Just one thing to consider - it's false to compare the TOC based only on gas savings. You have to factor in maintenance savings too - EVs need massively less maintenance than ICE cars, there are just so much less than break. Even the brakediscs last (much) longer because they only work for the last tiny bit of stopping - the rest is done with regenerative braking to extend their range.
> to the coal fired power plant that generates the electricity.
Aah yes, this old canard- it's just not true.
EV's are well over twice as energy efficient as ICE cars. So what that means is that, to travel the same distance with an equavalent mass car - even on coal an EV will produce about HALF as much CO2 as the ICE car does.
All that's doing is making the market actually free. A gas powered vehicle imposes huge costs on your neighbours, and the next town over, and the next country over and ultimately - the country on other side of the world. Letting 7 billion people subsidize the bulk of the cost of your decision to drive one distorts the market and makes the gas car look far cheaper than it really is. What these things do is to internalize these formerly externalised costs - so if you make that choice, you have to pay a price commensurate with the real cost.
The EV's then tend to win is simply proof that they have, in fact, been cheaper all along.
You can't complain that the loss of a subsidy (especially one as unplanned and unintentional as an externality) is a distortion of the market. Correcting for externalities makes the market MORE free.
Good luck doing that with president pussy-grabber and the austerity cowboys setting the budget. In fact, hope and pray that it isn't attempted until the next one takes office - the LAST thing you want is moonlanding attempt being directed by somebody who couldn't figure out how to make money out of a casino !
A ship that can travel at half the speed of light can reach Proxima Century in just 8 years. But for the guy piloting it - it would take what ? About 3 months ?
Why should near-light-speed NOT be good enough for colonization ? I can see the complaint about it for a small craft with a few people. Nobody wants to go visit somewhere and come back to find everyone they knew has been dead for thousands of years, empires have risen and fallen and there is no recognizable "home" to come to. Especially when, for them, just a few years have passed.
But for a colony - why not ? You are taking people with you, you're taking your family, you aren't planning to ever come back. Who cares if ten-thousand years pass on earth during your 20 year journey ?
And if this guy said that where Buzz could here the old guy would punch him in the face. He may be old, but he is a many-year Navy vet and by all accounts he *still* has a killer right-hook.
This doesn't spell good things for the future of Bethesda games. They've been on a dumb-it-down trajectory ever since morrowind - and it seems like their current owners are the worst kind of grubbers, which tends to be a recipe for truly terrible games because profitability ends up being counted above quality.
Look at what happened with Ubisoft as well. Back in the day they created AC2 - one of the best games of all time, featuring a fantastic story and a likeable character who won numerous awards and was the character for guys to cosplay for a few years. Then they created AC3 - perhaps the worst game in history (until no mans sky came out). A letdown of truly epic proportions that just reeked of budget cuts at every turn and basically forgot what "open world" even means. True they sort of recovered a bit with AC4 - but that game is still a pretty terrible AC game, it's only saving grace is that it is also Sid Meyer's Pirates with seriously updated graphics and gameplay, play it as such and it's fun. The others are... well they all make good money, and that's about the only thing you can say about them.
Gaming is, first and foremost, an artform - and it's become very much like cinema. And just like cinema 90% of what gets made, and makes the most money, is utterly forgettable crap.
And every time a good studio makes it big... they end up being bought by some parent company that turns them into a bland sausage factory.
Yeah. Destruction of evidence is a crime - if you claim it, then you need to have proof. If you don't - you open yourself up to a countersuit for slander.
Frankly this should never be an issue. While working any job (but especially a high-tech one) you learn new skills, explore new avenues. If you make a breakthrough with this at a subsequent job your previous bosses do not get to claim ownership of it.
Nobody gets to own the inside of your head but you - no not even the people who put stuff there.
What's next ? Disney Pictures suing me for remembering a scene from Avengers ? "The defendent made an unauthorized copy of the film on the neurons of his brain"...
