Slashdot Mirror

Solar is very schedulable. Wind less so, but it's not like weather forecasts don't exist. Already used in load forecasting.

I know that english is not my mother tongue, but, come on, I was pretty clear. I am not talking about load balancing or production scheduling. I am talking about production planning and capacity factor. The biggest share of renewable sources you have, the lowest the capacity factor of your whole power supply (i.e. the weighted sum of the capacity factor of all your power sources) is, so you need more redundancy to meet the requested power supply, that is you need more plants, which means more costs. Moreover, for traditional power sources, maintenance and refuelling can be planned months in advance, while for wind or solar you have no control on their downtime, so you have to plan in advance a backup source, that is you have to build even more plants.

AA587 was an Airbus A300B4-605R. Just goes to show that preventing accidents requires substantial international cooperation.

We didn't need to know plastics were making it into our food supply. We were already well aware of the problem because of trash strewn all over the landscape. I grew up in the 70s too and agree with OP. Who the hell thought replacing paper with plastic (which we already knew was extremely durable and took forever to degrade) for single use products was a good idea? I wouldn't place blame entirely upon the environmental movement though. The oil industry was probably involved too, advocating widespread adoption of plastics.

Even today, I've eaten countless downvotes here for suggesting that we throw paper trash away instead of recycling them. When you throw paper away in a landfill, it's sequestering the carbon underground. Meaning new trees have to be cut down to make new paper, meaning loggers see more demand and have an incentive to plant lots more new trees. That increases the rate at which CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere (atmospheric CO2 becomes paper products, so there's a 1:1 correlation between paper thrown away in landfills and CO2 removed from the atmosphere).

Encouraging people to recycle paper products means there's less demand for new paper, meaning fewer new trees are planted by loggers. Fewer trees means less CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere to be converted into cellulose. Meaning atmospheric CO2 levels increase faster. So recycling paper actually increases the rate of global warming. Remember, "renewable" means you can use it and it automatically replenishes itself. Trees are renewable. And in this particular case, increasing the renewal rate (by throwing away paper instead recycling it) is better for the environment.

Think, people. Expand your reasoning beyond "recycling good, trash bad" caveman logic. Recycling is not a panacea. You can't just think of recycling on its own when deciding if it's good or bad. You have to compare it to the alternatives. And sometimes the alternative of throwing away things is better overall than recycling them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Toe the line's always been about conformity / uniformity. I learned it in the military, and before that in school. "Line up, toes on the line"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Dunno what word to use to express your sentiment. Pushing the limit?

You don't seem to comprehend that "Public Domain" isn't a name you can call something, it is an actual legal status of the work, and you can't use words to cause that legal status to magically appear; doing so, if successful, would violate the Berne Convention.

Based on a brief search on Google, the last bit isn't true. It looks like a country can have a mechanism for releasing a work into the public domain (e.g. The Netherlands) without violating the Berne Convention. I don't know, however, how many countries have such a law; for example, I didn't find anything that says the USA does.

I want my stuff made of new virgin plastic.

There are several bioplastics made from starch or cellulose that are good substitutes for petro-plastics in many applications. The biggest drawback is cost. We need more R&D to bring the price down.

Some of the starch-based plastics are edible. Where I work we bought a big box of bioplastic packing peanuts. We soon had an infestation of mice in our warehouse. They were munching down on the peanuts, and had chewed through the cardboard boxes they came in. That was over a year ago, and the warehouse still smells like mouse poop.

Relative to cargo ships (emission equivalent of 50,000,000 cars) and maritime waste due to environmental policies of certain leading export countries, this is relatively unimportant.

Instead, perhaps we could focus on reducing our practice of shipping raw materials via cargo ships to countries without environmental regulations or labor laws. Currently, these countries manufacture many of our goods at a much lower cost - by dumping waste into the ocean, employing children, and using components that are known by the state of California to cause cancer.

