I see a lot of people justifying the worth of this port. Some people say it's "sticking it to Microsoft". Others say it creates well needed negative publicity for DRM. But I'm not seeing a lot of people talking about the obvious benefit: MORE VALUE FOR THE CONSUMER!
Imagine a CD from AOL with Mozilla on it. The only instructions required are "Insert this disc into your X-Box". The CD connects to AOL automatically. You enter a unique code (perhaps printed on the CD sleeve) and the login process is completed. In under a minute you're sending and receiving email and browsing the web. Text entry could be via an on-screen "virtual keyboard" or a USB keyboard with an appropriate dongle.
Don't like the ISP idea? How about a Logitech USB keyboard bundled with a complete office suite on an X-Box disc. Automatic bootstrap straight into OpenOffice. Files are saved to the conveniently included hard disk. Logitech can bundle appropriate dongles to connect their USB keyboard and a USB printer to the Microsoft-USB ports. Home users who can't afford (or don't want) a PC can still reap the benefits of a word processor at home.
This is a huge opportunity for companies to to reach a wider audience. Linux is irrelevant. What is relevant is APPLICATIONS and a closed well-defined system that can run them. If you only think of an X-Box as a games console then you're not going to be convinced. If you think of it as a cheap computer with a hard disk and broadband connection that millions of people have in their homes, then you'll understand that Linux/X-Box really is important.
So, as near as I can tell, $350 > $150, therefore MS loses more money when an XBOX isn't sold.
This assumes that all the X-Box units have already been made and are stored in a warehouse somewhere.
The more likely scenario is that Microsoft built a few 1000 extra units and builds more as stock is sold. So let's assume 1000 units are sitting unsold in a warehouse. That is $350,000 in stock. Nobody buying another X-Box therefore costs Microsoft $350,000. But if 3000 people buy an X-Box and Microsoft achieves a best case scenario of having no stock left then Microsoft loses $450,000.
The 1000 units in stock number is a fictional guess, but the thought process illustrates that your logic is flawed.
Re: most dangerous people....
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
Pfft, I'm not talking about conspiracy theories involving the stone masons and black stealth helicopters piloted by alien-human hybrids. I'm talking about public scrutiny. Public figures are subjected to public scrutiny but the CEO of a powerful company is relatively unregulated.
The CEO can order a 1000 people out of a job by shutting down a factory, leading to misery and poverty for 10s of 1000s. The president is always fully aware his actions are scrutinised by people who'd like nothing better than to publicise his faults.
I belive you ommitted the absolutely horrific conversion loses in a battery -- both charging and depleting.
Good spotting. Lead-acid batteries lose 20% of what was put in. So the losses are 50% to the plant, 5% for transmission, 20% for storage and 5% for the motor. This brings a total efficiency from fuel to wheel of 32.3%. Still better than a conventional car.
I also missed the comparitive energy costs of transporting and storing gasoline for an ICE. I also missed transmission (aka gearbox) losses which might not even apply to an EV. I'm certain there are many factors that I've missed. I wish I was an expert but I'm not.
But at least we can dispute the figures instead of disputing each other!
The anonymous coward - while rude - said exactly what I was thinking only much more concisely. There's no truth to your claim here
Not only that, but there is a lot of energy lost in moving the electricity from the plant to your car, and then also in storage in the batteries. It is much more efficient to create the energy in the car, when you need it. So, you are actually burning MORE fossils per mile with an electric car than with a standard internal combustion engine.
Absolute nonsense. Electrical transmission
loss is 6-7%. Modern gas-fired plants are 50% efficient. Diesel engines are 35% efficient for a hybrid (and even worse for a conventional car). Even with these rough figures you should see how nonsensical your claim is.
Detailed figures here.
It's generally accepted that electrical vehicles
use ONE HALF the fossil fuels of conventional
vehicles for the same distance travelled. This is all before you get into the cost argument: an EVs running costs are ONE THIRD of an ICE.
ahem. What is your magic sunlight to electricity converter?
If it is the current generation of solar cells, I hate to burst your bubble, but making those cells involves a great deal of dirty chemistry and results in a great deal of toxic material when the process is finished.
You'd have to be very ignorant to think that modern solar plants have ANYTHING to do with solar cells! Large-scale solar plants heat up
water or air to drive turbines.
