That 90% probably doesn't account for the losses starting with actual source of energy
On the other hand, the 25% figure quoted for gasoline engines doesn't account for the losses starting with the actual source of gasoline, either. How much energy did it take to pull that oil out of the ground, refine it into gasoline, and ship it across the world to your local gas station?
You're kidding, right? You don't think that every single Californian plugging their car into the grid would maybe make a little bit of a peak all by itself?
And what do you get when you add a peak to a valley? Depending on how much you add, you either get a shallower valley, a flat line, or a shallower peak than you would have had otherwise. In any of those cases you are making more efficient use of the electrical system than we do currently.
You're also assuming an absurd scenario: that everybody in California is going to switch to driving an electric car at the same time. Clearly the changeover would happen gradually across a number of years or even decades, giving the power utilities plenty of time to adapt to the extra load.
I really wish the people who disagreed with me were smarter. Then I might be able to really learn something.
You'd be more likely to learn if you listened to people, instead of just arrogantly assuming they are idiots unworthy of your intellect.
Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity, you're just replacing one evil for the other.
Sure, but your situation is nonetheless much improved. Why? Because if your infrastructure now runs on electricity instead of oil, you have many different options to choose from for generating that electricity. There aren't very many ways to generate oil.
Eh, seems to me from reading the article that Mr. Submitter was just a little over-enthusiastic about using the word over; the article claims -exactly- 6,831 batteries.
Nah, Mr. Submitter has it right -- he's including the 1.5V watch battery used to keep the clock set on the stereo during battery-pack change-outs.
Now let me ask you, what would China want with some 200,000 script-kiddies? Considering that the US of A already has a computerized powergrid, huge internet backbone/banking systems/telephone/cellular networks/freaking traffic lights and building ACs?
Sorry, but that's really dumb, even for a conspiracy theory. If you were the Chinese government and wanted to hack in to American information infrastructure, you wouldn't hire 200,000 children, you'd hire 200 really bright graduate students, and have them write automated attack programs. Not hundreds of thousands of amateur volunteers who are (a) not going to be very effective, and (b) are going to be impossible to keep quiet about their activities.
There's also the minor detail of China having the USA as their largest customer -- attacking the USA is hardly in their economic interest.
Lesson learned was that most generated code is good enough and it takes routines used heavily (large loops) to really benefit from the extra time spent.
A lesson I learned is that if you hand-write or hand-optimize assembly you run the risk of introducing subtle bugs into your program that will cause you lots of pain later on(*). Is the benefit of a 5% speedup in routine X worth the risk of having your program mysteriously crash once a month at the customer's mission-critical site? Sometimes it is, but often it's not.
(*) Yes, I admit to being a pencil-necked whuss when it comes to assembly coding. The near-complete lack of type-checking gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies.
You don't want to know how many times I've needed to do something that WASN'T in a Chiltons. Substitute "Factory Service Manual" for "Chiltons" and I'll agree.
Sure, but that's not the problem we see here: to make the analogy correct, have you ever looked up procedure in Chiltons and found it, only to find out later that its instructions were completely (or even maliciously) wrong?
I suspect that many people (including myself!) like multicore computers for the same reason other people like SUVs... having all that extra power to play with is just cool, even if you won't actually use it much. Besides, I might someday write a parallel program that uses all 8 cores (just like the SUV owner might someday take his toy offroad;^))
You missed the part where they [...] start wailing on you
"Now see here, guy," said the voice on the loud hailer, "you're not dealing with any dumb two-bit trigger-pumping morons with low hairlines, little piggy eyes and no conversation, we're a couple of intelligent caring guys that you'd probably quite like if you met us socially! I don't go around gratuitously shooting people and then bragging about it afterwards in seedy space-rangers bars, like some cops I could mention! I go around shooting people gratuitously and then I agonize about it afterwards for hours to my girlfriend!"
While this 'clean energy' could be great for businesses that can earn a buck by being 'green', we cannot expect an average person to pay the extra premium given how expensive everything already is
I don't know that paying a premium up-front is so unreasonable... by doing nothing, we end up paying more through other means (read: higher taxes to pay for a larger military, more deaths and injuries in the course of foreign invasions and/or terrorist attacks, more deaths and injuries due to pollution and/or global warming, higher/volatile fuel costs, etc). Perhaps by paying a little more up front we'll save a lot in the long run.
Proof is in this question: Would China ever attack its biggest customer?
Probably not, but what makes you think the USA will always be China's biggest consumer? "Forever" is a long time, and China has a lot of people... at some point their economy will likely advance to the point where it is largely self-sufficient (no longer dependent on exports). At that point China will be free to dismiss us if they wish. I wouldn't expect an actual military attack (unless the competition for resources has become very grim indeed) but they might well call in the mountain of IOUs we've written them, which would be pretty uncomfortable for us just the same.
Apple has a contract with Microsoft, signed way back in 1997, that gave them rights to use the Windows API through 2002
Yup, that's how to win in the OS world -- base your strategy around an old legal agreement with Microsoft. (maybe it's valid, maybe it's not, but if Microsoft doesn't like what you are doing, they've got an effectively infinite amount of lawyers to keep you tied up in court indefinitely)
The purpose of mines in many cases is to kill civilians.
Perhaps... but even if they are never detonated at all, they still cause terrible harm to nearby civilians. Imagine being surrounded by acres and acres of fertile land and still starving to death because you don't dare go out and farm it. Mines are an effective method of "salting the earth".
I'm glad you're not feeling holier than thou, that'd certainly be unattractive
So, are there any situations where moral condemnation is appropriate? Or should everybody always hold their tongue because it's more polite?