Then they burn even more oil to ship the finished product back to our country.

Here's an extremely understated introduction to the problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (all the statistics cited are from the International Maritime Organization, and are substantially lower than what is now (12 years ago) known: https://www.theguardian.com/en... )

This. What you described is known as survivorship bias.

You mentioned conspiracy, but it is fact that the Federal government brings thousands of people over from foreign countries each year and settles them in communities without the consent of the local population.

Hmong being imported into Wisconsin.

Churches and social service agencies initially settled Southeast Asian refugees, most of them Hmong, along with some Vietnamese and Laotian people, in Wausau. According to the 1980 U.S. Census, Wausau had fewer than 1% non-White people. There were several dozen Asian immigrants in 1978. By 1980 200 Southeast Asian refugees had settled in Wausau. This increased to 400 in 1982 and 800 in 1984.[5] Over time, the Hmong became the largest ethnic minority in the city.[6] Doualy Xaykaothao of The Atlantic stated that ethnic tension between Hmong and native-born Americans in the state started in the 1980s and spilled over into the following decade.

In 1990 there were 16,980 Hmong in Wisconsin. This was an increase of more than 4,000% from the 1980 figure.

Should we really be all that surprised that some of the locals don't like it?

It's not likely to be a design flaw of the AoA sensor for a few reasons:

The AoA sensor is an RVDT. A very simple device with only a few well known failure modes.

The same part is used on other aircraft models. It's not likely that the 737 Max is placing stresses on the unit beyond its other applications.

Oracle had such overwhelming success with SPARC chips, how about a SPARC T4 in a smartphone? It could also act as a handwarmer. Let's see Apple top that!

So if Huawei is compromised by the Chinese government because it is based in China, who could compromise the other network equipment manufacturers? According to Wikipedia:

Avaya, Cisco, Hewlett Packard, Juniper, Motorola, and Qualcomm: USA.

Ericsson: Sweden.

Fujitsu and NEC: Japan.

Nokia: Finland.

ZTE: China.

It seems ZTE is similarly disliked by the US government, while the others are either American or controlled by US allies.

Go check.. Not even ONE republican voted for the ACA, not in the house, not in the senate, not even ONE vote. Your often repeated trope is a lie, a really big one.

He's talking about the original plan the ACA was based upon, not the version passed in the US Congress. Mitt Romney came up with the original plan, and signed a slightly modified version of it, you fucking lying dumbass..

Or is Mitt not a fucking Republican now?

Strict speed limits were set for all moving bodies in 1905, no need to override it with an european law, thank you!

The plane should have been a white board redesign

I'm with you on this. Everything I read about the MCAS system sounds like a fudge to save costs; safety took second place to profit.

It surprises me that I haven't seen any comments about the BOAC Comet. Back in the early days of jet flight, the country leading the world in aviation was Britain. Unfortunately, we didn't realise that square windows meant airframe weakness, and sadly it took two crashes to learn that lesson. Despite fixing that problem, most airlines cancelled their orders of the Comet, and America overtook Britain as the jet airliner manufacturer of choice.

I don't fly very often, but when I do, I make sure that I am NEVER flying on a Boeing aircraft. To answer why, let my introduce you to the Boeing 707, the model on which all your wonderful Boeing aircraft today are based.

Let me ask you this. Just over one thousand Boeing 707s were built. How many of them do you think ended up as flaming wrecks on the ground, or in an accident so bad that even the most optimistic shyster wouldn't want to repair them and get them flying again - or, in aviation parlance "Total Hull Loss".

10?

20?

50?

No. 173. Almost ONE IN FIVE. Don't believe me?

So here's a question. Would YOU willingly fly on an aircraft knowing that there's a 1 in 5 chance that it will end its life not in sunny retirement, but smashed into little pieces on the ground? Would you fly on an aircraft that borrowed heavily from the design of an aircraft that had a 1 in 5 chance of ending its life killing everyone on board?

