Isn't it sad that data center downtime is far more expensive than permanent downtime for a human being?
What's sad about it? Downtime creates downtime for other human lives too. At some point, you have to acknowledge that this is a trade off, a person assumes risk to their own lives in order to make other peoples' lives better or more productive.
The mideast called - the said you were the ideal candidate for their new landmine detection program.
Because what I wrote was an appropriate if mild response to what you wrote, oh brittle and pathological person.
So tell me, are you willing to have a person die for some database that you find important?
Your post at top tells us you are perfectly fine with people dying so that other peopple can have some file stored in a dat center. Uptime to you is more important than someone else's life.
And the better question is - are you willing to cease existance for some file someone else finds important?
Probably a different answer, isn't it?
Hence I was letting you off easy, and not saying what I think of you, because your sociopathy Is rather disgusting. Not that you give a damn about anyone else but yourself.
No start menu because it's not needed. Search is faster than poking through the start menu in most cases. That's my understanding of why it was removed, MS engineers haven't used it themselves since Vista.
Well, Mrs Smith down the street have to model their preferences on what Microsoft engineers think, eh?
removal of features that customers use with the smug remarks that the experts don't use them so screw you outlook is a smart move?
Search? Good. Start Menu? Hey, I've used it myself, especially on someone else's computer. Why? Because it isn't my computer, and there, at my dirty liddle fingertips is a menu based report of what is on their computer.
After all, if it's there, and you don't want to use it, no one is gonna stop you.
For Microsoft OSes, I was fine with XP. I didn't care for some of the UI changes that were done following Windows 2000, but it seemed quite stable.
You might be fine with win xp on at home (although you shouldn't) but it should have no place in proffessional environment. Windows 7 fixed some gaping security issues with XP. Here are some examples:
Note he wrote UI. The user interface. Not the underlying structure. We can make the OS as stable and secure as we like without messing with the look and feel. If Windows 8 taught us nothing else - and it has taught some nothing at all - huge changes in the user interface and system maintenance are not always appreciated nor wanted.
Isn't it sad that data center downtime is far more expensive than permanent downtime for a human being?
What's sad about it? Downtime creates downtime for other human lives too. At some point, you have to acknowledge that this is a trade off, a person assumes risk to their own lives in order to make other peoples' lives better or more productive.
The mideast called - the said you were the ideal candidate for their new landmine detection program.
If one can wrap their mind around an ever present NOW encompassing past, present, and future, then one can start to perceive the operating sphere of God.
As well as develop a sense of personal incredulity.
You are welcome of course, to your own beliefs. But really, it's only manufacturing your god in your own image. There are billions of others in this world who believe quite fervently in their version of god, and they are equally as likely to be correct as you are. People who have violent tendencies tend toward a god of violent tendencies, people who are materialistic opt for a god that rewards them with material goods. People who enjoy forcing others to do as their god demands have a tendency to have a god who justifies their conformity based aggression. And people who believe in live and let live have their version of god, but are always at risk of being eliminated by the violent god followers or not allowed to practice their faith by the everyone must conform god people.
Me? I just believe in being excellent to others. If at the end of my life, that isn't enough, well then to hell with me.
As you mock, He laughs at you, and STILL loves you, LOL. No, God is not Cuthulu, he doesn't have appendages. Myself, I don't have problem with believing in the theory of evolution and believing in God. See, God, is outside of time, and hence He sees beginning, now, and end. A second to God is a thousand years... God can use the laws of nature, He made them! So when you read Feynman's Lectures, you know what, God made those laws and He doesn't change. So, when the preacher online starts harping about science, remind him that the same God that created all also created the physical laws that allows that internet stream of his Sunday service, and that God is constant. The same physical laws apply everywhere, because God made those laws, and God doesn't change!
My parents and grandparents might accuse you of apostacy, but they would be certain that you sir, are going to hell. And that's the problem.
So whic of the thousands of Gods is the right one, and how were you lucky enough to be born to the right group that knows the right one?
He doth work in mysterious ways it would seem. So you can rejoice at your good luck.
I'm wondering why we are even considering this, it doesn't really help with anything...
