I would be happy with your suggestion of using the term "local maximum" instead of "peak".
Biological resources are renewable. Oil is not, and once you've used the resource, it's gone. You can't recycle burned petroleum like many metals. You can't regrow it like a southern pine plantation.
Please stop using "Peak" when referring to non-oil resources. Wood is renewable. The production of wood can be sustained, or can be engineered to increase over time, depending on management resource. You can't do that with a finite resource like oil. And don't use the term for mineral resources either. You can almost always find another deposit, with a slightly lesser yield than the one you just mined. That continues until you are mining the ocean for elements. It's a matter of how economic the resource is to mine. Oil is none of that. You can't find 0.5ppm oil in some soil somewhere like you can with gold or uranium or neodymium or whatever fearmongering element you wish to be afraid about.
I attended a lecture (probably ten years ago at this point) in which he suggested particular mass extinction horizons in the geological column were the result of methane hydrate eruptions. I can't recall the specifics, other than the general disbelief of most of us in the room, on his particular hypothesis. It required a lot of specific proofs that weren't there. There was much discussion on the existence of C60 in various ash levels. And that's all I can remember, other than thinking Gregory Ryskin needs to provide stronger evidence to this hypotheses. But seriously, some of the leading paleontologists and paleoclimate people really thought his stuff was ignoring strong evidence.
Amen--Ubuntu was fine, a touch slow, but functional until I installed accelerated graphics drivers for my ATI card. Then menuing, windows, everything, became spiffy and quick.
Hey Mr. Know-It-All, I'd like to know more. All I did was read the article. If you know more, help us all out by linking to some more info.
"The FCC on July 31 said a wireless prototype submitted by Microsoft and other members of the White Spaces Coalition interfered with cable television channels and therefore would not be licensed for use. The White Spaces Coalition, including Google Inc., Dell Inc., Intel Corp. and other tech vendors, wants the FCC to approve wireless devices that operate in the so-called spectrum white spaces between TV channels."
I'd still be rooting for the FCC, which enforces the law. Radio spectrum is precious and already suffers enough interference. The FCC already caved on some rules when they approved the horrific broadband-over-power lines.
The whole point of FCC testing is to confirm the device works to specifications and doesn't violate FCC rules regarding emissions. It failed, and Microsoft needs to submit their design again. To imply the FCC was somehow faulty as is suggested by the "White Spaces" industry wag man (who also is one of those in-and-out regulatory-to-industry guys) is classic FUD.
Fix your prototype, MS, and the FCC will certify it.
If you read the preprint (PDF), you'd note that luckily, one of the caves actually was imaged with the floor sunlit, giving the authors the ability to calculate the depth of that particular cave. This was covered on May 23rd on the Planetary Society blog.
Except of course, you simply can't tell in the case of falling incandescent debris. What size was the object? What was the size of the plasma? Pilots get meteors wrong all the time. Without further evidence, I claim a mistaken airline pilot, rather than an actual close encounter. I won't cede to "airplane pilot authority".
How did the pilot know how far away the debris was?
Like most reports of distances with falling objects like meteors and deorbiting space debris, eyewitness accounts of distance to the falling object are completely unreliable. People describe "basketball sized glowing sphere a thousand feet overhead" and it's really a pea sized meteor 70km above them. Same thing here. Now, details might come out that it showed up on weather avoidance radar, but as people are hashing out here with the video camera, there isn't one of those in the back.
The mantle is a solid, albeit warm and plastic, material. It's solid because of the immense pressure the material is under. Brought up via plate tectonics, the material can melt as the pressure is released.
Slashdot Mirror
Oil in Peak oil refers to petroleum. I don't have a liter of petroleum in my kitchen.
I would be happy with your suggestion of using the term "local maximum" instead of "peak". Biological resources are renewable. Oil is not, and once you've used the resource, it's gone. You can't recycle burned petroleum like many metals. You can't regrow it like a southern pine plantation.
