Ah, another note btw: using a VM you would have to purchace another windows license. You'll avoid that by using something lighter (the software I mentioned, sandboxie, is not free - but it is a hell of a lot cheaper than a copy of windows.)
While running a virtual machine certainly would solve the problem, I think it might be more than a tad overkill.
Just get some sandboxing software (i.e. "sandboxie", which I've only heard good stuff about) and run internet explorer from within such a sandboxed environment.
Just like a VM it will keep IE (or anything spawned by IE) from messing with the rest of the system, but with the advantage that it is much more lightweight than a typical VM.
In Sweden, all banks provide a challenge/response - based physical keyfob to their customers, for free. I still find it amazing how bad bank security is in most other countries. Many banks just have passwords... all it takes is a keylogger. Insane.
What I always find so fascinating with these discussions is how EVERYBODY seems to believe that exactly they are correct, regardless of the fact that most of these scientists have spent most of their lives studying these kind of things. If the general scientific community, who are the ones who have been really studying this and know it, predict something.. why can't we just believe them instead of immediately assuming that they are incorrect and that oneself is correct?
It can't be reversed, but it can be mitigated. What we are doing right now will decide whether later on we get a small, medium or large increase in global temperatures.
Yep, absolutely. Except for the majority of windows users who actually wouldn't understand what "browser" or "download" meant, and had an even smaller chance of even being able to download and install a browser. But then again, internet isn't all that important anyway, so I guess that's ok... ?
We experience the opposite. We are 4:1 a Linux:Windows shop, yet spend twice as much time fixing Windows boxes.
We charge for our time, so we love, and hate Windows.
Of course, the reason that an average windows computer is more likely to be sent in for repairs than an average linux computer could just be that the average linux user knows a lot more about computers than the windows equivalent, so linux users are more likely to fix potential errors themselves. It doesn't (only) have to be about how errorprone each system may be.
It's not about the email or searching at all. It's about the advertisement - that's where the money is (when did you last pay to search (/email) for something using [microsoft|google|yahoo] search (/email)? And when it comes to online ads, google is quite a bit larger than both ms and yahoo - especially since they got doubleclick.
The field of bioinformatics is basically all about developing software to solve biomedical informatical problems.
If you want somebody to develop a program to solve a scientific problem in the biomedical domain, it is likely that what you need is a bioinformatician.
The asker does not mention in what context he is doing research. If at a university, offer the problem for bioinformatics msc students that need to come up with something for their dissertation project (or even as a phd project if the problem is considerably larger).
If the asker works in industry rather than academia, student placements would still be possible (offering a connected studentship), or simply hiring a bioinformatician.
PubMed Central, the central repository for open access Life Sciences research articles, is pushing on 1.3 million articles. These repositories is a wet dream of text mining researchers.
You can always capture their carbon and tuck it away in a sealed mine.
Sure, applying conventional carbon-capture sequestering (CCS) technology to biofuel plants have always seemed a good idea to me. That way, as long as the captured carbon does not leak out, you are effectively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If it does leak out, at least you're carbon-neutral, which is less risky than building a thousand coal-powered plants, putting CCS tech on top of them and then discovering fifty years later that the storage locations thought to be so secure actually are not.
See the previous reply by afc_wimbledon. Such a scheme (by burying) has been proposed. The question is whether it is the most efficient way. My feeling is that it'd take a great load of energy - and land mass - to bury trees in large enough quantities to make any difference (making it more efficient to just get the carbon directly at the source instead). But then, I haven't done the numbers.
"Yes, but when the trees eventually die they are decomposed and release the CO2 into the air again (or in the case of biofuel, they release it into the air again when burned). It is a carbon-neutral system, both when left alone and when used as a fuel."
Uhm, I'm sorry? Last time I checked trees convert CO2 to oxygen instead of simply storing CO2 into their bodies!
CO2. One carbon atom, two oxygen atoms. If it is all converted to oxygen, without the carbon being stored in the trees themselves, where do the carbon atom go? All organic matter is based on carbon - including trees and for instance our own bodies. If you burn either (or just let them die and then decompose, which will happen) they will both release carbon in the form of carbon dioxide.
Yes, but when the trees eventually die they are decomposed and release the CO2 into the air again (or in the case of biofuel, they release it into the air again when burned). It is a carbon-neutral system, both when left alone and when used as a fuel.
It is not carbon-neutral. As long as more trees are planted than cut down, it will be beneficial. The rainforest was a pretty good carbon store until it was cut down...
A tree does not have to be cut down to die (you know that process called aging?). Of course, If we planted more trees than die (whether from natural causes or from being cut down), then the forests would continually store more and more carbon. I think it's clear enough why that wouldn't work though.
Err.. The idea being then that at those depths, bacteria wouldn't get to them? Or that with no oxygen available, decomposition would be infeasible? I have to say, it sounds like an awful lot of work - first to do the digging, and secondly to actually place the cut-down trees in these deposits.
Don't we have a device that removes CO2 from the air? I thought they were called "trees."
