Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:We can't live without these things? (Score 1) 212

You hit on a hot topic for me. I live in San Diego, which has beautiful weather almost all the time, and yet nearly every building, restaurant, office etc. is sealed up tight with the AC on blast. Such a waste. C'mon architects and city planners of the future, we can do better!

Comment: Re:let me solve this right now (Score 1) 552

by kencurry (#47459547) Attached to: The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record

l ... and the best way to do that is third world education and poverty elimination ... and the best way to do that is to maximize economic growth ...

Dude, "maximize growth", that was point three, and you clipped it out? what did you not like about point three? I really thought I had it nailed. Plus I even accounted for your timelines with the "today, tomorrow" metaphor. Man, I really, thought that I had it nailed with point three...

Comment: let me solve this right now (Score 1, Insightful) 552

by kencurry (#47457241) Attached to: The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record
1.Burning hydrocarbons: CnH2n+2 + 2O2 -> 2H2O +nCO2
2. CO2(atm) absorbs sunlight, increases vibrational energy, energy is released as atmospheric heat, warms up earth (just a little tiny bit, fine)
3. Even tho earth has it's own heat cycles, best not mess with it too much

1. Try to burn less hydrocarbons
2. Be more energy efficient
3. Captains of Industry win on both sides: need hydrocarbons today & then drive new markets in energy efficiency. conservatives win on making money, Liberals win on job creation and paying for Obamacare

Therenow, everyone can go about their summer carefree.

Comment: Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (Score 1) 389

by kencurry (#47418753) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis

...most plants alive today ALSO did not evolve to exist in such high CO2 levels? That such CO2 levels will cause dramatically higher temperatures and vastly different climatology, which will more than offset (ie: Kill the plants) any gains from higher CO2 levels? You also realize that CO2 is not "plant food" ? Plants use far more than just CO2? And plants are in general carbon nuetral, using and storing carbon while alive (in the form of growth), which then gets released back into the biosphere when they die?

Basic CO2 concentration guidelines:

The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized: normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm acceptable levels: below 600 ppm complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm

I'm too lazy to search the google:

... but wasn't there originally very high CO2 levels in earth's atmosphere, which kicked up temps. raised atmospheric moisture conc., therefore plant life went wild, eventually becoming so abundant as to drive down CO2 levels so that animal kingdom could thrive, as CO2 dropped plant life dropped off dramatically, eventually forming the goo in the ground that we now call oil, and burn to put the CO2 back.

A giant CO2 do loop

Comment: Re:Does it really matter? (Score 1) 248

by kencurry (#47205917) Attached to: In the year since Snowden's revelations ...
A few years ago I would have agreed wholeheartedly with this approach. Now I find that I question whom to trust. A government issued electronically controlled system - who would trust that if you became an NSA target that they don't get you blacklisted from ever voting/driving/purchasing/flying etc. anything again? That vs. a dumb paper system, with all its flaws, but can't be electronically manipulated by NSA. Now, I say stick with the later system.

Comment: version 1.0 (Score 1) 301

Seems to me, buying an autonomous car should not absolve the owner of liability or responsibility, and the owner (or designee) needs to be in the vehicle as it is being operated. The owner has to have adequate insurance and passed a valid written exam, which would cover vehicle code and the limitations of the technology.

For car companies, it seems they should have proven the technology out with minimum 5 years of safe driving record in controlled studies (just like FDA would require controlled studies to prove out drug/devices). Basically, you are buying this tech, but you are still responsible.

Okay, but then who would pay for this? Seems like early adopters would be elderly who want to be mobile, but don't have the driving reflexes,the physically handicapped, and those who would just rather be driven than to drive and consider this a luxury purchase.

Let's say the above scenario goes for 5 -10 years, then the tech gets less expensive, and the public becomes more trusting. At that point, V2.0 is a truly autonomous vehicle that can operate without any owner/passenger on board ( you can send it to go pick up relatives at the airport.)

I can see the above scenario working, of course legal details have to be hammered out etc.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan