Re:What will be powering our cars 10 years from no
on
Vinod Khosla Talks Ethanol
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actually, it's not nothing. They are warning boaters against using ethanol, becuase it dissolves fiberglass, which boat fuel tanks are made from. The interior of the fuel tank dissolves and gums up the engine, causing really bad things to happen.
In regular engines, there is evidence (informal, no scientific studies to date) that ethanol produces a buildup on parts exposed to combustion much more rapidly than regular refined fuel, which, in your case, would cause your spark plugs to need replacement sooner (you might pull them and check, it's pretty easy, really). I don't know of the effects on engine horsepower and torque, but it shouldn't be a drastic change from gasoline.
Okay, gross estimation here, but, if one of those people refused to work on the project that their government told them to work on, then they would be killed or jailed (and tourtured too!!!). Iraq did this (even with soccer players!) under Sadaam.
Okay, going out on a limb here, because I couldn't care less (HA!).
So, when I say "I couldn't care less," that means my caring is at an all time low. It can't get any lower. I care more about the dirt I'm standing on than the subject at hand.
On the other hand, when I say "I could care less," I'm saying that, I don't care about the subject at hand, and for me to care any less than I do now would require effort. Effort, which, I'm really not willing to put forth. So, you can interpret both to mean the same thing. At least when I'm speaking.
You're actually thinking of this backwords... yes, you are still doing radiant heat, but instead of using the radiator to gather heat, you're using it to dissapate heat. Cars do this all the time, and it works very well. It makes a lot of sense to have a dual purpose system, as the layer of the planet to which the GP is referring (or was it GGP?) is very consistent, and, if you're sending the air from in the house through the "diffuser" (or radiator, whatever) buried deep down in the dirt, physics will take care of the determination of if it should make it hotter or colder (if the house is colder than the dirt, the air will warm up, and if it's wamer than the dirt, it'll cool down). Oversimplified example, but the physics definately apply.
Actually, in addition to roof mounted wind turbines, wouldn't it make sense to mount them on the sides of buildings as well? IIRC, Tall buildings produce a lot of wind shear down the side of a building (especially in places like chicago (any chicagoans confirm this?)), which can produce a lot of wind. Anyone else confirm this (or, prove yet again, that I'm talking out of my arse?)
How about animated tattoos? I know it's a coupla rednecks who put this together (and filed a patent), but I didn't quite think they put together a flexible LCD by themselves...
Not to be picky here, because I wholeheartedly agree with your statements, but, in your example there, I assume you are speaking of the needle, not the whole syringe, right? In that case, would it even be possible to chip the needle? I suppose that, were it to have a threaded tip (do they make needles like that anymore?), you could put it there, point is, it will lead to customized tags, which will be more expensive to manufacture. Anyway, the idea is great, and it's in the right place. Hopefully, these sorts of things can be worked out.
That, and a myriad of other certifications... I think they make up certifications so that politics can decide what software can be used where... "Your application doesn't meet certification 'X', sorry, we're going to use your competitor's product, (who, btw, funded the creation of the certification)."
I of course, can't really back that up, but that's what it seems like to me.
I've always been curious of solutions to the space junk problem. This was one proposed solution. Another that I thought of is to drag a giant curtain around with you in orbit, capturing, if not deflecting stuff. Sort of like dragging a big net through the ocean. Then, when done, just empty it (not sure how yet) at the atmosphere, and everything burns up. Unless you catch a satellite in the process:)
Actually, this could be interesting, depending on how it's used. Now, provided it's kept anonymous, and you can get a statisically representative sample, say you measure the "fear" response, and map it out. Now, instead of dispatching your cops out to where the crime has already happened, you can send them out to reinforce areas where people feel unsafe.
Well, one problem here... when you make something pass through the entire structure, in space there's a little problem with that: explosive decompression. Now that you've introduced a hole or two in your structure, all that pressurized stuff in the structure wants to get out of the structure, and spread far, far apart.
I don't think it would be a shoot through the structure kind of an impact, actually. More of an absorb and redirect, but I'm not an astrophysicist (or any kind of physicist, for that matter), so take this with a grain of salt.
If I were to conjecture here, the Navy has a very large problem in that it uses a large number of networks, which traditionally haven't been connected, due to security reasons (the most sensitive data is stored on unconnected networks). The problem has been that, to get information properly, an operator must have multiple terminals. I think that the intent is not necessarily to patent the firewall, but more to patent a trusted solution to allow interconnectivity between the different networks, allowing people to read down, and send information up.