Yes, but when the trees eventually die they are decomposed and release the CO2 into the air again (or in the case of biofuel, they release it into the air again when burned). It is a carbon-neutral system, both when left alone and when used as a fuel.
I imagine an approach like this would be considerably less efficient than, say, putting CCS devices on coal plants.
If it "costs" 100 kWh / tonne of CO2 at a normal location, you'd most likely get better efficiency if this was done where the air concentration of CO2 was high. Such as.. at the top of a coal-plant chimney where the CO2 concentration is going to be a great deal higher than the average concentration in the atmosphere.
They added the function again in firefox 3.0, so it is again possible to block third-party cookies without any extensions or other software than just a fresh firefox installation.
The irony is that by actually having been found out like this, the publicity and attention they got increased dramatically. Would it have been posted on slashdot if they hadn't been the ones uploading in the first place?
1. Leak single to torrent site
2. Complain about it in press release
3. Get a little attention
4. Make sure that people find out that you actually did #1.
5. Get lots of attention
6. ???
7. Profit!
the scam is to allow big polluters a back door by buying credits and not having to clean up the mess they are putting into the athmosphere.
That's one of the major points of cap-and-trade systems. By allowing a large corporation (A) to buy carbon credits from another corporation (B) instead of cleaning up / lowering their emissions, the costs are minimized. Notice that just because A doesn't have to clean up their emissions, B instead will have to. Regardless of where on the buy-credits-or-cleanup scale A chooses to sit, somebody will have to clean up for those emissions.
By having such a system, the efforts for cleaning up would automatically be done in the areas where it is most cost-effective. Let's say that company A can reduce their carbon emissions at a cost of 10 $ / ton (I'm just making up the figures, have no idea how realistic they are). Company B can reduce their carbon emissions at a cost of $5 / ton. Now, either company A could choose to clean up their act, or they could buy carbon credits for whatever amount of carbon emissions they have from company B (giving company A a profit of perhaps $1 / ton). It is clear enough that in the second case, total expenses would be lowered (and the "cleaning" company even gets a profit!), while the total reduction in carbon emissions stays the same.
It is very important to note that this part, the "trading" part, is only one half. The second part, just as important, is the "cap" part. It would be possible to just flood the market with these credits, thereby making the system useless. Instead, the idea is to initially give quite generous credit rations (but still low enough so that companies would have to lower their emissions) and then as time goes by, successively lower the number of available credits on the market. It is this process which will cause the emissions to go down. The market half is just designed to make sure that those emissions reductions occur in the areas where it is cheapest to do them.
I'd imagine that it's not big enough for that. Being in the same size class as the 1908 Tunguska asteroid, they should be fine (earth wasn't darkened by giant dust clouds in 1908, no?)
While the article says that there will be a significant dust plume, I guess it'll seetle more rapidly and be more localized.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, another note btw: using a VM you would have to purchace another windows license. You'll avoid that by using something lighter (the software I mentioned, sandboxie, is not free - but it is a hell of a lot cheaper than a copy of windows.)
Just get some sandboxing software (i.e. "sandboxie", which I've only heard good stuff about) and run internet explorer from within such a sandboxed environment.
Just like a VM it will keep IE (or anything spawned by IE) from messing with the rest of the system, but with the advantage that it is much more lightweight than a typical VM.
That's one helpdesk question per user every 10-20 minutes.. my god.
In Sweden, all banks provide a challenge/response - based physical keyfob to their customers, for free. I still find it amazing how bad bank security is in most other countries. Many banks just have passwords... all it takes is a keylogger. Insane.
What I always find so fascinating with these discussions is how EVERYBODY seems to believe that exactly they are correct, regardless of the fact that most of these scientists have spent most of their lives studying these kind of things. If the general scientific community, who are the ones who have been really studying this and know it, predict something.. why can't we just believe them instead of immediately assuming that they are incorrect and that oneself is correct?
It can't be reversed, but it can be mitigated. What we are doing right now will decide whether later on we get a small, medium or large increase in global temperatures.
Yep, absolutely. Except for the majority of windows users who actually wouldn't understand what "browser" or "download" meant, and had an even smaller chance of even being able to download and install a browser. But then again, internet isn't all that important anyway, so I guess that's ok... ?
We experience the opposite. We are 4:1 a Linux:Windows shop, yet spend twice as much time fixing Windows boxes. We charge for our time, so we love, and hate Windows.
Of course, the reason that an average windows computer is more likely to be sent in for repairs than an average linux computer could just be that the average linux user knows a lot more about computers than the windows equivalent, so linux users are more likely to fix potential errors themselves. It doesn't (only) have to be about how errorprone each system may be.
It's not about the email or searching at all. It's about the advertisement - that's where the money is (when did you last pay to search (/email) for something using [microsoft|google|yahoo] search (/email)? And when it comes to online ads, google is quite a bit larger than both ms and yahoo - especially since they got doubleclick.
Microsoft offered $33 per share - the yahoo share is now around $10.
If I was a shareholder I'd be pissed as well.
If you want somebody to develop a program to solve a scientific problem in the biomedical domain, it is likely that what you need is a bioinformatician.