Unless he took physical hardware, or specs with him - there is no issue. Maybe you could complain if you can show he took copies of code with him - but even then you have to prove it's code written on company time using company resources - otherwise think where that leads. If, while working a job to pay the bills, you develop something over the weekends which you will subsequently launch a startup around - your old boss can subsequently sue your startup for it's full value claiming they own the whole thing because some of the code was written while you were still their employee ? This reminds me too much of Snowcrash: "I own what's in these people's heads and I have a right ot make sure they can never use it for anything but working for me".
Your conspiracy theory is flawed on a number of points. - The terms come from different sciences. Gravitational waves is from relativistic physics (and were first predicted by Einstein over a century ago). Gravity waves come from fluid dynamics and has an entirely different history. - Their sources differ. Gravity waves were observed, then named in the theories that explained them. Gravitational waves were predicted by a theory but not observed for another 110 years despite constant attempts along the way.
>I am DONE with Linux as of now. The community is far too elitist for me to deal with
Wait.. somebody let you into the community ? Who did that ? I'm sure it was not an authorised representative. You can't *leave* a group you've never been allowed to join.
WSL is basically Microsoft's attempt to do for Linux on windows what Wine does for windows apps on Linux. The difference is - their preparing to ship something with only a fairly small subset of the API supported (and apparently not very well) - while wine took more than 10 years before declaring their product 1.0.
It is also noteworthy that wine is a much more ambitious project. In terms of ambition - what WSL has achieved is about comparable to if WINE had been happy to run DOS programs from the win3.1 era and called it a day (in terms of coverage and complexity - not age).
No... it's more like having a car you can only stop by popping the hood, letting air pressure rip it off, then crawling out the window of the moving vehicle, putting dynamite on the engine, crawling back inside, lighting the fuse and praying to every deity and random fluctuations in the spacetime continuim not to get caught in the blast.
For years we joked that Microsoft would one day be forced to bring out their own Linux distribution - we were right, we just didn't know it would still be called Windows.
In other words, those who work in a business end up behaving like the business they are in. For years we've been told that capitalism creates improvement through competition and rewards those who win the competition. Are you, then, surprized that this is not only true of businesses relative to each other but of individuals within a business towards one another ? Getting promoted means being perceived as better than the next guy - this doesn't *just* reward working to the best of your ability, it also greatly rewards successfully undermining your colleagues (as long as you can do so without being caught out).
Businesses try very hard to counter this with team-building exercises and the like - trying to turn their workers into an obedient hivemind and strip from every one of them their self-interest in a desperate attempt to protect themselves from this internal form of the tragedy of the commons. The severity of the threat is clearly discernible from the way they persist in this, at great cost, despite overwhelming evidence that these things achieve absolutely nothing (and the fact that this evidence has been available for decades and only gotten stronger and more corroborated over time). It's much like the cubicle/open-plan thing. There is overwhelming proof that open-plan office designs reduce worker productivity. It is simply the worst possible way to lay out an office - so why does every company persist in it ? Because trying to break down the individualism of staff is worth more to them than the lost productivity. You need to feel like a rat in a maze, to turn you into a cog in the machine - a less productive cog is better than a worker that questions the corporate dogma.
> you can go all the way from the top, to the bottom of the heap of irrelevancy
That metaphor seems to have gotten away from you - since that's the exact OPPOSITE of what happened to them these past few years. They were not irrelevant at all (at the bottom of the heap of irrelevancy) and now they are (putting them at the top).
Slashdot Mirror
Just one thing to consider - it's false to compare the TOC based only on gas savings. You have to factor in maintenance savings too - EVs need massively less maintenance than ICE cars, there are just so much less than break. Even the brakediscs last (much) longer because they only work for the last tiny bit of stopping - the rest is done with regenerative braking to extend their range.
> to the coal fired power plant that generates the electricity.
Aah yes, this old canard- it's just not true.
