Trump is an absolute embarrassment to our nation.
In our #metoo culture, and Trump admitting he would "grab them by the pussy", why hasn't this pervert been charged with sexual assault yet? Are women complaining being killed off by some presidential decree? There's not really that great of presdence for criminal charges (or civil charges) brought against a sitting president. Normally, criminal charges are processed through Congress. However, Congress is stacked with the same party as Trump... they're refusing to remove their own man. Also, the Supreme Court is being stacked. A couple decades ago, I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS would rule that the president of the United States can stand before a trial. If the GOP (and Trump) gets their way, Trump will have nearly unlimited authority. It doesn't help that Trump's a pathological liar. For example, from one of his speeches recently, they broke out everything he said.  |
|
|
|
|
No. Not in America at least.
Let's examine why it's not theft:
You're born. Where are you born? If it's in a hospital, guess who paid for that building? The roads, the infrastructure, the schooling for the doctors and nursing, the schools that gave the doctors a baseline intelligence? Well, society.
You live your life from the ages of 0-16 without paying a single penny into the system. At the same time, the system puts thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars into you; school, healthcare, etc.
You go off to university; government (and by extension society) has funded these institutions through grants.
The land you walk on, American soldiers pushed back Native Americans, and defended the ground from them. America blood was paid to take the land which you think is yours.
In reality, the only way it'd be considered theft is if you've never utilized, or worked with any service provided by society.
Also, if you don't like paying your taxes, fucking leave. It's a small administrative fee to no longer pay taxes.
There's several countries in the world which have an effective tax rate of 0%:
United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman to list a few. Enjoy the life of a slave there, without any rights, benefits, or freedoms.
|
|
|
|
So far, none of your points have disproved the hydrogen economy being possible. If you have actual constructive feedback, it'd be nice rather than just being a naysayer spreading FUD.
This is were I can see that you are a "wannabe" without any scientific nor economic background. When you are proposing a new "solution" YOU have to prove that is feasible. That means that you have to provide at least the basic numbers on which your "theory" (you insult that word) is based. And no, just having a transportation cost is not enough. Example: "We could put rockets on the moon using butterflies and if you say is not possible you are spreading FUD." That´s exactly what you are saying. Bah, this is wasting time. BTW, you will find biased reports to justify anything. That is what lobbies are for. Umm, I'm from academia, abet a different focus (information technology). I'm not a "wannabe". I've provided sources and information to support claims which you refuted. Now you're saying "the sources are fake!!!!!". If you're too lazy to double check my work, fuck off? If you want, I can provide DOI for each bit of research; eg; 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.05.078 On the tungsten carbide synthesis for PEM fuel cell application - Problems, challenges and advantages |
|
|
|
I have a Nissan Leaf. By far the best car I have ever owned with one exception: you cannot beat a gas powered vehicle for long trips.
Solution: Electric car for everyday short trips, gas car for long trips.
Hydrogen my friend. Batteries have an insane low energy density. Yeah, electric vehicles are the future. Batteries are not. |
|
|
|
This isn't really new - the majority of the world has been laughing at the US since he was elected.
Ha, but for the world's diplomats to laugh in his face... it's actually quite great. |
|
|
|
|
Holy shit. The shitposts in this thread is crazy.
Bumping because all these months later, it's been proven time and time again. Russia is attacking our nation.
|
|
|
|
|
Someone should setup a sting operation on these sellers. Get the merit, report the bastard, lose the merit (but at least get their account banned).
|
|
|
|
I think this post contains mostly ideas that are imaginative, but terribly inaccurate or simply wrong.
I disagree. I'm pretty sure you're just randomly Google'ing shit. I propose we replace our dependence on oil with two new dependencies; water and energy. When you take energy, in the form of electricity, and apply it to water at a specific voltage, you can actually split the oxygen and hydrogen bond, forming some good old Hydrogen and some pure Oxygen.