The asker does not mention in what context he is doing research. If at a university, offer the problem for bioinformatics msc students that need to come up with something for their dissertation project (or even as a phd project if the problem is considerably larger).
If the asker works in industry rather than academia, student placements would still be possible (offering a connected studentship), or simply hiring a bioinformatician.
PubMed Central, the central repository for open access Life Sciences research articles, is pushing on 1.3 million articles. These repositories is a wet dream of text mining researchers.
You can always capture their carbon and tuck it away in a sealed mine.
Sure, applying conventional carbon-capture sequestering (CCS) technology to biofuel plants have always seemed a good idea to me. That way, as long as the captured carbon does not leak out, you are effectively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If it does leak out, at least you're carbon-neutral, which is less risky than building a thousand coal-powered plants, putting CCS tech on top of them and then discovering fifty years later that the storage locations thought to be so secure actually are not.
See the previous reply by afc_wimbledon. Such a scheme (by burying) has been proposed. The question is whether it is the most efficient way. My feeling is that it'd take a great load of energy - and land mass - to bury trees in large enough quantities to make any difference (making it more efficient to just get the carbon directly at the source instead). But then, I haven't done the numbers.
"Yes, but when the trees eventually die they are decomposed and release the CO2 into the air again (or in the case of biofuel, they release it into the air again when burned). It is a carbon-neutral system, both when left alone and when used as a fuel."
Uhm, I'm sorry? Last time I checked trees convert CO2 to oxygen instead of simply storing CO2 into their bodies!
CO2. One carbon atom, two oxygen atoms. If it is all converted to oxygen, without the carbon being stored in the trees themselves, where do the carbon atom go? All organic matter is based on carbon - including trees and for instance our own bodies. If you burn either (or just let them die and then decompose, which will happen) they will both release carbon in the form of carbon dioxide.
Yes, but when the trees eventually die they are decomposed and release the CO2 into the air again (or in the case of biofuel, they release it into the air again when burned). It is a carbon-neutral system, both when left alone and when used as a fuel.
It is not carbon-neutral. As long as more trees are planted than cut down, it will be beneficial. The rainforest was a pretty good carbon store until it was cut down...
A tree does not have to be cut down to die (you know that process called aging?). Of course, If we planted more trees than die (whether from natural causes or from being cut down), then the forests would continually store more and more carbon. I think it's clear enough why that wouldn't work though.
Err.. The idea being then that at those depths, bacteria wouldn't get to them? Or that with no oxygen available, decomposition would be infeasible? I have to say, it sounds like an awful lot of work - first to do the digging, and secondly to actually place the cut-down trees in these deposits.
Don't we have a device that removes CO2 from the air? I thought they were called "trees."
Yes, but when the trees eventually die they are decomposed and release the CO2 into the air again (or in the case of biofuel, they release it into the air again when burned). It is a carbon-neutral system, both when left alone and when used as a fuel.
I imagine an approach like this would be considerably less efficient than, say, putting CCS devices on coal plants. If it "costs" 100 kWh / tonne of CO2 at a normal location, you'd most likely get better efficiency if this was done where the air concentration of CO2 was high. Such as.. at the top of a coal-plant chimney where the CO2 concentration is going to be a great deal higher than the average concentration in the atmosphere.
They added the function again in firefox 3.0, so it is again possible to block third-party cookies without any extensions or other software than just a fresh firefox installation.
1. Leak single to torrent site
2. Complain about it in press release
3. Get a little attention
4. Make sure that people find out that you actually did #1.
5. Get lots of attention
6. ???
7. Profit!
Not all pages are in english.
Let's hope that nobody makes a mistake when supposed to switch from lethal to non-lethal bullets...
Ever heard of the crusades?
By having such a system, the efforts for cleaning up would automatically be done in the areas where it is most cost-effective. Let's say that company A can reduce their carbon emissions at a cost of 10 $ / ton (I'm just making up the figures, have no idea how realistic they are). Company B can reduce their carbon emissions at a cost of $5 / ton. Now, either company A could choose to clean up their act, or they could buy carbon credits for whatever amount of carbon emissions they have from company B (giving company A a profit of perhaps $1 / ton). It is clear enough that in the second case, total expenses would be lowered (and the "cleaning" company even gets a profit!), while the total reduction in carbon emissions stays the same.
It is very important to note that this part, the "trading" part, is only one half. The second part, just as important, is the "cap" part. It would be possible to just flood the market with these credits, thereby making the system useless. Instead, the idea is to initially give quite generous credit rations (but still low enough so that companies would have to lower their emissions) and then as time goes by, successively lower the number of available credits on the market. It is this process which will cause the emissions to go down. The market half is just designed to make sure that those emissions reductions occur in the areas where it is cheapest to do them.
I'd imagine that it's not big enough for that. Being in the same size class as the 1908 Tunguska asteroid, they should be fine (earth wasn't darkened by giant dust clouds in 1908, no?) While the article says that there will be a significant dust plume, I guess it'll seetle more rapidly and be more localized.