when you can just grow an imperial fuckton of algae, render them down for biofuel, and use that?
Saying we should "just grow [...] algae" for fuel is a lot like saying to hell with building new roads, we should just build flying cars...
There have been numerous and extensive attempts to make use of algae... It has never worked out. There's tremendous potential there if we can figure out how to make it work, but so far, nobody has.
I have seen several pieces lately about ethanol vs. biodiesel, which seem to indicate that biodiesel is a much more realistic alternative to gasoline than ethanol is,
On what planet is an incompatible fuel with a slightly higher yeild "a much more realistic alternative"? You believe we should force everyone across the country to throw away their old cars and trucks, buy new ones with diesel engines, so that we can provide just slightly more fuel?
Neither option is a long term solution... it's just an effort to slightly increase supplies and so drive down prices. By trying to force a wholly incompatible fuel on everyone, you can only possibly further delay the use of biofuel.
The long-term solution they're aiming for is hydrogen, but I believe fully electric battery/capacitor/flywheel vehicles are far more realistic and therefore likely.
Since the evidence that they stole the code is overwhelming, they've admitted to that. But, of course, after going through the trouble of stealing their biggest competitor's code, they didn't actually do anything with it that could be illegal... No.
Your first link says nothing at all about the subject.
Ironically, a careful reading of your second link would show you how wrong your idiotic assertions are...
In their example chart on page 4 which you quote (out of order), the cooling system is responsible for 33% of energy demands. That means that while consuming 33% of the power, it is cooling the other 67%.
if you really can pull more heat out of a system than you put in energy doing so, run to the patent office...quick
The 60 Watt TV is cool BECAUSE it is efficient. Most of It's power is being used to put a bright image on your screen.
I think you just misunderstood my point. A 60watt TV may be cool to the touch, while a 30watt TV could be extremely hot to the touch.
There are two parts to this:
1) It's any use of energy, not just WASTE of energy that makes heat. 2) How cool a device stays has very, very little to do with how much energy it is using/wasting, unless they're identical in every other way (which basically never happens).
Inside the Servers, DC to DC conversion is going on anyway so dropping the losses from AC to DC conversion can't help but be a net gain.
That's not necessarily true. Certainly several of the numerous voltages output by a normal PSU are accomplished by DC-DC conversion, but it's entirely possible that the two major voltages (5v and 12v) could be converted directly from AC with, eg. a transformer.
And still, even if you have a net gain in efficiency, economies of scale are against you. 120/240v AC ATX PSUs are so standard, and have been around so long, that they are often given away for free, or very near it. Meanwhile, if you need any other kind of 300W power supply, you can expect it to cost around $100. It's actually a depressing state of affairs.
And I happen to know from pricing a few of them, that DC ATX power supplies are significantly more expensive than their AC brethren. So, at best, going all DC for energy efficiency would be a case of diminishing returns, and plenty of drawbacks as well.
The page count for the 722c printer is based on 15% page coverage. The page count for the 950c cart is based on 5% page coverage.
It's quite likely a fair comparison, and you're just confused about the numbers.
5% page coverage is standard. When you get a black in cartridge, the page count is based on 5%. With colors, they do 5% per color, which ends up giving you 15%. Now, they may notate that fact differently from one site to another, but I seriously doubt they're screwing with the industry standard formula and opening themselves up to massive lawsuits. Also, the fact that 5% is exactly 1/3rd of 15% also strongly suggests that they aren't cheating at all.
AC power from your utility company converted to DC for storage in a battery and then converted back to AC to supply the Server's power supply, then converted back to DC to actually run the components of the computer.
There are many groups that have expressed interest in DC datacenters.
The reality, however, is that AC/DC conversion is only nominally less efficient than DC/DC conversion. With the increasing popularity of 80plus efficient PSUs, there's very, very little to be gained by going to DC. You're really talking about significant investment to get a ~5% improvement in efficiency.
Ever notice how hot a UPS gets during normal operation? That's power going to waste.
