Additionally, most of these approaches most naturally generate DC rather than AC, so you may need to replace large amounts of equipment. (OTOH, solar cells generate DC, so you can probably just feed it into whatever converter you are already using.)
That particular converter is called an inverter, and is pretty standard today. There are some good reasons for using more DC (in particular high-voltage DC for long-distance transmission).
> Isn't there SOME loss of heat in creating order, information inside a computer?
Article in Scientific American some years ago about that: as it turns out, it can be shown thermodynamically that processing information has to increase entropy because it *destroys* information. Net. You put more data into a calculation than you get out. 5 + 7 can be turned into 12, but not the other way around; the 5 and 7 are lost.
find two opposing points of view and present them as equals
That's not it.
Methinks you need to take your sarcasmometer back to the shop for readjustment...
We either see the change over a generation or two and watch the rich lose some land or we take action right now to ptotect the mega corporate farms and the rich's land holding and see the costs increase in a decade of less.
While the Dutch people may be on the rich side world-wide (and by median maybe even by US standards), I'm no so sure about the Bangladeshi. But hey, there only 150000000 of them, and most of them are on the brown side...
>>I'm looking forward to passage of an amendment to the square-cube law that will allow a concrete block to fly.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
Next problem?
Can you provide links to the stories of these "skeptic scientists" (isn't that redundant?) Are you talking about people with peer-reviewed papers being fired because their boss didn't like the results of the work? Or are you talking about people who couldn't get properly-done science published because a peer-reviewed journal had it in for them?
Or are you talking about "scientists" that had strong opinions NOT backed up by science of the kind that can pass peer review?
Even that is fine; firing people for opinions, even ones they cannot prove scientifically, is pretty bad - but I'd like to see the cases, see if they have merit.
I mean, thanks for your link to "climate audit" - the middle of a mathematically-complex *criticism* of a scientific paper; but I know I'm not competent to adjudicate that dispute. Peer-reviewed journals *ARE* able to, generally, and if this criticism could only get published at "climateaudit.org", and not the Journal of Climate or any of 21 other climate-related peer-reviewed journals, then I'm sorry, but I have to assume it's not very good.
My reliance on peer-reviewed journals is not the logical fallacy of "Argument by Authority"; that refers to statements like "Penicillin works because the King has proclaimed it". The statement "Penicillin works because 35 careful studies of infection outcomes showed positive and repeatable results" is another kind of authority altogether.
So you can share every movement and temperature fluctuation with your friends on panterest, obviously!
I bought the "Bobby Flay filter" through in-pan purchase, so it always looks like I'm doing something with steak and blue corn and ancho chiles, even when it's really just mac & cheese from a box.
That app is, indeed, for Canon EOS DSLRs-- the EOS M is pointedly non compatible. But it's the Live view that's displayed, not the viewfinder.
I use my iPad to stream Amazon Prime video to my AppleTV-- technically I could use my Macs to watch the same streams, but they wouldn't be HD. This proved a welcome surprise, as many of the other services like Macs-- but demand additional payment for streaming to the iPad.
We have determined that to a very high level of consensus in the scientific community.
In other words, there's less validation on a potentially world-changing theory than on the validity of a single bitcoin.
Absolute certainty is only available in the realm of pure maths and logic. Well-programmed computers come quite close to that, but most systems cannot be perfectly understood even in principle - see The Matrix and Descarte's evil demon. The level of certainty of AGW is much better than the level of certainty we accept to send people to prison (which is supposed to be "beyond reasonable doubt").
How about we get politics out of science and rely on the scientific method to determine if "Global Warming" is real or not.
We have determined that to a very high level of consensus in the scientific community. The result is politically and economically unwelcome, which is why some people and organisation deny the consensus. You don't need to get the politics out of science, you need to get the science into politics.
That said, the vote very much reminds me of Indiana in 1897 and some thing with square circles
The shutter was a mirror. At the time did they have a shutter behind the mirror, or use the mirror as the shutter?
Wikipedia's article on the history of SLR camera
states:
Early 35 mm SLR cameras had similar functionality to larger models, with a waist-level ground-glass viewfinder and a mirror which remained in the taking position—blacking out the viewfinder—after an exposure, returning when the film was wound on. Innovations which transformed the SLR were the pentaprism eye-level viewfinder and the instant-return mirror—the mirror flipped briefly up during exposure, immediately returning to the viewfinding position.
Now, when the viewfinder blacks out, that means that the mirror has been raised to take a picture. If the mirror did not return instantly, or even worse, did not return until the film was rewound, this would mean that the shutter would be the only thing keeping the film from being overexposed. To solve this problem You could add a film door, and use a leaf shutter, but this complicates matters.
Mirrors are heavy. Shutters are light enough to be moved in small fractions of a second.
In a twin lens reflex camera, the mirror reflects the light entering the viewfinder lens, to the viewfinder screen at the top of the camera. The mirror doesn't need to move. because there's another lens below for the film.
In 1959 Nikkon called their fast versions of 3.5 cm, 5 cm, and 10.5 cm lenses the three sacred treasures. Tastes have changed.
You are happy with an f2.8 lens? Seriously? If they could make a f1.8 or faster lens without making it insanely big, they would. It's a compromise and not necessary with the better sensors/smaller bodies.
Sigma has recently released a f 1.8 zoom lens. It's merely the 17-35mm range, though. f2.8 is useful because many of the existing bodies have focal points that are extra precise at f 2.8 or faster. So if a photographer uses the existing "holy trinities", that functionality is never lost. As for faster apertures,
Nikon does have a 200 mm f/2.0 that is big, heavy, and expensive. It once produced a 300 mm f2.0 that had those three qualities in spades. Apparently, they were quite useful in cinematography, and many of them were converted to different mounts.
The problem with long, ultrafast lenses is math.
Want a f2.0 85mm lens?The effective aperture must have a diameter of 42.5mm.
Want a f2.0 300mm lens? The effective aperture must have a diameter of 150 mm.
And of course, the front element must be large enough to let that much light through-- the afforementioned 300 mm lens has a 160mm front thread-- big, and heavy. (Photographers have slightly different expectations about the 400mm 2.8 lens, which requires a similarly sized effective aperture.)
Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue. - Seneca
