of people. If it doesn't make it through the courts, it will be a mountain of evidence they can present to congress to get new laws passed making their activities easier.
I don't agree with the fines they're using today. I also don;t agree with how they calcualte damages (someone who would never pay for something in the first place and for a item that has no physical value if stolen, is not a loss of revenue). I do think people who download illegally should be subject to punishment, as it detracts from money that should be going to good bands that deserve to be paid for their artistic ef
Regardless of HOW you get a copy of copywritten material, unless you purchased it through a legitimate (read, has approval in writing from the copyrite holder to distribute said material) or if you acquired a written notice that you may acquire a copy without charge, or if the copyrite holder simply offers it for free to all, then you have comitted copyrite infringement. The existance of P2P is simply a method of transfering that illegal copy, it is not in fact any different from ripping a copy of the original, or acquiring a bootleg copy on some black market. This clearly violates 17 USC 106(1). This should carry the same punishment as apprpriate under existing rulings: 3X damages plus "reasonable" legal fees, and should be processed in the appropriate court of law, including small claims if the theft is under $2,000 worth, and the copyrite holder, or direct authority should be conducting the suit, not the RIAA on "behalf" of the holder, unless the holder specifically requested this person to be prosecuted in that way. This should be classed as a misdemeanor. For those who repeatedly offend, a technology ban parole period could be used (1 year, 3 year, and 10 year bans on using PCs, internet connections, or any form of device that can store or create copies of copyrighted materials. (players are OK as long as they don't store data). Violating parole, that's a felony, and that's how we can control repeat or grevious offenders.
Now, as for "distribution" as a facilitator of copyrite infringement, (the one doing the copying and distribution, NOT the innocent P2P network providers), there should be stricter penalties, roughly equal to 5X the value of the files distributed total (plus legal fees, which, based on the process I'm going to describe, will likely be higher than a common infringer's would be). The issue here is in trying to determine just how much distribution took place. Since users don't typically keep a log of all the files they uploaded (that would be too easy), we need to determine a baseline pattern. Once a potential distributor is identified, a court order (Wiretap warrent) to have their IP connection monitored for traffic should be issued. We monitor that connection for roughly 2 weeks, analyze the data, and determine the average number of files distributed over that timeframe, and then apply that number backwards to when it is believed the infringement began (should be able to be determined based on registry entry creation dates, software installation dates, or, if no other "proof" of a time exists, the date they detected the activity first). There should also be manditory prison time, say 1 year first offence (of which all but 60 days can be replaced with 2 years of parole). 2nd offence should be 1 year manditory, no option for porole, and further offences, well, since this is a felony, 3 strikes baby...
To make wiretap warents easier, any party who is a valid (licenced) authority on direct behalf (aka they have a letter authorizing them to investigate and prosecute a SPECIFIC individual or IP address, not a list or group, or random selection) should be able to request an ISP to begin to log a specific connection. The ISP has a right to charge for this service, and WILL NOT provide any part of that log to the requesting party until a court order authoruzing the wiretap is produced, which must happen withing 30 days of the request or the logs will be deleted, and the ISP can still charge for the effort and system space used for the log files. This is NO different from an individual requesting a call trace log from a phone company. They'll trace the calls, but won;t provide the details until the courts order such. The ISP itself should also not have any legal authority to review those logs internally, nor should it have the authority to do that to it's subscribers on it's own (it must be a 3rd party, under the direct and written authority of the actual copyrite holder). If the fee is high enough, this should significantly discourage frivilous persuits that either would not meet a judge's req
The exhaust process is a function of vapor expansion,not so much heat dissipation. If we impede that process, we reduce the efficiency of the engine itself. Can we collect enough heat as it flies through the exhaust pipes to recoup more than the combined engine impact, additional weight, and cost?
If our fuels come from green sources, and if CO2 emission of the engine is a non-issue, than only distance per gallon is of concern. If we use WindFuels (www.dotyenergy.com), at least until something better comes along in 30-75 more years, then heat reclamation will only be perused if it is both more effective and/or lower cost than other methods to improve efficiency that we already have and don't use.
We can simply mandate better headers and larger, smooth bend exhaust pipes and improve engine efficiency by nearly 5%. By running an engine only a peak torque (4000-5500 RPM depending on the engine) and use it only to make electricity to poewr electric motors, we can get nearly 40% out of the engine. Replace the ICE with a recombinant turbine, and the heat generated is less of an issue still, and we can approach 50%. All of these methods are available today, and can be implemented without radical vehicle redesign or the use of exotic metals.
I agree, in large installations, factories, power generation systems, and more, heat exchanger technology has clear advantages and uses, but in small scale engine systems, we have a lot of things we can do before we get to using this technology.
You're right, we'll constantly improve and demand more efficiency, but when we're talking about cars that will already be getting 150MPG (GM Tesla) on average commuter drives, the heat available to collect will not dramatically improve the efficiency. Further, how will such a system effect available vehicle space? Fuel cells are a great idea, if you like having a Dodge Durango as a 2 seat model....
Well, first, when we get these materials to 30%, not their "we'll be a 3% soon" level, you let me know.
Until then capturing 3% of 60%, but adding weight, complexity, and cost to the vehicle, I doubt will have any real benefit. Even at 10%, we're still looking at better improvement simply by switching to electric drive with gas backups.