All devices, everywhere, get hot and waste energy. Some waste more than others, of course, but feeling how hot something gets won't tell you that. How hot something gets just tells you how under-engineered their respective cooling systems are...
For example, I've got a 4W amplifier that will burn your hand, a 20W soldering iron that will vaporize skin, and 60W TV that barely feels warm to the touch.
If we abandoned the notion of raised flours and replaced them with say insulated celling mounted ducts with vents faceing each rack.
I would go the exact opposite direction... Keep the room cool, and use ducts to remove the hot air (eg. to the outside).
I would have extraction fans betwean my back to back racks, pumping the hot air outside (or into the office during winter. For those of you who have winter.
See above. Unless you carefully duct the hot air from the source, you run a big risk of removing just as much cool air as warm, and the warm air will still seep out and get away from you, and raise the temperature of the room.
I don't run a data center, but I have tried this, first hand, on a smaller scale.
simply copy whatever system is in place in the countries with the longest lived citizens
Except death rate can be significant affected by diverse factors, some of which may be impractical to try and control such as lifestyle, and others of which simple can't be controlled, such as climate.
I really do hate nation-by-nation comparisons. Many nations are too large to be considered a uniform group... Andorra, for example, is a country smaller than many American cities. I'm sure if you looked in western nations, you'd find several equivalently sized/populated area inside many countries, which also have abnormally long life-spans as well. #2 on the list, Macau, is far, far smaller still.
The lack of even an S-Video output was when I stopped reading. USB1 is also pathetic these days. Having brought out a product the manufacturer couldn't think of a use for they threw magic "Open Source" pixie dust on it hoping we could think of things to do with it.
Sad but true. It doesn't appear to even have a TV tuner, just a video capture card you have to hook up to something else and use the IR blaster...
It cost $250 for all the capability you'd find in my PC in 1998, a $500/400Mhz K6 with a ($40) ATI Rage Pro card (composite input/output)*... And that at least had a 10GB HDD. All together, a system that is likely to go for $50 on eBay these days.
*Admittedly I didn't have an IR remote or blaster, but remotes are free, and the sensor/blaster is maybe $10 worth of components.
Bargain basement CPUs do better at $ / work than faster, more expensive ones, because they are so cheap. AMD does well at the low end. But this doesn't consider the total price of a computer which would help mid priced chips.
Actually, I see exactly the opposite...
When AMD* turns out slow, low-end chips, they do so after the high-end original has passed on, and in the process they update the tech, and so tend to give the "value" chips lower power consumption for free. That is of course baring the possibility of buying your CPU right during the transitional period, while the high-end chips use a newer, smaller die, and the low-end chips don't, yet.
(* I can't use Intel as an example because right now their low-end chips are old Pentium4s, which suck power like crazy)
The 100-200 watt idle numbers are wasteful, lets get this down to 10-20 watts.
Stay away from the high-end, and computer are nearly there already, thanks to AMD pushing CnQ/PowerNow on everything (while Intel STILL omits SpeedStep on their low-end chips).
The only real problem/exception seems to be GPUs, so for now, you have to go for a lower-end, (preferably fanless) video card to be safe.
Once consumers have gotten used to paying high fuel prices (which we have), it's not likely for any seller to offer fuel at a significantly reduced price, particularly since there is a cartel in place.
The gaping hole in your theory is a little something called the 1970s... When oil prices were just as high as they are now. The 80s and 90s still had extremely low gas prices, even though people had "gotten used to paying high fuel prices".
would make the US the new saudi arabia for oil considering our huge coal deposits.
No it wouldn't.
The US used-to produce the vast majority of the world's oil. It was the largest exporting nation by far, but production has slowed and many of the oil deposits have been exhausted. The US has always been, and still is, one of the top 3 oil producing nations.
The reason the US isn't the old and "new Saudi Arabia for oil" isn't because of lack of oil, but because the US uses so much that despite the huge production, we still have to import more.
