This is even done by the Deutsche Bahn, the German national railway company. They save something around 2-3% as far as I remember (which is a lot, given the proportions).
The sad part is not that some people get that idea at all, but that that was the largest newspaper in Europe, with the sixth-largest circulation world-wide. And they have a reputation to pull stunts like that. I remember an "giant aliens playing football" article about some rounded rocks found in Antarctica.
Just as an example: I hate going to classes, I think I waste my time there. It usually takes me 30-40 minutes to recap a class that took 90. Multiply that with the amount of classes each week, I would loathe each prof that decided to include material not deemed important enough by most textbooks in class, just to enforce attendance. There is way too much crap in the classes already.
Probably no one, unless someone really looked.
But i guess the intersection of people who would enter their data and the people who would understand the code is empty anyway.
Just sayin', but nobody ever claimed that CO2 was the only pollutant responsible. There's things like methane, too, and most of that will be released due to a small raise in temperature. But you know what? There are way to many sites on the internet already, and I am feeling somewhat XKCDish with the comment "I'll be right in bed; there's someone _wrong_ on the internet!"
Yes, it was included in the pen testing suite. But way later than was suggest by the parent of my post. So it has not even been close to a month in between knowing the details and the fix published as was suggested.
Yes, but there is this little detail, which, if you had read http://secunia.com/advisories/38608, you would know. It was not clear that this was a real bug, there were no details known. A fairly unknown researcher claimed there was a zero day in firefox, without giving enough details to tell where the bug is. So what happened was that somebody, who we not know if he is to be trusted, claimed there was a bug. Imagine! Reaction time from knowing the details to roll-out was far better, at least in this case. This is probably not the best bug to be making a point against patching policy with OSS.
Well, there is the church tax in Germany, which you have to pay if you are a member of the protestant or catholic church. So in a way, you do pay for the privileges and advantages.
To add to my earlier posts: Here are studies showing that, whilst keeping the current price of electricity, one could provide 70% of the energy for europe through wind. That is with only 10% of total turbine investments in the grid (which is still a _LOT_). Just showing that it would be possible.
Maybe it was an advocacy paper, but it seems like you misunderstood what I meant. The combination of different technology is the key here. It is possible to be about 99% accurate in the prediction of expected wind energy output for the next 24 hours, so it is easy to accomodate for fluctuation on this. Also, it is not two months in succession, but more a few hours here and there when there is not enough wind (in small areas). These can be buffered or alternatively be mitigated through a pan-european grid (which we have, but it needs to be extended to be able to bear that kind of load).
People covering whenever a nuclear plant is down is because it is a single point of failure.
Google is probably the best example: Not one huge, giant computer, but lots of really cheap ones very likely to fail. Works fairly well in that example, right?
A typical wind farm generates 50% of it power during 15% of the time. Even in Denmark, which has almost ideal conditions for wind power, wind generators are idle at least 20% of the time. This means that you still need to build power plants with the largest total capacity you will ever need, a wind plant does not bring any savings in system capacity, only in fuel use.
Your example from Denmark contradicts you.
Also, in the mid-west you have huge areas which are scarcely populated, so the place would be there.
All in all, although wind power is certainly greener than fossil fuels, it's not the magic solution to all our problems and they are certainly very far from being harmless to the environment.
This statement is plain wrong. Wind is not something that is shut on and off globally. If you spread it over an area large enough, there will always be wind. I know of studies (sadly in German) that combined many different power sources to a virtual power plant, in a lot of different locations all over Germany. Their shadow capacity was about 20%, meaning peak power was 20% above the highest needed levels. It was able to provide power simulated with real wind and weather conditions for the year of 2007, a year which supposedly untypically low wind conditions. Most people focus, when debunking regenerative energies like this, on one source being used exclusively. This is never the case, and that is why you are able to get this little overhead.
So working on the grid side of things might be a good idea, too. Wind, solar and tide power plants are variable at their core, and one possible solution is massive investment in the grid.
You mean like the nuclear fusion projects which should have been here about 1990?:) Effectively, you are putting this problem on your children and just think "it's going to work out". It's not really like the only alternative is using coal. Reducing consumption and increasing wind and geothermal and others will go a long way. As far as I remember, the Chinese manage to produce some commercially viable solar solutions as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it really work this way rather than one call to get all new messages of people you are following?
Yes, and they are the same guy patenting pigs(!) which have eaten their crops.
Especially if you open it on a netbook. Combined with their new fading in... Gruesome.
This is even done by the Deutsche Bahn, the German national railway company. They save something around 2-3% as far as I remember (which is a lot, given the proportions).
I pay 13 cents, even when roaming. And that is with no monthly fee. In fact, with O2, you pay more for a minute/SMS when you have a monthly fee.
The sad part is not that some people get that idea at all, but that that was the largest newspaper in Europe, with the sixth-largest circulation world-wide. And they have a reputation to pull stunts like that.
