I like your post and agree with monitoring your caloric intake if you're worried about weight loss BUT... I need to point out that your "gym calories" estimation is inaccurate. Working out with a combination of exercises (aerobic, weights, anaerobic), or any regular exercise really, will cause your body to burn many more calories than just what you burn during the workout session, through both a higher metabolism and your body repairing the damage you do during the workout.
The only problem with working out is that it increases your appetite. But then again, you can afford to eat even more since your body actually needs the extra energy.
Good luck with the weight loss though! Imagine if you bump up your calorie burning even more than just the extra walk to your car though, combined with your calorie counting will.
Basically, those that are in the "overweight" range are more likely to be the ones that regularly exercise and eat normal amounts of reasonably balanced diets, hence drastically increasing their life expectance... duh?
BMI is completely inaccurate. I'm been overweight according to BMI for the past 15 years, if I drop closer to the "normal" rating, people start asking if I'm sick or not eating enough. If I was my "perfect BMI" weight, I'd be unhealthily scrawny. As someone said above "bullshit measuring index."
If you do any kind of regular exercise for a long period of time, you may as well throw BMI out the window.
is it unreasonable to think that buying CPUs marketed as 50% faster should give a 50% performance increase?
Yes, it is unreasonable, entirely. Even if the CPU is the only physical bottleneck, you still can't expect X% clock speed to correlate to X% performance increase. That's pretty basic computer/software engineering. You can make reasonable estimations, but the only way to know what your gains will be is to test it.
Anymore, 35% faster can mean any number of things as well, it's not just straight speed of operation execution. 35% faster could mean that they increased the efficiency of some operations, bumped up the 1st level cache, increased clock speed or any combination of those plus other things. The 35% is probably just an attempt to put all of the gains into a single number that really can't be presumed to be all that accurate.
Basically, you'd need to know exactly what was changed or upgraded from your previous CPU and figure out how each of those upgrades will affect your particular configuration before making any reasonable estimation of performance gains. It would be absolutely impossible for AMD or Intel to do this for you.
Are you kidding me? Exposure to high radiation of any type WILL cause harmful side effects to anything fleshy, like mammals.
From encyclopedia Britannica:
Exposure to intense microwaves in excess of 20 milliwatts of power per square centimetre of body surface is harmful.
A quick google search also reveals many articles of studies showing nerve damage to the brain from microwaves and increased chances for various cancers from extended exposure to microwaves and/or other forms of radiation.
No physicist or electrical engineer would sit there and tell you with a straight face that being exposed to any form of radiation (depending on the power and/or time period) is safe or would produce "no deleterious effects." That's just bull shit. Sitting out in the sun is NOT safe, how would being exposed to this beam be safe?
I haven't been able to find any data on how much this thing would beam down, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in it's path.
Which brings the point... if they can absolutely prove that they can control this thing and there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% probability that it won't be aimed at anything fleshy, then go for it. But don't come in here and start saying that exposure to radiation (any radiation) is safe, because it's not.
GREAT, just what I want.. no immediate visual indicator that I'm taking in a high amount of radiation. This way I can be exposed to it for extended periods of time and not notice it!
Also... How many solar cells and wind mills could you build for the cost of 1 of these satellites + base stations. Each of which are proven technologies with next to no risk.
Wait, so you're saying we SHOULD have a continuous concentrated beam of high powered radiation being sent in from outer space?
The effects of radiation are cumulative, something as simple as a high powered satellite or radar dish being focused in the wrong direction into a building with a lot of people over the course of a long period of time (several years) will cause ridiculous rates of cancer to all denizens of said building. This has happened and there are successful lawsuits in fact to back it up. I can't find the link to this, but I learned it in my EMF class as part of my EE requirements back in college.
There is no "safe" radiation, especially continuous high powered microwaves. I'm no environmentalist, but this technology just has very high risk written all over it. I can't even imagine how difficult it would be to keep the orbit correct + keep the beam in the correct location + control the airspace + track the radiation in the surrounding area. I know I sure as hell wouldn't work or live anywhere near that building. I mean, imagine if they screw up the beam and have part of it beaming microwaves into residential areas for long periods of time or into unshielded parts of the building where people work.
I am a fan of more nuclear plants and research and just about every renewable, but this technology sounds ludicrous.
Doesn't sound to me like an obvious win for solar power
It is an obvious win, because you are failing to compound the savings.
He can invest the savings on electricity each year and substantially increase his ROR.
The IRR formula does NOT account for the potential re-investment of interim cash flows.
Your argument is compelling, but it's partially incorrect.
The savings you make on electricity goes to paying off the initial investment of 38k.