You can bet, if liquid fuel from coal gets cheap, our energy usage will go through the roof, and we'll use every last bit of it in record time, and quickly start importing it from other countries.
Saudi Arabia is what it is not because it has oil, but because it's oil is combined with a tiny, tiny population, who couldn't use a tiny fraction of it all if they tried. We don't have that "problem" in the US.
What happens when people who weren't intended to be reading these chips start using them to track and find the chipped?
Well, in the case of "troops on the combat field", those trying to operating the high-powered RFID readers, throwing off EMI in every direction for hundreds of miles, have a very short life expectancy.
It's less expensive to print in color on these machines than black and white on a typical laser printer.
With a 150-page (black) ink tank for $3, that's 2 cents/page, which is merely on-par with new, brand-name toner and fuser on your average laser printer... You can probably also get quite a deal with refilled toner cartridges and a refurbished fuser, but I haven't actually priced that out (or used laser printers for that matter).
How about the low end? Doesn't sound like the original poster is running an office with the printer.
On the low-end, you'll get about half the yield from ink cartridges, and so, around twice as expensive. Just look-up the page counts for the different ink cartridges from the same manufacturer.
I'm sure it looks just as good if not better than my old DeskWriter 680c.
First off, the fact that you aren't raving about how much better your new printer looks, speaks volumes.
Also, you're just comparing ink to ink. If you had a laser printer from that era, you'd see a new inkjet as a downgrade.
For one, there is no way to ever improve on text output, even from the oldest laser printers. They download the font to the printer, and print it out absolutely perfect, no pixelation at all, on the finest of details. Not to mention that the oldest laser printers still print far faster than the newest inkjets. With inkjets, they can list 30ppm on the box, but there's no way in hell you're getting anything remotely close to that. With laser printers, it may only say 6ppm, but you'll get 6 pages per minute, every time, on even the most complex printouts.
Up front cost or over time? How many ink cartridges would one need to buy and how long would it last (assuming moderate use,) before it exceeds the purchase price of that laser?
It depends on how overpriced the inkjet is... Epson and HP trys to sell their high-end (still crappy) inkjets printers for $150, more than what a B&W laser would cost, and only $50 off a color laser. You're saving money as soon as you run out of ink. Canon's high-end models run about $100, so you'll get a couple refills before you could have paid-off a color laser.
But more importantly than that, is that the prints from the cheapest (1200x1200DPI) color lasers printers, even on the cheapest paper, look better than even high-end ink on high-end paper. They don't bleed, they don't come out dark due to the volume of ink, they don't need to dry, they don't have heads that clog-up and spatter ink on the finished print, the prints are as durable as the paper itself, etc.
And by then, would one be inclined to buy a new, more wizbang printer (that's just as cheap thanks to technology advances.)
That actually NEVER happens in printers. You can get a 10 year-old laser printer (600x600 DPI) and it will just as good as brand-new model. The situation is almost entirely the same with inkjet printers... Once the DPI gets up to 1200x1200, there's nothing else to do, except try to save ink (since it costs so much). They add gimmicky color LCD screens and SD card slots on them, but print quality basically doesn't ever improve.
That's an extremely strange question... A bit like asking "Which Hummer Has The Best Gas Mileage?"
Getting an inkjet guarantees high prices, lots of maintenance (eg. cleaning) etc. Then, getting an all-in-one printer ensures operating costs will be more expensive still, with a low-end printer, low-end scanner, etc., all in one.
I have a hard time imagining any scenario where space could possibly be that limited, so I have to believe you're just unaware of those problems, or have been sucked-in by the advertising.
IMHO, a B&W laser printer is the best way to go... Cheap purchase price, cheap consumables, far better looking text, and 10X faster than any inkjet printer. Color is unnecessary for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of time, but if you really want it, consumables for a color laser printer aren't much more expensive.
Then go with mythTV. Anything else will limit you in some way.