Are you going to fly on a Boeing aircraft again?

No. When did anyone say that? Considering there was a time 8080s and their descendents were in the data center (the Chicago Stock Exchange had a room full of S-100s in racks processing most of their data at one point in the 1980s) why would anyone assume the most popular CPU line on Earth would be excluded from there?

Ex voto are full of paintigs of people that exited alive from accident with horses and oxen, sign that road accidents with fatal consequnces happened when the traction systems were equipped with a natural intelligence driving system, so to speak. An I don't think that in the near future a computer could be smarter than a horse or an ox.

Communist nations did see some crime and the way the Communist Romania's secret police had to respond was interesting.
Ioanid Gang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A 1960 propaganda film had to be made to show how they got tracked down.

How long will that option be an option able to be used?
The black box shows the speed limiter was set to off? Any insurance is not approved if the speed limiter is not always on?
Police ask questions as to why the speed limiter was off?
Having the ability to "disable the speed limiter" may not be allowed for everyday car use on any road.
A fully safety inspected, upgraded and approved car for a track day can ask for permission to "disable the speed limiter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ?

I think Write Only Memory and the BBC's "Spaghetti Tree" hoax are pretty damn good ones too.

... over two decades.

That's hardly true, unless you're a complete monster to your keyboards. Most people feel that the previous generation of MacBook Pro keyboards were excellent (for a laptop keyboard in particular). And I still have my A1016 Wireless Keyboard, which IMO sits right up there with the IBM Model M keyboards in terms of design and response. Those were from 2003, but that was just 16 years ago, so certainly less than "over two decades".

Yaz

You're only saying that because the gung-ho IBMers worked to help the Nazis during WWII.
 
But they had to sell their punch cards to someone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

You must be old; naysaying everything.

/s

Closer to (potential) reality than you might expect, though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_counterpressure_suit

That's not strictly true. It's correct if you want to get there (the sun or leave the solar system) in one shot. But if you're willing to do multiple passes (slingshot maneuvers) around planets, you can get there for a lot less energy. (Non-wiki link because the Wikipedia article doesn't really explain it.)

It's easier to do this with the inner planets because (1) they're closer together so you don't have to wait as long for multiple flybys, and (2) they orbit more quickly so you don't have to wait as long for the proper orbital configuration. Cassini was launched this way, doing multiple passes around Venus, then another by Earth to pick up more velocity on its way to Saturn. So overall I suspect it's actually easier to send something into the sun (after passing inner planets multiple times) than it is to shoot it out of the solar system.

Yes there's absolutely some fun to typing on a big old clacking keyboard with a long draw, but I find that flatter low travel keyboards are quicker to type on.

Yours would appear to be an extreme minority opinion. Keyboards have been around for over a century. If a significant number of people really did prefer low-travel keys, they would've been made thinner nearly a century ago when the first electric typewriters were introduced. You represent such a small minority that in all that time, nobody has even bothered to make a specialty thin keyboard just to sell to your niche market.

Do the math please.

How many seconds are in an hour?

How long does it take to connect a phone call?

You keep demonstrating you have no fucking idea how this technology works, and you keep arguing a stupid point which indicates you don't know half of what you think you do.

A robodialer dials a whole lot of numbers at the same time:

Some advanced enterprise dialers are distributed dialers, i.e., independent dialers that are linked together through the Internet and controlled by a call dispatching program. With distributed computing, there is virtually no limit on scalability. All distributed dialers, by definition, can be accessed remotely. Today with optimized and highly specialized coding some companies have been able to sustain 2000 simultaneous calls using only one server and a single 100 mbit connection.

Read that again slowly there skippy ... 2000 simultaneous calls, on one server, with a 100 mbit connection.

To make a billion phone calls would take over 20 years.

No, it sure fucking wouldn't.