I won't get into any examples, as I'm not qualified to make such predictions (though I'm sure some here are). That being said, researching for the sake of research produces useful results. Strictly researching "science with a purpose" could have prevented a good portion of our current discoveries. We don't know what our results will bring us, and that's the best part. We can apply this information where ever it fits, and use it to further understand our problems, which might lead to more "Science with a purpose" as you put it. All science is valuable, purposeful or not.
If we're talking about limited access highways, when one crosses, for example, a river, there's at least 2 bridges involved in that (one for each direction). With every interchange, there's at least one if the intersecting road goes over the interstate, and two if the opposite is true. When speaking of a cloverleaf or other more complex interstate interchange, there can be a lot more than just 2. I'd actually tend to believe that figure. But, I'm not sure about the mileage... the country is what, 2000 miles across? How many cross country interstates are there? 4 or 5? I don't know, the more I do the back of the envelope thing, it does actually sound reasonable.
Think of it this way - what if the theory is correct, and there simply *isn't* any "reasonable and plausible alternative hypothesis" (perhaps because we can't think of any, perhaps because there simply aren't any). Should we *never* attempt to confirm it?
I actually disagree with your point number 2 (and, to point number 1, that was my intention). I believe that the first article to which I linked reinforces the point that climatologists don't know what is causing global warming at all, and are merely making an assumption about the current trend. Indeed, the article clearly states that "That the Earth has come out of the "Little Ice Age" is much more in need of explanation than the fact that it got into one."
Specifically, from the first article linked:
Among the possible reasons given for the "Little Ice Age" are low solar activity and increased volcanism. How then are we going to tell which part of the recent warming is "natural" and which (if any) is due to human influence? The standard answer to this question is that the warming right after 1850 is mostly natural. The weather in the mid- and late 1830s was highly unusual and highly stressful, with severe winters and bad harvests (The great Irish famine falls into this period.) In the conventional view, the "Little Ice Age" is an anomaly (indeed it was the coldest period in the last several thousand years) and the warming after 1850 simply gets us back on track. This concept also supports the idea that warming in the last century has been a good thing for people, plants and animals, because it brought back the previous regime of a more benign climate.
It is difficult to argue with this conventional view, but we must be aware that it is simply a convenient assumption: no more, no less. There is nothing in our understanding of climate that would forbid a continuation or worsening of the "Little Ice Age" conditions after 1850 and right into the present. On the contrary, the long-term view of climate change the one that includes the coming and going of ice ages actually demands increased cooling for the last 3000 years or so. That the Earth has come out of the "Little Ice Age" is much more in need of explanation than the fact that it got into one.
Now, how I read that, it says to me specifically that after the little ice age, any warming experienced is returning the climate back to it's original state. Specifically: "...and the warming after 1850 simply gets us back on track."
Basically, I'm saying we don't know jack about climatology, especially regarding the long term perspective. Yes, there are very smart people out there, analyzing data, looking at information, but no, we have no idea where we are in the scheme of things, we have no information supporting that we are not in a natural phase of the earth's warming / cooling cycle, and we have no evidence that the earth hasn't done this before.
Actually, I think you might be wrong on this one. Lets go with the doomsday scenario all the fearmongers are right, and global catastrophe is going to happen at 1700 tonight. When the catastrophe happens, and the seas rise, then about 70% of the population will have to move (look up the source for the exact figure, but the number of people living within a few miles of the oceans is very signifcant). Well, when those people move, resources will become more scarce (food, land, clean water, etc), which creates competition for these resources. When you combine scarcity with competition, you get unsavory behaviour (read: terrorism). Look at refugee camps as a good example. Lotsa looting, and the like. Imagine this on a global scale. So, yea, terrorism, by another name, will be very prevalent if doomsday happens.
Okay, I'm going to get a -1 flaimbait for this one...
<rant>
What happens after an ice age is over? It warms up, right? Well, we've been in a post-ice age period since, well, the last ice age. It's still significantly cooler than it has been in the distant past, and IMHO the earth is going to warm up, whether we do it or not.
Now, of course that doesn't mean we should be responsible, and reduce our emissions. I'm just tired of all of the FUD and fearmongering being spread around about doomsday and the like. A little science if you please. </rant>
I wouldn't put my money on an all out nosedive either... but some financial problems, in which they trim some fat, restructure a bit, and come out of the struggle with the core business intact, minus some of the less profitable portions.