MythTV has numerous limitations of its own. It's slow and clunky, uses an odd format, and has a god-awful interface. It's so ridiculously focused on TV that you have to go up 5 levels of menus, then down 5 more, to look through the other videos you have available. And to get back to the TV programs? Yep, just as many steps.
I find a file manager and a shell script far more user-friendly than Myth.
What is the real "legal" definition of what a lobbyist is supposed to do?
Every citizen has the constitutional right to lobby their government. That is, to state their opinions on issues to their representatives, saying what they want them to do.
Like anything else, it has been corrupted, because whoever can spend the most money, can pay the most people to lobby for the issues they want. And, when big money gets that close to those in power, bribes are the natural result.
how is being good with your finances going to get you out of a mortgage?
Buying a home within your means... As long as you make more than minimum wage, there is a tiny stamp of land nearby with a "structure" on it with four walls and a roof that you can afford to pay off almost immediately. At that point, you can start saving up for something larger if you want.
Personally, I have a large family, most of whom are smart enough to have a savings. When somebody in the family needs a large amount of money, there are plenty of people willing to lend part of it (at no interest).
Slashdot Mirror
I see no sources, facts or figures to back that up. Just another company claiming free energy.
Saying we should "just grow [...] algae" for fuel is a lot like saying to hell with building new roads, we should just build flying cars...
There have been numerous and extensive attempts to make use of algae... It has never worked out. There's tremendous potential there if we can figure out how to make it work, but so far, nobody has.
On what planet is an incompatible fuel with a slightly higher yeild "a much more realistic alternative"? You believe we should force everyone across the country to throw away their old cars and trucks, buy new ones with diesel engines, so that we can provide just slightly more fuel?
Neither option is a long term solution... it's just an effort to slightly increase supplies and so drive down prices. By trying to force a wholly incompatible fuel on everyone, you can only possibly further delay the use of biofuel.
The long-term solution they're aiming for is hydrogen, but I believe fully electric battery/capacitor/flywheel vehicles are far more realistic and therefore likely.
Since the evidence that they stole the code is overwhelming, they've admitted to that. But, of course, after going through the trouble of stealing their biggest competitor's code, they didn't actually do anything with it that could be illegal... No.
In other words, they didn't inhale.
Ironically, a careful reading of your second link would show you how wrong your idiotic assertions are...
In their example chart on page 4 which you quote (out of order), the cooling system is responsible for 33% of energy demands. That means that while consuming 33% of the power, it is cooling the other 67%.
Why?
That's idiotic. You have absolutely no understanding of carnot.
Got any source for that? It doesn't pass the laugh test.
Figures say that even the most inefficient AC units out there remove more watts of heat than they need to operate themselves.
I think you just misunderstood my point. A 60watt TV may be cool to the touch, while a 30watt TV could be extremely hot to the touch.
There are two parts to this:
1) It's any use of energy, not just WASTE of energy that makes heat.
2) How cool a device stays has very, very little to do with how much energy it is using/wasting, unless they're identical in every other way (which basically never happens).
That's not necessarily true. Certainly several of the numerous voltages output by a normal PSU are accomplished by DC-DC conversion, but it's entirely possible that the two major voltages (5v and 12v) could be converted directly from AC with, eg. a transformer.
And still, even if you have a net gain in efficiency, economies of scale are against you. 120/240v AC ATX PSUs are so standard, and have been around so long, that they are often given away for free, or very near it. Meanwhile, if you need any other kind of 300W power supply, you can expect it to cost around $100. It's actually a depressing state of affairs.
And I happen to know from pricing a few of them, that DC ATX power supplies are significantly more expensive than their AC brethren. So, at best, going all DC for energy efficiency would be a case of diminishing returns, and plenty of drawbacks as well.
It's quite likely a fair comparison, and you're just confused about the numbers.