I call foul on your figures first. Emission
levels are here.
The carbon emissions for a modern coal-fired plant are 263gC/kWh. You are claiming 920gC/kWh. To compare, an oil-fired plant is 213gC/kWh and a gas-fired plant is 113gC/kWh! This is one THIRD of the Mazda 626's 350gC/kWh. I expect there's a mistake in your calculations.
But the problems in your argument aren't over. You're comparing coal-fired power plants against an oil-fueled 626! Coal is a poor alternative to oil. Energy densities
here.
Coal is at best 31MJ/kg. Oil is at worst 41MJ/kg. Gasoline in your 626 is 45MJ/kg. These
energy densities influence CO2
emissions. To use a tired cliche, you're
comparing apples and oranges.
Also I call foul with your conclusion. You only
compared CO2 emissions per kWh and then concluded
that the EV1 has better mileage!? If you want to
compare mileage then you need to use the same
fuels in the two cars and the plant and concentrate on the miles travelled!
But let's do some napkin calculations to get a feeling for "mileage". The electrical transport cost of overhead powerlines is less than 10%. Motors are 95% efficient. The best gas-fired plants are now exceeding 50% efficiency. So the fuel->wheel efficiency is 43%. Even the most efficient diesel generators as used on hybrids are less than 40% efficient. Cars range between 25% and 35% with petrol. So the plants use fuel more efficiently and therefore have the better
"mileage".
We can also do some napkin calculations for cost. Cost calculator here.
A car will typically cost 3x more per kWh than the plant. This is because plants get huge economies of scale and use much cheaper fuels.
Cost alone proves nothing but combined with my
previous arguments it proves that purely electric
vehicles - not hybrids - are the best choice.
Re:Well, I guess that's how Fascism takes root....
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
The most dangerous people are never in the public eye. The most dangerous people are people you've never heard of and never will hear of.
If we'll never hear of them, then I have to ask... where did you hear of them?
Don't be silly. I've never heard of them either. That's what makes them so dangerous!
Re:Well, I guess that's how Fascism takes root....
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
The most dangerous people in the USA right now are Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, not Mr. Bush.
The most dangerous people are never in the public eye. The most dangerous people are people you've never heard of and never will hear of.
Are you serious? ESD is an extremely serious threat. You can't possibly think of setting up a commercial assembly line for electronics and not worry about things like anti-static wriststraps. Serious places install expensive conductive flooring just to mitigate the buildup from walking around.
Useful advice.
Why are you asking Slashdot about this? Ask people who know about this.
But why did you throw this gratuitous barb in at the end? Of the 11 comments rated 3 or above, more than half give the same advice: ESD is very real and failures won't be immediate.
Besides, when you're at a concert, you don't sit in the middle of the stage, so the only source of sound is from the front. That would mean that there is exactly no point in recording surround-sound audio CDs. It's a marketing measure, if anything.
What a load of tripe. When you sit in a concert - and I mean a real concert - you hear echoes from every direction. The music most definitely does surround you. This is despite best efforts to dampen echoes with angled walls and ceilings. It still echoes. You still get a unique audio characteristic from the room.
And if you don't believe this then why does an open air concert sound different to a hall concert, and different again to chamber music, and different again to studio music. The room plays a huge part in "processing" the source.
If you are lucky enough to have a concert hall and a cathedral and a studio with a hifi in each then perhaps stereo is sufficient. The rest of us need a processor and multiple speakers to give us the illusion of multiple environments because we can only afford one room and one hifi.
You're the "network manager for a large business park" and you don't know how to do this? I suggest you go to your boss right now and tell him to fire you.
Why is this moderated funny? I can't imagine how screwed up the system is that allowed this person to be network manager when he doesn't even know how to transition a subnet. And he's asking for help on/. of all places!
Tea tastes good. It's good for you. It keeps you alert. Drinkable with or without milk and with or without sugar. Low cost. Socially acceptable in all circles. No plastic wastage. Drink it icy cold in summer or piping hot in winter.
Why waste money on carbonated sugar water? Sure, Coca-Cola and Mountain Dew can be nice once in a while. But if you need copious quantities of a tasty drink then tea is the answer.