Dude, seriously, you're wrong .. you're making an argument which is wrong .. you're doing math which is wrong .. because you're making wrong assumptions.

So for the love fucking god, stop making the same stupid fucking argument all over the fucking thread ... because all you're doing is showing your own stupidity.

You are thinking of Vanguard 1 the third satellite ever put into orbit. Its small and its in a 3,840 x 657 km orbit, so its going to be up there for centuries.

Its upper stage booster is still up there too.

https://www.heavens-above.com/...

One good reason to have a different name is to do away with the space-based-arms-race-provoking nature of "Space Force," which likely contributed to India being emboldened to carry out this test.

If any country feels that they absolutely must have a space-based weapons program despite all the good reasons not to, they should keep it top secret. The Soviets were smart enough to know that:

https://www.popularmechanics.c...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Today's Russians are still smart enough to know this:

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc...

And before Trump, the US was too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

One good reason to have a different name is to do away with the space-based-arms-race-provoking nature of "Space Force," which likely contributed to India being emboldened to carry out this test.

If any country feels that they absolutely must have a space-based weapons program despite all the good reasons not to, they should keep it top secret. The Soviets were smart enough to know that:

https://www.popularmechanics.c...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Today's Russians are still smart enough to know this:

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc...

And before Trump, the US was too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

One good reason to have a different name is to do away with the space-based-arms-race-provoking nature of "Space Force," which likely contributed to India being emboldened to carry out this test.

If any country feels that they absolutely must have a space-based weapons program despite all the good reasons not to, they should keep it top secret. The Soviets were smart enough to know that:

https://www.popularmechanics.c...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Today's Russians are still smart enough to know this:

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc...

And before Trump, the US was too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

what's next, fly a hot air balloon around the world?

New Coke

Always impressed with that one, a plane-launched anti-satellite weapon...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It's Goodhart's Law.

Does this phone ships with a Social Credit app preloaded?

Not in the US, in the US it ships with a Hell demerits system. Every time you visit a liberal website you get a Hell demerit until one day, when you have accrued enough demerits, supply-side Jesus beams you to hell where you get to work for eternity in an Amazon warehouse for 7 Zimbabwean dollar an hour.

The table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ("2014 Constant Dollars" column) clearly shows that the NASA budgets of the 60s were approximately double the recent/current NASA budgets. Half is in no way "about the same."

Does this phone ships with a Social Credit app preloaded?

Here ya go... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Let's not forget Apollo One, Jan. 27, 1967 ... All because NASA used pure Oxygen in the capsule.

Yes, but that wasn't really done to cut corners or to keep to the schedule, but because on other air mix incidents and/or concerns, Choice of pure oxygen atmosphere.

The Command-Module redesign included changing the air mixture and pressure while on the ground to be 64/40% oxygen/nitrogen and lower pressure (14 vs 16.7 PSI), with the mix changing to 100% oxygen and 5 PSI in flight -- the rational is detailed in the link. A 100% oxygen mix was kept in the suits to keep astronauts from getting the "bends" (decompression sickness) during the ascent.

In addition, and probably most importantly, all the flammable materials were replaced with non-flammable or self extinguishing materials.

Let's not forget Apollo One, Jan. 27, 1967 ... All because NASA used pure Oxygen in the capsule.

Yes, but that wasn't really done to cut corners or to keep to the schedule, but because on other air mix incidents and/or concerns, Choice of pure oxygen atmosphere.

The Command-Module redesign included changing the air mixture and pressure while on the ground to be 64/40% oxygen/nitrogen and lower pressure (14 vs 16.7 PSI), with the mix changing to 100% oxygen and 5 PSI in flight -- the rational is detailed in the link. A 100% oxygen mix was kept in the suits to keep astronauts from getting the "bends" (decompression sickness) during the ascent.

In addition, and probably most importantly, all the flammable materials were replaced with non-flammable or self extinguishing materials.

I don't dispute that. It's about not making intentional malice the default assumption without more solid evidence.

When it comes to politics, which Huawei is a big part of in China, that is a flawed assumption. It's all about plausible deniability.

If not for pork, what is the purpose of landing on the Moon ?

Didn't you see the PBS Nova documentary . . . ?

Nude on the Moon

That's what put the "Buzz" in the Aldrin, and let's you know what Alan Shepard's golf "balls" on the Moon was really about.

The blockchain exudes technological determinism. It's built on the assumption that changing society is done by changing its technologies.

We've been here before. The distributed nature of the internet was meant to create a more egalitarian society, in its image. The project failed, and birthed surveillance capitalism.

The internet also created a level playing field where large fortunes could be made and entire very disruptive (to the established capitalist elites) industries built up while the established capitalist elites were able to do a relatively little to use their money and connections to appropriate or squash those industries. The current Republican efforts to kill net neutrality and censor the internet are to a large degree an attempt by the 'old money' to gain control of this level playing field and cement their ability do decides who rises, who gets squished and that you will never rise without kowtowing to them first as well as to stifle dissent.

The blockchain exudes technological determinism. It's built on the assumption that changing society is done by changing its technologies.

We've been here before. The distributed nature of the internet was meant to create a more egalitarian society, in its image. The project failed, and birthed surveillance capitalism. Do you think the technologists learned their lesson? No, they double down and created a new technology that's even more distributed. Surely this time it will work!

All this neo-liberal American nonsense about needing a blockchain because institutions can't be trusted, people can't be trusted.. It's built on such a negative world view. The truth is it's just as important to be engaged in creating better democratic institutions.

We lost our faith in god in the enlightenment, we lost our faith in politics last century, and we lost our faith in the invisible hand of the economy in 2008. I understand technology may feel like the best place to place your hope for a better future. But in the long run, the only thing that ever truly creates a better society is investing in the people, and shared ideas that slosh around its cultural playground. What we need now from Silicon Valley is critical thinking and self reflection.

Unfortunately, if the blockchain shows us anything, it's that the Califonian Ideology has become Californian Fundamentalism.

The blockchain exudes technological determinism. It's built on the assumption that changing society is done by changing its technologies.

We've been here before. The distributed nature of the internet was meant to create a more egalitarian society, in its image. The project failed, and birthed surveillance capitalism. Do you think the technologists learned their lesson? No, they double down and created a new technology that's even more distributed. Surely this time it will work!

All this neo-liberal American nonsense about needing a blockchain because institutions can't be trusted, people can't be trusted.. It's built on such a negative world view. The truth is it's just as important to be engaged in creating better democratic institutions.

We lost our faith in god in the enlightenment, we lost our faith in politics last century, and we lost our faith in the invisible hand of the economy in 2008. I understand technology may feel like the best place to place your hope for a better future. But in the long run, the only thing that ever truly creates a better society is investing in the people, and shared ideas that slosh around its cultural playground. What we need now from Silicon Valley is critical thinking and self reflection.

Unfortunately, if the blockchain shows us anything, it's that the Califonian Ideology has become Californian Fundamentalism.

Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.
So I guess, they sacrifice safety.

Reminds me of a recent Boeing story...

Or the Space Shuttle Challenge and its o-rings.
(Speaking of sacrificing safety for schedule.)

By any chance, is there a "christian" prophecy which includes human presence on the moon?

Well, there is Iron Sky:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That works . . . kinda sorta . . .

Yet more false accusations from one of WindBourne's lackeys.

It's funny when WindBourne is so clueless he doesn't even understand he is comparing 2 completely different things (voters and the general population). Then comes to an illogical conclusion.
But when it's already spelled out, and you still don't understand...that's just sad...

WindBourne really needs to get some better lackeys.
Unless it really is your job here to make him look smart in comparison, by looking even stupider than him?

