Imagine you have a truck that gets 20 mpg, but gas is now touching $4/gallon. Would you stay with a truck, or switch to a Peel P50? Answer: it is a personal decision that has nothing to do with highways trying to apply selective tolls that discriminate against station wagons full of mag tape.

We control cap. ISPs control non-net neutrality.

Is "data against cap" the same as net neutrality? I don't see the relationship.

(1) affordable -- if your time is worthless.

(2) on demand -- I demand you stand there and wait for the bus to travel on its schedule.

(3) weather-resistant -- bus shelters will keep your head dry, while your clothes get plastered with slush when the bus you don't want drives by.

Car2Go uses Smart cars, that can be parked wherever after they are used. Hundreds of them around here, a much smarter and more popular concept than a Zipcar. Among other things, they get more "turns" from their cars because, for example, a given person uses the car to go home, parks the car out front, then the next morning uses it again. If you have to return a Zipcar to its spot all the time, that is much less convenient. There seem to be Car2Go setups in at least Austin, Seattle & Portland.

Most of our power usage in our house is at night

Huh? Only major thing I can think of is charging an electric car.

YET. They haven't found a cheap renewable energy tech YET. Coal & other prices will continue to rise, while their efficiencies are the highest they will get. Solar cell costs are plunging, while their efficiencies rise. I predict a collision, a market and a profit.

How about "not diamond"?

Diamond is characterized by each carbon bonding with 4 other carbons. You can't get a thread out of it. You might claim that you have, but all along that thread there will be carbons not bonded to four others. Those are called defects.

From a diamond point-of-view, this stuff would be considered defect-laden pseudo-'diamond', or just simply not diamond.

Still, sexy headline.

Well said.

I would also like to thank Hardware Canucks for doing this test in the first place. Like most nerd/geek/freaks, I'm very sensitive to noise, and computer case noise is the worst because you will probably have it for the life of the box...that you use for 10 or 15 hours a day, every day.

So, thanks. And thanks.

BTW, it would be kind of awesome if the computer hardware testing sites incorporated sound tests into their general testing of stuff.

Monoman + Ostrich = 7 letters long

I am aware of a single replier who wasn't an AC. The last thing I think I did was squander my encounter with "Roger W. Moore".

Out of curiousity, why is it you post as an AC? In fact, most of the nastiest posts in this sub-thread are from ACs. What do you hope to accomplish by this? With me, your attacks are, if anything, a proof of the value of my theory.

If what I was proposing was truly nonsense, the proper response would be to ignore it or offer a kindly word of condolence.

Your level of anger and caustic criticism is out of all proportion.

Get a grip, man.

Roger,

I'm going to look at your Lorentz paper.

And you are going to relax. Don't worry about me. Stick to physics, it is clearly what you do best.

Best,

Floyd

No, not to the "temperature of the universe" as you call it (i.e. the CMB temp). To the calculated temperature. The one that is 10^^120 times bigger. The one that physicists can not explain why it isn't what is measured.

The observed CMB "temperature" is indeed uniform, but this destroys the Big Bang theory, not my theory.

Thanks for the link to Gamow paper. I'll have a look at it but really, if scientists are out by 10^^120 in their measure of the background energy of space, how likely are they to detect motion relative to it?

As to you and I, it is high time we stop chatting. Your statements like:

like most of the people with a loose grip on reality

reveal you to be a positively uncivilized person to interact with.

Care to give an example of how String Theory has advanced anything?

The key point is that it still must be shown consistent with what we know of the world today.

Completely agree.

The key step to getting the theory noticed is doing some of the grunt work of showing it is consistent.

Agreed also. I wouldn't want you to think I am just dumping my theory on the world and walking away. For anything to have a value, it must grow, and grow healthily.

But if you're talking about something that is truly untestable, that makes no predictions at all, then you're not doing science.

Well, luckily for both of us I'm not. But are you?

(1) SoL - I realize that my prediction is of a very slight change in the SoL -- 50% in 100B years, so it will be a tall order to measure that.

(2) I think you failed to grasp what I meant by "absurdly limiting notions". Say you have an idea, that does not appear to be testable. The consensus today would be your idea is worthless because it is untestable. I think that is absurdly limiting because (a) it could still allow you to see how something works more clearly, (b) it might become testable in the future. In short, I think the whole "must be testable" concept is an unnecessary limitation.

(3) I didn't see anything else in your comment related to my theory, so the way I score your review of it is "One thing you think is nonsense, just because, and one thing that we can agree to disagree on but that otherwise has nothing whatsoever to do with my theory, or physics in general."

This wiki page says the finest resolution achievable today is 0.2nm.

The Planck scale is 25 orders of magnitude smaller.

10 million million million million times smaller.

If present spectroscopy's best resolution were the 15 billion light years we can see back in time, Planck scale resolution would be seeing things the size of a tree.