Your arrogance is unbelievable. People who watch the "boob tube" are all "proles". You are a "better" person with a "better" life. TV is "crap". In fact, it's nothing but "corporate intersts" [sic]. We should all "Boycot" [sic] TV to avoid the "mindless dribble".
The most incredible aspect of your behaviour is that you feel the need to evangelize! It's as if you've found religion.
If..and that's a big flippin' if...this was the level of quality of tv and IF it was done in moderation, I'll agree. But first, it's not. It's not even close.
Then that's a problem with the person, not with the TV. Blaming TV for over-indulgence is like blaming cheeseburgers for making people fat. The person has the opportunity to watch quality material. If they choose not to then that's their own decision.
Television isn't nearly so helpful, its harmful, demonstrably so, both in wasted time and the indoctrination it metes out, just to name two.
I can only imagine you think that the halfwit slob who sits in front of mindless drek would be an Einstein if they just turned off the TV. This is a false hope. They'd be a halfwit slob whether they watched TV or not. Turning the TV off will not turn an idiot into an Einstein, or the lazy slob into a productive person.
No, you haven't made your point. Heck, you haven't even outlined one.
What is this? Counter-argument by assertion? Is this something you learnt while not watching TV?
If someone is exceptionally good at stacking cards, it doesn't make me a fool for not watching him do it. Similarly, just because there is really great writing on TV doesn't change the fact that you're sitting there, doing nothing, being hand-fed the whole thing. In books the imagination is stimulated. Games can teach logic. Group activities teach teamwork. But TV just entertains. At the very *best* it is a surrogate for your own life, actually going out and doing things.
So when you watch Taxi Driver you're not thinking of the implications of the movie? You're not thinking that Travis - for all his faults - was a victim of circumstance just as much as a victim of his own prejudice? You're not concerned about the ending of the movie, where his villainous character is worshipped in the media? You're not even THINKING about this stuff?
My TV has classical concerts, plays, dance, ballet, movies, documentaries, science programs, political satire, etc. Are you saying that none of this makes you think? That none of this is worth your time? That none of this can teach you something?
I say the problem isn't with the TV. It's with the content you watch. Or it's with you.
Better yet, burn your TV? Think that's crazy? You've just made my point.
You could sell it. Or donate it to your local charity.
I don't. And I haven't found my life in any way worse off. In many ways, I have found life without TV a big improvement, in that I can now think.
www.tvturnoff.org is a good place to start if your interested in unplugging from the Plug in Drug.
I saw a recent comment to the effect that "once-were-TV-watchers" are so proud that they've turned the TV off. It's as if they think it's a huge achievement that puts them above the common man.
I don't see the sense, myself. It's like being proud of no longer reading books, or no longer listening to music, or no longer going out to restaurants or movies. I like watching movies or BackBerner or John Saffron's Musical Jamboree on the TV. Why should I stop?
Damn right, because in large projects it meant 100s of pages of acknowledgements. It's called the "offensive advertising clause" and RMS was wise to explicitly exclude it from the GPL.
If you want your ugly mug plastered over every derivative work then write your own damn license. Don't blame RMS because you're too lazy to figure out what you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to China.
USA is socialist, not capitalist.
After reading the article I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. Did the timeline basically go:
1. Shareware author writes yet another fucking editor.
2. Nobody likes it.
3. Tucows tells him to go stick it.
4. Shareware author stops selling editor
Is that it? What's the problem? Not enough free editors to choose from? You need to hand over money for buggy and unpopular editors as well?
I see a lot of people justifying the worth of this port. Some people say it's "sticking it to Microsoft". Others say it creates well needed negative publicity for DRM. But I'm not seeing a lot of people talking about the obvious benefit: MORE VALUE FOR THE CONSUMER!
Imagine a CD from AOL with Mozilla on it. The only instructions required are "Insert this disc into your X-Box". The CD connects to AOL automatically. You enter a unique code (perhaps printed on the CD sleeve) and the login process is completed. In under a minute you're sending and receiving email and browsing the web. Text entry could be via an on-screen "virtual keyboard" or a USB keyboard with an appropriate dongle.
