I already admitted that I could agree with with a 85-90% best case scenario.
Nevertheless. when a technology is several orders of magnitude behind another one, normal, for whatever the term may mean. scientists would tend to look elsewhere.
I actually realized that I forgot to mention it right after posting.
Unfortunately, recuperating the energy while braking has at most a 50% efficiency last time I looked, mainly due to heat dissipation occurring in the process. 85% seems optimistic depending of the real life setup you plan to use but you might be right after all;-)
It sounds to me like layers and layers of non-efficiency piled up together. At least if we compare it to gasoline efficiency. Trolley or other means of not having to transport the power source seems like the only viable alternatives to me.
As for your tire resistance, I also agree. Railways are good at this because this factor remains almost constant at all speeds.
On this topic, wind resistance is much more important to take into account IMHO. Do not forget it grows about the square of the speed in terrestrial transport speeds.
As it is often the case with breaking news in battery related articles, I didn't find any numbers about the efficiency of this system in TFA. I would like to see a amazing break through in electricity storage but we have a long way to go still to match gasoline, so expect transportation prices to raise a lot as oil is slowly running out.
Energy density: gasoline: 46.4 MJ/kg Lead Acid Battery: 0.14 MJ/kg
Since accelerating the mass of the batteries raises the cost even further, batteries are even less efficient for urban transportation when you accelerate and decelerate a lot. We would need to bring back trolleys or another way not to have to transport the energy source for our cars to have something efficient.
Great idea and you also have a great social mind with no selfish interest in your heart at all. The problem is that your planned behavior might cause the tire disposal charges to raise even higher thus making citizen who do not have such a rebel way of thinking to subsidize your own behavior.
There is always a way to screw up the system. If most people do, then the system isn't valid. If only a minority do screw up the system then, the people not screwing up the system usually pay for the people screwing it.
As for early adopters being subsidised by casual users, I think you have it backwards. It is the early adopters that are doing the subsidizing. Most of the subsidizing was done early on when the casual users didn't even have a connection. The early adopters paid to get the whole system up and running.
This is not inconsistent with what I said, as for early adopters of any technologies like CPUs, the early adopters usually pay all the R&D budget etc. Once the company has paid its R&D and infrastructure budgets, it can then afford to make the technology mainstream and lower the prices because the cash coming in is now pure profit.
So, at any point in time "early adopters" or people using more resources than average are usually paying more. For the CPU example, casual users subsidizing early adopters would mean that a company selling CPUs or graphic cards would sell their high end product the same price they sell their lower end products which you do not see too often. For some reason, the same logic doesn't seem to prevail in the mind of many people when it come to bandwidth usage.
Just lag a little behind in technology related matters if you want to get the best bang for the buck. If you want to be in the "early adopters" group for ever in any technology matter, you should expect to pay more than casual users for ever IMHO.
Again, I said in a previous post that I have unlimited bandwidth well, 905 GB/month limited by line speed. I am happy with my free buffet plan and I would like to keep it this way but I am honest enough not to deny basic facts and not to bias my opinion on the matter in my own selfish interest.
As a side note, I qualify as an early adopter of Internet connectivity, dialup in 1991 and ADSL since 1998 as part of a testing group for a prototype project. I still use this connection nowadays and this is why my bandwidth isn't metered.
Well, there seems to be obvious logic behind this. If you are getting charged anyway, you won't be tempted to "keep the old tires" and then to dump them in the woods...
Well, shouldn't early adopter pay more then ? Early adopter of cutting edge CPU and motherboards and of any technology for that matter usually pay more than after the technology has become mainstream.
I have unlimited bandwidth and I would like it to stay that way but seriously, when you think about it, are upgraded networks going to be given by Cisco to anybody who asks ? Usually, the consumer ends up paying one way or another. You have the choice to let casual users finance heavy users or to charge per use, just like at the gas pump.
Another alternative is to cap bandwidth or charge more for bandwidth only at given times. This model is similar to cell phone plans where you get free minutes at off-peak times.
Also, although I am not sure they like to go aboard ships, I have seen muskrats crossing a 1 mile wide river. I wonder what distance brown rats and muskrats can swim for before drowning.
Obviously they wouldn't post their findings on the internet nor would they use them directly as court evidence but what would stop them from getting a court order to get their findings a second time, legally this time ?
I have never heard of "sata mobos". I heard about motherboards that had a SATA controller hardwired into them. Using the right driver for that specific controller might help in gaining speed.
Guys, don't forget to take into account cached disk data/buffers, use free to see how much you've got. Just run hdparm -tT to see the difference between cached reads and non cached reads. If this sounds to technical just do a test with a 20 GB file. This should be enough to make sure cached disk data doesn't give you a false illusion of speed. Also read man hdparm under the -t section.
90 MB/s seems on the upper end to me while 40 MB/s is on the lower end but I have seen it with generic drivers.
Also, try to upgrade your SATA drivers to one that is designed specifically for the SATA controller you are using instead of using a generic one. Best bang for the buck if you are looking for speed.
