For cogeneration a Diesel is just as useful and yup, can also hit the 90% efficiency range. That is not a fair comparasion. You mite want to check those numbers too. About 70% is the best there is normaly for cogens. You can fudge things a bit since you are using *heat* energy and electricity (5Kw of heat is not the same as 5Kw of electricity). But conversion to just electricty is never much better than about 50% which is the figure of merit that is talked about here.
Really? M$ invests in Movies.... mmm Now i think about the fighting game in the Island was with a "xbox". I hope that is in devoplemnt too cus even i would get a console (Even a M$ one) for that;)
the problem is a conceptual problem unrelated to language. QFT. There is a lot of slow C code out there. There is a lot of slow *pick a programming lang* out there. The oposite is also true.
Well I know a few people that are average consumers. When there CD's got scratched they discorved that ripping back to a plain CD fixed the problem. Just googled CD copy or something. With DVD's theres DVD copy, its rips and compresses it so that it will fit on a SL DVD-R. They have know idea that they are "cracking" anything.
Yea, and to all the other kids in the room who can't learn because of a few asshats. Well to bad for them eh.
School should be rasing kids (Young adults). They are there to teach. If the student doesn't want to learn he/she has no right to stay and be disruptive.
however 40 days does seem like a long time. I bet there is more to the story. From both sides.
Yea Mr Objective Ballanced Truthfull Michael Moore. Now theres one guy who is 100% honest and would never ever misrepresent anything right.
Re:How many people have the computing power ...
on
A Mighty Number Falls
·
· Score: 1
I tend to favour DL based schemes anyway. IIRC break DL => factor large primes but not the other way round.
As for the patents.. There are a lot with ECC as a keyword, it creates a lot of "issues" and I don't think I will take that as legal advice. Personaly I like the idea of ECC. The implementation is not that hard (well not really all that much harder than other DL based sig/encypt schemes). But I just don't want the leagal pain.
I would really like some complexity proofs that the DL and or factorization problems are hard (don't we all). I beleive they are hard, but a proof would be really awsome. (Is there that JS fellow on sci.crypt still yabbering about factoring in p time;))
I never liked this argument. Its true that in most FPS network connection and hardware give you and avantage. Its also true that if you can affored a lighter bike for the triatholon you have and advantage. Why should someone who just spent a lot of money on a good machine and connection be "held" back because someoneelse didn't?
Having said that, the top 10 players have game averages in the 20-30 min mark and usally the longest game is 1 hour. The replays make it pretty clear that its still a click fest. If you don't do your micro you don't reliably win and theres a givin build order for most maps. To top it off it has bad network performance and runs like a dog on my resonably high end machine.
I loved TA, but this time round C&C3 is more fun because it just plays better. However I still prefer TA.
Re:How many people have the computing power ...
on
A Mighty Number Falls
·
· Score: 1
What about the patents? (threre are so many...) Also it may turn out that discrete logs over EC are not harder than tradtional "hard" discrete logs. Fact is we just havn't had the math for very long.
If we don't get a grip on agriculture now, it will all be a moot point soon, because we won't have oxygen to breathe.
WTF. Most of the biomass on this planet is in the ocean. Most of the O2 is from plankton. At over 20% O2 in the atmosphear, even with buring coal etc, it will take 1000's of years to use all the oxygen. Assuming we don't let grass/trees or plankton grow anywhere.
Well most of the addsence set up is 100% automatic. They simple don't "see" the sites or screen them. You can complain I think. It has worked for others. But once Google become a public company, they cannot legaly do no evil if it redueces stockholer value. So i don't think they are worse than M$ yet, it will take time.
..but it really isn't "just another political report I think we will just have to aggree to disagre here. In my experiance the UN and things like the IPCC are poltical. In fact its hard to claim that the whole GW debate is anything but political. You tread very carfully when you ask for funding for example. I have seen one atmophearic group lose there funding because they said publicly that there is little *proof* that we are the cause of the warming. (Note: I was there, this is a fact, not something i made up, its why I'm currently in mathmatical biology now!)
I do find realclimate a bit biased as the are the papers that come out at this point in time. Of course this is nothing new. Most groups of scientists have popular ideas to explain whatever it is we are working on. Probably the most fustrating thing i find is that there is little senistivity anaylis of the models. Many still just use a simple 50 meter surface ocean models and never mention its shortcomming when discusing long term climate predictions. Realclimate doesn't talk about them either. Even the varation of forcing terms, or the lack of climate prediction histroy are simply not discused in enough depth if at all IMO.
But that fact that we aggree on the action part is the most important point. We should be looking at what to do rather than arguing details we simple can't reliably answer at this point in time. Few of the big GW advocates are that proactive on action. They are proactive by telling others (aka the Government) that they should be doing something. Look at how many people complain when the price of petrol goes up. We folks in the western world love to talk.