If we follow the ideas presented by www.dotyenergy.com, then we don't need to worry about it anyway. If we replace oil with man made liquid fuel, produced using free energy from wind combined with byproducts from coal energy, then we don;t really have a CO2 issue, and since free energy is not a market limited comodity, the price of WindFuels should only rise with inflation, not other market factors, allowing us to at least get past the next few hundred years until another technology that costs less and has lower environmental impact comes along.
it's completely reasonable to be able to change the trajectory of an object, provided we have the time to launch a suitable craft, the propulsion systems with which to catch up to (we not only need to get there, but turn around and start coming back this way at speeds matching the roid, not easy to do), then land on it, or fire a tow line, and hope the surface of the roid is solid enough to apply force to.
Unfortunaltely, that's a lot of ifs, and a very expensive project, and all that assumes we have the time we need to intercept it.
For very large roids, this may be an option. For most others, nuking is not an option (it baffles me that NASA scientists simply don't understand the nature of an explosive, nukes require an atmosphere, or to be buried in the core of the roid, you can't just fire one at it).
heavy slugs are likely the way to go. My preference (since getting a large mass in orbit is difficult and expensive) lets go out and farm a bunch of small roids (a few thousand tons or so each), and bring them into orbit here. We can then "throw" them at incoming roids. Catching a small roid should not be very difficult, especially if we go get ones that are stationary. We can go the extra step to fashion hard impact surfaces on once face (aka solid bullet point) and place a few large bombs in it's core. When it impacts a big roid, it should punch through fairly effectively, and we can detonate in the middle of it, shattering roids of nearly any size we want.
Of course, when we develop the proton missle, this won't be a concern anymore...
What we have in the pipeline today, using nanocrystiline spectrum separation, multilayered PV cells targeted as specific spectrum collection, light-to-edge solar redirection and concentration at the nanoparticle layer, flexible, printable PV films, and more, I think it;s very likely we can create solar PV cells that can produce energy in mass at a competitive cost to nuclear or possibly even coal.
However, PV is only part of the answer. How do we deal with the "solar tide" (night/day) and fluxuations in energy production (clouds, storms, dust, heck even locusts). Any of the methods suggested for harvesting solar energy into batteries, uphill lakes, and more, is not only very expensive, and further limited by where it can be placed, and how to get energy from there to somewhere else (typically far away from solar sources).
Home solar is great for hot water, bad for electricity. The grid is not designed to have that much variance in energy needs. Further, as we move to electric cars, we'll need more power at night than any other time...
Is there an economically feasible answer? yes: Doty WindFuels (dotyenergy.com). A complete, and carbon friendly replacement for all oil-based products, and at a cost of about $80 per barrel.
1) use wind to make H2, via electrolysis. First, doing so vs making grid power is about 15% more efficient, and about half the cost (don't have to syncronize and balance output of multiple turbines, ie easy and cheap).
2) sequester CO2 from new coal power plants, which will also be constructed to be able to use liquid fuels in pace of coal in the future. Since we're talking a 30-40 year transition, there's no need to upgrade existing coal plants for this system as we can meet WindFuels demand for carbon in other ways if we have to at lower cost than fixing existing coal plants, and with less impact to the economy and less disruption to the existing power system.
3) combine CO2 and H2 in a chemical process, with a bit of water, and make any hydrocarbon you want us to make. (propane, methane, octane, etc, etc).
4) recycle more than 60% of the water used on site, pump the fuels in pipelines and trucks to begin replacing oil based gasoline.
5) sell waste O2 produced in this process to other industries that require massive amounts of O2. Pump the rest into the air.
6) over time, start using WindFuels as a power source in place of coal, and still recapture the CO2 produced to make more WindFuels. We'll need more carbon as well, but for each pound of carbon used, less than 30% enters the atmosphere, compared to nearly 100% today. Combine this reduction in CO2 waste with increased vehicle efficiency, adoption of all-electric (with backup engines for distance driving), on-vehicle CO2 sequestration, and other emerging technologies, and we can have our CO2 output in 30 years close to 20% (or less) than what it is today, and have enough fuel to continue doing that virtually forever.
again, www.dotyenergy.com. They not enly explain their process in great detail, but also show the economics behind it, and compare themselves to most every other technology that puports to do the same.
And those with current access to Yahoo CAN transfer their music, and in fact music transfer was part of the product they purchased (usable on multiple devices). By yahoo terminating this service, i see it as they are in effect 1) forcing people to reduce the quality of their music in order to retain rights to it, 2) exert unplanned for labor and additional expense (CDs) in the process, and 3) are violating the trust of their clients and potentially violating contracts and laws.
Yahoo should release a tool that unlocks the DRM without quality degradation of the music for all of their customers, free of charge, in order to prevent this music from being lost. Even simply reformatting your computer and restoring a backup would render this music useless unless first converted. The customers purchased high quality tracks, not CD ripped quality tracks. They should either be assisted to retain what they paid for, or refunded in full.
Actually his point was that each time i get in a car and drive, I have a very tiny chance of dying, vs my numbers, sourced from the CDC itself, included my likelyhood of dying that way over my entire lifespan. If he wanted to correlate properly, he should have also correlated my poercentage chance of dying per phone call I place/receive, or per minute of exposure to a cell signal vs. minute of being inside a motor vehicle.
Statistics must be balanced. Both posters above did not follow this rule. Imbalanced statistics are used regularly by lobbyist, politicians, and salesman. Learning to spot them is something we need schools to focus on more stringently.
Well, you are in part correct, and part incorrect.
4% of deaths IN AMERICA (read 300 million people, not 4 billion, much of the word has no access to cars like we do) happen in cars. This actually EXCLUDES dying of a heart attack in a car and other issues, and is specifically accidents leading to death.