5% page coverage is standard. When you get a black in cartridge, the page count is based on 5%. With colors, they do 5% per color, which ends up giving you 15%. Now, they may notate that fact differently from one site to another, but I seriously doubt they're screwing with the industry standard formula and opening themselves up to massive lawsuits. Also, the fact that 5% is exactly 1/3rd of 15% also strongly suggests that they aren't cheating at all.
There are many groups that have expressed interest in DC datacenters.
The reality, however, is that AC/DC conversion is only nominally less efficient than DC/DC conversion. With the increasing popularity of 80plus efficient PSUs, there's very, very little to be gained by going to DC. You're really talking about significant investment to get a ~5% improvement in efficiency.
All devices, everywhere, get hot and waste energy. Some waste more than others, of course, but feeling how hot something gets won't tell you that. How hot something gets just tells you how under-engineered their respective cooling systems are...
For example, I've got a 4W amplifier that will burn your hand, a 20W soldering iron that will vaporize skin, and 60W TV that barely feels warm to the touch.
I would go the exact opposite direction... Keep the room cool, and use ducts to remove the hot air (eg. to the outside).
See above. Unless you carefully duct the hot air from the source, you run a big risk of removing just as much cool air as warm, and the warm air will still seep out and get away from you, and raise the temperature of the room.
I don't run a data center, but I have tried this, first hand, on a smaller scale.
Except death rate can be significant affected by diverse factors, some of which may be impractical to try and control such as lifestyle, and others of which simple can't be controlled, such as climate.
I really do hate nation-by-nation comparisons. Many nations are too large to be considered a uniform group... Andorra, for example, is a country smaller than many American cities. I'm sure if you looked in western nations, you'd find several equivalently sized/populated area inside many countries, which also have abnormally long life-spans as well. #2 on the list, Macau, is far, far smaller still.
Sad but true. It doesn't appear to even have a TV tuner, just a video capture card you have to hook up to something else and use the IR blaster...
It cost $250 for all the capability you'd find in my PC in 1998, a $500/400Mhz K6 with a ($40) ATI Rage Pro card (composite input/output)*... And that at least had a 10GB HDD. All together, a system that is likely to go for $50 on eBay these days.
*Admittedly I didn't have an IR remote or blaster, but remotes are free, and the sensor/blaster is maybe $10 worth of components.
Actually, I see exactly the opposite...
When AMD* turns out slow, low-end chips, they do so after the high-end original has passed on, and in the process they update the tech, and so tend to give the "value" chips lower power consumption for free. That is of course baring the possibility of buying your CPU right during the transitional period, while the high-end chips use a newer, smaller die, and the low-end chips don't, yet.
(* I can't use Intel as an example because right now their low-end chips are old Pentium4s, which suck power like crazy)
It's not actually a cliffhanger, but pure hyperbole.
I, for instance, wasn't surprised in the least by the results, nor can I see any reason anyone would be.
Stay away from the high-end, and computer are nearly there already, thanks to AMD pushing CnQ/PowerNow on everything (while Intel STILL omits SpeedStep on their low-end chips).
The only real problem/exception seems to be GPUs, so for now, you have to go for a lower-end, (preferably fanless) video card to be safe.
The gaping hole in your theory is a little something called the 1970s... When oil prices were just as high as they are now. The 80s and 90s still had extremely low gas prices, even though people had "gotten used to paying high fuel prices".
No it wouldn't.
The US used-to produce the vast majority of the world's oil. It was the largest exporting nation by far, but production has slowed and many of the oil deposits have been exhausted. The US has always been, and still is, one of the top 3 oil producing nations.
The reason the US isn't the old and "new Saudi Arabia for oil" isn't because of lack of oil, but because the US uses so much that despite the huge production, we still have to import more.
You can bet, if liquid fuel from coal gets cheap, our energy usage will go through the roof, and we'll use every last bit of it in record time, and quickly start importing it from other countries.
Saudi Arabia is what it is not because it has oil, but because it's oil is combined with a tiny, tiny population, who couldn't use a tiny fraction of it all if they tried. We don't have that "problem" in the US.