Well I'm living in Vienna where a lot of the UN stuff goes on. Quite a few of my friends work there are quite a few of the academics I know end up working there from time to time (including with the IPCC report). You get to hear a lot of storys about what goes on. The bottom line is that the IPCC report is just another *political* report. Its really nothing more or less. I mean what do statments like "90% proablilitiy that we are the major casue of global warming?" mean. What is the meaning of major? what does 90% mean? If I have 100 earths all with identical CO2 curves etc, ~90 of them will have man casused warming and the others will only have natural warming? These just are not scientific statments, they are political. Everyone picks up on it when the bush Adminsitration issues a report, I really can't see why everyone finds it so hard to see with the IPCC.
Also I don't see why everyone puts so much faith in realclimate. They have there own agenda and opinins as all scientist do (like myself). Its one side of the story. Scientist disagree all the time on just about everything (yes even the cause of climate change). Yea and I read the peer reviewed climate papers, they give a very different story to the "absolutes" used in the IPCC report or media.
Just for the record. I do think gloabal warming is real. We (humans) have contributed significalty to the CO2 levels. However I don't think we know enough to even get close to quantify how much of an effect that is compared to natral warming. Even more to the point there are a *lot* of other things we do which may have a bigger effect (deforstation, irrigation etc) at least on local climate. I also support taking mesures to reduce CO2 emmisions, and i can think of least 2 better reasons than the climate.
But the key point is that scientists vet all the changes. Really? Well it turns out that out of 2500 people that vet the changes, a large number are not even scientist and even less are "climate" scientists, whatever that is. If you don't belive me, get the list and check there backgrounds. Even better read some of there publications in peer reviewed jornals.
Your information is quite wrong. Nothing even close to mm dimesions will be created. The "stable" black holes that *mite* form would last for less than 10^-15 seconds IIRC. Light can't even travel 1 mm in that time.
I think you might want to check that little piece of data. The oceans will probably rise, we think (We have been wrong before). But were talking less than 1 foot over 100 years. And thats the doom/gloom crowd. It could be as little as a few inches. I get the joke part. But this incorrect doom stuff has just gone too far.
The DOD get a little cash for *every* GPS reciver sold. You can't just build these things. You need to get a "licence". Also there is a thing called selective avaliblity.
How do we know that we're not already making matters even worse? We don't, and thats what I'm trying to say. It is a great idea to *stop* adding large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are even a whole lot of reasons outside the climate debate. I avoid air travel when I can and use trains. We have energy saver lighting...etc
But I'm agaist *active* measure to keep the climate status quo, like large solar refletors or sucking out more CO2 than we put in. Simply because we don't understand the system yet. We will in time understand things and then we will be able to make more informed choices.
Okay, let's not listen to the media or AG. (They're 'pedestrian', right?) Who are we left with? Well I think we should accept that the warming will happen. Less than a foot of ocean rise over a 100 years is not a tidal wave. I think more stuidies on the likly effects and impacts and some forward planing would go a long way. But the "sky is falling, were all gunna die" type of approach mite sell newspapers but its solves nothing. Not to mention that its pretty wrong too.
But you have a very good point. Alas I can't see any rational science happening in this feild for some time. Its all just too political.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? M$ invests in Movies.... mmm Now i think about the fighting game in the Island was with a "xbox". I hope that is in devoplemnt too cus even i would get a console (Even a M$ one) for that ;)
Or from the movie the Island. I'm pretty sure that won't be the first time either. Most things/ideas on there own are just not all that orginal.
Well I know a few people that are average consumers. When there CD's got scratched they discorved that ripping back to a plain CD fixed the problem. Just googled CD copy or something. With DVD's theres DVD copy, its rips and compresses it so that it will fit on a SL DVD-R. They have know idea that they are "cracking" anything.
But which format should I get? Ray or HD?
Should not be raising kids...
sorry my bad
Yea, and to all the other kids in the room who can't learn because of a few asshats. Well to bad for them eh.
School should be rasing kids (Young adults). They are there to teach. If the student doesn't want to learn he/she has no right to stay and be disruptive.
however 40 days does seem like a long time. I bet there is more to the story. From both sides.
Yea Mr Objective Ballanced Truthfull Michael Moore. Now theres one guy who is 100% honest and would never ever misrepresent anything right.
I tend to favour DL based schemes anyway. IIRC break DL => factor large primes but not the other way round.
;))
As for the patents.. There are a lot with ECC as a keyword, it creates a lot of "issues" and I don't think I will take that as legal advice. Personaly I like the idea of ECC. The implementation is not that hard (well not really all that much harder than other DL based sig/encypt schemes). But I just don't want the leagal pain.
I would really like some complexity proofs that the DL and or factorization problems are hard (don't we all). I beleive they are hard, but a proof would be really awsome. (Is there that JS fellow on sci.crypt still yabbering about factoring in p time
I never liked this argument. Its true that in most FPS network connection and hardware give you and avantage. Its also true that if you can affored a lighter bike for the triatholon you have and advantage. Why should someone who just spent a lot of money on a good machine and connection be "held" back because someoneelse didn't?
