A lot of posters here talk about certain features with a desktop client against a web client not realising that none of this has anything to do with weather the mail is web based or local. The interface can look the same weather on the desktop or a server ( at least in theory) the question is what difference the location of the actual process that handles the input and output makes. There are advantages and disadvantages to both schemes.
Web based:
Can be accessed from any computer that has a browser.
Mail cannot be read while offline
Desktop based:
Requires a configured mail client
All mail can be downloaded at once and read at a latter date when an internet connection is not available
It would appear to me that this means Web based mail would be more attractive to Desktop users who can't easily move their computer arround and who are likely to have a permanent internet connection whereas Laptop and Notebook users would prefer a local client as wireless availability can be limited and it is easier for them to move arround. Of course, you coudl always go with my aproach. I use a web based e-mail but keep a local copy on my desktop. That way I can read my mail from anywhere I want and I also have it available if my connection dies ( which is rather often unfortunately ). Best of both worlds in my opinion.
It's not simply a correlation. It is a strong correlation with a carefully studied mechanism which is backed by experimental, computational and theoretical models. We know the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 to great accuracy. We know the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to great accuracy. We have accurate instruments to measure the spectrum of sunlight. We have sattelites in orbit which measure the infrared spectrum of the earth. We have very successful theories explaining blackbody radiation. We have detailed measurements of the atmospheric temperatures. This is not just a case of one set of data being correlated to another set of data. This is a case of physical theory, numerical modelling, observed trends, and carefully measured variables all agreeing. In other words, assuming that man made CO2 is NOT a major contribution to global warming would be very very strange given the amount of evidence in favour of it, and consequentially not acting to reduce it would be a very unwise decision.
"A single volcano can have higher carbon dioxide (among other pollutants) output than all of human society on a yearly basis."
Then why are there NO peaks from ANY of the last few decades' major erruptions in this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbo n_Dioxide.png
Can you see any volcanos ? No? Didn't think so... Reality is of course that volcanos emit very little CO2 compared to our fossil fuel consumption, and hence they are not even noticeable in the average CO2 concentration. On the contrary atmospheric carbon concentrations have increased at a steady rate which just happens to correspond very well with how much carbon containing compounds we burn. We do know how much Fossil fuels we burn, we do know how much CO2 that creates, and guess what, that agrees well with the rate at which we observe CO2 levels increase. That this also agrees well with the best climate models we have and measured temperature records is just another coincidence of course...
I fail to see how sticking a helicopter 10km up in the jet-stream is going to be competitive with drilling a hole 4 kilometers down for a geothermal plant. We already have technology to do the latter yet that isn't of interest to power companies so I really doubt a wacky scheme like this is going to have more success.
To be honest it isn't the cost of silicon cells that is the main problem. If that was the case we would have solar heating on every rooftop ( you just need a bit of black paint and a sheet of glass for that ). The main issue with solar power is its unpredictable nature. Even a solar cell that works in dim conditions will not extract more energy than is coming in, and this varies with the number of clouds, fog, time of the year etc... Also, solar cell's obviously don't work during the night. Then there is the missmatch between availability and demand. Most energy is needed during the winter, when there is the least sun...
The breakthrough solar power really needs is the ability to store energy with low losses at a low price. Currently the only reasonably efficient way to do this is by pumping water backwards in hydroelectric dams, but then you have to deal with the losses in transporting the electricity through the grid. The suitable sites for hydroelectricity are also limited, and if they were not you would probably end up using just the hydroelectrics and not solar power.
No, solar is not, at least not until cheap energy storage solutions are available, suitable for baseline power generation. It is however absolutely ideal for remote and mobile applications where refueling would be difficult and weight is a concern. You can't really put a hydroelectric dam in a comunications sattelite as an example.
The main difference is that since these atoms are essentially isolated from any environment, they can be used for quantum computing. The thing about uantum states is that they are disturbed if you , or anything else, interacts with them. To build a quantum computer, you must make sure that you can controll, or at least influence, how they are disturbed, and what they will interact with. If you simply stick the atoms onto a metal plate ( as IBM did ) they will constantly interact with the metal plate, and since these interactions are chaotic, and completely uncontrollable, they cannot be used for quantum computing. What the researches have done is to put the atoms in a state where they can eliminate all but a few interactions, making it possible to influence the way these quantum mechanical interactions occur. You can still not controll them completely ( if you did you would destroy the quantum states ) but you can manipulate the probabilities of certain interactions occuring, allowing you to perform some, admitedly very basic, quantum computing. That these operations are rather basic does n no way mean they are trivial however. Thing is, you don't just build a quantum computer over night. The earliest classical computers were also only capable of some very simple operations. However, with advances like the above, it may be possible to perform relatively advanced quantum computations within a few decades.
No it wouldn't.
The incidence of brain tumours are so low that even a doubling in the risk would not pose a significant risk to the general population. There are far more severe health issues related to pollution that doesn't receive a fraction of this attention. Cell phones are new ( and hence scary ) which is why we get all this media attention and poor articles about their risks.
I think you are deeply mistaken to claim that rich societies "don't really need GMO". The potential of these technologies is enormous. Appart from obvious benefits within farming, these technologies could spark massive developments in areas you would not at first even think off in terms of GMO. Consider,solar cells grown from plants, bacteria capable of decomposing organic waste into industrial resources or crops designed to grow prohibitively expensive drugs at costs comparable to rice.
All in all GMO offers such potential that it is simply not feasible to reject it. What is needed, however, is to ensure that patenting of the methods used to take advantage of it is controlled and sensible, and that it doesn't become the kind of circus that the US patent system currently is.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of posters here talk about certain features with a desktop client against a web client not realising that none of this has anything to do with weather the mail is web based or local. The interface can look the same weather on the desktop or a server ( at least in theory) the question is what difference the location of the actual process that handles the input and output makes. There are advantages and disadvantages to both schemes.