I remember an "giant aliens playing football" article about some rounded rocks found in Antarctica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild
As a tutor in college, I can assure you that that is often not the case. Sad as it is.
Just as an example: I hate going to classes, I think I waste my time there. It usually takes me 30-40 minutes to recap a class that took 90. Multiply that with the amount of classes each week, I would loathe each prof that decided to include material not deemed important enough by most textbooks in class, just to enforce attendance. There is way too much crap in the classes already.
This link is still working.
http://www.meejahor.com/2010/04/23/review-of-htc-desire-as-alternative-to-apple-iphone/
Probably no one, unless someone really looked.
But i guess the intersection of people who would enter their data and the people who would understand the code is empty anyway.
This one, as mentioned elsewhere, does not even transmit your information as it is not included in the form. So this one seems legit.
Just sayin', but nobody ever claimed that CO2 was the only pollutant responsible. There's things like methane, too, and most of that will be released due to a small raise in temperature.
But you know what? There are way to many sites on the internet already, and I am feeling somewhat XKCDish with the comment "I'll be right in bed; there's someone _wrong_ on the internet!"
Yes, it was included in the pen testing suite. But way later than was suggest by the parent of my post.
So it has not even been close to a month in between knowing the details and the fix published as was suggested.
Yes, but there is this little detail, which, if you had read http://secunia.com/advisories/38608, you would know. It was not clear that this was a real bug, there were no details known.
A fairly unknown researcher claimed there was a zero day in firefox, without giving enough details to tell where the bug is.
So what happened was that somebody, who we not know if he is to be trusted, claimed there was a bug. Imagine!
Reaction time from knowing the details to roll-out was far better, at least in this case. This is probably not the best bug to be making a point against patching policy with OSS.
And failed miserably by responding afterwards...
Well, the android platform is gaining, and that fast:
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/10/comscore-android-gains-on-the-iphone/
Well, there is the church tax in Germany, which you have to pay if you are a member of the protestant or catholic church. So in a way, you do pay for the privileges and advantages.
To add to my earlier posts: Here are studies showing that, whilst keeping the current price of electricity, one could provide 70% of the energy for europe through wind. That is with only 10% of total turbine investments in the grid (which is still a _LOT_).
Just showing that it would be possible.
http://www.claverton-energy.com/common-affordable-and-renewable-electricity-supply-for-europe-and-its-neighbourhood.html
http://www.claverton-energy.com/green-grid-article-in-new-scientist-by-david-strahan-the-oil-drum-on-hvdc-supergrids.html
Maybe it was an advocacy paper, but it seems like you misunderstood what I meant.
The combination of different technology is the key here. It is possible to be about 99% accurate in the prediction of expected wind energy output for the next 24 hours, so it is easy to accomodate for fluctuation on this.
Also, it is not two months in succession, but more a few hours here and there when there is not enough wind (in small areas). These can be buffered or alternatively be mitigated through a pan-european grid (which we have, but it needs to be extended to be able to bear that kind of load).
People covering whenever a nuclear plant is down is because it is a single point of failure.
Google is probably the best example: Not one huge, giant computer, but lots of really cheap ones very likely to fail. Works fairly well in that example, right?
A typical wind farm generates 50% of it power during 15% of the time. Even in Denmark, which has almost ideal conditions for wind power, wind generators are idle at least 20% of the time. This means that you still need to build power plants with the largest total capacity you will ever need, a wind plant does not bring any savings in system capacity, only in fuel use.
Your example from Denmark contradicts you.
Also, in the mid-west you have huge areas which are scarcely populated, so the place would be there.
All in all, although wind power is certainly greener than fossil fuels, it's not the magic solution to all our problems and they are certainly very far from being harmless to the environment.
This statement is plain wrong. Wind is not something that is shut on and off globally. If you spread it over an area large enough, there will always be wind. I know of studies (sadly in German) that combined many different power sources to a virtual power plant, in a lot of different locations all over Germany. Their shadow capacity was about 20%, meaning peak power was 20% above the highest needed levels.
It was able to provide power simulated with real wind and weather conditions for the year of 2007, a year which supposedly untypically low wind conditions.
Most people focus, when debunking regenerative energies like this, on one source being used exclusively. This is never the case, and that is why you are able to get this little overhead.
So working on the grid side of things might be a good idea, too. Wind, solar and tide power plants are variable at their core, and one possible solution is massive investment in the grid.
You mean like the nuclear fusion projects which should have been here about 1990? :)
Effectively, you are putting this problem on your children and just think "it's going to work out". It's not really like the only alternative is using coal. Reducing consumption and increasing wind and geothermal and others will go a long way.
As far as I remember, the Chinese manage to produce some commercially viable solar solutions as well.
Maybe that is because these new style reactors still have not proven themselves (one notable Russian reactor aside) as safe.
So where in the US do you have a problem with not enough space for wind turbines? Don't see the merit of the argument.
We Germans on the other hand have to go offshore because of that.
While I agree with most of your points:
Where is the harm in covering area with windmills?