The price for 200 ship-years is independent of the time you actually take to scan every ocean. With 40 ships, you'll need 5 years. With 200 ships, you'll need 1 year.
But you'll still end up paying the price of *one* stadium, whichever solution you use.
I just discovered this yesterday : why on earth does the user have different privileges with command-line and with the GUI on Mac OS??? Maybe there's a good reason reason for this, but it just doesn't seem to make sense.
Easy :
* VMware Fusion is for Windows Vista Starter
* VMware server is for Windows Vista Home Basic
* VMware workstation is for Windows Vista Premium
* VMware view is for Windows Vista Business
* VMware ESX is for Windows Vista Enterprise
* VMware Player is for Windows Vista Ultimate
* VMware ACE is for Windows 7
It's not technology that helped us, but the availability of almost free energy and the huge energy density of fossil fuels, that we happily burned away singing "Screw Limits To Growth!". Could you please explain me what your technological solution would be to provide food/shelter/transport to 7 billions without oil?
but the Veyron is designed to last 20 or 30 years of road driving.
Too bad that oil reserves are not designed to sustain 20 or 30 years of Veyron's road driving!:D
At full throttle, it consumes around 2mpg or 115l/km, and its fuel tank empties in a whopping 12mins : assuming it could really drive at top speed during 20 years, it would consume ~0.5 million barrels.
Well, when I lived in Madrid, my US roommates asked me why TV channels wouldn't bother including this "south-west region of Spain" in weather forecasts.
Nice comment. >But as for efficiency reducing mankind's footprint on the environment, I'm worried it might not happen. Well, it will happen, simply because we won't have choice when demand>production for too long a time!
In France, for example, we have 10 000km2 of roof area. Cover 30% of it and you get more than 450TWh/y, which roughly corresponds to our consumption. Indeed, 3000km2 of panels isn't gonna happen, at least overnight. But we don't need so much, and a few percents are always good for our energy supply.
Then, as you said, use nukes to cover base load. But please forget fusion! Invest 1E9$ in photovoltaics, you get 500MWp worth of panels. Invest 1E9$ in fusion, you *might* get a few kWh back in a few decades.
Fusion would sure be nice, but we cannot afford to base any energy policy on it. PV panels are available now, and don't cost so much when you take into account every drawback of every alternative. And before thinking about energy production and electric vehicles, we might consider lowering our consumption first.
Slashdot Mirror
vimtutor is actually pretty good.
So pi and a liter are related, because one is a pi/liter of the other? :D
I'm sightly confused.
In germany 1 liter of beer costs around 4 euros ... that is the consumer price, not production cost.
So I don't really get what this article is about.
Oh, wait, I think I get it! You're mixing unrelated units with each other!
BlackPignouf
Thanks.
Wait, what???
The price for 200 ship-years is independent of the time you actually take to scan every ocean.
With 40 ships, you'll need 5 years.
With 200 ships, you'll need 1 year.
But you'll still end up paying the price of *one* stadium, whichever solution you use.
I just discovered this yesterday :
why on earth does the user have different privileges with command-line and with the GUI on Mac OS???
Maybe there's a good reason reason for this, but it just doesn't seem to make sense.
Any idea?
Easy :
* VMware Fusion is for Windows Vista Starter
* VMware server is for Windows Vista Home Basic
* VMware workstation is for Windows Vista Premium
* VMware view is for Windows Vista Business
* VMware ESX is for Windows Vista Enterprise
* VMware Player is for Windows Vista Ultimate
* VMware ACE is for Windows 7
I think...
Thanks, but I'm more than happy with VirtualBox, either open or closed source. Much faster & easier to install on my ubuntu boxes!
Wrong.
It's not technology that helped us, but the availability of almost free energy and the huge energy density of fossil fuels, that we happily burned away singing "Screw Limits To Growth!".
Could you please explain me what your technological solution would be to provide food/shelter/transport to 7 billions without oil?
Actually, you can forget the "site:en.wikipedia.org".
delicious?
but the Veyron is designed to last 20 or 30 years of road driving.
Too bad that oil reserves are not designed to sustain 20 or 30 years of Veyron's road driving! :D
At full throttle, it consumes around 2mpg or 115l/km, and its fuel tank empties in a whopping 12mins : assuming it could really drive at top speed during 20 years, it would consume ~0.5 million barrels.
Hey rude boy, you might try "Vaya con dios" next time.
You'll still sound like an asshole, but at least like an educated asshole!
Oh c'mon!
Don't be so pedantic, you're behaving like Adolf.
And screw Mike's (Mr. Godwin) law!
k, not kw.
Well, when I lived in Madrid, my US roommates asked me why TV channels wouldn't bother including this "south-west region of Spain" in weather forecasts.
They swore to god they never heard of Portugal...
50% bullshit & 50% insightful, that's a pretty good ratio for /.
Nice comment.
>But as for efficiency reducing mankind's footprint on the environment, I'm worried it might not happen.
Well, it will happen, simply because we won't have choice when demand>production for too long a time!
You definitely should, it's by far the funniest one of all! :)
hQIOA9E1fHW L3Cs+EAf+ LWFxdp1PrTde8Qie 1RCbJcYw+wje0tBapGwhioSd8+yQ /2+iF7/2ht/yAmNQm 4dX6v1BaHSHccN RTCsa74Rq58BfYKAJm2AEf/
1HgIDg7 zfLYXpPL4Pqlv FvyE810ZzpfzhcI2WhNI2O 1TT6pl8nXeEWbDr39TOXCf
FNBkdmXnkZ
gI0eKtXH SUiCT 8MBdee+BfO3iVLaBGTTcT ioI6Ax45ODsz5zColQz0VJb99LmjGw
AGVLf4dMLxm8WpZb Ni7RX8WLACnJAP t5MNhOee/J4 vwohQDrfQpux85HKsbQ6nFm
6Q5HKf4 l68DyPo yYvuvNSg0TlYov03G xYxEA6T4xAwgAi7ahv huEhPFexhNru/S
This highly interesting post has automatically been encrypted.
Please Paypal-send 10$ to john.doe@gmail.com to read it!
All you need to know it that it's basically like a Tennis game:
You can lose the game while still having won more points than your opponent.
Ok, I guess you have a point.
I'm a French PhD student working in a German research center, and I just happened to see your post during working hours :D
Almost bullshit.
In France, for example, we have 10 000km2 of roof area. Cover 30% of it and you get more than 450TWh/y, which roughly corresponds to our consumption.
Indeed, 3000km2 of panels isn't gonna happen, at least overnight. But we don't need so much, and a few percents are always good for our energy supply.
Then, as you said, use nukes to cover base load. But please forget fusion! Invest 1E9$ in photovoltaics, you get 500MWp worth of panels. Invest 1E9$ in fusion, you *might* get a few kWh back in a few decades.
Fusion would sure be nice, but we cannot afford to base any energy policy on it. PV panels are available now, and don't cost so much when you take into account every drawback of every alternative.
And before thinking about energy production and electric vehicles, we might consider lowering our consumption first.
Approximately the size of a nuke + the size of a laptop. Why?
Especially because there never was any A???? A???? distro.