Please stop using "Peak" when referring to non-oil resources. Wood is renewable. The production of wood can be sustained, or can be engineered to increase over time, depending on management resource. You can't do that with a finite resource like oil. And don't use the term for mineral resources either. You can almost always find another deposit, with a slightly lesser yield than the one you just mined. That continues until you are mining the ocean for elements. It's a matter of how economic the resource is to mine. Oil is none of that. You can't find 0.5ppm oil in some soil somewhere like you can with gold or uranium or neodymium or whatever fearmongering element you wish to be afraid about.
I attended a lecture (probably ten years ago at this point) in which he suggested particular mass extinction horizons in the geological column were the result of methane hydrate eruptions. I can't recall the specifics, other than the general disbelief of most of us in the room, on his particular hypothesis. It required a lot of specific proofs that weren't there. There was much discussion on the existence of C60 in various ash levels. And that's all I can remember, other than thinking Gregory Ryskin needs to provide stronger evidence to this hypotheses. But seriously, some of the leading paleontologists and paleoclimate people really thought his stuff was ignoring strong evidence.
Amen--Ubuntu was fine, a touch slow, but functional until I installed accelerated graphics drivers for my ATI card. Then menuing, windows, everything, became spiffy and quick.
Just like Runaway!
Satellite measurements only catch the uplight. Horizontally emitted light ends up producing much more light pollution per lumen emitted than uplight.
Increasing the lights in Chicago's alleys, with a control area, found that crime increased 21% in the brighter area. The Chicago Alley Lighting Project: Final Evaluation Report (PDF)
Hey Mr. Know-It-All, I'd like to know more. All I did was read the article. If you know more, help us all out by linking to some more info. "The FCC on July 31 said a wireless prototype submitted by Microsoft and other members of the White Spaces Coalition interfered with cable television channels and therefore would not be licensed for use. The White Spaces Coalition, including Google Inc., Dell Inc., Intel Corp. and other tech vendors, wants the FCC to approve wireless devices that operate in the so-called spectrum white spaces between TV channels."
I'd still be rooting for the FCC, which enforces the law. Radio spectrum is precious and already suffers enough interference. The FCC already caved on some rules when they approved the horrific broadband-over-power lines.
The whole point of FCC testing is to confirm the device works to specifications and doesn't violate FCC rules regarding emissions. It failed, and Microsoft needs to submit their design again. To imply the FCC was somehow faulty as is suggested by the "White Spaces" industry wag man (who also is one of those in-and-out regulatory-to-industry guys) is classic FUD. Fix your prototype, MS, and the FCC will certify it.
Uh... Tombaugh was 24 when he discovered Pluto aka Planet X. He later searched for other objects on the ecliptic, is that what you mean?
If you read the preprint (PDF), you'd note that luckily, one of the caves actually was imaged with the floor sunlit, giving the authors the ability to calculate the depth of that particular cave. This was covered on May 23rd on the Planetary Society blog.
Except of course, you simply can't tell in the case of falling incandescent debris. What size was the object? What was the size of the plasma? Pilots get meteors wrong all the time. Without further evidence, I claim a mistaken airline pilot, rather than an actual close encounter. I won't cede to "airplane pilot authority".
How did the pilot know how far away the debris was?
Like most reports of distances with falling objects like meteors and deorbiting space debris, eyewitness accounts of distance to the falling object are completely unreliable. People describe "basketball sized glowing sphere a thousand feet overhead" and it's really a pea sized meteor 70km above them. Same thing here. Now, details might come out that it showed up on weather avoidance radar, but as people are hashing out here with the video camera, there isn't one of those in the back.
I think it means science by press release is usually poor.
The mantle is a solid, albeit warm and plastic, material. It's solid because of the immense pressure the material is under. Brought up via plate tectonics, the material can melt as the pressure is released.
I have a recording of a shortwave numbers station in Spanish here.