Having said that, the top 10 players have game averages in the 20-30 min mark and usally the longest game is 1 hour. The replays make it pretty clear that its still a click fest. If you don't do your micro you don't reliably win and theres a givin build order for most maps. To top it off it has bad network performance and runs like a dog on my resonably high end machine.
I loved TA, but this time round C&C3 is more fun because it just plays better. However I still prefer TA.
What about the patents? (threre are so many...) Also it may turn out that discrete logs over EC are not harder than tradtional "hard" discrete logs. Fact is we just havn't had the math for very long.
Well most of the addsence set up is 100% automatic. They simple don't "see" the sites or screen them. You can complain I think. It has worked for others. But once Google become a public company, they cannot legaly do no evil if it redueces stockholer value. So i don't think they are worse than M$ yet, it will take time.
..but it really isn't "just another political report I think we will just have to aggree to disagre here. In my experiance the UN and things like the IPCC are poltical. In fact its hard to claim that the whole GW debate is anything but political. You tread very carfully when you ask for funding for example. I have seen one atmophearic group lose there funding because they said publicly that there is little *proof* that we are the cause of the warming. (Note: I was there, this is a fact, not something i made up, its why I'm currently in mathmatical biology now!)I do find realclimate a bit biased as the are the papers that come out at this point in time. Of course this is nothing new. Most groups of scientists have popular ideas to explain whatever it is we are working on. Probably the most fustrating thing i find is that there is little senistivity anaylis of the models. Many still just use a simple 50 meter surface ocean models and never mention its shortcomming when discusing long term climate predictions. Realclimate doesn't talk about them either. Even the varation of forcing terms, or the lack of climate prediction histroy are simply not discused in enough depth if at all IMO.
But that fact that we aggree on the action part is the most important point. We should be looking at what to do rather than arguing details we simple can't reliably answer at this point in time. Few of the big GW advocates are that proactive on action. They are proactive by telling others (aka the Government) that they should be doing something. Look at how many people complain when the price of petrol goes up. We folks in the western world love to talk.
Well I'm living in Vienna where a lot of the UN stuff goes on. Quite a few of my friends work there are quite a few of the academics I know end up working there from time to time (including with the IPCC report). You get to hear a lot of storys about what goes on. The bottom line is that the IPCC report is just another *political* report. Its really nothing more or less. I mean what do statments like "90% proablilitiy that we are the major casue of global warming?" mean. What is the meaning of major? what does 90% mean? If I have 100 earths all with identical CO2 curves etc, ~90 of them will have man casused warming and the others will only have natural warming? These just are not scientific statments, they are political. Everyone picks up on it when the bush Adminsitration issues a report, I really can't see why everyone finds it so hard to see with the IPCC.
Also I don't see why everyone puts so much faith in realclimate. They have there own agenda and opinins as all scientist do (like myself). Its one side of the story. Scientist disagree all the time on just about everything (yes even the cause of climate change). Yea and I read the peer reviewed climate papers, they give a very different story to the "absolutes" used in the IPCC report or media.
Just for the record. I do think gloabal warming is real. We (humans) have contributed significalty to the CO2 levels. However I don't think we know enough to even get close to quantify how much of an effect that is compared to natral warming. Even more to the point there are a *lot* of other things we do which may have a bigger effect (deforstation, irrigation etc) at least on local climate. I also support taking mesures to reduce CO2 emmisions, and i can think of least 2 better reasons than the climate.
Your information is quite wrong. Nothing even close to mm dimesions will be created. The "stable" black holes that *mite* form would last for less than 10^-15 seconds IIRC. Light can't even travel 1 mm in that time.
I think you might want to check that little piece of data. The oceans will probably rise, we think (We have been wrong before). But were talking less than 1 foot over 100 years. And thats the doom/gloom crowd. It could be as little as a few inches. I get the joke part. But this incorrect doom stuff has just gone too far.
Really. Were does someone get some data or facts that arn't "biased".
Scientist follow fads and are as biased as the rest of humanity.
But only in America. The rest of the world gets to use the invetion for free. Like RSA.
The DOD get a little cash for *every* GPS reciver sold. You can't just build these things. You need to get a "licence". Also there is a thing called selective avaliblity.
But I'm agaist *active* measure to keep the climate status quo, like large solar refletors or sucking out more CO2 than we put in. Simply because we don't understand the system yet. We will in time understand things and then we will be able to make more informed choices.
Okay, let's not listen to the media or AG. (They're 'pedestrian', right?) Who are we left with? Well I think we should accept that the warming will happen. Less than a foot of ocean rise over a 100 years is not a tidal wave. I think more stuidies on the likly effects and impacts and some forward planing would go a long way. But the "sky is falling, were all gunna die" type of approach mite sell newspapers but its solves nothing. Not to mention that its pretty wrong too.
But you have a very good point. Alas I can't see any rational science happening in this feild for some time. Its all just too political.