Also, if you want to look at it the other way, the percentage chance that you're going to die EACH TIME you get in a car, when I'm looking at the percentage change of where i'll die eventually, then yes, obvoisly the percentage is MUCH smaller. However, if you take this logic, you also have to look at the percentage chance you'll develop cancer EACH TIME you're EXPOSED to a single cellular signal. Sicne we can't even prove you'll get cancer from it at all, and I use a cell phone about 40 times a day (any typically my car either 2 or 4 times a day), or even to look at it at the number of minutes level for true accuracy, the percentage of one's life exposed vs the chance of death of each.
Well, taking into account that even if I get cancer, my survivability chance is very high, and with a very small percentage even "theoretically" getting cancer from phones, and with cancer itself being less of a cause of death than car accidents, and with this particular type of cancer not even one of the top 5 cancers (78% of all cancer deaths are from 6 cancers, this isn't one of them). I think we're talking about numbers we can refer to as infinitesimal.
Your number above is also the percentage of people that die who are in an accident. This is deaths per accident, not deaths per population. I'm not likely to get killed in a fender bender, and I'm actually likely to have an average of 1 every other year, but if the average is 0.15% of those cause death, then I only need to get in 26 car wrecks before one is fatal... (that's 50 years of being in a car, vs my 80 year life expectancy). My chance is realistic in a car, vs cancer death from cell phone, I'm more likely to die accidentally falling in my own kitchen and splitting my head open. you don;t see me stopping driving, why should I stop using a phone...
besides, I have complete confidence inside my lifetime we'll develop retroviral gene therapy, and be able to eliminate all forms of cancer with a simple injection following the identification of the gene fault that caused the cancer.
Forgot 1 detail... in my state, my chace of being killed in my car is about 1% higher, 5.1% vs 4%, with it being the #4 reason I might die, compared to the national statistics where it's the #5 reason...
As of 1998, 4% of all people die in vehicle accidents. That's down 30% (by margin, not to say it was 34% before, just it was about 5% before) in 1979. In 2005, this was slightly lower still. Deaths resulting from all accidents (cars and other causes combined) was 4.8%.
1 in 5000 chance? no, it's closer to 1 in 25... Source: www.CDC.gov.
You're right, I did not use an accurate number, but mine's a lot closer than yours.
Slashdot Mirror
with anamorphic DVDs (super wide screen), there are not a lot of lines to upscale, and bumping it to 720 or higher makes a lot of these DVDs look quite blurry, and in a few cases I've seen that even PPV on digital cable looks better...
I thought the same thing, until I actually borrowed a PS3, hooked up Casino Royale, and watched it in full HD splendor.
I strictly and only watch my sports in HD today. Even Digital cable (technically HD at 480i, same as superbit DVD quality) can't compare, and cable broadcast in my area is only 720i, not even 1080...
I have an upscale DVD player that outputs in 1080p. I tried DVDs and Blu-ray disks for the same movies, and I can CLEARLY see the difference, and only on my 37" set to boot. I have not bought a DVD since, and don;t currently own a blu-ray player, but I'm buying all my movies on blu-ray anticipating the purchase of my own PS3 not long after the first of the year. I simply won't watch in DVD quality if I have a choice to see better. ...and it's not only the image. Blu-ray's audio is also greatly enhanced (if you have a compatible tuner like I do). Full HD lossless 7.1 is clearly better than 5.1 on DVDs. (they support 7.1 with compression on DVD, but rarely is ever do you find a disk that uses it!)
Up converting players are one thing, but actually, a big part of it is that of those I have experience with, most of the Blu-Ray players being put in living rooms either are not being connected to a 1080P TV, but a 720P or 720i, even more of them are not being connected with the proper cables, further degrading picture quality, and even more are simply plugged in without following the process for configuration of the proper outputs, leaving them in 480p or 720i default support modes.
Blu-Ray players should come equipped with ONLY HDMI 2.x ports DVI, and should include no analog or progressive outputs at all. Since the point of the player is full HD, any connection that does not provide that is piontless, and confusing to non-technical (read 98%) of consumers. If your TV does not have HDMI or DVI native support, and does not get at LEAST 1080i resolution, then Blu-Ray should NOT be sold to you.
I can CLEARLY see the difference between my upscaled DVD player and broadcast 720i HDTV. 720p looks slightly better still, 1080i not so drastic from 720p. 1080p looks PHENOMENAL, even compared to DVD upscaled to that resolution, but since there is NO HD broadcast at that qaulity, not even satellite or cable TV that supports that high quality, most people have never experienced it, and thus can not make informed sales decisions on whether or not to buy.
My personal TV is a 37" 720p set. I'll be moving that to another room after Christmas, and picking up a 1080p native TV set, a new receiver with multi-HDMI port support, and a blue-ray player.
The price of disks will normalize soon enough. DVD used to be $39.99 when VHS was 24.99. As hybrid blu-ray/DVD disks start coming out, simplifying the logistics of shipping and stocking both formats, the price will drop. also, expect that many distributors will start giving sales advantages to blu-ray, releasing weeks or even months sooner to that format than to DVD, just to push the early adopters (and stem copying slightly as well)
With the PS3 being the most popular blu-ray player today, I expect other players to come down to $249 or less, and cheaper models will likely be available for $150 or so for the Christmas season, possibly even a $99 player.
On a small TV, 32" or less, at 720i support, it's very hard to tell the difference between upscaled DVD and true HD. however, keep in mind than in a few years, when that TV gets replaced with a better one, if you bet on Blu-ray, you'll see an immediate improvement in the quality of your output.