Previous posters that mentioned having something dirtier in mind while trying to figure out what the expression means probably imagined dropping something like this :
Then, I would agree. It is weird what some mailers do with headers when it would be so simple to stick to the basic implementation.
A Notes user asked me why he wasn't in the recipient list and he was pretty sure there was a problem somewhere. He understands what BCC: means. The problem was that mail sent internally get handled exclusively by Notes and Notes shows him explicitly that he as been BBCed when he receives internal emails.
Then, one day, he gets BCCed by somebody external. The external sender mailer daemon behaves like sendmail so Notes doesn't see the BCC header when it receives the message. Notes then sends the message to the user in complete standard fashion, the same way sendmail would do but now the user is all freaked out because he doesn't see himself in the BCC header of the message.
I would assume Notes behavior is configurable to mimic sendmail although but that is how it behaved in that company setup.
I am sure using "BCC:" instead of "BCC" would have caused my brain to work correctly. My brain isn't used to see BCC. It just looks strange to me without the ":"
In the old days, using BCC in emails you sent was considered a "stab in the back" strategy. It was considered fine to use it for mass email sending but not for specific emails you send to a specific group of people. Using CC was the prescribed strategy to adopt.
Hey, since you seem to know a bit, is 7 of 9 going to show up in ST Voyager or was 7 of 9 in another series ?
Damn, I hope she was in Voyager;-) Belona Tores, or whatever her name his is my preferred female character ex aequo with 7 of 9 if she is indeed going to appear in ST Voyager.
Nah, it wasn't in the latter years of the show, it was in season 1, maybe season 2 disk 1. I just started to watch all episodes lately and I am at season 2 disk 2 right now and they already have contacted the alien scientist in the alpha quadrant. I am pretty sure it was in season 1. The scientist was talking to them from the past, he promised to deliver their message home in the future but Voyager records showed that he died before he could.
Not the best ever show I have ever watched I have to admit. I am ROTFL sometimes but it does the job I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Please see:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/ssl/ssl_faq.html#vhosts
While reading the title, I thought that MS was going to develop a next-gen console to beat the Linux console, usually bash based ;-)
I already admitted that I could agree with with a 85-90% best case scenario.
Nevertheless. when a technology is several orders of magnitude behind another one, normal, for whatever the term may mean. scientists would tend to look elsewhere.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2024518&cid=35394604
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2024518&cid=35394600
Good point for people living in rural areas. In urban or suburb areas, it doesn't really apply.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2024518&cid=35394600
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2024518&cid=35394604
Of course, my post was only intended to illustrate orders of magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
Good point !
I actually realized that I forgot to mention it right after posting.
Unfortunately, recuperating the energy while braking has at most a 50% efficiency last time I looked, mainly due to heat dissipation occurring in the process. 85% seems optimistic depending of the real life setup you plan to use but you might be right after all ;-)
It sounds to me like layers and layers of non-efficiency piled up together. At least if we compare it to gasoline efficiency. Trolley or other means of not having to transport the power source seems like the only viable alternatives to me.
As for your tire resistance, I also agree. Railways are good at this because this factor remains almost constant at all speeds.
On this topic, wind resistance is much more important to take into account IMHO. Do not forget it grows about the square of the speed in terrestrial transport speeds.
As it is often the case with breaking news in battery related articles, I didn't find any numbers about the efficiency of this system in TFA. I would like to see a amazing break through in electricity storage but we have a long way to go still to match gasoline, so expect transportation prices to raise a lot as oil is slowly running out.
Energy density:
gasoline: 46.4 MJ/kg
Lead Acid Battery: 0.14 MJ/kg
http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Energy_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Since accelerating the mass of the batteries raises the cost even further, batteries are even less efficient for urban transportation when you accelerate and decelerate a lot. We would need to bring back trolleys or another way not to have to transport the energy source for our cars to have something efficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus
Great idea and you also have a great social mind with no selfish interest in your heart at all. The problem is that your planned behavior might cause the tire disposal charges to raise even higher thus making citizen who do not have such a rebel way of thinking to subsidize your own behavior.
http://www.deq.state.va.us/wastetires/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_recycling
There is always a way to screw up the system. If most people do, then the system isn't valid. If only a minority do screw up the system then, the people not screwing up the system usually pay for the people screwing it.
As for early adopters being subsidised by casual users, I think you have it backwards. It is the early adopters that are doing the subsidizing. Most of the subsidizing was done early on when the casual users didn't even have a connection. The early adopters paid to get the whole system up and running.
This is not inconsistent with what I said, as for early adopters of any technologies like CPUs, the early adopters usually pay all the R&D budget etc. Once the company has paid its R&D and infrastructure budgets, it can then afford to make the technology mainstream and lower the prices because the cash coming in is now pure profit.
So, at any point in time "early adopters" or people using more resources than average are usually paying more. For the CPU example, casual users subsidizing early adopters would mean that a company selling CPUs or graphic cards would sell their high end product the same price they sell their lower end products which you do not see too often. For some reason, the same logic doesn't seem to prevail in the mind of many people when it come to bandwidth usage.
