the light is only turned on for a couple of hours each year and the cost of replacing those bulbs with LED or CFL equivalents far outstrips the potential energy savings pver the next few decades.
Until the ONE TIME somebody accidentally forgets to shut the light off, then you're in the red...
With 60-watt equivalent CFLs going for $1.75/each (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NISDNU/) and using California's lowest tier of 13c/KWH (which will be rising, soon), the the CFLs can pay for themselves in a grand total of 12 days. I'm sure somebody will forget to hit the light switch in your closet more often than that, in well under a decade.
I don't like LEDs because they last 20+ years... I don't need to make that big an investment in my lighting future!
So use them for 2-5 years, until they've paid for themselves, and then throw them in the trash... Or even better, drop them off at a thrift store. Would that sufficiently free you of the irrational fear of longevity?
Each attic or rarely used closet doesn't need a $30 light bulb when a 30 cent light bulb will do just fine. Using CFLs in such roles wastes 95% of the resources used to make them.
A CFL costs less than $2, and nothing is wasted by infrequently using them. Their payback time is just on the order of months or years, instead of the few or weeks it would be in a more frequently lit location.
If a fight broke out in a british cinema, there'd be a punch-up, the police would be called and someone would be spending the night in the cells. In America you get shot.
No, in the UK he'd just have been stabbed to death instead.
the pissed off guy got physical with the 71 year old man by assaulting him by throwing popcorn, and was being physically restrained by his wife's hand on his chest when the 71 year old shot him (through the wife's hand; there was only a single shot).
If you are 71 years old under the threat of physical violence from a 43 year old, it's reasonable to fear for your life.
There's something HORRIBLY wrong with you. Throwing popcorn is NOT assault, and certainly doesn't warrant deadly force. If the young guy was trying to assault the old man, a hand on his chest wouldn't have done the slightest thing. Even the local police officers tacitly acknowledged their ex-chief was way the hell out of line, and weren't trying to justify it in the slightest, but were instead playing up what a pointless tragedy it was.
So actually what happens when there is too much wind and rain,this is terribly expensive for us, because the more subsidized energy is produced , naturally we paid more and more.
Yes, that's how a subsidy works... Your government believes the long-term benefits of renewables are worth a (hopefully modest) short-term electrical price increase to incentivize the investment in building and installing them. If that has changed, the government should review the rule, and perhaps modify or change it.
Once the tariffs end, you can never have "too much wind", as the power companies can just tell the wind turbine operators to adjust the pitch of their blades to reduce supply to reasonable levels, when needed. Similar applies to solar. Since it's not a fossil-fuel plant, they aren't wasting any money on fuel when they just don't operate at peak efficiency.
And short-term negative energy prices like this are a HUGE opportunity for someone to invest in grid-scale energy storage. When there are strong winds and the power company doesn't want all the electricity you can provide, you could always use the excess to do something like charge batteries, generate hydrogen, heat-up an insulated tank of liquid sodium, pump water up to the top of a dam, process other valuable atmospheric gases (liquid nitrogen?), or similar. The more wind capacity you have, and the more often you have zero or negative electricity prices, the more economic it is to build a facility like that.
Until consumers can spend a weekend in orbit doing entertaining activities, it's hard to imagine many people willing spend six figures (?) on the trip.
No, the Snowden leaks weren't any new information. If you think so, you're utterly ignorant of the world around you. EFF.org has a timeline of all the revelations, back to 2003.
I was stunned the leaks got the traction in the press that they did, when it was public knowedge already. The one good thing they accomplished was to un-stall the years-old EFF court case against the fed, since they couldn't claim state secrets, anymore.
I must reluctantly agree with you... There used to be several retailers out there where you could go and buy ANYTHING. Now, it seems they're dropping anything that isn't high enough margin, or a big enough seller. A few years ago I didn't go to Walmart for anything, ever. Then I fought with ridiculous parking to stop by Target, only to find that their 12 rows of shoes had one-half of one-isle dedicated to men, and almost entirely dress shoes.
Have you ever walked through an entire pet store and found that they didn't even have a spot, anywhere, for flea collars?
Yes, many retailers are, for all practical purposes, forcing their customers to shop at Walmart. I don't know if it's a side-effect of price matching, or bean counters insisting on all stocked merchandise meeting some silly metric, but whatever the case, they're all dropping the ball, badly.