Anyway lets check WindBoune's quote

Nearly, 45% of the population checked off Trump, yet, right after the election, his popularity was already lower than what he won with. IOW, a number of ppl that voted for him, really did not like him.

Only 45% of voters picked Trump, but only 56% of eligible voters bothered to vote. So only about 26% or so of the people approved of him enough to vote for him . (So his number is wrong)
Trump's lowest ever approval rating was 35%

So no,in fact WindBournes entire premise is incorrect. In fact many more people approved of him than voted for him.

Educating WindBourne's lackeys, one at a time...

I think it's equally important to recognize that both NASA and the astronauts are putting the mission first.

But how does the poor maligned suit feel about that? It's just not good enough without help and is now embarrassed about it. Mission smission, it's only LOOKING GOOD that counts!

"equally important" -- no, it's MORE important. Who does it is unimportant, that it gets done safely and properly is of prime importance. And that includes the tools and support staff. There's always a slight risk no matter what, but you minimize those to the best of your ability.

(Challenger, anyone?) Wiki, NASA, UPI

Well, I'm glad that you're finally trying. However, you still have problems of non-applicability, and have introduced spherical cow problems. To be blunt, in theory, there's no difference between theory and reality. In reality there is. Oh, and I'm quite up on my physics, and they don't say that I'm wrong. I may not be an EE, but I'm still STEM. So you can drop the credentials fallacy.

Next, I'll point out that you're strawmanning my(and my cited article)on the actual efficiency. The article, and I, have at most said "as efficient or possibly more". You immediately dropped the "as efficient" to argue against more efficient. To meet "possibly more", all you'd need to do is find a fairly inefficient corded charger. A cheap one, not properly optimized for efficiency.

All I've been arguing is "as efficient".

Still, you might want to read your links to make sure they say what you mean. For example, your first link says this:

But, ferromagnetic materials like steel as core of transformer, suffers from hysteresis loss, eddy current losses. Also it faces problem of getting saturated after certain level of magnetization. But these can be avoided in air core transformer as ferromagnetic core is absent in this transformer.

Looks to me like they're saying the opposite of what you're asserting. In specific circumstances, air core transformers can be more efficient than steel core. Thank you for providing more proof for my position.

Second link, continuing on from slide 5, at slide 8 they mention that increasing the dimensions of the transformer increases the coupling factor, and I can clearly see the charts showing a factor above 0.95, where 1 would be a theoretical ideal coupler ratio.

Given that one of the points I've made is that inefficiency is noted on the wiki page for under 100 watt applications, presumably with a coil around an inch across, while EV class induction coils bust the 5kW where it isn't a problem anymore, and are closer to a couple feet...

So congratulations, citation 2 also supports that a nice large open core induction coil can realistically be efficient enough for the cited charger efficiencies. You'd almost think that the businesses designing them put engineering work in.

Still, let's look at what wikipedia says about magnetic cores.

In some cases the losses are undesirable and with very strong fields saturation can be a problem, and an 'air core' is used. A former may still be used; a piece of material, such as plastic or a composite, that may not have any significant magnetic permeability but which simply holds the coils of wires in place.

What is this in reference to? Losses from eddy currents, hysteresis, and high field strengths causing saturation. What might we be seeing at 5kW and up? Why might we NOT want losses?Sounds like a potential application for an air core to me.

Citation 3 is really irrelevant. It isn't even a good explanation of coupling factor for laymen.

Noticeably lacking from your citations is that iron core is always better than air core.

Also, I reject your contention of misaligned coils, as quite a lot of development work was done to prevent that little problem.

SAE International -93% efficiency, grid to battery.

Notice that I'm posting, not theoretical stuff, but actual produced hardware, documentation about inductive EV chargers, not theoretical stuff.

Oh, and I just noticed. You're attacking a strawman. I didn't say that an air core transformer is more efficient than steel core. If that was true, we wouldn't use steel cores. Though some of that is about cost too. I'm looking