Just lag a little behind in technology related matters if you want to get the best bang for the buck. If you want to be in the "early adopters" group for ever in any technology matter, you should expect to pay more than casual users for ever IMHO.
Again, I said in a previous post that I have unlimited bandwidth well, 905 GB/month limited by line speed. I am happy with my free buffet plan and I would like to keep it this way but I am honest enough not to deny basic facts and not to bias my opinion on the matter in my own selfish interest.
As a side note, I qualify as an early adopter of Internet connectivity, dialup in 1991 and ADSL since 1998 as part of a testing group for a prototype project. I still use this connection nowadays and this is why my bandwidth isn't metered.
Well, there seems to be obvious logic behind this. If you are getting charged anyway, you won't be tempted to "keep the old tires" and then to dump them in the woods...
Well, shouldn't early adopter pay more then ? Early adopter of cutting edge CPU and motherboards and of any technology for that matter usually pay more than after the technology has become mainstream.
I have unlimited bandwidth and I would like it to stay that way but seriously, when you think about it, are upgraded networks going to be given by Cisco to anybody who asks ? Usually, the consumer ends up paying one way or another. You have the choice to let casual users finance heavy users or to charge per use, just like at the gas pump.
Another alternative is to cap bandwidth or charge more for bandwidth only at given times. This model is similar to cell phone plans where you get free minutes at off-peak times.
Also, although I am not sure they like to go aboard ships, I have seen muskrats crossing a 1 mile wide river. I wonder what distance brown rats and muskrats can swim for before drowning.
Brown rat swimming record ?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4356980.stm
Muskrats aren't really rats although:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskrat
Who says they don't ?
Obviously they wouldn't post their findings on the internet nor would they use them directly as court evidence but what would stop them from getting a court order to get their findings a second time, legally this time ?
I have never heard of "sata mobos". I heard about motherboards that had a SATA controller hardwired into them. Using the right driver for that specific controller might help in gaining speed.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2016546&cid=35345062
Guys, don't forget to take into account cached disk data/buffers, use free to see how much you've got. Just run hdparm -tT to see the difference between cached reads and non cached reads. If this sounds to technical just do a test with a 20 GB file. This should be enough to make sure cached disk data doesn't give you a false illusion of speed. Also read man hdparm under the -t section.
90 MB/s seems on the upper end to me while 40 MB/s is on the lower end but I have seen it with generic drivers.
Also, try to upgrade your SATA drivers to one that is designed specifically for the SATA controller you are using instead of using a generic one. Best bang for the buck if you are looking for speed.
Thanks for the link, very instructive !
Previous posters that mentioned having something dirtier in mind while trying to figure out what the expression means probably imagined dropping something like this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Hankey,_the_Christmas_Poo
> that will be disclosed under torture or immediate threat of death
You are a potential traitor to our great country. Therefore, you constitute a high risk threat and you should be terminated immediately.
-Chuck Norris.
You mean the sendmail daemon implementation ?
Then, I would agree. It is weird what some mailers do with headers when it would be so simple to stick to the basic implementation.
A Notes user asked me why he wasn't in the recipient list and he was pretty sure there was a problem somewhere. He understands what BCC: means. The problem was that mail sent internally get handled exclusively by Notes and Notes shows him explicitly that he as been BBCed when he receives internal emails.
Then, one day, he gets BCCed by somebody external. The external sender mailer daemon behaves like sendmail so Notes doesn't see the BCC header when it receives the message. Notes then sends the message to the user in complete standard fashion, the same way sendmail would do but now the user is all freaked out because he doesn't see himself in the BCC header of the message.
I would assume Notes behavior is configurable to mimic sendmail although but that is how it behaved in that company setup.
I am sure using "BCC:" instead of "BCC" would have caused my brain to work correctly. My brain isn't used to see BCC. It just looks strange to me without the ":"
In the old days, using BCC in emails you sent was considered a "stab in the back" strategy. It was considered fine to use it for mass email sending but not for specific emails you send to a specific group of people. Using CC was the prescribed strategy to adopt.
I guess you are right because when I started reading, I actually thought TFA was about the BBC. It could have made more sense I guess...
Hey, since you seem to know a bit, is 7 of 9 going to show up in ST Voyager or was 7 of 9 in another series ?
Damn, I hope she was in Voyager ;-) Belona Tores, or whatever her name his is my preferred female character ex aequo with 7 of 9 if she is indeed going to appear in ST Voyager.
Nah, it wasn't in the latter years of the show, it was in season 1, maybe season 2 disk 1. I just started to watch all episodes lately and I am at season 2 disk 2 right now and they already have contacted the alien scientist in the alpha quadrant. I am pretty sure it was in season 1. The scientist was talking to them from the past, he promised to deliver their message home in the future but Voyager records showed that he died before he could.
Not the best ever show I have ever watched I have to admit. I am ROTFL sometimes but it does the job I guess.
Cheers,