Actually, this has been observed with a lot of different companies in dire straights. Not saying this for sure (as it is only correlation evedence, but you make your own inferences), but when a lot of executives leave, the company is in trouble. Witness Sun Microsystems a few years back when they had tons of executives leaving. The company wasn't on solid footing, and the execs new it, so they began to bail.
If I had to predict, I'd imagine that times will be rough at MS for the next few years, as major image shakedowns and restructurings occur. Hopefully, it'll prove beneficial to the rest of the universe, but I'm not holding my breath. MS is still MS.
I'll attempt to clarify the issue that the telecoms are taking with the current setup (note that I support the issue of Net Neutrality). Yes, currently, when a hosting contract is signed, you do pay for the bandwidth to get to the first node (or your provider's node, over a few hops). But, the problem the telcos are having is that when traffic originating on a separate part of the network onto another provider's network, the second in line just has to forward the packets on around, without charging for that traffic.
Lets use an example. I'm looking at Toogle from the east coast. My ISP is Comcast, and (for sake of argument, I have no idea who it really is) Toogle is hosted on a west coast provider, say, Covad. My HTTP request is sent from my system to my ISP's node. The ISP's node then routes the packet to it's next hop, which might be on an AT&T network. The AT&T node then routes the packet to another node, which might be in a completely different network, and so on and so forth, until the packet reaches Covad. The response is performed in much the same way, until it reaches my system. Now, yes, both Comcast and Covad are paid for this transaction, from me in my ISP contract, and from Toogle in the hosting agreement. AT&T's complaint is that they have to carry this traffic for free across their network, and get nothing from this particular transaction.
What I would like to know is if the backbone providers already charge a fee to connect to one of their nodes directly. I'd like to think that they do, but it's an uneducated guess.
Actually, not rationing, but restrictions do exist out west. Like Denver, CO, and the surrounding suburbs, (specifically Centennial), are still on water restrictions from a drought we had about 4 years ago, and I don't think they're going to repeal them. I suppose that's the price of living in a near-desert though. That, and there's not too many oceans around Denver (yet!).
well, I'm not sure if it'll work (because most providers make you pay for the feature), but in addition to this, have your phone number from your RealCell(TM) forwarded to your temporary disposable, give the real one to a friend, and, voila! Instant deception device;)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not nothing. They are warning boaters against using ethanol, becuase it dissolves fiberglass, which boat fuel tanks are made from. The interior of the fuel tank dissolves and gums up the engine, causing really bad things to happen.
In regular engines, there is evidence (informal, no scientific studies to date) that ethanol produces a buildup on parts exposed to combustion much more rapidly than regular refined fuel, which, in your case, would cause your spark plugs to need replacement sooner (you might pull them and check, it's pretty easy, really). I don't know of the effects on engine horsepower and torque, but it shouldn't be a drastic change from gasoline.
Okay, gross estimation here, but, if one of those people refused to work on the project that their government told them to work on, then they would be killed or jailed (and tourtured too!!!). Iraq did this (even with soccer players!) under Sadaam.
Okay, going out on a limb here, because I couldn't care less (HA!).
So, when I say "I couldn't care less," that means my caring is at an all time low. It can't get any lower. I care more about the dirt I'm standing on than the subject at hand.
On the other hand, when I say "I could care less," I'm saying that, I don't care about the subject at hand, and for me to care any less than I do now would require effort. Effort, which, I'm really not willing to put forth. So, you can interpret both to mean the same thing. At least when I'm speaking.
You're actually thinking of this backwords... yes, you are still doing radiant heat, but instead of using the radiator to gather heat, you're using it to dissapate heat. Cars do this all the time, and it works very well. It makes a lot of sense to have a dual purpose system, as the layer of the planet to which the GP is referring (or was it GGP?) is very consistent, and, if you're sending the air from in the house through the "diffuser" (or radiator, whatever) buried deep down in the dirt, physics will take care of the determination of if it should make it hotter or colder (if the house is colder than the dirt, the air will warm up, and if it's wamer than the dirt, it'll cool down). Oversimplified example, but the physics definately apply.
Actually, in addition to roof mounted wind turbines, wouldn't it make sense to mount them on the sides of buildings as well? IIRC, Tall buildings produce a lot of wind shear down the side of a building (especially in places like chicago (any chicagoans confirm this?)), which can produce a lot of wind. Anyone else confirm this (or, prove yet again, that I'm talking out of my arse?)
dang... I guess that makes me gullible, eh?