When DVDs first came out, I bought MANY movies on it, even though my only player was in my PC, and I had just a VCR in the living room. I ripped disks to tape for a long time. When i got a DVD player finally, most of my library was already playable on it. I'm in line to repeat this with bu-ray.
well, they produce more cars, yes, but with more robots, not more workers.
Most of the existing car factories simply can't be retrofitted that way, and where they can, they have been. Workers are being laid off in large lots because either 1) they are restructuring a line to produce a newer model or different car, which takes a lot of time, and the workers on the line need to be terminated, at least for the short term, so at least they can collect benefits until a new line comes online, at which point, many of them are re-hired to new positions 2) they downsized production due to slumping sales, and thus terminated unnecessary employees, 3) they built a fancy new facility in another state, thanks to tax breaks, and fired the employees at the old facility being shut down or downsized, 4) because of a costly recall, lawsuit, or other outside interference, they cut staff to save money, 5) efficiency improvements or new automation processes require fewer workers per vehicle to manufacture (the more mature the model line gets, the engineers figure out better ways to package the components for easy assembly), or 6) they have labor intensive parts (like wiring harnesses) made overseas.
The foreign guys build a lot of cars here, but much of the car is actually made overseas, and simply assembled here. All the really complicated parts like the wiring, engine, transmission, etc, are made overseas and shipped here, and the American companies are catching on too. Of course, many of the American lines are actually made in Canada or Mexico today.
Our "alleged" influence is actually FACT. We HAVE increased the CO2 levels beyond by our own actions, we are continuing to increase them at record paces, and we KNOW the earth is warmed by it. The exact areas where CO2 is absorbed or not is actually irrelevant to the fact that we are causing an issue.
We were not giving off this CO2 200 years ago. The environment does constantly balance itself, but only after hundreds of years. Are you saying that it's OK for the oceans to rise 12 feet before mother nature self corrects, of that it's OK that half of the cities in the world will be swept clean by the next glacial advance?
Whether we know what the impact is or not, or what the environment does or not, we know what our emissions are, and we should control them, as they are not part of the basic process of this planet.
We know well enough about this process without being able to account for each molecule's interaction individually. There's a TON of science backing up what we know today. All we've discovered is a minor, and relatively unimportant detail in the process. That detail might lead us to new ways to sequester CO2, but it does NOT change the fact that we MUST reduce our output, or offset that output.
All of this of course is completely independent of the market and resource factors that also drive actions like CAFE. The engine makers are not sufficiently self regulating, so we need to do it for them. If they comply, noone pays extra. Taxing gas makes everyone pay extra, and further penalizes the lower class as they can't typically just swap out their cars for more efficient ones, especially under increaed burdens of higher taxes.
Exactly. This is not some NEW CO2 sink, it's already been doing it. Our discovery of this process only reduces the value of what we believed was being sequestered by other processes. Fact is, we still have a net gain, and the pace of that gain is far more then the environment can cope with.
Whether or not we can prove to what extent CO2 has on the environment, the fact is, we're contributing to the environment in ways outside of natural course. The idea of "take only pictures, leave only footprints" should be loosely extended to all of what we do. This CO2 wasn't going in to the system before, it should not be going into the system now unless we can counter balance it by also removing an equal amount, or by using only renewable resources to produce it.
I also doubt we'll see server OS as a web based model, and a large pportion of their revenue if from servers and server licencing. and I do expect the corporate desktop and advanced business editions of office would cost more as well. Of course, many of the businesses already are on a subscription model (Volume Licence plus Software Assurance = free copies on new release for nominal yearly fees)
Even at $10/gallon (which we'll have Windfuels competing with at $3.50 a gallon) at 12,000 miles per year, and 150MPG average use, we're talking $160 per year savings at 20% reclamation. Over a 10 year vehicle lifespan, assuming maintenance or material replacement is nominal, you'd still need to have this total system cost less than $1600, with no impact on engine efficiency at 20% re-use. I assume there will be some engine impact. and although the material may make 20%, that assumes constant contact with the heat source. unfortunately, most of the heat will pass right by the material, never contacting the sides of the pipes, as it spewes out the rear end.
The cars we'll be running already have regenerative breaking, so that's another non-issue. $4 per gallong should last the year, by next summer we'll be aproaching $4.50, maybe $5. Predictions are $6 by 2012 and we won't cross $10 until after 2015, worst case (the economy will likely fail if it accelerates faster than that, and it won't be fun for anyone at that pace.
WindFulels should be entering the market within 3 years. Full electric hybrids this coming year with more than half the cars produced being full electrci hybrids by 2015. Many others will be home converting their old cars to electric gas hybrids (a guy here in Columbia SC already convertid his 1980-something pickup into a plug-in electric, and did it for less than $3000 in his own garage, others will follow).
Even if it was on the market in 3 years, and we started putting it in 50% of new cars by 2015, the cars you're talking about adding it to will have the $80 annual benefit I'm talking about. This technology won't benefit ICE powered cars, since generating electrcity through heat, even to produce electricity for interior items, accessories, lights, etc, does not remove the need for an alternator nor improve overall MPG in older cars. Maybe it would have 1 or 2 MPG difference if you put in a bigger battery, giving battery only drive until enough heat was being generated to recycle back to the battery through this system, but on short, less than 10 mile trips, you'd have issues since the engine won't get hot enough to add engough energy back to the battery.
Again, great technology in some areas, but since there's no real impact on older cars (without massive redesign and thousand of dolars in labor, more expensive likely than simply trading in for a used electric hybrid), and since the value in new cars would top out at about $160 per year, even at $10/gallon, (and about $80 per year now) it's simply not an economical addition to the car.
