I was thinking the same thing. Efficiency is the real question. I assume the article would have mentioned this if the efficiency was available to the authors. The fact that efficiency figures weren't available means they were not very impressive at this stage. The devil is in the details.
Your claim that "no one ever said that" is preposterous on the face of it. How do you know no one ever said that?
Around 1962 I toured the under-construction Fermi power plant in Detroit Michigan. This is a fast breeder fission plant. The tour guide informed the tour group that nuclear power was going to be so cheap to produce that it wouldn't even make sense to meter it. The tour guide may have been misquoting Strauss, but I remember those very words from that day, so don't tell me no one ever said that about a fission reactor.
Nuclear power has always been a pipe dream of some sort. Once it was "power so cheap we won't even bother to meter it". The fact of the matter is cleaning up a mixed bag of uranium, plutonium, and whatever isotopes is a complicated matter that costs a shitload of money. The pie-in-the-sky promoters of nuclear energy have always underplayed the costs. No reactor has ever been built under budget. No clean-up has been under budget. It is just incredibly expensive to build, operate, and decommission a nuke plant. The promoters just don't want to deal with realistic figures. And, then there is the cost of disposing of the spent fuel....
What I want is a self vacuuming car. I don't care that much about the outside, but when there are so many fast-food wrappers on the floor that the pedals don't work well, something needs to happen. If they can invent a Roomba, why not a Carba? Maybe they will need to add a paper shredder to it though.
I play a lot of poker, but I've never heard of an "inside flush" draw. I know the inside straight draw, and I suppose you could have an inside straight flush draw, but a flush is just a draw for another like suited card. All flush draws have nine possible outs unless you have seen your opponents cards and know there are fewer. An inside straight has only four outs, which is why it is a bad draw most of the time. An open ended straight has eight outs, which makes it almost as good as the flush draw. Both the flush draw and the open ended straight can be worth playing, depending on the situation with pot odds, and your expectations about your opponents.
Could it be that the fat people are just lazy and get up later, and don't get outside early. Maybe fat causes people to get less light in the AM. See the problem with the headline?
Good points. The amount of energy a Mag 8 earthquake (like the one that just hit Peru) is roughly equivalent to 2,500 nuclear bombs. So presumably the power to generate "noise cancelling waves" would be of a similar order of magnitude. Presumably this amount of power would have to be deployed at an exact time and location in order to be effective. I think I'm starting to see a problem with this plan.
As for Korea, just detonation 2,500 A-bombs should do it, we don't need no stinkin earthquake generator.
You DO realize there is a middle ground between hyper-miling and hyper-aggressive driving, right? A sensible driver can get pretty good gas mileage by easing off a bit without creating a huge line of angry eighteen-year-olds with an anger problem. The sensible driver might miss a light now and then, but most of the time they will get there right behind the angry aggressive drivers. They also arrive safely and more relaxed. If it is possible, you might give it a try.
If you are a careful driver and plan ahead to avoid quick braking, and also accelerate at a very modest rate your benefits would be small with this kind of system. It helps compensate for aggressive driving but it seems like it won't benefit drivers that already are trying to get good gas mileage.
WHAT? Are you trying to tell me my 1985 LandCruiser isn't more energy efficient than a new shiny Prius? I've been lording that myth over all my Prius driving friends for years. I hope they don't read Slashdot.
Interesting notion, but the devil is in the details. In the NE United States most of the electricity is from coal or gas fired plants, but in the NW United States most of the electricity is hydropower. You can argue that the carbon footprint of the NW electricity is very low, but if you consider the carbon cost of building the dams, the carbon goes up. You have to make assumptions about the expected life of a dam so you can pro-rate the carbon cost. The same issues surround calculating the carbon cost of nuclear generated electricity, but you also have to include carbon coats for transporting, storing, and guarding the nuclear waste for a long time, which involves another assumption. There are also a host of carbon issues relating to power transmission infrastructure. There is a lot of steel in those towers, but some of it is a century old. Do you count it in current carbon calculations?
The bottom line is, the assertion that the Mazda has a lower carbon footprint is more of a marketing claim than an engineering calculation. I suspect the assumptions involved have been made with the primary purpose of supporting the claim rather than meeting some test of reasonableness.
If you ask a question from a marketing context, you get a marketing answer.
Re:only 5.5% and tasteless to boot.
on
Klingon Beer
·
· Score: 1
Dunkelweisen is a beer made with wheat. The reason for the wheat is to make a beer with less of a malty flavor, which means less hops are needed to balance this bland tasteless beer. This is the craft brewers version of light beer. Give me a break.
Time, distance, motion, and acceleration are all things that a moving organism needs to master to survive. These things can be mathematically calculated using calculus, and calculus can certainly explain the interconnectedness of these things, but it is unreasonable to say that a fruit-fly uses calculus to fly. If fruit-flies use calculus then so do amoebas.
Paper had one characteristic that might make it less than suitable for use in rain. One foam helmet might be cheaper in the long run than a bunch of soggy paper helmets.
It will work out fine for all the people that really love technology but don't actually have any real life friends. You know who I'm talking about. No friends = no one to object.
Personally, I'm offended if one of my friends spends more than a few seconds staring at a smartphone in a social situation. Its OK if they excuse themselves from the group, but it isn't if they are sitting with other people and mentally somewhere else. Google glass is the same, but maybe worse because you think they are there but aren't.
Here is the text of the fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is totally obvious that "papers, and effects" would include digital documents such as phone calls, texts, and any computer file. The category was written broadly enough two hundred years ago to include today's digital "papers, and effects".
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the same thing. Efficiency is the real question. I assume the article would have mentioned this if the efficiency was available to the authors. The fact that efficiency figures weren't available means they were not very impressive at this stage. The devil is in the details.