I like KMart and Sears, but losing half a billion dollars every year just doesn't bode well for their propects of being around much longer.
Heck, maybe I should get some venture capital and open up some brick and mortar "Amazon" stores all ovr the place.
Paying in cash is a far cry from killing yourself, or going Amish... In fact it's often more convenient than cards. Ever tried to split a bill between 10 people, all on their cards?
I could still have my identity stolen, you say? Well since I have no credit history at all, they won't get much use out of it.
There's a few ways ID theft could incovenience me, but far less than you're exposing yourself to, and will have far less impact on me.
Other roads haven't had their speed limits changed
I'm quite sure this is entirely in your imagination. You haven't noticed speed limits being changed on a few roads you frequent, and assume they haven't been changed, anywhere.
Unless viewed in the broadcast area, the value of those commercials is Nil, and the network no longer gets paid proportionally to the number of actual viewers, only to the number of viewers within the area
Aereo has gone to great lengths to ensure that nobody outside the broadcast footprint can access the content through Aereo. So your point is entirely moot.
I firmly believe that what Aereo does is, strictly speaking, legal, but hardly fair play.
What the broadcasters do is quite unfair, but technically legal as well.
Aereo is essentially a leech on the system. They give nothing back to the content producers.
They delivery YOUR eyeballs to the networks and their advertisers. You might go watch YouTube instead, if Aereo didn't exist.
What broadcasters are worried about is cable retransmission fees, which has nothing to do with Aereo. Viacom wants to keep your cable company paying obscene amounts of money for channels like Nickelodeon and MTV, and threaten to pull their local CBS channel if they don't agree. Broadcast television was never supposed to work that way. Aereo is breaking that model.
I consider Aereo a valuable service for people like me who are out in the fringes... If I spend $200 on an antenna system, I can get most, but not all, of my local channels, with minor breakups. That same money will pay for Aereo for quite a while. It can also save me from buying a DVR as well, though I must admit, those are getting dirt cheap, these days.
And while I can make an antenna work over time, renters without dedicated private roof space (see: FCC) may not be in a position to do so in any case. Those same renters may also not be in a position where they can get satellite service, either. Then it's just a question of being at the mercy of the local cable company, or not having TV, without Aereo.
This is fine for avoiding Ford's intrusiveness, but now you're giving Google access to all your travel data.
MapQuest is also free, and does an infinitely better job than Google Navigation at routing around traffic. Or you can pay for the navigation apps that each cellular carrier sells... since they are very easily able to track you, anyhow, you're not giving them much extra info.
But cars today are a very far cry from cars that were around back then.
Back *when*? Are you under the mistaken impression that speed limits were set when roads were built, and never changed? I can list dozens around here that have had their speed limits changed over the past several years.
I suspect few desktop users run an OS targeted for "servers" where stability is the number one goal?
There's no reason not to. Desktop users want "stability" too! CentOS/RHEL users can simply add some more repos to get more recent software packages.
The only reason you might avoid a "stable" release, is if you have newer hardware that isn't supported by the old, "stable" kernel and supporting software. Personally, I was able to manage that just fine by compiling my own Fedora 3.x kernel SRPM on CentOS6... It might sound like work, but it's a lot less effort than living with all the horrible nasty bugs that come with a Fedora distro.
1) Redhat not making publicly available some information regarding rebuilding the sources. 2) CentOS being a closed development group that refuses to accept any help from outsiders. Scientific Linux is another clone of Redhat that was able release their version of Redhat 6 much faster.
Scientific Linux isn't as close to RedHat as CentOS. CentOS is fully, 100% binary compatible, while Scientific Linux doesn't try to be. This is rarely a problem, but occasionally you'll come across some huge commercial software package compatible with RHEL that doesn't run on SL, but runs fine on CentOS.
That is precisely why point #1 slowed down CentOS horribly, but didn't slow down Scientific Linux nearly as much, as you mention in point #2.
There's plenty of room to get more performance out of existing hardware, that's for sure!
But that's exactly the point... For decades, Moore's Law has made it seem like a crime to optimize software. No matter how inefficient the software, hardware was cheaper than developer time, and the next generation of hardware would be fast enough to run the bloated, inefficient crap.