The material may be inexpensive, and light, and similar to a cat converter, but then we have to take that electricity through a system to balance the load, syncronize the current frequency, and safely add that current to the battery. You can't just feed randomly generated energy into the cars systems... This is where the weight and complexity will come into play. This is made worse since a car will not produce a consistant amount of heat, nor will it produce much at all for the first few minutes of driving.
We have a dozen ways to improve vehicle efficiency before such a system as this makes sense. Those ways can be put in place today. Further, since we now know how to make unlimited fuel without Oil, the market pressures and CO2 generation limits are no longer issues, so vehicle efficiency improvements beyond 2015 will not be for environmental or consumption reasons, but for cost lowering. This system increases costs, which means it unmarketable.
In power plants, yes, constant heat, steam pressure does not really effect power generation, and we can capture that heat to make more electricity. Sure, it still needs to be made in a grid syncronous way, and it will be expensive. It will only be likely to be deployed if collecting that 20% costs less than simply generating more electricity (which it likely won't be, since power plants are about 70% efficient), or if we legislate a requirement to use it.
1) if your song got on someone elses machine, they still have a burden of proof to meet to establish that you "willingfully" provided it through your own action. If someone hacked your machine (likely because your security was not up to snuff, or you fell to a phishing attack), managed to get a port out through your firewall (because you did not use outgoing port blocking rules), and downloaded your collection without your permission (without you noticing the banmdwidth hit and system activity spike), then at that point, you deserve at least to be investigated, which basically would involve the authorities actually getting a wire tap warent on your system, at which point they might determine either you'd closed the hole and were no longer sharing files (leaving them with no evidence with whioch to proceed with a case against you, since although someone has your files, they can't prove you traded them willingly), or that files were actively being downloaded, but only to a known virus collection source which should automatically show you as innocent. Potentially, the virus could be made in such a way as to make it look like youre simply uploading files to a P2P at which point they might actually go through with a seisure order and confiscate your system. The inconvenience for a few days of not having your PC while they in fact determine that you were the victim of a known ITW virus or hack attack would certainly convince you to increase your security in the future. You'd be found innocent, with little fuss, and be back to life.
2) people will not INCREASE their illegal activity. This is simply a moronic statemnt. Buying somehting legally only puts you at risk if you are WILLINGLY uploading files. Stating that people will CHOOSE to ILLEGALLY acquire files, well, you obviosly missed the part about them running their own P2P systems that track illegal downloaders. Generally, they'll go after dowloaders first, since they're quick and easy cases, and they'll investigate distributors only when patterns of distribution emerge, after which they have to investigate, collect real evidence, then seize the system and prove the offence. They won't do this every time they find one random PC with your files on it.
Again, the purpose of watermarked files is exactly this: You don;t know wether it just belongs to someone else, wether it's clean or not, or if it actually BELONGS to the FBI or RIAA. Downloading, except from people you know and trust personally, and for whom you can be certain themselves won't get caught by the RIAA, is basically russian roulette. Sooner or later, you WILL download one of their poisoned files. The ONLY way to be certain of being immune to their watchful eye is to STRICTLY buy legitimate files, and ensure you are not sharing those files with anyone.
If you were too cheap (or don't know better) to make sure you can't be hacked, and keep proper security measures in place, then you're no more safe than people who keep money in their matresses. We know people will get hacked, but the only people this will inconvenience are the people who don't care enough to operate a computer safely on the net, and maybe there concequence for being dumb can simply be the inconvenience or occasionally having your PC confiscated and inspected before it's returned to you (possibly wiped clean).
Again, with their current hopes of 10%, 20 sounds like quite a bit off from now in time. Also, can that 20% be maintained without adding back pressure to the engine, reducing it's efficiency, and also, what will this system add in vehicle costs, space requirements, maintenance charges, complexity, and weight?
I think the system is great for large scale applications, but my understanding of the technology is that it 1) does not translate well to extremely small scale (the inside surface of an exhaust system) 2) works less efficiently on gasses than on liquids (maybe we use the radiator to capure the heat from the engine block, then transfer that to the reclaimer), 3) is a somewhat complex system, which, in the end produces electricity, not propulsion, so we still have to recycle that energy further through a hybrid engine, and at 150MPG or better average on new hybrids (electric drive, engine for battery charging only) the 20% of 150MPG would boil down to a whopping $64 per year saved (at $4 per gallon) I assume this system will cost a lot more than $600, a fair break even point for an average car over 10 years. Also, if we're using this to offset charging, but look at it across short commutes, we're competing at $2 per 150 miles, not 4, as charging at home is about half the cost, so this recouping would only be a benefit on trips longer thanh 60 miles in any given day.
If the system CAN be installed in electric drive crossover hybrids without dramatically increasing vehicle weight, or reducing cargo space beyond marketable limitsa, and if it's cost is less than $1000 over the LIFE of the vehicle (additional maintenance included) then I'm onboard, especially if we're talking about using it in larger less efficient personal vehicles. If it will cost more, there is no market reason to work on the technology on this scale. We can simply use WindFuels in place of oil based gasoline, and the cost issues and environmental impact issues both become non-issues, rendering the technology on this scale pointless.
You sond like you have some understanding of this process. I'd suggest you look more in detail at the Doty Energy RFTS process. They have made dramatic improvements to the process, and have proven the technique in small scale systems, they just lack the financial backing to built their 5MW scale proofing facility to take it to the next step.
