Given all the shitty Perl, Python, C#/VB.NET, Ruby and Java code I've seen out there... I'd have to say, hate the developers that made that crap code, and not the language. Any developer can make crap code in any language. Some languages make it easier (Perl, Ruby and Python come to mind VERY quickly), but that certainly doesn't make them bad languages.
I... would not use ASP, I'd use PHP before ASP, and Python before that.
One of the advantages of python, is that, with mod_wsgi, it's very fast.
Actually, what I'm working on is, a mod_wsgi handler in apache, that sends the request to a back-end server, originally written in python, but now I'm switching to C# (still no ASP). Although there are ASP Modules for Apache/mono, I belive mod_wsgi has much more thorough testing, and will therefore be a better-cross-platform solution.
In the end, answer these three questions:
1) What platforms are you most comfortable with? Rank them. 2) What platforms have the best modules/libraries for what you want to do? Rank them. 3) What platforms have the best performance? Rank them.
Now, given the rankings on 1-3, which platform is best for you? Nobody can answer this but you. Without knowing the details of what you want, we really can provide advice on #2 and #3.
And yes, application/situation does matter, as you stated. With a river that is flowing to the sea, without going through any lakes or other bodies of slow moving water before hand, and not far from the sea, your impact will be relatively low. Likewise for putting water into the sea directly.
I've stated a few times around this article - in general, this isn't likely to cause a problem, the water source (effectively the upper layers of the ocean) is big enough to take it, and could easily withstand increased outer-edge food-web critter growth, unlike a like, where that could be an issue. The environmental concerns are justified for some cases, but I seriously doubt this is one where there will be a negative impact. Actually, with my (admittedly high level, lacking specifics) knowledge of the topic, I think this will actually help the ecosystem in the area*.
*by help, I mean increase the overall flora AND fauna native to the area, and not "keep it in a 'natural' state".
The problem with the thermocline-swapping idea, is you enlarge the warm thermocline, and shrink the cool one. Even then, you are probably going to change the temp of the thermocline you insert the water into, or create a new thermocline. I forgot that word. A change in the mid ranges isn't so bad, it's at the extremes, say the warmer part of summer, where you are going to see most of the issues, which could have lasting consequences for the year (or even decade).
I don't need a smart phone, but it's value to me is well worth the data plan cost. I am severely nearsighted, and the main reason I got the smart phone was for quick and easy access to my municipalities bus tracking software. It is wonderful for when I have to deal with a route that is very time-inconsistent and runs very infrequently (such as the one that goes by my office).
Just because someone who doesn't need or get much use out of a smart phone, doesn't need or get much use out of a smart phone, doesn't mean everyone is in that situation.
yes, I'm sure. Except for particularly fast rivers, air moves/dissipates much faster than water. More than enough to offset the issues.
Water: 4.2 kj/kg C Air: 1 kj/kg C That's about a factor of 4
From 0 to 30C, the range we are interested in, water has a viscosity of: Fluid & Dynamic: 1.8 to 0.8, (10^-3 kg/m s for dynamic, m^2/s for kinematic)
For Air dynamic: ~1.9-2.1 (10^-5 kg/m s) kinematic: 13.5-16.6 (10^-6 m^2/s)
Using some ballpark estimates that I've learned from some astronomers and chemists, you are going to see about 100x the motion in air than in water if dynamic is the number we want, and 7-20x if kinematic is what we want - either way that's a lot more than the 4x air would need to 'match' water.
Of course, there's also conductivity which come into play, where water will win hands down, mitigating the above difference - so it comes down to heat exchange surface area and the volume of what you are dumping the heat into.
Many bodies of water have zones/regions that do not mix, especially bodies where the water moves at a rate that is slow compared to it's depth. For example, Lake Eerie has 2-3 zones based on depth, each having radically different temperatures, the Atlantic is similar, but with "rivers" flowing through it as well. This means the effected volume of water is often quite a bit smaller than the whole lake.
The people in charge of designing and running the plants are not the problem. I've known a lot of people in that field. Very smart, very thoughtful.
The problem is the politicians who make the decisions don't have a fucking clue. They then decide to cut budgets, put things in bad locations, etc. The people designing, building and running them don't have the options or resources available to alleviate the issues. They can write reports and make suggestions, but the politicians and bureaucrats tend to ignore these.
Put a plant away from any place that's got an active fault line, and at least 20km from an ocean (with some adjustment for altitude), and you shouldn't have a problem. A modern plant least has triple redundancy and safety features that quash the reaction is they lose power (or are told to do so).
