How common? On the other hand, perhaps there is a profitable niche there, sort of like how space tourist lies somewhere in between commoner and astronaut. There's a bunch of money involved and a lot of it covers training.
nonsense, as soon as you invoke mass production the fact is extremely cheap real and *properly* shaped convex lenses can be made from glass for a penny a pop, that would exceed by far the abilities of this article's tumbled grit.
the article and its device make no sense, they're nonsense
but over or near land generally planes are in constant communication with ground stations anyway, that's why crash sites are very quickly reached
not even on their website do its developers explain what Replicant is, or what its goals and purpose are
wikipedia does a better job...
As ChunderDownUnder reminds me, I forgot to mention that this phone has never been out of airplane mode, in addition to never having a SIM card plugged in. Flashing out of T-Mobile software was also one of the first things I did, and the other night I flashed CyanogenMod 11 M4. (Of course some of the guys on IRC suggest that even that is too commercial, and that I should go to snapshots over on xda-developers, to be safer.)
I keep my tinfoil hat handy, just like I tend to channel RMS and ESR. But there are practical limits...
In any case, the trouble with TV facial recognition portrayals is less the software itself (because I can handle a dramatization of a computer search like that), I'm more offended by the portrayol of the results. There are no false positives (finding the wrong people) and false negatives, (failing to find people who ARE in the system), or multiple results. No its always either... face goes in and perp comes out... or face goes in and computer declares the person doesn't exist.
Statistically nobody would even understand what they were on about unless they devoted an entire episode to the concept. Which might be reasonable, of course.
"Old man, take a look at my life..."
So if I'm using my no-contract Samsung Galaxy phone as a wifi-only device, and have never inserted the SIM card at all, I believe I'm safe from this particular vulnerability.
Tin-hatters, am I wrong on that?
After much reflection, and even making some other posts in this discussion, I figured out what the insightful comment would look like — thanks to your subject.
The real winners in the gold rush, with few exceptions, were not prospectors. They were shopkeepers who sold equipment to prospectors, and saloon owners who ran gambling establishments.
Have you priced restoration parts recently? Yowza.
And that point will be reached when all emissions are accounted for. There's no good reason why that can't be the case, heat aside. And even heat emissions should be managed.
Please inform me of how you intent to break several laws of physics. It is impossible to make a power station without having a heat sink and dumping the heat somewhere.
Please inform me if you intend to study English. Your intent is unclear.
I never said it must be eliminated, I said it must be managed. It is not generally a significant concern in any case, so far as we know. But there's no reason to simply ignore it.
Using solar power is a nifty way to have the heating go on elsewhere, yet still "somewhere". Ye olde solar power satellite concept rears its head again.
If you are thinking about carbon capture- don't.
If you are thinking about issuing me any more ignorant imperatives- blow them our your arse.
Nobody has proved it on a large scale. The largest projects I have heard of divert a tiny (~1-5) percentage of the exhaust gas from a test (small) power station.
Hello, the USDoE is calling you from the 1980s. You are woefully underinformed at best.
Likewise, capturing ALL the emissions would require more energy than the power station creates!
I'm happy if all the emissions are simply accounted for. For example, via carbon fixing schemes, like tree planting.
Carbon capture carries a huge parasitic loss, an inefficiency which if applied on a large scale would wastefully use up even more fossil fuels.
If you read the report I linked above, which has been around for quite some time now and cited all over teh interwebs and read by every person genuinely interested in this sort of thing and not just in it for the trollz, you will see that it actually helps produce fossil fuel substitutes. But I understand that you simply think you know what's best for me, and would like me to get on board.
In summary, get a dictionary and blow me.
Please keep reading past just the first five words of my original post and then try again.
A. Probably not. I'll bet that cave men burned coal or bitumen when they could find it.
B. Hydro power is not "green" at all. Most dams are small ecological disasters.