In your scenario, by the time you would have reached the break even point, you would have invested 76k. 38k would go toward paying off the initial investment and you're left with only the returns you made on your subsequent investments.
He's trying to calculate the ROI of just the solar power over those 12 years. Your proposed calculation would average the ROI of solar power + some other arbitrary investment with independent funding.
There is nothing compounding about the savings from solar power until AFTER the break even point of ~12 years. At which point yes, he could re-invest the savings and they would start to compound.
A 100m tree or building would absorb more wind energy than a 100m turbine, and not a single person here would bitch or even think about the negative environmental impacts from reduction of environmental wind energy from a tree.
Maybe you should go out and do a study on how buildings and trees change weather patterns. There are actually some studies about how trees affect them. Generally, the more trees the better (less severe weather, some lower wind). I'll go out on a limb and say windmills would have a similar effect.
It seems crazy, but what happens when something like this is powerful enough to create anything from a small piece of electronics to even a car. I'm not sure what the ratio of car cost is between manufacture/raw materials and design.
I could see the same problem occur in anything where the main (or, in the case of music, only) cost of production is in the design and marketing.
Nope, my "It shouldn't" was in direct response to his question, very clear in fact;). You just didn't comprehend his question. He wasn't just saying keywords that you can interpret however you want, he had a specific meaning lol. Again, showing your failure at reading comprehension aside from skimming for keywords and applying your own meaning.
The electric company doesn't provide communications. I had carte blanche phone service all my life until I switched to a cell phone, and now I have it again - $50 per month, no minutes, free voicemail, free texting, free internet (Boost Mobile). I don't have to pay by the minute to watch cable TV. Why should internet service be any different?
It shouldn't.
It shouldn't what? The electric company shouldn't communicate energy usage? If people could see in realtime what their energy consumption is then they would know where and how they could reduce the energy used. Those who go Off the Grid use meters that show their usage patterns. Some electric companies offer monitoring services where they can turn off a heavy energy using appliance, like air conditioners, during high demands. In return the customer receives a cut in prices.
Falcon
You have poor reading comprehension skills.
I really shouldn't have to type anything else, but I'll explain what the previous two posts meant for you. When he was referring to communications, he was referring to the type of service they provide (ie. phone service).
He then goes on to explain that he doesn't pay by the minute for his phone services and thusly he shouldn't ever have to pay by the bit for internet usage. I agreed with his sentiments.
That's really all that was said, any reference to any information that Electric Companies or Phone Companies do or don't provide in regards to energy usage or data usage is not referred to in either of the above 2 posts. It is referred to elsewhere in other threads, so that's a good place to take your argument.
You just missed the meaning of communication. My apologies for being annoyed, but you jumped into an argument against thin air directed at me for something I didn't say or imply.
I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free
The electric company doesn't provide communications. I had carte blanche phone service all my life until I switched to a cell phone, and now I have it again - $50 per month, no minutes, free voicemail, free texting, free internet (Boost Mobile). I don't have to pay by the minute to watch cable TV. Why should internet service be any different?
heh, it's not an original idea... I've seen a lot of infomercials and ads for books with similar "secrets to becoming a millionaire" and said secret I can oftentimes deduce from the ad is to "create something with low manufacturing cost and low retail price, advertise the shit out of it, sell a million and you'll be rich".
Said author probably bought a book from another author with the same message.
If graphics artist types can't make the kind of pointless crap that they do now with Flash, we won't see uptake of HTML 5.
Last time I checked, a large portion of successful web developers are, make that have to be, good graphics artists. It's not pointless if it's what the customer wants, it gets you a contract and makes you money.
So yes, HTML 5 will need all of the features and be at least as easy to use as Flash. The ease of use may just come from development tools.
I agree, better hardware doesn't necessarily mean a more expensive game. Take L4D for instance, I run it at 1600x1200 with higher effects on my PC and it looks about 3x as good as it does on my HDTV for the 360.
Once the libraries and engines are in place I should hope that game development continues to move more towards focusing on gameplay. I have seen this shift in the last few years and it pleases me, I assume it will continue.
Slashdot Mirror
I like your post and agree with monitoring your caloric intake if you're worried about weight loss BUT... I need to point out that your "gym calories" estimation is inaccurate. Working out with a combination of exercises (aerobic, weights, anaerobic), or any regular exercise really, will cause your body to burn many more calories than just what you burn during the workout session, through both a higher metabolism and your body repairing the damage you do during the workout.
The only problem with working out is that it increases your appetite. But then again, you can afford to eat even more since your body actually needs the extra energy.
Good luck with the weight loss though! Imagine if you bump up your calorie burning even more than just the extra walk to your car though, combined with your calorie counting will.