Seriously, where does one draw the line? One the one hand, you don't want to come off like a pompous ass, but on the other hand, if nobody says anything, people will assume everything is acceptable becase nobody objected.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, the 25% figure quoted for gasoline engines doesn't account for the losses starting with the actual source of gasoline, either. How much energy did it take to pull that oil out of the ground, refine it into gasoline, and ship it across the world to your local gas station?
And what do you get when you add a peak to a valley? Depending on how much you add, you either get a shallower valley, a flat line, or a shallower peak than you would have had otherwise. In any of those cases you are making more efficient use of the electrical system than we do currently.
You're also assuming an absurd scenario: that everybody in California is going to switch to driving an electric car at the same time. Clearly the changeover would happen gradually across a number of years or even decades, giving the power utilities plenty of time to adapt to the extra load.
I really wish the people who disagreed with me were smarter. Then I might be able to really learn something.
You'd be more likely to learn if you listened to people, instead of just arrogantly assuming they are idiots unworthy of your intellect.
Really? Someone really ought to tell General Motors about that.
Go Microsoft! Delivering 2003's technology today!
Sure, but your situation is nonetheless much improved. Why? Because if your infrastructure now runs on electricity instead of oil, you have many different options to choose from for generating that electricity. There aren't very many ways to generate oil.
Nah, Mr. Submitter has it right -- he's including the 1.5V watch battery used to keep the clock set on the stereo during battery-pack change-outs.
Sorry, but that's really dumb, even for a conspiracy theory. If you were the Chinese government and wanted to hack in to American information infrastructure, you wouldn't hire 200,000 children, you'd hire 200 really bright graduate students, and have them write automated attack programs. Not hundreds of thousands of amateur volunteers who are (a) not going to be very effective, and (b) are going to be impossible to keep quiet about their activities.
There's also the minor detail of China having the USA as their largest customer -- attacking the USA is hardly in their economic interest.
A lesson I learned is that if you hand-write or hand-optimize assembly you run the risk of introducing subtle bugs into your program that will cause you lots of pain later on(*). Is the benefit of a 5% speedup in routine X worth the risk of having your program mysteriously crash once a month at the customer's mission-critical site? Sometimes it is, but often it's not.
(*) Yes, I admit to being a pencil-necked whuss when it comes to assembly coding. The near-complete lack of type-checking gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies.
Sure, but that's not the problem we see here: to make the analogy correct, have you ever looked up procedure in Chiltons and found it, only to find out later that its instructions were completely (or even maliciously) wrong?
I suspect that many people (including myself!) like multicore computers for the same reason other people like SUVs... having all that extra power to play with is just cool, even if you won't actually use it much. Besides, I might someday write a parallel program that uses all 8 cores (just like the SUV owner might someday take his toy offroad ;^))
I was awake in the '80s. I knew Pac Man. And that screen shot, sir, is no Pac Man.
"Now see here, guy," said the voice on the loud hailer, "you're
not dealing with any dumb two-bit trigger-pumping morons with low
hairlines, little piggy eyes and no conversation, we're a couple
of intelligent caring guys that you'd probably quite like if you
met us socially! I don't go around gratuitously shooting people
and then bragging about it afterwards in seedy space-rangers
bars, like some cops I could mention! I go around shooting people
gratuitously and then I agonize about it afterwards for hours to
my girlfriend!"
I don't know that paying a premium up-front is so unreasonable... by doing nothing, we end up paying more through other means (read: higher taxes to pay for a larger military, more deaths and injuries in the course of foreign invasions and/or terrorist attacks, more deaths and injuries due to pollution and/or global warming, higher/volatile fuel costs, etc). Perhaps by paying a little more up front we'll save a lot in the long run.
Probably not, but what makes you think the USA will always be China's biggest consumer? "Forever" is a long time, and China has a lot of people... at some point their economy will likely advance to the point where it is largely self-sufficient (no longer dependent on exports). At that point China will be free to dismiss us if they wish. I wouldn't expect an actual military attack (unless the competition for resources has become very grim indeed) but they might well call in the mountain of IOUs we've written them, which would be pretty uncomfortable for us just the same.
Apple is afraid that everybody would buy the $99 software box and install it on their old PC, instead of going out and buying a new Macintosh.
That would leave Apple with (a) fewer computer sales, and (b) big support headaches. Most likely they would lose a lot of money overall.
Yup, that's how to win in the OS world -- base your strategy around an old legal agreement with Microsoft. (maybe it's valid, maybe it's not, but if Microsoft doesn't like what you are doing, they've got an effectively infinite amount of lawyers to keep you tied up in court indefinitely)
When the "food" is loudly cursing your ancestors and flailing at you with hands and flyswatters, good eyesight is very useful indeed.
Philanthropy is great, if you can afford it. Most people have to either find a way to make money, or starve.
Leave it to the Chinese to take a 'stupid human trick' and do something useful with it...
Yup, even works for space ships... although you'll find the effect is more pronounced if you are in an atmosphere, or flying at relativistic speeds.
Impressive, true, but I'd be even more impressed by a human-powered aircraft competition. What's the one-hour distance record for that?
Yes, please. What is this "dating" and "girlfriend" of which you speak?
Perhaps... but even if they are never detonated at all, they still cause terrible harm to nearby civilians. Imagine being surrounded by acres and acres of fertile land and still starving to death because you don't dare go out and farm it. Mines are an effective method of "salting the earth".
I dunno... do IEDs count?
So, are there any situations where moral condemnation is appropriate? Or should everybody always hold their tongue because it's more polite?
Seriously, where does one draw the line? One the one hand, you don't want to come off like a pompous ass, but on the other hand, if nobody says anything, people will assume everything is acceptable becase nobody objected.