All these clever ideas will never really allow us to do away with the two simple problems that an EV has, limited range followed by long recharge times./p>
2002 called. They want you to get your mind out of their time.
If we were still in the golf cart era, and the laws of physicis made it impossible to have anything other than a lead acid battery, I'd agree with you 100 percent, that EV's will never work.
But what is your metric? That an EV never has to charge? The times are a-changin' mutate, and all it takes now is infrastructure.
And considering the immense, massive infrastructure that has been built for our petrofueld cars, it will be easier to build one to offer charging ports.
Perhaps much easier than drilling, building and operating pipelines,rail cars and tankers to deliver the fuel.
Not blown away by this. Stationary inductive charging already exists. it's not quite commercialized, but there are several demos going on including at Monterey-Salinas Transit and at Utah Transit. There's a company called WAVE out of Utah that is doing this. Their current system is 50 kW, but they say they're working on a 250 kW version (vaporware at this point).
In-motion inductive charging seems a bit more far fetched.
Stationary is a cakewalk by comparison. There are going to be all manner of inductive effects from a lot of cars moving over the charging inductors sorta kinda at random, but not quite always.
Most of the answers to your questions will come from... wait for it.... testing, like the summary says they're doing.
Settle down, we're learning a lot more from their doing than from your whining.
Possibly. Most of the EV issues to date have been energy density and efficiency. My concerns are more of the laws of Physics variety. Maybe we'll have to make the cars out of Mu metal?
While it certainly seems unlikely to work, if it did then it would be useful to reduce the battery capacity needed on board the vehicle. Enough batteries for 300 miles of range doesn't come cheap, and is the main reason why EVs are niche vehicles for enthusiasts rather than the standard.
So far. But improvements have been pretty steady. Not too many years ago, the idea of an EV at all was relegated to golf carts. I'm expecting in our lifetimes that petrofueled engines might become as anachronistic as hit and miss engines are today. Ot a specialty nich in their own right.
It's just too much power to transmit wirelessly. It's hard enough to charge your phone - the losses are quite bad even for that.
They are talking about 50 KW and 85 percent efficiency! That's nuts.I can't imagine anything near that in real life. But 50 KW a couple inches below my sorry butt is not a tempting thought. I'm seeing RFI problems, Magnetization and other induction issues in places they don't want it. I wonder about pacemakers or insulin pumps as well. I wonder if there will even be diamagnetic effects as well. I've got titanium in my ankles. Problem is, at thos power levels and those distances, weird stuff sometimes happens.
To get any sort of efficiency the charging AC is going to have to be pretty high in frequency as well. I'm smelling a lot of RFI.
I loves me my EV's, but this sounds like something right up there with Broadband over Power Line, and Smartphone service right by the GPS frequencies.
But the McMansion/Farmer's field housing development group has become a slave to what they have been taught is the desirable way to live.
Thank you for assuming that people can't figure out for themselves where they want to live, and for shining the light on their illusory happiness! It doesn't make you look like a pompous ass or anything. Honest!
People do have a tendency to be a bit sheeplike regarding housing.
These kind of bleeding edge technologies will feature in the next top fighter aircraft. Its not all waste you see . These are more like technology demonstrators.
That's some serious revisionist history you tried to pull off on the one size fits all mess the F-35 has become.
Zoning and developers followed the desires of our parents and grandparents.
Don't forget the desires of real estate developers.
But just like urban areas have issues, so do suburbs - especially ones way out of town.
Don't get me wrong - I live in a suburb, but I am within walking distance of hardware stores, shopping centers spirits stores, eateries and all the other niceties.
But people have been hypnotized to the idea of suburbia, and there are people living 30 miles outside of town in what used to be farmer's fields. Dunno about those folks, but that McMansion sitting on the south 40 with nary a tree in the yard, along with 20 other McMansions is pretty gloomy looking.
So here we have a 45 minute trek to work and a little longer going back home, Rinse and repeat the process if you want to go to a movie or out to dinner, or shopping.
Now if you want to live in the country, and have a country lifestyle, that's pretty good. But the McMansion/Farmer's field housing development group has become a slave to what they have been taught is the desirable way to live.