EV's are well over twice as energy efficient as ICE cars. So what that means is that, to travel the same distance with an equavalent mass car - even on coal an EV will produce about HALF as much CO2 as the ICE car does.
Hey now, be fair to the Canadians. They all have at least 3 beavers too.
So once every 2 month ?
It would make more economic sense then to drive an EV for day-to-day stuff and rent an ICE car for those bimonthly trips.
Is your car a De'Lorean ? If so, is it powered by plutonium ?
All that's doing is making the market actually free. A gas powered vehicle imposes huge costs on your neighbours, and the next town over, and the next country over and ultimately - the country on other side of the world.
Letting 7 billion people subsidize the bulk of the cost of your decision to drive one distorts the market and makes the gas car look far cheaper than it really is. What these things do is to internalize these formerly externalised costs - so if you make that choice, you have to pay a price commensurate with the real cost.
The EV's then tend to win is simply proof that they have, in fact, been cheaper all along.
You can't complain that the loss of a subsidy (especially one as unplanned and unintentional as an externality) is a distortion of the market. Correcting for externalities makes the market MORE free.
Quebec electrons only speak French and will flat-out refuse to enter an English-labelled battery.
Good luck doing that with president pussy-grabber and the austerity cowboys setting the budget. In fact, hope and pray that it isn't attempted until the next one takes office - the LAST thing you want is moonlanding attempt being directed by somebody who couldn't figure out how to make money out of a casino !
And convenient ignorance of time-dilation.
A ship that can travel at half the speed of light can reach Proxima Century in just 8 years. But for the guy piloting it - it would take what ? About 3 months ?
Why should near-light-speed NOT be good enough for colonization ? I can see the complaint about it for a small craft with a few people. Nobody wants to go visit somewhere and come back to find everyone they knew has been dead for thousands of years, empires have risen and fallen and there is no recognizable "home" to come to. Especially when, for them, just a few years have passed.
But for a colony - why not ? You are taking people with you, you're taking your family, you aren't planning to ever come back. Who cares if ten-thousand years pass on earth during your 20 year journey ?
But...but...but... I don't WANNA dig in Trump's rectum... even his proctologist didn't want to.
I always preferred Archibald Cox over Archie Harry Cox.
And if this guy said that where Buzz could here the old guy would punch him in the face. He may be old, but he is a many-year Navy vet and by all accounts he *still* has a killer right-hook.
I also consider it euphemistic.
Try this version: The last human being to ever go anywhere at all beyond low earth orbit is now dead.
Yeah - Apollo was the last time humans went above LEO. Forget the moon, we haven't even gone to high orbit since.
This doesn't spell good things for the future of Bethesda games. They've been on a dumb-it-down trajectory ever since morrowind - and it seems like their current owners are the worst kind of grubbers, which tends to be a recipe for truly terrible games because profitability ends up being counted above quality.
Look at what happened with Ubisoft as well. Back in the day they created AC2 - one of the best games of all time, featuring a fantastic story and a likeable character who won numerous awards and was the character for guys to cosplay for a few years. ... well they all make good money, and that's about the only thing you can say about them.
Then they created AC3 - perhaps the worst game in history (until no mans sky came out). A letdown of truly epic proportions that just reeked of budget cuts at every turn and basically forgot what "open world" even means.
True they sort of recovered a bit with AC4 - but that game is still a pretty terrible AC game, it's only saving grace is that it is also Sid Meyer's Pirates with seriously updated graphics and gameplay, play it as such and it's fun. The others are
Gaming is, first and foremost, an artform - and it's become very much like cinema. And just like cinema 90% of what gets made, and makes the most money, is utterly forgettable crap.
And every time a good studio makes it big... they end up being bought by some parent company that turns them into a bland sausage factory.
Yeah. Destruction of evidence is a crime - if you claim it, then you need to have proof. If you don't - you open yourself up to a countersuit for slander.
