well, it should have been "big d*ck"; because well, that was what the nukes were all about.
Yes indeed! Big Duck (and Cover) (SFW)
N.B. I have seen in the past that not all test engines are on-line all the time.
Next up: They sue Google, Apple, Samsung, and all the others for infringing on "their" work.
Probably NOT. Probably some lesser known company like Vringo or Intellectual Ventures, who have nothing at all to do wiht Microsoft (legally), will sue Google Apple Samsung et. al. for infringing on "their" work.
Isn't it odd that at least Russia, China, Taiwan, Indonesia and Panama are excluded? I'd imagine they do lots of trade across the Pacific Ocean (for Panama I meant transport rather than production).
CO2 absorbs only a very narrow and specific wavelength. THAT is understood.
Look at the peak at 700 reciproke centimeter in figure 2 on this webpage:
It is the broadest peak in the spectrum!
Don't believe me, google images CO2 IR absorption spectrum (N.B. often the scale is right to left)
google it yourself ffs
One article I found that shows the very broad peak at around 675 cm-1 is a PDF from a US military document from 1976. Are you saying they're into the tree-hugger conspiracy now?
(I'm not making a value judgement on that, btw).
The best idea I've read is, to store it in the form of extra cooling for cold storage (e.g. meat) warehouses. Electricity surplus supply is used in some kind of "smart grid" to cool the warehouse below its normal temperature, and then it's allowed to warm up again to -18C or so when electricity demand is high (and electricity prices to cool your meat warehouse are high). The grid has a "storage" load balancing supplier, and the meat warehouse has spot-market adapted electricity prices (buy when cheap, don't buy when expensive).
This is America, where undercutting the large corporations doesn't make you a good citizen, it makes you an enemy of the state.
If people had solar, that would undercut oil. And they're not going to allow that.
Well, here's something to think about; a nice "teh eevil terrists" counter-argument: Distributed power generation, like solar or spread-out wind, is terrorism-proof. It would take thousands of coordinated attacks (people climbing around on your roof wearing a bomb girdle ?!?) to take down the grid in case of terrorism or war.
On the other hand, a centralized nuclear power plant, or a coal power plant, is NOT terrorism proof. It needs just a single terrorist engineer, undercover for as long as it takes to be in the "inner circle" with access to the "Homer Simpson control room" to bring the grid down.
This argument was particularly potent in the '70s-'80s, when governments seriously considered building fast breeder reactors: You'd need a police state to protect the reactor from terrorists so it doesn't contaminate your own country; and you'd need a surveillance state for background checks on the engineers allowed to operate it. Basically, you'd need a police state. With central control of the electricity (just cut off any provinces or states that get too "uppity").
Of course, some people were obviously all FOR it.
I do remember seeing a picture in the newspaper about a 2-person utility company, grinning in front of their Ferrari. I presume they were some kind of go-in-between provider.
Taking your example of roads: how would you picture a road system for a city that allows for multiple "road providers?" How would new players enter the market?
That's easy: just learn from the history of messr. Richard Turpin
(I added the humor tag in case Roman Mir thought I was serious)