You may not like cars but they were seen as the embodiment of freedom for your ancestors - go anywhere you want, quickly, and on your own schedule.
As noted above, it's a good thing they love their cars, because they spend a lot of time in them.
The parts of cities that didn't support that attitude languished (inner cities) and areas that did flourished (suburbs).
TLDR: Infrastructure conformed to the culture.
And there you have hit on the biggest, maybe best reason for the urban exodus. That infrastructure. A lot of those earlier urban spaces were built in a different time, for a different group. Walkups must be torture for older folk, and as some of the folk moved to the suburbs, less desirable elements moved in.
And of course, the desire of some to make sure they weren't around people who weren't "like us".
Side note: it was a real shock and embarrassment when a local development of around WW2 era was found to have covenants against ownership of property by blacks. A different and nasty-ass time if you ask me.
But now, with the suburbs undergoing the exact same decay as the urban areas did, the "gentrification" process is happening to many urban areas. And with more and more people moving to urban areas, something needs to be done about the automobiles. It is an expensive and often frustrating effort owning one in many cities. The real estate they take up when not in use is very expensive.
Times change, and when a freedom becomes a yoke, it might be time.
given that one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of coal or solar power plants
No, that's not "given", you idiot. You can't just make shit up and then claim it's "given". Do even some basic research.
If some basic research is performed, how can he make shit up? Some of the pro-nuc crowd are much worse idiots than the anti-nuc crowd.
Here is a solar power plant capable of only 11.4MW (that was state of the art in 2006, the largest solar plant 9 years ago).
Much of the objection to so called alternative energy sources are made using old data. I don't think the proponents of Nuc power realize the disservice they do to the industry.
All of those things that make a nuc plant, a nuc plant, make for issues. The incredible energy density, the radiation's effects on materials, all kinds of stuff that makes nuc plants take a long time to build, and really expensive to build.
In addition, any second or third world country undertaking a nuc energy project is going to come under intense scrutiny. And that really takes the bloom off the rose.
As well, the technology in a solar plant like this is not such that little problems become real big problems in short order. Fukushima for example would have been no huge deal if the cooling water could have been restored. Power goes out, the mirrors lock up, and the mirrors reflections eventually move off the heating vessel, the biggest issues will be rerouting airplanes in that event No doubt there's emergency power for that anyway.
Scalability is quick and really easy by comparison.
A sunny desert, lots of empty real estate, seems like a pretty natural place to put a solar power generating station. There are places where I would heartily recommend a nuc reactor. Morocco is not one of them.
All of the people that I know that are into guns are also into drones. They also are against people using drones to spy on other people and invade other people's property, and are also against weaponized drones.
Sounds like they are tools of thr jack-booted thugs if you ask me. Taking a person's weaponized drone away is merely the first step into taking away all citizens guns. As soon as you give gun control liberas one inch, they'll want a mile. We have a second amendment right to them. Just because it's a drone, doesn't mean that my rights as a law abiding citizen are abridged.
If a handicapped hunter can shoot from an auto, or via the internet, or a drone, you have the same thing.
Problem is, people will read: I can shoot down a drone now, and they will use other things than a shotgun because they are dumb idiots
One of the strangest things I've found is that the most passionate gun lovers I know, all think that drones should be banned.
I'd love a discussion on the second amendment aspects of weaponized personal drones. Do we have the right to use a drone only as long as we have afirearm attached to it?
Is not allowing weaponized drones an example of the federal government and anti-gun forces interfering in our rights?
Slashdot Mirror
making middle-class living while risking your life for maximum profits of others is pretty grotesque, and should be illegal.
Point to someone who's doing that and we'll see if you know what you're talking about.
Why do you want them to kick off so you aren't inconvenienced?
Isn't it sad that data center downtime is far more expensive than permanent downtime for a human being?
What's sad about it? Downtime creates downtime for other human lives too. At some point, you have to acknowledge that this is a trade off, a person assumes risk to their own lives in order to make other peoples' lives better or more productive.
The mideast called - the said you were the ideal candidate for their new landmine detection program.
Because what I wrote was an appropriate if mild response to what you wrote, oh brittle and pathological person.