The end of Moore's Law... if it actually happens this time, unlike the last 1,000 times it was predicted... will mean good people who can write more efficient code will be worth far more, and the code monkeys who got by only thanks to a culture that was utterly unconcerned with performance/optimization, will be seen as the hacks they are...
Slashdot Mirror
Until the ONE TIME somebody accidentally forgets to shut the light off, then you're in the red...
With 60-watt equivalent CFLs going for $1.75/each (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NISDNU/) and using California's lowest tier of 13c/KWH (which will be rising, soon), the the CFLs can pay for themselves in a grand total of 12 days. I'm sure somebody will forget to hit the light switch in your closet more often than that, in well under a decade.
So use them for 2-5 years, until they've paid for themselves, and then throw them in the trash... Or even better, drop them off at a thrift store. Would that sufficiently free you of the irrational fear of longevity?
I'll let you in on a little secret: There are far more CFLs available out there, than the cheap crap available on Walmart shelves.
A CFL costs less than $2, and nothing is wasted by infrequently using them. Their payback time is just on the order of months or years, instead of the few or weeks it would be in a more frequently lit location.
No, in the UK he'd just have been stabbed to death instead.
There's something HORRIBLY wrong with you. Throwing popcorn is NOT assault, and certainly doesn't warrant deadly force. If the young guy was trying to assault the old man, a hand on his chest wouldn't have done the slightest thing. Even the local police officers tacitly acknowledged their ex-chief was way the hell out of line, and weren't trying to justify it in the slightest, but were instead playing up what a pointless tragedy it was.
Yes, that's how a subsidy works... Your government believes the long-term benefits of renewables are worth a (hopefully modest) short-term electrical price increase to incentivize the investment in building and installing them. If that has changed, the government should review the rule, and perhaps modify or change it.
Once the tariffs end, you can never have "too much wind", as the power companies can just tell the wind turbine operators to adjust the pitch of their blades to reduce supply to reasonable levels, when needed. Similar applies to solar. Since it's not a fossil-fuel plant, they aren't wasting any money on fuel when they just don't operate at peak efficiency.
And short-term negative energy prices like this are a HUGE opportunity for someone to invest in grid-scale energy storage. When there are strong winds and the power company doesn't want all the electricity you can provide, you could always use the excess to do something like charge batteries, generate hydrogen, heat-up an insulated tank of liquid sodium, pump water up to the top of a dam, process other valuable atmospheric gases (liquid nitrogen?), or similar. The more wind capacity you have, and the more often you have zero or negative electricity prices, the more economic it is to build a facility like that.
Zero-gravity brothels? I think that'll do it...
And also, the year of the Linux desktop!
Try not to confuse wishful thinking for accurate predictors of future trends.
No, the Snowden leaks weren't any new information. If you think so, you're utterly ignorant of the world around you. EFF.org has a timeline of all the revelations, back to 2003.
I was stunned the leaks got the traction in the press that they did, when it was public knowedge already. The one good thing they accomplished was to un-stall the years-old EFF court case against the fed, since they couldn't claim state secrets, anymore.
I must reluctantly agree with you... There used to be several retailers out there where you could go and buy ANYTHING. Now, it seems they're dropping anything that isn't high enough margin, or a big enough seller. A few years ago I didn't go to Walmart for anything, ever. Then I fought with ridiculous parking to stop by Target, only to find that their 12 rows of shoes had one-half of one-isle dedicated to men, and almost entirely dress shoes.
Have you ever walked through an entire pet store and found that they didn't even have a spot, anywhere, for flea collars?
Yes, many retailers are, for all practical purposes, forcing their customers to shop at Walmart. I don't know if it's a side-effect of price matching, or bean counters insisting on all stocked merchandise meeting some silly metric, but whatever the case, they're all dropping the ball, badly.
I like KMart and Sears, but losing half a billion dollars every year just doesn't bode well for their propects of being around much longer.
Heck, maybe I should get some venture capital and open up some brick and mortar "Amazon" stores all ovr the place.
If the JC Penny breach didn't do it, why would this one? Was Target the epitome of safety and security in your eyes?