Using what they have today, $80 a barrel is completely feasible. Once they have the chance to further refine the larger scale process first at a 5MW facility, then at a a larger facility, before a full scale facility is built (which is simply multiple mid scale processors under one roof), they are very confident in a $60 per barrel target cost. I'd be happy if they could make it work at $100 per barel honestly... Certainly, the cost will rise over time, as materials involved in the process rise in cost due to natural inflation, but if the price at the pump does nothing mroe than go up with inflation, then we've won.
If you want more details, I suggest offering up $45 for a copy of their complete analysis, and also looking into the patents they have recently been granted on the technology.
Well, I can speak from experience here. Wether there's a "No Parking" sign or not, the only time people tend to obey that sign is when they feel they're at risk of getting a ticket. The only time they feed the meter, is when they reasonably expect to be fined if they don't. People will naturally take all they can when there is no fear of concequence.
He's right, if we make it easy to fine people, say by taking them to small claims court for a simple 3X damages, and we can do that because instead of using DRM which is easy to crack and hard to track, we use digital watermarks with individual serial numbers, which are easy to tie to the original purchaser through various databases (and court orders to access those databases), then people will begin to understand the increased risk of getting caught.
My brain can completely understand a multi-million dollar fine, and that my inability to pay it would put my family on the street and me in prison for a long time. However, I also understand that 1) it's very difficult for me to get caught, very difficult for them to prove their case, very expensive for them to try, and thus 2) I have an extremely low probability of being a target of them unless I go nuts and dowload everything in sight and 3) based on current court victory/defeat, I'd have a good shot at getting out of it anyway. I still have no pirated information on my computers, and no duped DVDs (other than my own backup copies, since I don't want the kids scrathing the originals, which in my interpretation of the law is completely legal)
Now, I know that a DRM cracked file can't be traced. I also know I've successfully removed the DRM simply because it will play correctly. As for watermarks, they'll play in any device, cracked or not. I can't possibly know if a file is watermarked or not when I download it, and I also know that randomized digital watermarks are nearly mathematically impossible to remove (without a key file defining the watermark pattern in the file, or a copy of the original proof sample without the watermark). Each file is unique, so no simple encryption crack can universally clean all these files.
If i 1) download a watermarked file, I have no way of knowing it's clean. The presence of someone elses file on my PC is incrimination by itself. 2) I can't guarantee I can clean a file successfully, so I fear to upload it as I don't trust that who I send it to won't get themselves cought, thereby incriminating me as a distributor. If I can't be sure, and there's a defined risk, I won;t do it. Neither will most other people. I know it would be difficult today to catch me downloading, but it is conceivable if I pull a file from one of their servers, which I can't differentiate from any other john doe.
I know for a FACT today that the RIAA (and other organizations) are running P2P servers and they're sharing files that are specially marked as property of the RIAA using hidden watermarks. As these files are downloaded, they're tracking who does, and they're also looking around through the service to see who's sharing those files out further. Sooner or later, they're going to pull the trigger, and a mass court order for all the people involved in redistributing those poisoned files will make it through the courts, and hundreds of people are going to get burned by it. I expect the fines to be relatively sane (less than $50 per track), but it should be an eye opener to a lot of people. If it doesn't make it through the courts, it will be a mountain of evidence they can present to congress to get new laws passed making their activities easier.
I don't agree with the fines they're using today. I also don;t agree with how they calcualte damages (someone who would never pay for something in the first place and for a item that has no physical value if stolen, is not a loss of revenue). I do think people who download illegally should be subject to punishment, as it detracts from money that should be going to good bands that deserve to be paid for their artistic ef
Regardless of HOW you get a copy of copywritten material, unless you purchased it through a legitimate (read, has approval in writing from the copyrite holder to distribute said material) or if you acquired a written notice that you may acquire a copy without charge, or if the copyrite holder simply offers it for free to all, then you have comitted copyrite infringement. The existance of P2P is simply a method of transfering that illegal copy, it is not in fact any different from ripping a copy of the original, or acquiring a bootleg copy on some black market. This clearly violates 17 USC 106(1). This should carry the same punishment as apprpriate under existing rulings: 3X damages plus "reasonable" legal fees, and should be processed in the appropriate court of law, including small claims if the theft is under $2,000 worth, and the copyrite holder, or direct authority should be conducting the suit, not the RIAA on "behalf" of the holder, unless the holder specifically requested this person to be prosecuted in that way. This should be classed as a misdemeanor. For those who repeatedly offend, a technology ban parole period could be used (1 year, 3 year, and 10 year bans on using PCs, internet connections, or any form of device that can store or create copies of copyrighted materials. (players are OK as long as they don't store data). Violating parole, that's a felony, and that's how we can control repeat or grevious offenders.
Now, as for "distribution" as a facilitator of copyrite infringement, (the one doing the copying and distribution, NOT the innocent P2P network providers), there should be stricter penalties, roughly equal to 5X the value of the files distributed total (plus legal fees, which, based on the process I'm going to describe, will likely be higher than a common infringer's would be). The issue here is in trying to determine just how much distribution took place. Since users don't typically keep a log of all the files they uploaded (that would be too easy), we need to determine a baseline pattern. Once a potential distributor is identified, a court order (Wiretap warrent) to have their IP connection monitored for traffic should be issued. We monitor that connection for roughly 2 weeks, analyze the data, and determine the average number of files distributed over that timeframe, and then apply that number backwards to when it is believed the infringement began (should be able to be determined based on registry entry creation dates, software installation dates, or, if no other "proof" of a time exists, the date they detected the activity first). There should also be manditory prison time, say 1 year first offence (of which all but 60 days can be replaced with 2 years of parole). 2nd offence should be 1 year manditory, no option for porole, and further offences, well, since this is a felony, 3 strikes baby...