So tell me, are you willing to have a person die for some database that you find important?
Your post at top tells us you are perfectly fine with people dying so that other peopple can have some file stored in a dat center. Uptime to you is more important than someone else's life.
And the better question is - are you willing to cease existance for some file someone else finds important?
Probably a different answer, isn't it?
Hence I was letting you off easy, and not saying what I think of you, because your sociopathy Is rather disgusting. Not that you give a damn about anyone else but yourself.
No start menu because it's not needed. Search is faster than poking through the start menu in most cases. That's my understanding of why it was removed, MS engineers haven't used it themselves since Vista.
Well, Mrs Smith down the street have to model their preferences on what Microsoft engineers think, eh?
removal of features that customers use with the smug remarks that the experts don't use them so screw you outlook is a smart move?
Search? Good. Start Menu? Hey, I've used it myself, especially on someone else's computer. Why? Because it isn't my computer, and there, at my dirty liddle fingertips is a menu based report of what is on their computer.
After all, if it's there, and you don't want to use it, no one is gonna stop you.
For Microsoft OSes, I was fine with XP. I didn't care for some of the UI changes that were done following Windows 2000, but it seemed quite stable.
You might be fine with win xp on at home (although you shouldn't) but it should have no place in proffessional environment. Windows 7 fixed some gaping security issues with XP. Here are some examples:
Note he wrote UI. The user interface. Not the underlying structure. We can make the OS as stable and secure as we like without messing with the look and feel. If Windows 8 taught us nothing else - and it has taught some nothing at all - huge changes in the user interface and system maintenance are not always appreciated nor wanted.
Isn't it sad that data center downtime is far more expensive than permanent downtime for a human being?
What's sad about it? Downtime creates downtime for other human lives too. At some point, you have to acknowledge that this is a trade off, a person assumes risk to their own lives in order to make other peoples' lives better or more productive.
The mideast called - the said you were the ideal candidate for their new landmine detection program.
If one can wrap their mind around an ever present NOW encompassing past, present, and future, then one can start to perceive the operating sphere of God.
As well as develop a sense of personal incredulity.
You are welcome of course, to your own beliefs. But really, it's only manufacturing your god in your own image. There are billions of others in this world who believe quite fervently in their version of god, and they are equally as likely to be correct as you are. People who have violent tendencies tend toward a god of violent tendencies, people who are materialistic opt for a god that rewards them with material goods. People who enjoy forcing others to do as their god demands have a tendency to have a god who justifies their conformity based aggression. And people who believe in live and let live have their version of god, but are always at risk of being eliminated by the violent god followers or not allowed to practice their faith by the everyone must conform god people.
Me? I just believe in being excellent to others. If at the end of my life, that isn't enough, well then to hell with me.
As you mock, He laughs at you, and STILL loves you, LOL. No, God is not Cuthulu, he doesn't have appendages. Myself, I don't have problem with believing in the theory of evolution and believing in God. See, God, is outside of time, and hence He sees beginning, now, and end. A second to God is a thousand years... God can use the laws of nature, He made them! So when you read Feynman's Lectures, you know what, God made those laws and He doesn't change. So, when the preacher online starts harping about science, remind him that the same God that created all also created the physical laws that allows that internet stream of his Sunday service, and that God is constant. The same physical laws apply everywhere, because God made those laws, and God doesn't change!
My parents and grandparents might accuse you of apostacy, but they would be certain that you sir, are going to hell. And that's the problem.
So whic of the thousands of Gods is the right one, and how were you lucky enough to be born to the right group that knows the right one? He doth work in mysterious ways it would seem. So you can rejoice at your good luck.
Is "besmote" etymologically related to "bespoke?"
It is derived from the early Sumerian endearment "Cacasmacked".
And he reached out towards me with his noodley appendage and ..... SLURP .... ahh well, so much for that....
Your reward of beer volcanos and fine hookers awaits you, brother. Rejoice!
I'm wondering why we are even considering this, it doesn't really help with anything...
All these clever ideas will never really allow us to do away with the two simple problems that an EV has, limited range followed by long recharge times. /p>
2002 called. They want you to get your mind out of their time.