TFA talks about some of the other similar theories as well. It's actually a really good read, maybe you guys should give it a go!
Basically, those that are in the "overweight" range are more likely to be the ones that regularly exercise and eat normal amounts of reasonably balanced diets, hence drastically increasing their life expectance... duh?
BMI is completely inaccurate. I'm been overweight according to BMI for the past 15 years, if I drop closer to the "normal" rating, people start asking if I'm sick or not eating enough. If I was my "perfect BMI" weight, I'd be unhealthily scrawny. As someone said above "bullshit measuring index."
If you do any kind of regular exercise for a long period of time, you may as well throw BMI out the window.
is it unreasonable to think that buying CPUs marketed as 50% faster should give a 50% performance increase?
Yes, it is unreasonable, entirely. Even if the CPU is the only physical bottleneck, you still can't expect X% clock speed to correlate to X% performance increase. That's pretty basic computer/software engineering. You can make reasonable estimations, but the only way to know what your gains will be is to test it.
Anymore, 35% faster can mean any number of things as well, it's not just straight speed of operation execution. 35% faster could mean that they increased the efficiency of some operations, bumped up the 1st level cache, increased clock speed or any combination of those plus other things. The 35% is probably just an attempt to put all of the gains into a single number that really can't be presumed to be all that accurate.
Basically, you'd need to know exactly what was changed or upgraded from your previous CPU and figure out how each of those upgrades will affect your particular configuration before making any reasonable estimation of performance gains. It would be absolutely impossible for AMD or Intel to do this for you.
Are you kidding me? Exposure to high radiation of any type WILL cause harmful side effects to anything fleshy, like mammals.
From encyclopedia Britannica:
Exposure to intense microwaves in excess of 20 milliwatts of power per square centimetre of body surface is harmful.
A quick google search also reveals many articles of studies showing nerve damage to the brain from microwaves and increased chances for various cancers from extended exposure to microwaves and/or other forms of radiation.
No physicist or electrical engineer would sit there and tell you with a straight face that being exposed to any form of radiation (depending on the power and/or time period) is safe or would produce "no deleterious effects." That's just bull shit. Sitting out in the sun is NOT safe, how would being exposed to this beam be safe?
I haven't been able to find any data on how much this thing would beam down, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in it's path.
Which brings the point... if they can absolutely prove that they can control this thing and there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% probability that it won't be aimed at anything fleshy, then go for it. But don't come in here and start saying that exposure to radiation (any radiation) is safe, because it's not.
GREAT, just what I want.. no immediate visual indicator that I'm taking in a high amount of radiation. This way I can be exposed to it for extended periods of time and not notice it!
Also... How many solar cells and wind mills could you build for the cost of 1 of these satellites + base stations. Each of which are proven technologies with next to no risk.
Wait, so you're saying we SHOULD have a continuous concentrated beam of high powered radiation being sent in from outer space?
The effects of radiation are cumulative, something as simple as a high powered satellite or radar dish being focused in the wrong direction into a building with a lot of people over the course of a long period of time (several years) will cause ridiculous rates of cancer to all denizens of said building. This has happened and there are successful lawsuits in fact to back it up. I can't find the link to this, but I learned it in my EMF class as part of my EE requirements back in college.
There is no "safe" radiation, especially continuous high powered microwaves. I'm no environmentalist, but this technology just has very high risk written all over it. I can't even imagine how difficult it would be to keep the orbit correct + keep the beam in the correct location + control the airspace + track the radiation in the surrounding area. I know I sure as hell wouldn't work or live anywhere near that building. I mean, imagine if they screw up the beam and have part of it beaming microwaves into residential areas for long periods of time or into unshielded parts of the building where people work.
I am a fan of more nuclear plants and research and just about every renewable, but this technology sounds ludicrous.
It is an obvious win, because you are failing to compound the savings.
He can invest the savings on electricity each year and substantially increase his ROR.
The IRR formula does NOT account for the potential re-investment of interim cash flows.
Your argument is compelling, but it's partially incorrect.
The savings you make on electricity goes to paying off the initial investment of 38k.
In your scenario, by the time you would have reached the break even point, you would have invested 76k. 38k would go toward paying off the initial investment and you're left with only the returns you made on your subsequent investments.
He's trying to calculate the ROI of just the solar power over those 12 years. Your proposed calculation would average the ROI of solar power + some other arbitrary investment with independent funding.
There is nothing compounding about the savings from solar power until AFTER the break even point of ~12 years. At which point yes, he could re-invest the savings and they would start to compound.
And when he takes his shirt off you can see the backlit apple logo they installed, which also mysteriously doubled the cost of the operation.
haha, Steve Jobs is actually a cyborg.