Frankly this should never be an issue. While working any job (but especially a high-tech one) you learn new skills, explore new avenues. If you make a breakthrough with this at a subsequent job your previous bosses do not get to claim ownership of it.
Nobody gets to own the inside of your head but you - no not even the people who put stuff there.
What's next ? Disney Pictures suing me for remembering a scene from Avengers ? "The defendent made an unauthorized copy of the film on the neurons of his brain"...
Unless he took physical hardware, or specs with him - there is no issue. Maybe you could complain if you can show he took copies of code with him - but even then you have to prove it's code written on company time using company resources - otherwise think where that leads. If, while working a job to pay the bills, you develop something over the weekends which you will subsequently launch a startup around - your old boss can subsequently sue your startup for it's full value claiming they own the whole thing because some of the code was written while you were still their employee ?
This reminds me too much of Snowcrash: "I own what's in these people's heads and I have a right ot make sure they can never use it for anything but working for me".
Your conspiracy theory is flawed on a number of points.
- The terms come from different sciences. Gravitational waves is from relativistic physics (and were first predicted by Einstein over a century ago). Gravity waves come from fluid dynamics and has an entirely different history.
- Their sources differ. Gravity waves were observed, then named in the theories that explained them. Gravitational waves were predicted by a theory but not observed for another 110 years despite constant attempts along the way.
>I am DONE with Linux as of now. The community is far too elitist for me to deal with
Wait.. somebody let you into the community ? Who did that ? I'm sure it was not an authorised representative. You can't *leave* a group you've never been allowed to join.
WSL is basically Microsoft's attempt to do for Linux on windows what Wine does for windows apps on Linux. The difference is - their preparing to ship something with only a fairly small subset of the API supported (and apparently not very well) - while wine took more than 10 years before declaring their product 1.0.
It is also noteworthy that wine is a much more ambitious project. In terms of ambition - what WSL has achieved is about comparable to if WINE had been happy to run DOS programs from the win3.1 era and called it a day (in terms of coverage and complexity - not age).
No... it's more like having a car you can only stop by popping the hood, letting air pressure rip it off, then crawling out the window of the moving vehicle, putting dynamite on the engine, crawling back inside, lighting the fuse and praying to every deity and random fluctuations in the spacetime continuim not to get caught in the blast.
For years we joked that Microsoft would one day be forced to bring out their own Linux distribution - we were right, we just didn't know it would still be called Windows.
In other words, those who work in a business end up behaving like the business they are in. For years we've been told that capitalism creates improvement through competition and rewards those who win the competition. Are you, then, surprized that this is not only true of businesses relative to each other but of individuals within a business towards one another ?
Getting promoted means being perceived as better than the next guy - this doesn't *just* reward working to the best of your ability, it also greatly rewards successfully undermining your colleagues (as long as you can do so without being caught out).
Businesses try very hard to counter this with team-building exercises and the like - trying to turn their workers into an obedient hivemind and strip from every one of them their self-interest in a desperate attempt to protect themselves from this internal form of the tragedy of the commons. The severity of the threat is clearly discernible from the way they persist in this, at great cost, despite overwhelming evidence that these things achieve absolutely nothing (and the fact that this evidence has been available for decades and only gotten stronger and more corroborated over time).
It's much like the cubicle/open-plan thing. There is overwhelming proof that open-plan office designs reduce worker productivity. It is simply the worst possible way to lay out an office - so why does every company persist in it ? Because trying to break down the individualism of staff is worth more to them than the lost productivity. You need to feel like a rat in a maze, to turn you into a cog in the machine - a less productive cog is better than a worker that questions the corporate dogma.
> you can go all the way from the top, to the bottom of the heap of irrelevancy
That metaphor seems to have gotten away from you - since that's the exact OPPOSITE of what happened to them these past few years. They were not irrelevant at all (at the bottom of the heap of irrelevancy) and now they are (putting them at the top).
Having a guy at all for opening a shell is a problem. Not being able to avoid it is a bigger problem.