The potential issue, is ciruclation. Air moves around a lot, so you have to pump a lot of heat into it to have a noticeable effect.
Depending on the location (usually lakes with relatively low in/out flow compared to volume), water moves around rather slowly, and it takes a lot less heat input to have a huge environmental impact.
I suspect, provided they don't open a lot more of these cooling centers, the extra heat being dispersed might even have a positive impact.
Avoiding the problem of hot water in the Fjord can be done even with GW heat sources by using a combination of holding dams and distributed outlet pipes - that's the sort of thing that's done with nuclear power plants on rivers. The "passive heat exchangers" would be cooling towers,
With those dams and outlet pipes, is there a heat transfer to the surrounding environment, particularly air? Yes - you have your heat exchange. Is there a high energy mechanism (fan, pump, etc) set up to increase the transfer rate? No - you have passive.
I have an environmentalist friend who knows one. I consider the guy to be a bit on the extreme side, and a bit dumb about it, but when someone he knows is 'too extremist', you know they have issues.
I think most environmentalists are more rational than you are describing. Yes, there are a few loudmouth, as there are in any politically or socially charged group, but those are the outliers. Also, most environmentalists I know avoid those EVs and tend to stick to smaller cars instead. The EVs target the people who like to think they are helping the environment, and want to have a showpiece to say for it.
Being economically competitive tends to mean being one of the more profitable options - the problem with this, is it takes a lot more work to minimize negative environmental impact (notice, I said negative, not all). That's one of the reasons many environmental groups try to get laws passed to tax or otherwise reduce the economic viability of things that do have negative impact - without this, the environmentally friendly options will very rarely be economically competitive. The way I see it - I'd rather have a world that is habitable than a world with more extremely wealthy people and a few extra luxury goods on the market. By the time the general public are willing to make a change with their wallets rather than legal code, it will be too late, it is the "someone else can do it" mentality that so motivates the human race.
That being said, so long as the temperature increase in the fjord and nearby sea isn't increased to the point that native flora/fauna is killed - and with this level of cooling, it likely will be fine. The heating should actually improve the biota of the fjord, provided there is sufficient water movement to keep the water column oxygenated properly, and to keep the algae within the fjord from getting too high. Again, from a brief reading, I doubt the latter two would be a serious problem.
But if you hit the 'home' button, which usually takes you to the apps, are you? I am pretty sure I've done that with both my Android phones and my Windows Phone 7 phone...
Yeah, unless the spammers figure out how to turn the 10-20% of the population who aren't sheeple into sheeple, #5 isn't coming true, at least not for the whole population.
What about #2, was I the only one who winced, reading that?
Similar here. I don't think there was ANYONE in my grade at my HS that I would go out of my way to see, and very few I wouldn't object to seeing again. The few people I would go out of my way to see, I found on sites like facebook, however, being in different grades, they wouldn't be at my reunion anyway.
A project focuses on making a new desktop environment based on a GUI toolkit used by one of the major desktop environments, but with the aim to be lightweight...
And they are calling it a KDE ripoff? Shouldn't it be an XFCE ripoff?
Yes. Simply put, I'm more confident in the 3.x Firefox being more secure on average, than Chrome, I'm not confident in the abilities of the Chrome devs.
And the newer versions of Firefox, I just can't stand the UI. With careful browsing habits, 3.x Firefox is secure enough.
Actually, I still use an older version of Firefox. The "MeTo ChromeAlike" interface of the newer versions annoys the hell out of me. It's still faster than any version of IE I can use with current rules by my employer. Never cared for the Opera or Chrome interfaces, and I don't trust Chrome for security...
So, maybe it isn't that I stopped using Firefox, so much as that I haven't bothered upgrading. Firefox 4+ versions have been kindof like Windows ME or Vista, IMO.
do you mean 1.3Ghz? That phone comes with a 1Ghz processor from all I've read. I'm not sure I've every heard of a 430% overclock without liquid nitrogen or something similar. I would expect at 4.3Ghz you'd have a few minutes of batter life, and your face would combust when you make a call, if you don't use a bluetooth headset.
You may need corporate backing to advance the project particularly far, and get some high quality polishing done, however OSS can still add a lot of developer effort. It's not a cure-all, but it can be a nice assist depending on the project.
Slashdot Mirror
Given all the shitty Perl, Python, C#/VB.NET, Ruby and Java code I've seen out there... I'd have to say, hate the developers that made that crap code, and not the language. Any developer can make crap code in any language. Some languages make it easier (Perl, Ruby and Python come to mind VERY quickly), but that certainly doesn't make them bad languages.