If we were still in the golf cart era, and the laws of physicis made it impossible to have anything other than a lead acid battery, I'd agree with you 100 percent, that EV's will never work.
But what is your metric? That an EV never has to charge? The times are a-changin' mutate, and all it takes now is infrastructure.
And considering the immense, massive infrastructure that has been built for our petrofueld cars, it will be easier to build one to offer charging ports.
Perhaps much easier than drilling, building and operating pipelines,rail cars and tankers to deliver the fuel.
Not blown away by this. Stationary inductive charging already exists. it's not quite commercialized, but there are several demos going on including at Monterey-Salinas Transit and at Utah Transit. There's a company called WAVE out of Utah that is doing this. Their current system is 50 kW, but they say they're working on a 250 kW version (vaporware at this point).
In-motion inductive charging seems a bit more far fetched.
Stationary is a cakewalk by comparison. There are going to be all manner of inductive effects from a lot of cars moving over the charging inductors sorta kinda at random, but not quite always.
Most of the answers to your questions will come from... wait for it.... testing, like the summary says they're doing.
Settle down, we're learning a lot more from their doing than from your whining.
Possibly. Most of the EV issues to date have been energy density and efficiency. My concerns are more of the laws of Physics variety. Maybe we'll have to make the cars out of Mu metal?
While it certainly seems unlikely to work, if it did then it would be useful to reduce the battery capacity needed on board the vehicle. Enough batteries for 300 miles of range doesn't come cheap, and is the main reason why EVs are niche vehicles for enthusiasts rather than the standard.
So far. But improvements have been pretty steady. Not too many years ago, the idea of an EV at all was relegated to golf carts. I'm expecting in our lifetimes that petrofueled engines might become as anachronistic as hit and miss engines are today. Ot a specialty nich in their own right.
It's just too much power to transmit wirelessly. It's hard enough to charge your phone - the losses are quite bad even for that.
They are talking about 50 KW and 85 percent efficiency! That's nuts.I can't imagine anything near that in real life. But 50 KW a couple inches below my sorry butt is not a tempting thought. I'm seeing RFI problems, Magnetization and other induction issues in places they don't want it. I wonder about pacemakers or insulin pumps as well. I wonder if there will even be diamagnetic effects as well. I've got titanium in my ankles. Problem is, at thos power levels and those distances, weird stuff sometimes happens.
To get any sort of efficiency the charging AC is going to have to be pretty high in frequency as well. I'm smelling a lot of RFI.
I loves me my EV's, but this sounds like something right up there with Broadband over Power Line, and Smartphone service right by the GPS frequencies.
God knows.
Leave the Flying Spaghetti Monster out of this, lest ye be smote by his noodly appendage.
"In addition, any second or third world country undertaking a nuc energy project is going to come under intense scrutiny."
China is more than willing to sell anyone a civil nuclear plant, complete with the security systems and staff required to run it.
Umm, the scrutiny won't be coming from them, but countries who don't want them processing the spent fuel for you know, explodey stuff.
But the McMansion/Farmer's field housing development group has become a slave to what they have been taught is the desirable way to live.
Thank you for assuming that people can't figure out for themselves where they want to live, and for shining the light on their illusory happiness! It doesn't make you look like a pompous ass or anything. Honest!
People do have a tendency to be a bit sheeplike regarding housing.
Odds are the Air Force intends to use the F-22 or (if it ever actually flies) F-35 to escort these new bombers,
I think the new bomber will be there to protect the F-35.
Like the F-35's that nobody wanted
These kind of bleeding edge technologies will feature in the next top fighter aircraft. Its not all waste you see . These are more like technology demonstrators .
That's some serious revisionist history you tried to pull off on the one size fits all mess the F-35 has become.
Zoning and developers followed the desires of our parents and grandparents.
Don't forget the desires of real estate developers.
But just like urban areas have issues, so do suburbs - especially ones way out of town.
Don't get me wrong - I live in a suburb, but I am within walking distance of hardware stores, shopping centers spirits stores, eateries and all the other niceties.
But people have been hypnotized to the idea of suburbia, and there are people living 30 miles outside of town in what used to be farmer's fields. Dunno about those folks, but that McMansion sitting on the south 40 with nary a tree in the yard, along with 20 other McMansions is pretty gloomy looking.