To make wiretap warents easier, any party who is a valid (licenced) authority on direct behalf (aka they have a letter authorizing them to investigate and prosecute a SPECIFIC individual or IP address, not a list or group, or random selection) should be able to request an ISP to begin to log a specific connection. The ISP has a right to charge for this service, and WILL NOT provide any part of that log to the requesting party until a court order authoruzing the wiretap is produced, which must happen withing 30 days of the request or the logs will be deleted, and the ISP can still charge for the effort and system space used for the log files. This is NO different from an individual requesting a call trace log from a phone company. They'll trace the calls, but won;t provide the details until the courts order such. The ISP itself should also not have any legal authority to review those logs internally, nor should it have the authority to do that to it's subscribers on it's own (it must be a 3rd party, under the direct and written authority of the actual copyrite holder). If the fee is high enough, this should significantly discourage frivilous persuits that either would not meet a judge's req
The exhaust process is a function of vapor expansion,not so much heat dissipation. If we impede that process, we reduce the efficiency of the engine itself. Can we collect enough heat as it flies through the exhaust pipes to recoup more than the combined engine impact, additional weight, and cost?
If our fuels come from green sources, and if CO2 emission of the engine is a non-issue, than only distance per gallon is of concern. If we use WindFuels (www.dotyenergy.com), at least until something better comes along in 30-75 more years, then heat reclamation will only be perused if it is both more effective and/or lower cost than other methods to improve efficiency that we already have and don't use.
We can simply mandate better headers and larger, smooth bend exhaust pipes and improve engine efficiency by nearly 5%. By running an engine only a peak torque (4000-5500 RPM depending on the engine) and use it only to make electricity to poewr electric motors, we can get nearly 40% out of the engine. Replace the ICE with a recombinant turbine, and the heat generated is less of an issue still, and we can approach 50%. All of these methods are available today, and can be implemented without radical vehicle redesign or the use of exotic metals.
I agree, in large installations, factories, power generation systems, and more, heat exchanger technology has clear advantages and uses, but in small scale engine systems, we have a lot of things we can do before we get to using this technology.
You're right, we'll constantly improve and demand more efficiency, but when we're talking about cars that will already be getting 150MPG (GM Tesla) on average commuter drives, the heat available to collect will not dramatically improve the efficiency. Further, how will such a system effect available vehicle space? Fuel cells are a great idea, if you like having a Dodge Durango as a 2 seat model....
Well, first, when we get these materials to 30%, not their "we'll be a 3% soon" level, you let me know.
Until then capturing 3% of 60%, but adding weight, complexity, and cost to the vehicle, I doubt will have any real benefit. Even at 10%, we're still looking at better improvement simply by switching to electric drive with gas backups.
If we follow the ideas presented by www.dotyenergy.com, then we don't need to worry about it anyway. If we replace oil with man made liquid fuel, produced using free energy from wind combined with byproducts from coal energy, then we don;t really have a CO2 issue, and since free energy is not a market limited comodity, the price of WindFuels should only rise with inflation, not other market factors, allowing us to at least get past the next few hundred years until another technology that costs less and has lower environmental impact comes along.
Who about this: www.dotyenergy.com
it's completely reasonable to be able to change the trajectory of an object, provided we have the time to launch a suitable craft, the propulsion systems with which to catch up to (we not only need to get there, but turn around and start coming back this way at speeds matching the roid, not easy to do), then land on it, or fire a tow line, and hope the surface of the roid is solid enough to apply force to.
Unfortunaltely, that's a lot of ifs, and a very expensive project, and all that assumes we have the time we need to intercept it.
For very large roids, this may be an option. For most others, nuking is not an option (it baffles me that NASA scientists simply don't understand the nature of an explosive, nukes require an atmosphere, or to be buried in the core of the roid, you can't just fire one at it).
heavy slugs are likely the way to go. My preference (since getting a large mass in orbit is difficult and expensive) lets go out and farm a bunch of small roids (a few thousand tons or so each), and bring them into orbit here. We can then "throw" them at incoming roids. Catching a small roid should not be very difficult, especially if we go get ones that are stationary. We can go the extra step to fashion hard impact surfaces on once face (aka solid bullet point) and place a few large bombs in it's core. When it impacts a big roid, it should punch through fairly effectively, and we can detonate in the middle of it, shattering roids of nearly any size we want.
Of course, when we develop the proton missle, this won't be a concern anymore...
What we have in the pipeline today, using nanocrystiline spectrum separation, multilayered PV cells targeted as specific spectrum collection, light-to-edge solar redirection and concentration at the nanoparticle layer, flexible, printable PV films, and more, I think it;s very likely we can create solar PV cells that can produce energy in mass at a competitive cost to nuclear or possibly even coal.
However, PV is only part of the answer. How do we deal with the "solar tide" (night/day) and fluxuations in energy production (clouds, storms, dust, heck even locusts). Any of the methods suggested for harvesting solar energy into batteries, uphill lakes, and more, is not only very expensive, and further limited by where it can be placed, and how to get energy from there to somewhere else (typically far away from solar sources).
Home solar is great for hot water, bad for electricity. The grid is not designed to have that much variance in energy needs. Further, as we move to electric cars, we'll need more power at night than any other time...
Is there an economically feasible answer? yes: Doty WindFuels (dotyenergy.com). A complete, and carbon friendly replacement for all oil-based products, and at a cost of about $80 per barrel.