How about animated tattoos? I know it's a coupla rednecks who put this together (and filed a patent), but I didn't quite think they put together a flexible LCD by themselves...
Not to be picky here, because I wholeheartedly agree with your statements, but, in your example there, I assume you are speaking of the needle, not the whole syringe, right? In that case, would it even be possible to chip the needle? I suppose that, were it to have a threaded tip (do they make needles like that anymore?), you could put it there, point is, it will lead to customized tags, which will be more expensive to manufacture. Anyway, the idea is great, and it's in the right place. Hopefully, these sorts of things can be worked out.
That, and a myriad of other certifications... I think they make up certifications so that politics can decide what software can be used where... "Your application doesn't meet certification 'X', sorry, we're going to use your competitor's product, (who, btw, funded the creation of the certification)."
I of course, can't really back that up, but that's what it seems like to me.
I've always been curious of solutions to the space junk problem. This was one proposed solution. Another that I thought of is to drag a giant curtain around with you in orbit, capturing, if not deflecting stuff. Sort of like dragging a big net through the ocean. Then, when done, just empty it (not sure how yet) at the atmosphere, and everything burns up. Unless you catch a satellite in the process :)
Actually, this could be interesting, depending on how it's used. Now, provided it's kept anonymous, and you can get a statisically representative sample, say you measure the "fear" response, and map it out. Now, instead of dispatching your cops out to where the crime has already happened, you can send them out to reinforce areas where people feel unsafe.
Well, one problem here... when you make something pass through the entire structure, in space there's a little problem with that: explosive decompression. Now that you've introduced a hole or two in your structure, all that pressurized stuff in the structure wants to get out of the structure, and spread far, far apart.
I don't think it would be a shoot through the structure kind of an impact, actually. More of an absorb and redirect, but I'm not an astrophysicist (or any kind of physicist, for that matter), so take this with a grain of salt.
If I were to conjecture here, the Navy has a very large problem in that it uses a large number of networks, which traditionally haven't been connected, due to security reasons (the most sensitive data is stored on unconnected networks). The problem has been that, to get information properly, an operator must have multiple terminals. I think that the intent is not necessarily to patent the firewall, but more to patent a trusted solution to allow interconnectivity between the different networks, allowing people to read down, and send information up.
I won't get into any examples, as I'm not qualified to make such predictions (though I'm sure some here are). That being said, researching for the sake of research produces useful results. Strictly researching "science with a purpose" could have prevented a good portion of our current discoveries. We don't know what our results will bring us, and that's the best part. We can apply this information where ever it fits, and use it to further understand our problems, which might lead to more "Science with a purpose" as you put it. All science is valuable, purposeful or not.
Okay, I need more coffee. I couldn't see the difference and had to re-read your statement 7 or 8 times. Sheesh.
If we're talking about limited access highways, when one crosses, for example, a river, there's at least 2 bridges involved in that (one for each direction). With every interchange, there's at least one if the intersecting road goes over the interstate, and two if the opposite is true. When speaking of a cloverleaf or other more complex interstate interchange, there can be a lot more than just 2. I'd actually tend to believe that figure. But, I'm not sure about the mileage... the country is what, 2000 miles across? How many cross country interstates are there? 4 or 5? I don't know, the more I do the back of the envelope thing, it does actually sound reasonable.
Isn't this how religions get started?
I actually disagree with your point number 2 (and, to point number 1, that was my intention). I believe that the first article to which I linked reinforces the point that climatologists don't know what is causing global warming at all, and are merely making an assumption about the current trend. Indeed, the article clearly states that "That the Earth has come out of the "Little Ice Age" is much more in need of explanation than the fact that it got into one."
Specifically, from the first article linked:
Among the possible reasons given for the "Little Ice Age" are low solar activity and increased volcanism. How then are we going to tell which part of the recent warming is "natural" and which (if any) is due to human influence? The standard answer to this question is that the warming right after 1850 is mostly natural. The weather in the mid- and late 1830s was highly unusual and highly stressful, with severe winters and bad harvests (The great Irish famine falls into this period.) In the conventional view, the "Little Ice Age" is an anomaly (indeed it was the coldest period in the last several thousand years) and the warming after 1850 simply gets us back on track. This concept also supports the idea that warming in the last century has been a good thing for people, plants and animals, because it brought back the previous regime of a more benign climate.