Don't like the ISP idea? How about a Logitech USB keyboard bundled with a complete office suite on an X-Box disc. Automatic bootstrap straight into OpenOffice. Files are saved to the conveniently included hard disk. Logitech can bundle appropriate dongles to connect their USB keyboard and a USB printer to the Microsoft-USB ports. Home users who can't afford (or don't want) a PC can still reap the benefits of a word processor at home.
This is a huge opportunity for companies to to reach a wider audience. Linux is irrelevant. What is relevant is APPLICATIONS and a closed well-defined system that can run them. If you only think of an X-Box as a games console then you're not going to be convinced. If you think of it as a cheap computer with a hard disk and broadband connection that millions of people have in their homes, then you'll understand that Linux/X-Box really is important.
It seems I've been told this a 1000 times...
This assumes that all the X-Box units have already been made and are stored in a warehouse somewhere.
The more likely scenario is that Microsoft built a few 1000 extra units and builds more as stock is sold. So let's assume 1000 units are sitting unsold in a warehouse. That is $350,000 in stock. Nobody buying another X-Box therefore costs Microsoft $350,000. But if 3000 people buy an X-Box and Microsoft achieves a best case scenario of having no stock left then Microsoft loses $450,000.
The 1000 units in stock number is a fictional guess, but the thought process illustrates that your logic is flawed.
Pfft, I'm not talking about conspiracy theories involving the stone masons and black stealth helicopters piloted by alien-human hybrids. I'm talking about public scrutiny. Public figures are subjected to public scrutiny but the CEO of a powerful company is relatively unregulated.
The CEO can order a 1000 people out of a job by shutting down a factory, leading to misery and poverty for 10s of 1000s. The president is always fully aware his actions are scrutinised by people who'd like nothing better than to publicise his faults.
Good spotting. Lead-acid batteries lose 20% of what was put in. So the losses are 50% to the plant, 5% for transmission, 20% for storage and 5% for the motor. This brings a total efficiency from fuel to wheel of 32.3%. Still better than a conventional car.
I also missed the comparitive energy costs of transporting and storing gasoline for an ICE. I also missed transmission (aka gearbox) losses which might not even apply to an EV. I'm certain there are many factors that I've missed. I wish I was an expert but I'm not.
But at least we can dispute the figures instead of disputing each other!
The anonymous coward - while rude - said exactly what I was thinking only much more concisely. There's no truth to your claim here
Absolute nonsense. Electrical transmission loss is 6-7%. Modern gas-fired plants are 50% efficient. Diesel engines are 35% efficient for a hybrid (and even worse for a conventional car). Even with these rough figures you should see how nonsensical your claim is.
Detailed figures here. It's generally accepted that electrical vehicles use ONE HALF the fossil fuels of conventional vehicles for the same distance travelled. This is all before you get into the cost argument: an EVs running costs are ONE THIRD of an ICE.
You'd have to be very ignorant to think that modern solar plants have ANYTHING to do with solar cells! Large-scale solar plants heat up water or air to drive turbines.
Uhh, I call foul to your claims.
I call foul on your figures first. Emission levels are here. The carbon emissions for a modern coal-fired plant are 263gC/kWh. You are claiming 920gC/kWh. To compare, an oil-fired plant is 213gC/kWh and a gas-fired plant is 113gC/kWh! This is one THIRD of the Mazda 626's 350gC/kWh. I expect there's a mistake in your calculations.
But the problems in your argument aren't over. You're comparing coal-fired power plants against an oil-fueled 626! Coal is a poor alternative to oil. Energy densities here. Coal is at best 31MJ/kg. Oil is at worst 41MJ/kg. Gasoline in your 626 is 45MJ/kg. These energy densities influence CO2 emissions. To use a tired cliche, you're comparing apples and oranges.
Also I call foul with your conclusion. You only compared CO2 emissions per kWh and then concluded that the EV1 has better mileage!? If you want to compare mileage then you need to use the same fuels in the two cars and the plant and concentrate on the miles travelled!
But let's do some napkin calculations to get a feeling for "mileage". The electrical transport cost of overhead powerlines is less than 10%. Motors are 95% efficient. The best gas-fired plants are now exceeding 50% efficiency. So the fuel->wheel efficiency is 43%. Even the most efficient diesel generators as used on hybrids are less than 40% efficient. Cars range between 25% and 35% with petrol. So the plants use fuel more efficiently and therefore have the better "mileage".