Hydrogen nowadays is produced in refineries. The reason is that the dissociation of water in H and O2 is very energy consuming. Its easy to put forward solutions if you don´t have to do numbers. Most hydrogen is produced using steam reformation (and gases from fracking). This isn't green or sustainable, which is why I didn't suggest using it as a production method. I have the numbers, because they're all published online. Electrolysis has been studied for over a hundred years. The energy required depends on the state of the water, when it's in a vapor form, it requires less energy to split, because it already has heat energy.
With that in mind, there's another really, obvious solution. Just rig up a fancy steam engines with a nuclear reactor equipped. Not only do nuclear generators already have the requirement of water, it produces massive amounts of energy. Also, it's output is water vapor, exactly what we need to make a lot of hydrogen.
The reason why the nuclear power plants produce vapor is because they put it through a turbine to generate electricity in a quite efficient process. And before you suggest anything "obvious" with that, learn the basics of it. What you propose would cost x10 times more at least. Also, you will be generating even more radioactive waste that will last for centuries to come. If that is not enough, simply know that the water used is normally radiated. You don´t want that outside the reactor even if it is the secondary cooling circuit water. So, this is where I know you're just Google'ing shit. BWR's second circuit cooling is already released into the atmosphere. We all already know nuclear uses massive cooling towers. So, are you suggesting that's all fake and the nuclear engineers that built the existing systems have no idea what they're talking about? Here's a cool lil' animation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BWR_nuclear_power_plant_animation.ogvLogistics
That leaves logistics, how do you transport hydrogen?
Well, there's actually several ways. I'm going to leave out the bootstrapping method, mostly because I lost my train of thought.
The idea way would be to use pipeline. I think it'd be a good idea to retrofit our existing pipeline infrastructure and build out where we can. We can use pipelines and work at phasing out natural gas lines (because hydrogen can be burned for heat, just like your natural gas heat).
Safety is normally highly regulated when it comes to gas lines, I don't see how this would be any different. I think it's safer than many existing pipelines. With your irrational fears annulled, let's continue on.
Get familiar with the liquefaction of gases and the cost implicated, the design parameters of oleducts and the engineering constrains. In a world without physics laws your idea is great. You are not mad, you simply think that engineering is what you see in the Discovery channel. Missing concepts, filling in the gaps
I wouldn´t know where to begin honestly. So, I'm pretty familiar with liquification of hydrogen. You need to supercool it and compress it to turn it into a liquid. If you look, I even included a link to a jet that used liquidized hydrogen. There are a few gaps, such as a better catalyst for the PEM fuel cell stack (currently platinum-carbide is the best iirc). I think tungsten-carbide is another interesting idea, but it comes with its limitations. So far, none of your points have disproved the hydrogen economy being possible. If you have actual constructive feedback, it'd be nice rather than just being a naysayer spreading FUD. Edit: So, for some reason, BTCtalk dropped my section where I argued the price. Hydrogen production is under $2.00 per GGE: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/06/f34/fcto-h2-fc-overview-dla-worldwide-energy-conf-2017-satyapal.pdfTransportation and storage is where the $4 GGE comes in. |
|
|
|
<…>
The list would simply be too long and therefore lose it’s purpose. Not that they’d care really … The idea is to constantly bump the thread to where it's always at the top of meta by constantly adding new names. Eventually, after a few weeks of not being able to figure out why they haven't received any merit, they'll notice their name is on the shit list. |
|
|
|
Nope, that's not even remotely what this thread is about. I'm not really interesting in removing carbon from the atmosphere with this. It's about making sure no more carbon is added to the atmosphere and to distribute water vapor everywhere. However, if you want to talk about ecological solutions to removing CO2, feel free to start your own thread. I'll go ahead and do that for you if you want. |
|
|
|
|
A tiny suggestion;
Make a thread of users that are shit posting, and add them. Anytime a user makes a thread, bump your thread with their username. Keep their name there until they remove their own threads.