So here we have a 45 minute trek to work and a little longer going back home, Rinse and repeat the process if you want to go to a movie or out to dinner, or shopping.
Now if you want to live in the country, and have a country lifestyle, that's pretty good. But the McMansion/Farmer's field housing development group has become a slave to what they have been taught is the desirable way to live.
You may not like cars but they were seen as the embodiment of freedom for your ancestors - go anywhere you want, quickly, and on your own schedule.
As noted above, it's a good thing they love their cars, because they spend a lot of time in them.
The parts of cities that didn't support that attitude languished (inner cities) and areas that did flourished (suburbs).
TLDR: Infrastructure conformed to the culture.
And there you have hit on the biggest, maybe best reason for the urban exodus. That infrastructure. A lot of those earlier urban spaces were built in a different time, for a different group. Walkups must be torture for older folk, and as some of the folk moved to the suburbs, less desirable elements moved in.
And of course, the desire of some to make sure they weren't around people who weren't "like us".
Side note: it was a real shock and embarrassment when a local development of around WW2 era was found to have covenants against ownership of property by blacks. A different and nasty-ass time if you ask me.
But now, with the suburbs undergoing the exact same decay as the urban areas did, the "gentrification" process is happening to many urban areas. And with more and more people moving to urban areas, something needs to be done about the automobiles. It is an expensive and often frustrating effort owning one in many cities. The real estate they take up when not in use is very expensive.
Times change, and when a freedom becomes a yoke, it might be time.
I would think even in Alabama an all-electric dune buggy with 5-foot wheels would stand out a bit.
Yeah - they don't hanker to that commie electrical powered vehicle shit.
And now they are putting Big Gulps and Twinkies into obese teenagers. http://www.businessinsider.com...
given that one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of coal or solar power plants
No, that's not "given", you idiot. You can't just make shit up and then claim it's "given". Do even some basic research.
If some basic research is performed, how can he make shit up? Some of the pro-nuc crowd are much worse idiots than the anti-nuc crowd.
Here is a solar power plant capable of only 11.4MW (that was state of the art in 2006, the largest solar plant 9 years ago).
Much of the objection to so called alternative energy sources are made using old data. I don't think the proponents of Nuc power realize the disservice they do to the industry. All of those things that make a nuc plant, a nuc plant, make for issues. The incredible energy density, the radiation's effects on materials, all kinds of stuff that makes nuc plants take a long time to build, and really expensive to build.
In addition, any second or third world country undertaking a nuc energy project is going to come under intense scrutiny. And that really takes the bloom off the rose.
As well, the technology in a solar plant like this is not such that little problems become real big problems in short order. Fukushima for example would have been no huge deal if the cooling water could have been restored. Power goes out, the mirrors lock up, and the mirrors reflections eventually move off the heating vessel, the biggest issues will be rerouting airplanes in that event No doubt there's emergency power for that anyway.
Scalability is quick and really easy by comparison.
A sunny desert, lots of empty real estate, seems like a pretty natural place to put a solar power generating station. There are places where I would heartily recommend a nuc reactor. Morocco is not one of them.
All of the people that I know that are into guns are also into drones. They also are against people using drones to spy on other people and invade other people's property, and are also against weaponized drones.
Sounds like they are tools of thr jack-booted thugs if you ask me. Taking a person's weaponized drone away is merely the first step into taking away all citizens guns. As soon as you give gun control liberas one inch, they'll want a mile. We have a second amendment right to them. Just because it's a drone, doesn't mean that my rights as a law abiding citizen are abridged.
If a handicapped hunter can shoot from an auto, or via the internet, or a drone, you have the same thing.
Problem is, people will read: I can shoot down a drone now, and they will use other things than a shotgun because they are dumb idiots
One of the strangest things I've found is that the most passionate gun lovers I know, all think that drones should be banned.
I'd love a discussion on the second amendment aspects of weaponized personal drones. Do we have the right to use a drone only as long as we have afirearm attached to it?
Is not allowing weaponized drones an example of the federal government and anti-gun forces interfering in our rights?