He runs on OSX though so he's incapable of playing games.
Let's not forget: any number of Apple fans would probably readily line up to give their liver to Steve! Fame can be more useful than wealth.
There's probably an iPhone app for it.
A 100m tree or building would absorb more wind energy than a 100m turbine, and not a single person here would bitch or even think about the negative environmental impacts from reduction of environmental wind energy from a tree.
Maybe you should go out and do a study on how buildings and trees change weather patterns. There are actually some studies about how trees affect them. Generally, the more trees the better (less severe weather, some lower wind). I'll go out on a limb and say windmills would have a similar effect.
void woosh(Moment moment)
{
woosh(moment);
}
Good work, YOU GOT THE JOB!
Now stop arguing with your would be employer.
If those 90 people are forbidden from eating cows by their religion, the original 10 are still screwed. McDonald's won't be hiring.
possibly a WHOOOOSH moment, but I'll assume you're just being funny.
Take it a step further...
Post a site with these band's and artist's names and boycott their live performances and albums.
I'm pretty much not going to listen to any of those bands anymore. I can live without them.
The damages here are just as much their fault as anyone else's, they certainly aren't stepping up to the plate to protect their consumer's rights.
haha, I was thinking of the same thing...
http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome
It seems crazy, but what happens when something like this is powerful enough to create anything from a small piece of electronics to even a car. I'm not sure what the ratio of car cost is between manufacture/raw materials and design.
I could see the same problem occur in anything where the main (or, in the case of music, only) cost of production is in the design and marketing.
Nope, my "It shouldn't" was in direct response to his question, very clear in fact ;). You just didn't comprehend his question. He wasn't just saying keywords that you can interpret however you want, he had a specific meaning lol. Again, showing your failure at reading comprehension aside from skimming for keywords and applying your own meaning.
The electric company doesn't provide communications. I had carte blanche phone service all my life until I switched to a cell phone, and now I have it again - $50 per month, no minutes, free voicemail, free texting, free internet (Boost Mobile). I don't have to pay by the minute to watch cable TV. Why should internet service be any different?
It shouldn't.
It shouldn't what? The electric company shouldn't communicate energy usage? If people could see in realtime what their energy consumption is then they would know where and how they could reduce the energy used. Those who go Off the Grid use meters that show their usage patterns. Some electric companies offer monitoring services where they can turn off a heavy energy using appliance, like air conditioners, during high demands. In return the customer receives a cut in prices.
Falcon
You have poor reading comprehension skills.
I really shouldn't have to type anything else, but I'll explain what the previous two posts meant for you. When he was referring to communications, he was referring to the type of service they provide (ie. phone service).
He then goes on to explain that he doesn't pay by the minute for his phone services and thusly he shouldn't ever have to pay by the bit for internet usage. I agreed with his sentiments.
That's really all that was said, any reference to any information that Electric Companies or Phone Companies do or don't provide in regards to energy usage or data usage is not referred to in either of the above 2 posts. It is referred to elsewhere in other threads, so that's a good place to take your argument.
You just missed the meaning of communication. My apologies for being annoyed, but you jumped into an argument against thin air directed at me for something I didn't say or imply.
I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free
The electric company doesn't provide communications. I had carte blanche phone service all my life until I switched to a cell phone, and now I have it again - $50 per month, no minutes, free voicemail, free texting, free internet (Boost Mobile). I don't have to pay by the minute to watch cable TV. Why should internet service be any different?
It shouldn't.
heh, it's not an original idea... I've seen a lot of infomercials and ads for books with similar "secrets to becoming a millionaire" and said secret I can oftentimes deduce from the ad is to "create something with low manufacturing cost and low retail price, advertise the shit out of it, sell a million and you'll be rich".
Said author probably bought a book from another author with the same message.
If graphics artist types can't make the kind of pointless crap that they do now with Flash, we won't see uptake of HTML 5.
Last time I checked, a large portion of successful web developers are, make that have to be, good graphics artists. It's not pointless if it's what the customer wants, it gets you a contract and makes you money.
So yes, HTML 5 will need all of the features and be at least as easy to use as Flash. The ease of use may just come from development tools.
lmao, touche... that was their master plan all along anyways, just fuck with console makers until PC gaming is cheaper and better.
I agree, better hardware doesn't necessarily mean a more expensive game. Take L4D for instance, I run it at 1600x1200 with higher effects on my PC and it looks about 3x as good as it does on my HDTV for the 360.
Once the libraries and engines are in place I should hope that game development continues to move more towards focusing on gameplay. I have seen this shift in the last few years and it pleases me, I assume it will continue.