Web based:
Can be accessed from any computer that has a browser.
Mail cannot be read while offline
Desktop based:
Requires a configured mail client
All mail can be downloaded at once and read at a latter date when an internet connection is not available
It would appear to me that this means Web based mail would be more attractive to Desktop users who can't easily move their computer arround and who are likely to have a permanent internet connection whereas Laptop and Notebook users would prefer a local client as wireless availability can be limited and it is easier for them to move arround. Of course, you coudl always go with my aproach. I use a web based e-mail but keep a local copy on my desktop. That way I can read my mail from anywhere I want and I also have it available if my connection dies ( which is rather often unfortunately ). Best of both worlds in my opinion.
It's not simply a correlation. It is a strong correlation with a carefully studied mechanism which is backed by experimental, computational and theoretical models. We know the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 to great accuracy. We know the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to great accuracy. We have accurate instruments to measure the spectrum of sunlight. We have sattelites in orbit which measure the infrared spectrum of the earth. We have very successful theories explaining blackbody radiation. We have detailed measurements of the atmospheric temperatures. This is not just a case of one set of data being correlated to another set of data. This is a case of physical theory, numerical modelling, observed trends, and carefully measured variables all agreeing. In other words, assuming that man made CO2 is NOT a major contribution to global warming would be very very strange given the amount of evidence in favour of it, and consequentially not acting to reduce it would be a very unwise decision.
"A single volcano can have higher carbon dioxide (among other pollutants) output than all of human society on a yearly basis." Then why are there NO peaks from ANY of the last few decades' major erruptions in this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbo n_Dioxide.png
Can you see any volcanos ? No? Didn't think so... Reality is of course that volcanos emit very little CO2 compared to our fossil fuel consumption, and hence they are not even noticeable in the average CO2 concentration. On the contrary atmospheric carbon concentrations have increased at a steady rate which just happens to correspond very well with how much carbon containing compounds we burn. We do know how much Fossil fuels we burn, we do know how much CO2 that creates, and guess what, that agrees well with the rate at which we observe CO2 levels increase. That this also agrees well with the best climate models we have and measured temperature records is just another coincidence of course...
I fail to see how sticking a helicopter 10km up in the jet-stream is going to be competitive with drilling a hole 4 kilometers down for a geothermal plant. We already have technology to do the latter yet that isn't of interest to power companies so I really doubt a wacky scheme like this is going to have more success.
To be honest it isn't the cost of silicon cells that is the main problem. If that was the case we would have solar heating on every rooftop ( you just need a bit of black paint and a sheet of glass for that ). The main issue with solar power is its unpredictable nature. Even a solar cell that works in dim conditions will not extract more energy than is coming in, and this varies with the number of clouds, fog, time of the year etc... Also, solar cell's obviously don't work during the night. Then there is the missmatch between availability and demand. Most energy is needed during the winter, when there is the least sun... The breakthrough solar power really needs is the ability to store energy with low losses at a low price. Currently the only reasonably efficient way to do this is by pumping water backwards in hydroelectric dams, but then you have to deal with the losses in transporting the electricity through the grid. The suitable sites for hydroelectricity are also limited, and if they were not you would probably end up using just the hydroelectrics and not solar power. No, solar is not, at least not until cheap energy storage solutions are available, suitable for baseline power generation. It is however absolutely ideal for remote and mobile applications where refueling would be difficult and weight is a concern. You can't really put a hydroelectric dam in a comunications sattelite as an example.
The main difference is that since these atoms are essentially isolated from any environment, they can be used for quantum computing. The thing about uantum states is that they are disturbed if you , or anything else, interacts with them. To build a quantum computer, you must make sure that you can controll, or at least influence, how they are disturbed, and what they will interact with. If you simply stick the atoms onto a metal plate ( as IBM did ) they will constantly interact with the metal plate, and since these interactions are chaotic, and completely uncontrollable, they cannot be used for quantum computing. What the researches have done is to put the atoms in a state where they can eliminate all but a few interactions, making it possible to influence the way these quantum mechanical interactions occur. You can still not controll them completely ( if you did you would destroy the quantum states ) but you can manipulate the probabilities of certain interactions occuring, allowing you to perform some, admitedly very basic, quantum computing. That these operations are rather basic does n no way mean they are trivial however. Thing is, you don't just build a quantum computer over night. The earliest classical computers were also only capable of some very simple operations. However, with advances like the above, it may be possible to perform relatively advanced quantum computations within a few decades.
No it wouldn't. The incidence of brain tumours are so low that even a doubling in the risk would not pose a significant risk to the general population. There are far more severe health issues related to pollution that doesn't receive a fraction of this attention. Cell phones are new ( and hence scary ) which is why we get all this media attention and poor articles about their risks.
I think you are deeply mistaken to claim that rich societies "don't really need GMO". The potential of these technologies is enormous. Appart from obvious benefits within farming, these technologies could spark massive developments in areas you would not at first even think off in terms of GMO. Consider,solar cells grown from plants, bacteria capable of decomposing organic waste into industrial resources or crops designed to grow prohibitively expensive drugs at costs comparable to rice. All in all GMO offers such potential that it is simply not feasible to reject it. What is needed, however, is to ensure that patenting of the methods used to take advantage of it is controlled and sensible, and that it doesn't become the kind of circus that the US patent system currently is.
Water, Salt, Sugar, Fat, Protein, Minerals ...
There is plenty of stuff that is addictive yet essential for a human being to live.