Well, in the case of "troops on the combat field", those trying to operating the high-powered RFID readers, throwing off EMI in every direction for hundreds of miles, have a very short life expectancy.
With a 150-page (black) ink tank for $3, that's 2 cents/page, which is merely on-par with new, brand-name toner and fuser on your average laser printer... You can probably also get quite a deal with refilled toner cartridges and a refurbished fuser, but I haven't actually priced that out (or used laser printers for that matter).
On the low-end, you'll get about half the yield from ink cartridges, and so, around twice as expensive. Just look-up the page counts for the different ink cartridges from the same manufacturer.
First off, the fact that you aren't raving about how much better your new printer looks, speaks volumes.
Also, you're just comparing ink to ink. If you had a laser printer from that era, you'd see a new inkjet as a downgrade.
For one, there is no way to ever improve on text output, even from the oldest laser printers. They download the font to the printer, and print it out absolutely perfect, no pixelation at all, on the finest of details. Not to mention that the oldest laser printers still print far faster than the newest inkjets. With inkjets, they can list 30ppm on the box, but there's no way in hell you're getting anything remotely close to that. With laser printers, it may only say 6ppm, but you'll get 6 pages per minute, every time, on even the most complex printouts.
It depends on how overpriced the inkjet is... Epson and HP trys to sell their high-end (still crappy) inkjets printers for $150, more than what a B&W laser would cost, and only $50 off a color laser. You're saving money as soon as you run out of ink. Canon's high-end models run about $100, so you'll get a couple refills before you could have paid-off a color laser.
But more importantly than that, is that the prints from the cheapest (1200x1200DPI) color lasers printers, even on the cheapest paper, look better than even high-end ink on high-end paper. They don't bleed, they don't come out dark due to the volume of ink, they don't need to dry, they don't have heads that clog-up and spatter ink on the finished print, the prints are as durable as the paper itself, etc.
That actually NEVER happens in printers. You can get a 10 year-old laser printer (600x600 DPI) and it will just as good as brand-new model. The situation is almost entirely the same with inkjet printers... Once the DPI gets up to 1200x1200, there's nothing else to do, except try to save ink (since it costs so much). They add gimmicky color LCD screens and SD card slots on them, but print quality basically doesn't ever improve.
That's an extremely strange question... A bit like asking "Which Hummer Has The Best Gas Mileage?"
Getting an inkjet guarantees high prices, lots of maintenance (eg. cleaning) etc. Then, getting an all-in-one printer ensures operating costs will be more expensive still, with a low-end printer, low-end scanner, etc., all in one.
I have a hard time imagining any scenario where space could possibly be that limited, so I have to believe you're just unaware of those problems, or have been sucked-in by the advertising.
IMHO, a B&W laser printer is the best way to go... Cheap purchase price, cheap consumables, far better looking text, and 10X faster than any inkjet printer. Color is unnecessary for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of time, but if you really want it, consumables for a color laser printer aren't much more expensive.
MythTV has numerous limitations of its own. It's slow and clunky, uses an odd format, and has a god-awful interface. It's so ridiculously focused on TV that you have to go up 5 levels of menus, then down 5 more, to look through the other videos you have available. And to get back to the TV programs? Yep, just as many steps.
I find a file manager and a shell script far more user-friendly than Myth.
Every citizen has the constitutional right to lobby their government. That is, to state their opinions on issues to their representatives, saying what they want them to do.
Like anything else, it has been corrupted, because whoever can spend the most money, can pay the most people to lobby for the issues they want. And, when big money gets that close to those in power, bribes are the natural result.
Buying a home within your means... As long as you make more than minimum wage, there is a tiny stamp of land nearby with a "structure" on it with four walls and a roof that you can afford to pay off almost immediately. At that point, you can start saving up for something larger if you want.
Personally, I have a large family, most of whom are smart enough to have a savings. When somebody in the family needs a large amount of money, there are plenty of people willing to lend part of it (at no interest).