Sorry, please, i not know, i wont again!! remove name please! i deleted all!!
|
|
|
|
Climate change is a concern. A huge concern. Let's address one of the quarter of the problem; Transportation. Transportation is one of those industries that we absolutely require, so the anarcho-primitive idea to solving "climate change" is just out there. Without our robust transportation infrastructure, we'd have mass starvation. I propose we replace our dependence on oil with two new dependencies; water and energy. When you take energy, in the form of electricity, and apply it to water at a specific voltage, you can actually split the oxygen and hydrogen bond, forming some good old Hydrogen and some pure Oxygen. Production:https://art.inl.gov/NGNP/NEAC%202010/INL_NGNP%20References/INL-EXT-10-12967%20PCDR.pdfElectricity and hydrogen from nuclear.
A renewable way to solve this problem would be huge wind farms and solar panels to convert the local water source into hydrogen. However, it'll take a while to build all the turbines and solar that we'd require to replace gasoline with electric. Not to mention, we're already burning coal to produce energy producing items. In reality, this is where we see diminishing returns on hydrogen.
The energy required depends on the state of the water, when it's in a vapor form, it requires less energy to split, because it already has heat energy.
With that in mind, there's another really, obvious solution. Just rig up a fancy steam engines with a nuclear reactor equipped. Not only do nuclear generators already have the requirement of water, it produces massive amounts of energy. Also, it's output is water vapor, exactly what we need to make a lot of hydrogen.
Ideally, we could bootstrap our hydrogen production infrastructure with nuclear very cost effectively (as in $1.80 / GGE (gas gallon equivalent) in 100% clean fuel).That leaves logistics, how do you transport hydrogen? Well, there's actually several ways. I'm going to leave out the bootstrapping method, mostly because I lost my train of thought. The idea way would be to use pipeline. I think it'd be a good idea to retrofit our existing pipeline infrastructure and build out where we can. We can use pipelines and work at phasing out natural gas lines (because hydrogen can be burned for heat, just like your natural gas heat). Wait a second though; delivering hydrogen directly into people's homes, are you mad bluefirecorp? Safety is normally highly regulated when it comes to gas lines, I don't see how this would be any different. I think it's safer than many existing pipelines. With your irrational fears annulled, let's continue on. VehiclesWe already have these. Electric motors are exactly what we need. With a fancy fuel cell stack, hydrogen is converted into electricity. The fuel cell stack does have a byproduct; water vapor. Also, PEM fuel cells aren't perfect, but only because we don't have a perfect catalyst. If our materials scientists and engineers would get off their lazy asses and make a ground breaking breakthrough, we'd see better than our already amazing 50-60% efficiencies with existing materials. Wait, losses? There's losses, and we have to carry a generator? What the hell? Why not just battery? Well, the battery's way more materials costly (even including the fancy hydrogen tank). Also, it's weight is much heavier for less energy, due to batteries very low energy densities. A Honda clarity and Tesla Model S go about the same distance. A clarity has a curb weight of 1,600 kg, a Tesla has a curb weight of between 2000 kg and 2250 kg, depending on how many batteries you add in. How many losses are generated from having to move that extra 400-600 kg everywhere you go? Not to mention, it's only possible to get only get so many cycles out of the materials heavy battery. With hydrogen tanks, it's feasible to simply reforge them after their service lifetime, given the energy supply. Boats would utilize the same sort of system, going from diesel generators to hydrogen tanks and PEM fuel cell stacks. However, I have another solution to our boating problem as well. Now, jets... jets are a different beast. Lockheed CL-400 Suntan exists, where they used liquidized (super-cooled) hydrogen. Program successes included the concept design of a Mach 2.5 aircraft capable of flying at 30,000 meters, and successful conversion of an existing turbojet engine to run on liquid hydrogen, as well as 25+ hours of testing on a customized LH2 engine design. This was back in 1956, if we can't figure out how to retro-fit an airliner with this technology (or compressed hydrogen for that nature), we're doing something wrong as a species. Missing concepts, filling in the gapsPlease suggest new information here, or ask questions. I'm not really for a social-economic argument. I'd be excited if someone contribute more than "here's how I'd build a commerical airliner powered by hydrogen fuels", but the chances of crypto + hydrogen are slim to none. |
|
|
|
|
((30+1)/115)*115.