Paying in cash is a far cry from killing yourself, or going Amish... In fact it's often more convenient than cards. Ever tried to split a bill between 10 people, all on their cards?
I could still have my identity stolen, you say? Well since I have no credit history at all, they won't get much use out of it.
There's a few ways ID theft could incovenience me, but far less than you're exposing yourself to, and will have far less impact on me.
A VPN won't give you a mailing address and billing address in NYC. Plus Aereo could certainly be patrolling for VPN services and blocking their IPs.
I'm quite sure this is entirely in your imagination. You haven't noticed speed limits being changed on a few roads you frequent, and assume they haven't been changed, anywhere.
Hulu has nightly national news, and local news can be found on the radio, or on the website of your local newspaper, sometimes with video...
Aereo has gone to great lengths to ensure that nobody outside the broadcast footprint can access the content through Aereo. So your point is entirely moot.
What the broadcasters do is quite unfair, but technically legal as well.
They delivery YOUR eyeballs to the networks and their advertisers. You might go watch YouTube instead, if Aereo didn't exist.
What broadcasters are worried about is cable retransmission fees, which has nothing to do with Aereo. Viacom wants to keep your cable company paying obscene amounts of money for channels like Nickelodeon and MTV, and threaten to pull their local CBS channel if they don't agree. Broadcast television was never supposed to work that way. Aereo is breaking that model.
I consider Aereo a valuable service for people like me who are out in the fringes... If I spend $200 on an antenna system, I can get most, but not all, of my local channels, with minor breakups. That same money will pay for Aereo for quite a while. It can also save me from buying a DVR as well, though I must admit, those are getting dirt cheap, these days.
And while I can make an antenna work over time, renters without dedicated private roof space (see: FCC) may not be in a position to do so in any case. Those same renters may also not be in a position where they can get satellite service, either. Then it's just a question of being at the mercy of the local cable company, or not having TV, without Aereo.
MapQuest is also free, and does an infinitely better job than Google Navigation at routing around traffic. Or you can pay for the navigation apps that each cellular carrier sells... since they are very easily able to track you, anyhow, you're not giving them much extra info.
You can also get OsmAnd~ for Android with off-line maps, which is invaluable when you go off-route in the mountains or middle or nowhere where cell signals are iffy or nonexistent. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OsmAnd#Download_.26_Installation
Back *when*? Are you under the mistaken impression that speed limits were set when roads were built, and never changed? I can list dozens around here that have had their speed limits changed over the past several years.
Not true with an SRPM package... A vanilla kernel can be a lot of work, but recompiling an SRPM with rpmbuild isn't difficult at all.
There's no reason not to. Desktop users want "stability" too! CentOS/RHEL users can simply add some more repos to get more recent software packages.
The only reason you might avoid a "stable" release, is if you have newer hardware that isn't supported by the old, "stable" kernel and supporting software. Personally, I was able to manage that just fine by compiling my own Fedora 3.x kernel SRPM on CentOS6... It might sound like work, but it's a lot less effort than living with all the horrible nasty bugs that come with a Fedora distro.
Scientific Linux isn't as close to RedHat as CentOS. CentOS is fully, 100% binary compatible, while Scientific Linux doesn't try to be. This is rarely a problem, but occasionally you'll come across some huge commercial software package compatible with RHEL that doesn't run on SL, but runs fine on CentOS.
That is precisely why point #1 slowed down CentOS horribly, but didn't slow down Scientific Linux nearly as much, as you mention in point #2.
But that's exactly the point... For decades, Moore's Law has made it seem like a crime to optimize software. No matter how inefficient the software, hardware was cheaper than developer time, and the next generation of hardware would be fast enough to run the bloated, inefficient crap.
The end of Moore's Law... if it actually happens this time, unlike the last 1,000 times it was predicted... will mean good people who can write more efficient code will be worth far more, and the code monkeys who got by only thanks to a culture that was utterly unconcerned with performance/optimization, will be seen as the hacks they are...
I suppose you think an HDTV has just 1080 pixels as well?
3840x2160 = 8294400 pixels
8294400 / 3000 = 2,764.8 pixels per dollar
I just wonder if they have the same dead-pixels policy as my first 800x600 LCD monitor way back when. Three out of 8 million isn't a bad ratio.