I... would not use ASP, I'd use PHP before ASP, and Python before that.
One of the advantages of python, is that, with mod_wsgi, it's very fast.
Actually, what I'm working on is, a mod_wsgi handler in apache, that sends the request to a back-end server, originally written in python, but now I'm switching to C# (still no ASP). Although there are ASP Modules for Apache/mono, I belive mod_wsgi has much more thorough testing, and will therefore be a better-cross-platform solution.
In the end, answer these three questions:
1) What platforms are you most comfortable with? Rank them.
2) What platforms have the best modules/libraries for what you want to do? Rank them.
3) What platforms have the best performance? Rank them.
Now, given the rankings on 1-3, which platform is best for you? Nobody can answer this but you. Without knowing the details of what you want, we really can provide advice on #2 and #3.
And yes, application/situation does matter, as you stated. With a river that is flowing to the sea, without going through any lakes or other bodies of slow moving water before hand, and not far from the sea, your impact will be relatively low. Likewise for putting water into the sea directly.
I've stated a few times around this article - in general, this isn't likely to cause a problem, the water source (effectively the upper layers of the ocean) is big enough to take it, and could easily withstand increased outer-edge food-web critter growth, unlike a like, where that could be an issue. The environmental concerns are justified for some cases, but I seriously doubt this is one where there will be a negative impact. Actually, with my (admittedly high level, lacking specifics) knowledge of the topic, I think this will actually help the ecosystem in the area*.
*by help, I mean increase the overall flora AND fauna native to the area, and not "keep it in a 'natural' state".
The problem with the thermocline-swapping idea, is you enlarge the warm thermocline, and shrink the cool one. Even then, you are probably going to change the temp of the thermocline you insert the water into, or create a new thermocline. I forgot that word. A change in the mid ranges isn't so bad, it's at the extremes, say the warmer part of summer, where you are going to see most of the issues, which could have lasting consequences for the year (or even decade).
get some willpower.
It's very easy to not check your work email when you have a smart phone. I don't check mine with it all the time!
If you pay for it, It's a tool, not a leash. Unless your employer is paying for it use it for the purposes that make your life better.
Yeah, no kidding.
For the counter point of view...
I don't need a smart phone, but it's value to me is well worth the data plan cost. I am severely nearsighted, and the main reason I got the smart phone was for quick and easy access to my municipalities bus tracking software. It is wonderful for when I have to deal with a route that is very time-inconsistent and runs very infrequently (such as the one that goes by my office).
Just because someone who doesn't need or get much use out of a smart phone, doesn't need or get much use out of a smart phone, doesn't mean everyone is in that situation.
yes, I'm sure. Except for particularly fast rivers, air moves/dissipates much faster than water. More than enough to offset the issues.
Water: 4.2 kj/kg C
Air: 1 kj/kg C
That's about a factor of 4
From 0 to 30C, the range we are interested in, water has a viscosity of:
Fluid & Dynamic: 1.8 to 0.8, (10^-3 kg/m s for dynamic, m^2/s for kinematic)
For Air
dynamic: ~1.9-2.1 (10^-5 kg/m s)
kinematic: 13.5-16.6 (10^-6 m^2/s)
Using some ballpark estimates that I've learned from some astronomers and chemists, you are going to see about 100x the motion in air than in water if dynamic is the number we want, and 7-20x if kinematic is what we want - either way that's a lot more than the 4x air would need to 'match' water.
Of course, there's also conductivity which come into play, where water will win hands down, mitigating the above difference - so it comes down to heat exchange surface area and the volume of what you are dumping the heat into.
Many bodies of water have zones/regions that do not mix, especially bodies where the water moves at a rate that is slow compared to it's depth. For example, Lake Eerie has 2-3 zones based on depth, each having radically different temperatures, the Atlantic is similar, but with "rivers" flowing through it as well. This means the effected volume of water is often quite a bit smaller than the whole lake.
So, what you are saying, is that these things the person I was replying to was referring to as not passive, are actually more passive.
Thanks for agreeing with me!
The people in charge of designing and running the plants are not the problem. I've known a lot of people in that field. Very smart, very thoughtful.
The problem is the politicians who make the decisions don't have a fucking clue. They then decide to cut budgets, put things in bad locations, etc. The people designing, building and running them don't have the options or resources available to alleviate the issues. They can write reports and make suggestions, but the politicians and bureaucrats tend to ignore these.
Put a plant away from any place that's got an active fault line, and at least 20km from an ocean (with some adjustment for altitude), and you shouldn't have a problem. A modern plant least has triple redundancy and safety features that quash the reaction is they lose power (or are told to do so).