I'll bet that doesn't happen to you very often.
Thank you AC. Well said.
Your claim that "no one ever said that" is preposterous on the face of it. How do you know no one ever said that? Around 1962 I toured the under-construction Fermi power plant in Detroit Michigan. This is a fast breeder fission plant. The tour guide informed the tour group that nuclear power was going to be so cheap to produce that it wouldn't even make sense to meter it. The tour guide may have been misquoting Strauss, but I remember those very words from that day, so don't tell me no one ever said that about a fission reactor.
Nuclear power has always been a pipe dream of some sort. Once it was "power so cheap we won't even bother to meter it". The fact of the matter is cleaning up a mixed bag of uranium, plutonium, and whatever isotopes is a complicated matter that costs a shitload of money. The pie-in-the-sky promoters of nuclear energy have always underplayed the costs. No reactor has ever been built under budget. No clean-up has been under budget. It is just incredibly expensive to build, operate, and decommission a nuke plant. The promoters just don't want to deal with realistic figures. And, then there is the cost of disposing of the spent fuel....
What I want is a self vacuuming car. I don't care that much about the outside, but when there are so many fast-food wrappers on the floor that the pedals don't work well, something needs to happen. If they can invent a Roomba, why not a Carba? Maybe they will need to add a paper shredder to it though.
I play a lot of poker, but I've never heard of an "inside flush" draw. I know the inside straight draw, and I suppose you could have an inside straight flush draw, but a flush is just a draw for another like suited card. All flush draws have nine possible outs unless you have seen your opponents cards and know there are fewer. An inside straight has only four outs, which is why it is a bad draw most of the time. An open ended straight has eight outs, which makes it almost as good as the flush draw. Both the flush draw and the open ended straight can be worth playing, depending on the situation with pot odds, and your expectations about your opponents.
Could it be that the fat people are just lazy and get up later, and don't get outside early. Maybe fat causes people to get less light in the AM. See the problem with the headline?
Good points. The amount of energy a Mag 8 earthquake (like the one that just hit Peru) is roughly equivalent to 2,500 nuclear bombs. So presumably the power to generate "noise cancelling waves" would be of a similar order of magnitude. Presumably this amount of power would have to be deployed at an exact time and location in order to be effective. I think I'm starting to see a problem with this plan.
As for Korea, just detonation 2,500 A-bombs should do it, we don't need no stinkin earthquake generator.
I'm glad to hear they still have universities, or is that not true either?
You DO realize there is a middle ground between hyper-miling and hyper-aggressive driving, right? A sensible driver can get pretty good gas mileage by easing off a bit without creating a huge line of angry eighteen-year-olds with an anger problem. The sensible driver might miss a light now and then, but most of the time they will get there right behind the angry aggressive drivers. They also arrive safely and more relaxed. If it is possible, you might give it a try.
If you are a careful driver and plan ahead to avoid quick braking, and also accelerate at a very modest rate your benefits would be small with this kind of system. It helps compensate for aggressive driving but it seems like it won't benefit drivers that already are trying to get good gas mileage.
WHAT? Are you trying to tell me my 1985 LandCruiser isn't more energy efficient than a new shiny Prius? I've been lording that myth over all my Prius driving friends for years. I hope they don't read Slashdot.
Interesting notion, but the devil is in the details. In the NE United States most of the electricity is from coal or gas fired plants, but in the NW United States most of the electricity is hydropower. You can argue that the carbon footprint of the NW electricity is very low, but if you consider the carbon cost of building the dams, the carbon goes up. You have to make assumptions about the expected life of a dam so you can pro-rate the carbon cost. The same issues surround calculating the carbon cost of nuclear generated electricity, but you also have to include carbon coats for transporting, storing, and guarding the nuclear waste for a long time, which involves another assumption. There are also a host of carbon issues relating to power transmission infrastructure. There is a lot of steel in those towers, but some of it is a century old. Do you count it in current carbon calculations?
The bottom line is, the assertion that the Mazda has a lower carbon footprint is more of a marketing claim than an engineering calculation. I suspect the assumptions involved have been made with the primary purpose of supporting the claim rather than meeting some test of reasonableness.
If you ask a question from a marketing context, you get a marketing answer.
Dunkelweisen is a beer made with wheat. The reason for the wheat is to make a beer with less of a malty flavor, which means less hops are needed to balance this bland tasteless beer. This is the craft brewers version of light beer. Give me a break.
I think you are assuming a uniform distribution of age. Not a good assumption.
Time, distance, motion, and acceleration are all things that a moving organism needs to master to survive. These things can be mathematically calculated using calculus, and calculus can certainly explain the interconnectedness of these things, but it is unreasonable to say that a fruit-fly uses calculus to fly. If fruit-flies use calculus then so do amoebas.
Liars lie. Professional liars lie professionally. A professional lie can be hard to refute.
The question is, which liars lies are the most believable? Is there a choice where they are all lying?
It is a 27 pound briefcase!
What could possibly go wrong?
Paper had one characteristic that might make it less than suitable for use in rain. One foam helmet might be cheaper in the long run than a bunch of soggy paper helmets.
It will work out fine for all the people that really love technology but don't actually have any real life friends. You know who I'm talking about. No friends = no one to object.
Personally, I'm offended if one of my friends spends more than a few seconds staring at a smartphone in a social situation. Its OK if they excuse themselves from the group, but it isn't if they are sitting with other people and mentally somewhere else. Google glass is the same, but maybe worse because you think they are there but aren't.
The surprise is that they didn't lie. They could have said it did stop an attack but its a secret.
Here is the text of the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is totally obvious that "papers, and effects" would include digital documents such as phone calls, texts, and any computer file. The category was written broadly enough two hundred years ago to include today's digital "papers, and effects".
There really isn't much grey area here.