We can also do some napkin calculations for cost. Cost calculator here. A car will typically cost 3x more per kWh than the plant. This is because plants get huge economies of scale and use much cheaper fuels. Cost alone proves nothing but combined with my previous arguments it proves that purely electric vehicles - not hybrids - are the best choice.
Don't be silly. I've never heard of them either. That's what makes them so dangerous!
The most dangerous people are never in the public eye. The most dangerous people are people you've never heard of and never will hear of.
Useful advice.
But why did you throw this gratuitous barb in at the end? Of the 11 comments rated 3 or above, more than half give the same advice: ESD is very real and failures won't be immediate.
So what's your gripe with Slashdot?
What a load of tripe. When you sit in a concert - and I mean a real concert - you hear echoes from every direction. The music most definitely does surround you. This is despite best efforts to dampen echoes with angled walls and ceilings. It still echoes. You still get a unique audio characteristic from the room.
And if you don't believe this then why does an open air concert sound different to a hall concert, and different again to chamber music, and different again to studio music. The room plays a huge part in "processing" the source.
If you are lucky enough to have a concert hall and a cathedral and a studio with a hifi in each then perhaps stereo is sufficient. The rest of us need a processor and multiple speakers to give us the illusion of multiple environments because we can only afford one room and one hifi.
Why is this moderated funny? I can't imagine how screwed up the system is that allowed this person to be network manager when he doesn't even know how to transition a subnet. And he's asking for help on /. of all places!
That would be *green* tea. Different thing.
Sure beats coffee and a donut.
Tea tastes good. It's good for you. It keeps you alert. Drinkable with or without milk and with or without sugar. Low cost. Socially acceptable in all circles. No plastic wastage. Drink it icy cold in summer or piping hot in winter.
Why waste money on carbonated sugar water? Sure, Coca-Cola and Mountain Dew can be nice once in a while. But if you need copious quantities of a tasty drink then tea is the answer.
About 15 minutes after starting your 2-3 year jail term for smoking pot.
Your arrogance is unbelievable. People who watch the "boob tube" are all "proles". You are a "better" person with a "better" life. TV is "crap". In fact, it's nothing but "corporate intersts" [sic]. We should all "Boycot" [sic] TV to avoid the "mindless dribble".
The most incredible aspect of your behaviour is that you feel the need to evangelize! It's as if you've found religion.
Then that's a problem with the person, not with the TV. Blaming TV for over-indulgence is like blaming cheeseburgers for making people fat. The person has the opportunity to watch quality material. If they choose not to then that's their own decision.
I can only imagine you think that the halfwit slob who sits in front of mindless drek would be an Einstein if they just turned off the TV. This is a false hope. They'd be a halfwit slob whether they watched TV or not. Turning the TV off will not turn an idiot into an Einstein, or the lazy slob into a productive person.
What is this? Counter-argument by assertion? Is this something you learnt while not watching TV?
So when you watch Taxi Driver you're not thinking of the implications of the movie? You're not thinking that Travis - for all his faults - was a victim of circumstance just as much as a victim of his own prejudice? You're not concerned about the ending of the movie, where his villainous character is worshipped in the media? You're not even THINKING about this stuff?
My TV has classical concerts, plays, dance, ballet, movies, documentaries, science programs, political satire, etc. Are you saying that none of this makes you think? That none of this is worth your time? That none of this can teach you something?
I say the problem isn't with the TV. It's with the content you watch. Or it's with you.
You could sell it. Or donate it to your local charity.
But I think you just proved my point.
I saw a recent comment to the effect that "once-were-TV-watchers" are so proud that they've turned the TV off. It's as if they think it's a huge achievement that puts them above the common man.
I don't see the sense, myself. It's like being proud of no longer reading books, or no longer listening to music, or no longer going out to restaurants or movies. I like watching movies or BackBerner or John Saffron's Musical Jamboree on the TV. Why should I stop?
Damn right, because in large projects it meant 100s of pages of acknowledgements. It's called the "offensive advertising clause" and RMS was wise to explicitly exclude it from the GPL.
If you want your ugly mug plastered over every derivative work then write your own damn license. Don't blame RMS because you're too lazy to figure out what you want.
And you worked this out all by yourself?
Wow, you must be some kind of visionary.