The potential issue, is ciruclation. Air moves around a lot, so you have to pump a lot of heat into it to have a noticeable effect.
Depending on the location (usually lakes with relatively low in/out flow compared to volume), water moves around rather slowly, and it takes a lot less heat input to have a huge environmental impact.
I suspect, provided they don't open a lot more of these cooling centers, the extra heat being dispersed might even have a positive impact.
With those dams and outlet pipes, is there a heat transfer to the surrounding environment, particularly air? Yes - you have your heat exchange.
Is there a high energy mechanism (fan, pump, etc) set up to increase the transfer rate? No - you have passive.
That's a form of passive heat exchange.
I have an environmentalist friend who knows one. I consider the guy to be a bit on the extreme side, and a bit dumb about it, but when someone he knows is 'too extremist', you know they have issues.
I think most environmentalists are more rational than you are describing. Yes, there are a few loudmouth, as there are in any politically or socially charged group, but those are the outliers. Also, most environmentalists I know avoid those EVs and tend to stick to smaller cars instead. The EVs target the people who like to think they are helping the environment, and want to have a showpiece to say for it.
Being economically competitive tends to mean being one of the more profitable options - the problem with this, is it takes a lot more work to minimize negative environmental impact (notice, I said negative, not all). That's one of the reasons many environmental groups try to get laws passed to tax or otherwise reduce the economic viability of things that do have negative impact - without this, the environmentally friendly options will very rarely be economically competitive. The way I see it - I'd rather have a world that is habitable than a world with more extremely wealthy people and a few extra luxury goods on the market. By the time the general public are willing to make a change with their wallets rather than legal code, it will be too late, it is the "someone else can do it" mentality that so motivates the human race.
That being said, so long as the temperature increase in the fjord and nearby sea isn't increased to the point that native flora/fauna is killed - and with this level of cooling, it likely will be fine. The heating should actually improve the biota of the fjord, provided there is sufficient water movement to keep the water column oxygenated properly, and to keep the algae within the fjord from getting too high. Again, from a brief reading, I doubt the latter two would be a serious problem.
But if you hit the 'home' button, which usually takes you to the apps, are you? I am pretty sure I've done that with both my Android phones and my Windows Phone 7 phone...
Yeah, unless the spammers figure out how to turn the 10-20% of the population who aren't sheeple into sheeple, #5 isn't coming true, at least not for the whole population.
What about #2, was I the only one who winced, reading that?
Is there any where in the world where it isn't, in practice, permitted.
As long as you aren't caught by the right people, go for it!
Similar here. I don't think there was ANYONE in my grade at my HS that I would go out of my way to see, and very few I wouldn't object to seeing again. The few people I would go out of my way to see, I found on sites like facebook, however, being in different grades, they wouldn't be at my reunion anyway.
My complaint about that is that...
A project focuses on making a new desktop environment based on a GUI toolkit used by one of the major desktop environments, but with the aim to be lightweight...
And they are calling it a KDE ripoff? Shouldn't it be an XFCE ripoff?
Yes. Simply put, I'm more confident in the 3.x Firefox being more secure on average, than Chrome, I'm not confident in the abilities of the Chrome devs.
And the newer versions of Firefox, I just can't stand the UI. With careful browsing habits, 3.x Firefox is secure enough.
I didn't know you could do that. I'll have to consider upgrading.
Agreed.
Actually, I still use an older version of Firefox. The "MeTo ChromeAlike" interface of the newer versions annoys the hell out of me. It's still faster than any version of IE I can use with current rules by my employer. Never cared for the Opera or Chrome interfaces, and I don't trust Chrome for security...
So, maybe it isn't that I stopped using Firefox, so much as that I haven't bothered upgrading. Firefox 4+ versions have been kindof like Windows ME or Vista, IMO.
doesn't that logic actually suggest that everyone should go naked unless absolutely necessary for for temperature reasons?
In my experience, woman that use more than a minimal amount, tend to look worse. Makeup in almost all cases is *way* too obvious.
It does tell me something of their thought processes, so I'm not too bothered. it's a useful metric.
do you mean 1.3Ghz? That phone comes with a 1Ghz processor from all I've read. I'm not sure I've every heard of a 430% overclock without liquid nitrogen or something similar. I would expect at 4.3Ghz you'd have a few minutes of batter life, and your face would combust when you make a call, if you don't use a bluetooth headset.
You may need corporate backing to advance the project particularly far, and get some high quality polishing done, however OSS can still add a lot of developer effort. It's not a cure-all, but it can be a nice assist depending on the project.