If only Al had heard about WindFuels. www.dotyenergy.com
Check out Dotyenergy.com.
Windfuels.
1) use wind to make H2, via electrolysis. First, doing so vs making grid power is about 15% more efficient, and about half the cost (don't have to syncronize and balance output of multiple turbines, ie easy and cheap).
2) sequester CO2 from new coal power plants, which will also be constructed to be able to use liquid fuels in pace of coal in the future. Since we're talking a 30-40 year transition, there's no need to upgrade existing coal plants for this system as we can meet WindFuels demand for carbon in other ways if we have to at lower cost than fixing existing coal plants, and with less impact to the economy and less disruption to the existing power system.
3) combine CO2 and H2 in a chemical process, with a bit of water, and make any hydrocarbon you want us to make. (propane, methane, octane, etc, etc).
4) recycle more than 60% of the water used on site, pump the fuels in pipelines and trucks to begin replacing oil based gasoline.
5) sell waste O2 produced in this process to other industries that require massive amounts of O2. Pump the rest into the air.
6) over time, start using WindFuels as a power source in place of coal, and still recapture the CO2 produced to make more WindFuels. We'll need more carbon as well, but for each pound of carbon used, less than 30% enters the atmosphere, compared to nearly 100% today. Combine this reduction in CO2 waste with increased vehicle efficiency, adoption of all-electric (with backup engines for distance driving), on-vehicle CO2 sequestration, and other emerging technologies, and we can have our CO2 output in 30 years close to 20% (or less) than what it is today, and have enough fuel to continue doing that virtually forever.
again, www.dotyenergy.com. They not enly explain their process in great detail, but also show the economics behind it, and compare themselves to most every other technology that puports to do the same.
And those with current access to Yahoo CAN transfer their music, and in fact music transfer was part of the product they purchased (usable on multiple devices). By yahoo terminating this service, i see it as they are in effect 1) forcing people to reduce the quality of their music in order to retain rights to it, 2) exert unplanned for labor and additional expense (CDs) in the process, and 3) are violating the trust of their clients and potentially violating contracts and laws.
Yahoo should release a tool that unlocks the DRM without quality degradation of the music for all of their customers, free of charge, in order to prevent this music from being lost. Even simply reformatting your computer and restoring a backup would render this music useless unless first converted. The customers purchased high quality tracks, not CD ripped quality tracks. They should either be assisted to retain what they paid for, or refunded in full.
Actually his point was that each time i get in a car and drive, I have a very tiny chance of dying, vs my numbers, sourced from the CDC itself, included my likelyhood of dying that way over my entire lifespan. If he wanted to correlate properly, he should have also correlated my poercentage chance of dying per phone call I place/receive, or per minute of exposure to a cell signal vs. minute of being inside a motor vehicle.
Statistics must be balanced. Both posters above did not follow this rule. Imbalanced statistics are used regularly by lobbyist, politicians, and salesman. Learning to spot them is something we need schools to focus on more stringently.
Well, you are in part correct, and part incorrect.
4% of deaths IN AMERICA (read 300 million people, not 4 billion, much of the word has no access to cars like we do) happen in cars. This actually EXCLUDES dying of a heart attack in a car and other issues, and is specifically accidents leading to death.
Also, if you want to look at it the other way, the percentage chance that you're going to die EACH TIME you get in a car, when I'm looking at the percentage change of where i'll die eventually, then yes, obvoisly the percentage is MUCH smaller. However, if you take this logic, you also have to look at the percentage chance you'll develop cancer EACH TIME you're EXPOSED to a single cellular signal. Sicne we can't even prove you'll get cancer from it at all, and I use a cell phone about 40 times a day (any typically my car either 2 or 4 times a day), or even to look at it at the number of minutes level for true accuracy, the percentage of one's life exposed vs the chance of death of each.
Well, taking into account that even if I get cancer, my survivability chance is very high, and with a very small percentage even "theoretically" getting cancer from phones, and with cancer itself being less of a cause of death than car accidents, and with this particular type of cancer not even one of the top 5 cancers (78% of all cancer deaths are from 6 cancers, this isn't one of them). I think we're talking about numbers we can refer to as infinitesimal.
Your number above is also the percentage of people that die who are in an accident. This is deaths per accident, not deaths per population. I'm not likely to get killed in a fender bender, and I'm actually likely to have an average of 1 every other year, but if the average is 0.15% of those cause death, then I only need to get in 26 car wrecks before one is fatal... (that's 50 years of being in a car, vs my 80 year life expectancy). My chance is realistic in a car, vs cancer death from cell phone, I'm more likely to die accidentally falling in my own kitchen and splitting my head open. you don;t see me stopping driving, why should I stop using a phone...
besides, I have complete confidence inside my lifetime we'll develop retroviral gene therapy, and be able to eliminate all forms of cancer with a simple injection following the identification of the gene fault that caused the cancer.
Forgot 1 detail... in my state, my chace of being killed in my car is about 1% higher, 5.1% vs 4%, with it being the #4 reason I might die, compared to the national statistics where it's the #5 reason...
As of 1998, 4% of all people die in vehicle accidents. That's down 30% (by margin, not to say it was 34% before, just it was about 5% before) in 1979. In 2005, this was slightly lower still. Deaths resulting from all accidents (cars and other causes combined) was 4.8%.
1 in 5000 chance? no, it's closer to 1 in 25... Source: www.CDC.gov.
You're right, I did not use an accurate number, but mine's a lot closer than yours.