31 ? hmm.
((30+1)/116)*116.
~31 after this post.
|
|
|
|
It's obvious Russia is engaging in cyber warfare. What do we do? Engage in more warfare online? Turing forums into battlegrounds?
Name me a superpower that isn't... Every big country does this, don't think that US doesn't. They freaking invented it. I can't give you a name of those who don't, but I can give you a name of those who do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_Internet_propagandaThe United States has two known propoganda campaigns, both which I think are justified: 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_Counterterrorism_CommunicationsIn this campaign, they specifically trolled ISIS recruiters. 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_VoiceThis project, I was a lot more skeptical of. Reading the details, anyone could utilize that setup for nefarious reasons. To be honest, I think we overpaid a tiny bit for it. Then again, looking at the price of a new forum, this is nothing. >USCC commander David Petraeus, in his congressional testimony, stated that Operation Earnest Voice would "reach [a country's] regional audiences through traditional media, as well as via Web sites and regional public-affairs blogging," as an effort to "counter extremist ideology and propaganda". I was alright with this purpose of the operation, counter extremist ideology and false information. >However, his successor, James Mattis, altered the program to have "regional blogging" fall under general USCC public-affairs activity. On how they would operate on these blogs, Petraeus explained: "We bring out the moderate voices. We amplify those. And in more detail, we detect and we flag if there is adversary, hostile, corrosive content in some open-source Web forum, [and] we engage with the Web administrators to show that this violates Web site provider policies. This is where they took something that could have been used for good and now just turned it into a political breading ground. It's obvious Russia is engaging in cyber warfare. What do we do? Engage in more warfare online? Turing forums into battlegrounds?
There are no good and bad guys here, those are just factions. You see, this is where you're wrong. You have the right to choose your faction. Looking at what each faction does, you can clearly see a picture of villainy and heroics. It's obvious Russia is engaging in cyber warfare. What do we do? Engage in more warfare online? Turing forums into battlegrounds?
International law goes both ways. Only time when International law is useful is if you are exempt from it while others aren't. Don't worry, International law never meant sh*t. It is just an excuse for veto powers to do what they want. Country A goes in legal warfare with country B. Veto power steps in, makes a deal with one side, declares the war on other without being attacked first. Veto power in UN is charged with illegal warfare for attacking a country without the need to defend itself, veto power vetoes any action to be taken against it in order to punish it for it's crime. Welcome to 21st century... The League of Nations was exactly the same near this time in the 20th century. A country kills a person in a foreign land and "tsk, tsk, shame on you". It's the same shit as then. The only difference now in the 21st century is the soldiers are behind the keyboards. |
|
|
|
Right. This is still a problem.
So, with cloudflare doing the TLS termination, every PM can be logged by that third-party entity. Not only can they read, but they can also modify messages in transmission.
Theymos can edit what your PMs say and send new PMs. He can't do as much as cloudflare in getting username and passord combinations, however he can do quite a bit on that front. If you have something significant to say, stake your address somewhere on this forum and sign your message so people can verify it's you (you can also use a PGP key for this). Theymos is a trusted source. He could easily get our passwords by adding two to three lines of code to the login function (just log the passwords to plain-text file). Valid point on the securing communication; I was thinking moving entirely to GPG for communications and signing messages to ensure the integrity. However, just because they can't read my message doesn't mean it's secured. They'd still have the metadata available (bluefirecorp sent message to jackg at this time, on this date). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
