Re: energy need to produce one litre of hydrogen?
- From: hhc314@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 1, 2:23 pm, DB <a...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
hhc...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 29, 11:13 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <54b51682-4c0e-4391-9a9c-4bda0e1c2893@
I won't defend the original poster. You are posting through Google
groups I'll let you research it. It is in this thread, you can take it
up with them. I merely quoted it as an indication that the question
that was asked was indeed answered explicitly more than once.
Bob, please explain the connections that exists between posting
through Google to Usenet Newsgroups has anything at all to do with
reseraching a subject? You lost me with that statement. (First,
realize that sci.energy.hydrogen is not a "Usenet Newsgroup".
Huh? How do you figure? I'm posting through my news.provider server.
From here, true google groups are inaccessible to me.
Me Bad!
I was in a hurry. andsomehow I accidently inverted the meaning of
what I was attempting to post. Thanks for that correction. since
readers should be aware that all of the so called "Big 8" hierachies
(rec/biz/gov/sci/mil...etc are Usenet Newsgroup hierarchies, not
Google Groups. You can read and post to Usenet Newsgroup using the
Google newsreader, but Google Groups are quite a separate thing.
I will agree with you that the Google newsreader is not the best
possible way to read and post to Usenet newsgroups, and in particular
there are some very bad features associated with posting to Usenet via
Google. I chose it when TIAC, my original ISP, discontinued operation
of their once very good news server, and Unix Shell Accounts. If you
are old enough to recall the pre-Web days, you remember the technology
in use during those years and how it operated without Netscape or
Windows Explorer, and the only things that were required were ASCI
access to New Server, and a computer that could run tin, trn, or the
popular newsgreaders that were in use during those years.
The technological changes improved some things, but diminished others.
Good news servers became increasingly difficult to find, and while the
cost associated with good 80,000 or so (I've lost count on the current
total number of Usenet Newsgroups), with the transition of the
Internet to non-tecnical users in the general market, the News Servers
became, for the most part, unprofitable to commercially operate.
Now Goggle has an interesting history, and some of it is mysterious as
to how they have pulled off what they have since the days when the
Google search engine appeared. As best I remember, DEC (Digitial
Equipment Corporation) began archiving posts to primary Usenet
Newsgroups (I stand to be corrected, but IIRC it was called "Deja-
News). It attracted very little popular attention or use, since who
wanted to read stale Newsgroup posts from a limited number of
Newsgroups years after they had been posted and long since timed out
on the News Servers of that day? So, without going into the gory and
somewhat mysterious financial details of the transaction, Google
acquired Deja-News and based the Google archive site on this
technology. Within a short time, Google managed to corner the
Newsgroup archive marketplace, and by this time ... Not to belabor the
point, other than to say that while the Google people are not great
technological innovators themselves, the have a are pure genius in
business.
You cannot argue with success, but some of the Google etchics appear
to push the envelope of acceptability. By that, I mean it is is
comparable to Al Gore's proclamation that he invented the
Internet! :-) Google Groups are an example, where they are
generating thousand of local groups at week, and working to make them
indistinguishable to newcomers to the Internet from their archiving of
Usenet posts. Like everything I have seen Google do over the past 10
years or so, it is sometimes difficult to perceive how they make a
financial profit from each indidual step in their evolutionary
progress, but they do, and don't even share their secrets with their
shareholders. As a shareholder in Google, I wonder what is coming
next, but don't question the results.
I will say this about Google, except for their long term profit
motivations, I be that Usenet would have vanished about 5 years ago.
The fact that it hasn't is not a bad thing in my mind, because it is
argably the first and last Internet service in which individual ideas
can be express, and dialogues exist, in science, politics, and you
name it. Opinions flare on Usenet, because it is the only remaining
global communications medium that allows it. In this respect, Google
helps maintain it.
Interesting thing about Usenet is that while politicians employ it,
they hate it equally to those confidence artists that promote scams.
They hate it because on Usenet they cannot outshoult some bright guy
posting from some little home, who is otherwise of no consequence, and
they hate Usenet becasue only here can a person shout: "The King Has
No Clothes", and be listened too.
Blogs can be censored, but Usenet cannot.
A bit off topic I realize, but posted as food for thought plus a
little history about the evolution of Usenet, and possible a bit of
educational awaking for the newby participants in the newsgroup.
Harry C.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: energy need to produce one litre of hydrogen?
- Next by Date: Re: energy need to produce one litre of hydrogen?
- Previous by thread: Re: energy need to produce one litre of hydrogen?
- Next by thread: Re: energy need to produce one litre of hydrogen?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
