14 posts • joined Tuesday 15th April 2008 04:51 GMT
As I read your comment the person sitting directly in front of me is wearing such a Google branded t-shirt. The other staple of his wardrobe is a BSoD emblazoned t-shirt. My appologies if my irony detectors failed whilst reading your post.
Who did you think Google's "customers" were?
And I hope the "responsible" clinic got their accreditation pulled for this "unethical behaviour"?
So Groupon get told to stop running the ad, which they presumably did within 24 hours anyway, but the clinic which paid for this, and presumably has a room full of people to advise them on ethical behaviour, still gets to go ahead and operate on the "patients"?
Pay per Gb
Many years ago pay per Mb was the normal in Australia.
It pretty much died out when people got the bill from Telstra.
Most people don't do the maths ahead of time and realised that 14c/MB (counting both up and down) can get very expensive very quickly.
A 700MB Xvid movie ends up costing over AU$100.
Why no research?
Right, there are obviously other methods to make hydrocarbons. The problem I have is that neither side of the climate debate seems to even conceed this, let alone investigate it.
There seems to have been some research into this area in Cold War Russia, but Big Oil has quietly smothered that in favour of "traditional theory". They don't want anything that could break their monopoly coming to light. On the flip side, the Green Movement just has an overriding hatred of Oil and everything associated with it.
My contention is that hydrocarbon based liquids are a fantastic portable energy source. For vehicular transport there is nothing even close to the energy density and convenience of a tank of liquid hydrocarbon. As far as I can tell "replacements" for petrol seem to focus around (1) batteries, (2) hydrogen fuel or (3) biologically generated equivalents. Options (1) and (2) have serious energy density and safety issues. Option (3) seems to make the most sense, but gets panned by both sides of the debate. And where is option (4) non-biologically generated equivalents.
People seem to have 2 issues with liquid hydrocarbons, although they often blur the edges together. The first is it's a non-renewable energy source. But what if we don't look at it as a source, but simply an energy storage and transportation medium?
The second is that it contributes to climate change. It only contributes to climate change if those carbon molecules are sourced from carbon sinks or storages such as oil deposits. If we can synthisise (sp?) liquid hydrocarbons from atmospheric carbon then we defeat "Greenhouse Gas" and "Peak Oil" in one go. Trapping and later releasing carbon molecules is (in the current Buzz-speak) "Carbon Neutral".
Obviously I'm talking about using some other (non Fossil Fuel) method of "producing" the energy required to drive the systhesis process, and I'm not discussing that issue here. After all, every method we have comes directly or indirectly from the Sun.
Fossil fuels on other planets
I've never managed to get an explanation for this ... here on Earth we all "know" that Fossil Fuels only come from fossils. Yet on other planets we apparently can have lakes of the stuff without any rotting dinosaurs in sight.
Can somebody please explain how hyrdocarbons exist naturally on other planets and yet are "biologically created" on poor old Earth? (This is not a troll or a flame, I *really* *really* want to know.)
Not just affecting laptops
I came home on Friday to find my (custom built) *desktop* computer had shutdown due to low battery. At the time I just passed it off as my kids putting the computer into suspect rather than shutdown, but now I'm not so sure.
Please can anyone who insists on calling an ad supported service "free" receive a swift cricket bat to the side of the head.
Well us Yanks prefer Louisville slugger, and the eco friendly tree hugger Yanks use Easton aluminum bats.
How can anybody even remotely "eco friendly" regard an aluminum bat as a good thing? Do they have any idea what happens in the manufacturing process? Turning an entire tree into a single bat (and burning the shavings) would be more eco friendly.
@@ spf (by Olivier)
> The big issue ( imho ) with them are:
> a) implementation costs for sender.
> b) cpu costs for the sender. If you send many emails, it is very expensive in terms of ressource to compute these signatures
Anything that makes it harder for SPAMMERS to SEND email looks good to me. The major cause of spam is that it is just too easy/cheap to send spam. If the protocol causes additional cost (even in terms of cpu load) to the sender of emails then this will greatly impact the profitability of spam sending.
That this cost would have to be carried by legitimate email senders also is unfortunate, but a necessary price to pay.
Of course, somebody will probably point out that the CPU costs for bot-spammers is almost zero anyway because they are just using their zombie hosts CPUs.
- Review Best budget Android smartphone there is? Must be the Moto G
- Fun-killing fireshow-flunking ZOMBIE COMET ISON only LOOKED alive
- On the matter of shooting down Amazon delivery drones with shotguns
- Review Bring Your Own Disks: The Synology DS214 network storage box
- Inside IBM's vomit-inducing, noise-free future chip lab