It is difficult to argue with this conventional view, but we must be aware that it is simply a convenient assumption: no more, no less. There is nothing in our understanding of climate that would forbid a continuation or worsening of the "Little Ice Age" conditions after 1850 and right into the present. On the contrary, the long-term view of climate change the one that includes the coming and going of ice ages actually demands increased cooling for the last 3000 years or so. That the Earth has come out of the "Little Ice Age" is much more in need of explanation than the fact that it got into one.
Now, how I read that, it says to me specifically that after the little ice age, any warming experienced is returning the climate back to it's original state. Specifically: "...and the warming after 1850 simply gets us back on track."
Basically, I'm saying we don't know jack about climatology, especially regarding the long term perspective. Yes, there are very smart people out there, analyzing data, looking at information, but no, we have no idea where we are in the scheme of things, we have no information supporting that we are not in a natural phase of the earth's warming / cooling cycle, and we have no evidence that the earth hasn't done this before.
Actually, I think you might be wrong on this one. Lets go with the doomsday scenario all the fearmongers are right, and global catastrophe is going to happen at 1700 tonight. When the catastrophe happens, and the seas rise, then about 70% of the population will have to move (look up the source for the exact figure, but the number of people living within a few miles of the oceans is very signifcant). Well, when those people move, resources will become more scarce (food, land, clean water, etc), which creates competition for these resources. When you combine scarcity with competition, you get unsavory behaviour (read: terrorism). Look at refugee camps as a good example. Lotsa looting, and the like. Imagine this on a global scale. So, yea, terrorism, by another name, will be very prevalent if doomsday happens.
Okay, I'm going to get a -1 flaimbait for this one...
a w/LM_Fig8_2_1.jpg h ange2/04_3.shtml,
<rant>
What happens after an ice age is over? It warms up, right? Well, we've been in a post-ice age period since, well, the last ice age. It's still significantly cooler than it has been in the distant past, and IMHO the earth is going to warm up, whether we do it or not.
Look at this, from UCSD:
(graph): http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/r
(article): http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatec
and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age.
Now, of course that doesn't mean we should be responsible, and reduce our emissions. I'm just tired of all of the FUD and fearmongering being spread around about doomsday and the like. A little science if you please.
</rant>
I wouldn't put my money on an all out nosedive either... but some financial problems, in which they trim some fat, restructure a bit, and come out of the struggle with the core business intact, minus some of the less profitable portions.
Actually, this has been observed with a lot of different companies in dire straights. Not saying this for sure (as it is only correlation evedence, but you make your own inferences), but when a lot of executives leave, the company is in trouble. Witness Sun Microsystems a few years back when they had tons of executives leaving. The company wasn't on solid footing, and the execs new it, so they began to bail.
If I had to predict, I'd imagine that times will be rough at MS for the next few years, as major image shakedowns and restructurings occur. Hopefully, it'll prove beneficial to the rest of the universe, but I'm not holding my breath. MS is still MS.
I'll attempt to clarify the issue that the telecoms are taking with the current setup (note that I support the issue of Net Neutrality). Yes, currently, when a hosting contract is signed, you do pay for the bandwidth to get to the first node (or your provider's node, over a few hops). But, the problem the telcos are having is that when traffic originating on a separate part of the network onto another provider's network, the second in line just has to forward the packets on around, without charging for that traffic.
Lets use an example. I'm looking at Toogle from the east coast. My ISP is Comcast, and (for sake of argument, I have no idea who it really is) Toogle is hosted on a west coast provider, say, Covad. My HTTP request is sent from my system to my ISP's node. The ISP's node then routes the packet to it's next hop, which might be on an AT&T network. The AT&T node then routes the packet to another node, which might be in a completely different network, and so on and so forth, until the packet reaches Covad. The response is performed in much the same way, until it reaches my system. Now, yes, both Comcast and Covad are paid for this transaction, from me in my ISP contract, and from Toogle in the hosting agreement. AT&T's complaint is that they have to carry this traffic for free across their network, and get nothing from this particular transaction.
What I would like to know is if the backbone providers already charge a fee to connect to one of their nodes directly. I'd like to think that they do, but it's an uneducated guess.
Actually, not rationing, but restrictions do exist out west. Like Denver, CO, and the surrounding suburbs, (specifically Centennial), are still on water restrictions from a drought we had about 4 years ago, and I don't think they're going to repeal them. I suppose that's the price of living in a near-desert though. That, and there's not too many oceans around Denver (yet!).
well, I'm not sure if it'll work (because most providers make you pay for the feature), but in addition to this, have your phone number from your RealCell(TM) forwarded to your temporary disposable, give the real one to a friend, and, voila! Instant deception device ;)