The cost of mining and burning coal is basically the same, and there's nothing new in wind-turbine technology to make it more effective.
While there may not be any dramatic breakthroughs, wind-turbine technology is become more cost-effective through good old economies-of-scale: bigger turbines, and larger production runs.
There's no new rush for wind-generating operations because there's nothing new to "phase in".
The new thing to phase in would be economical wind-turbines (as opposed to the smaller, more expensive-per-watt turbines of previous decades). And arguably, it's happening now (at least in places where conditions are favorable to wind)
So who wants to bet against the powers that be choosing to increase military spending rather than spend a fraction as much actually breaking our addiction to fossil fuels? Anybody? Aww, come on, I've got all this money just burning a hole in my pocket, I'll give you good odds..
I've got $50 that says they will break their oil addiction, at some point. (of course, that point may be only when there's no more oil remaining to be extracted...;^) )
Power companies may or may not be dumb (YMMV), but like any large institution that manages expensive infrastructure, they are slow to react.
It's not like the day after wind power becomes cheaper than coal power a million windmills will spring up. More likely the power companies will operate their coal plants until it's not longer economical to do so (or until they are forced to stop, whichever comes first) and gradually phase in renewable power instead of building/upgrading their existing coal infrastructure.
i.e. Just because it would be cheaper for them to build windmills now than to build a coal plant now, doesn't mean it would be cheaper for them to build windmills now than to keep using the coal plant they already paid for.
Of course coal is cheaper when so much of the cost is hidden in externalities.
Any predictions on when renewables will be cheaper than coal even when coal's externalities are not factored in?
(No snark intended; I'm interested because if/when that happens, the case for renewables becomes much easier to make, as the motivation is no longer group-interest but self-interest: by continuing to burn coal, electricity producers would be literally throwing money away)
What should really happen is Mr. Rossi should patent his device, and then anyone who wants to can read the patent and build their own replica, if they wish to do so. (Of course to sell their replica they would need to license the design from Mr. Rossi, since it would be patented)
Until the technology has actually matured there's no safe solution.
Even if SnapChat worked 100% as advertised, it wouldn't be a safe solution, since your recipient could always take a photo of the image using another camera or phone. It's the DRM problem all over again, except now the "publisher" is some teenager rather than the movie industry.
I don't think you understand what this generator is doing. It extends the range of the car. The exact opposite of your complaint.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Of course it extends the range when you're running the generator. The rest of the time, however, it reduces the range, because you're pulling additional weight and adding additional drag.
So yes, overall the range is extended, just not by as much as you might think -- and not, in most automaker's opinions, enough to make it worth the hassle.
Give us model E, the 40 K sedan. The rich people have paid enough money and you have built the credibility. Continuing to make play things too expensive for the masses is not how you are going to have long term impact or create disruptive technologies.
The Model 3 (nee model E) will only only be cheap if Tesla can get cheap batteries to power it. Tesla's plan for getting cheap batteries is to produce them at huge scale in their GigaFactory (tm). Therefore, don't hold your breath for cheap Teslas until after the GigaFactory (tm) is complete and functioning.
So there has to be something more to this idea because it hasn't happened yet. What am I missing here?
It's not a bad idea, and the TZero had a trailer like that as an option.
I think it's not done more often because it's not that practical: in particular, dragging a heavy trailer around is awkward and reduces your car's range, and a generator powerful enough to recharge your car sufficiently while it drives is going to be fairly large/heavy. Factor in the additional cost, and most manufacturers figure the cheaper and simpler approach is just to keep the car light and maximize its range that way.
I see how this is a good deal for Amazon, not so much how it's fair for the competitors or good for the human race.
Dunno about whether it's fair to the competitors or not, but having robots do pick-and-place is good for the human race -- pick-and-place is a terrible job for a human to have to do. 8+ hours of RSI-inducing mindless tedium every day? No thanks. Let the robots do it and have the humans do something meaningful.
Its just a matter of sheer amount of robots that need to be built.
No worries, once we've built the first few robot-building robots, robot population growth will be limited only by the availability of electricity and raw materials. By 2030 we should be somewhere between the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" and "Gray Goo" stages.;)
And while all 13 boats are busy flashing lights and playing Metallica at the decoy boat, the other boat does whatever it was planning to do.
Or... perhaps the software designers have considered that possibility and programmed the boats so that some will remain on patrol, and/or some will break off to handle the second attacker?
They aren't complete idiots, you know. If they were, the drones wouldn't be able to steer.
For the price of 13 robotic boats they've raised the cost of an attack to... stealing two boats instead of one?
You've raised the cost of an attack to stealing N boats (where N is the number of boats required to overrun the drones' defense) plus (more importantly) N crews. My guess is that finding people who are both willing to go on a suicide mission AND proficient at piloting a boat and setting off explosives is the bottleneck, not the theft/purchase of a boat.
Plus even if/when someone does get past the drones, it's likely that bypassing the drones will have bought the ship enough time to bring up its internal defenses to deal with them. (come to think of it, perhaps they should convert a few dozen of these to land duty and place them on the White House lawn...)
And I'd like to see anyone who gets bitten by if (BIT_FLAG == foo & BIT_MASK) and doesn't spot the problem right away figure that one out without looking at the object.
Never underestimate the power of interrogation-via-printf();^)
I *do* like the ability to free up resources in a c++ destructor, but as he points out, that's not something you want to rely on in system software.
I also like that ability, and I think it would be great to rely on it in system software. Unlike my unreliable brain (squirrel!) the compiler never forgets to call the destructor at the appropriate time.
Perhaps I'm missing some reason why it's not a good idea to automate that task?
Schools are too poor to pay for a whole fleet of brand new buses and the charging infrastructure around it.
If the batteries reduced the buses' operating costs to the point where the upgrades/purchases would pay for themselves in a few years (and that's a big if!), it would not be difficult to arrange financing for the buses. The schools wouldn't have to pay anything extra, and the schools and the lenders would split the savings, profiting both parties.
You spend more time waiting for the file to decompress than actual loading into memory.
If you had a really slow CPU and a really fast hard drive, that might be the case. Most computers these days have a really fast CPU compared to their hard drive, though.
When I got home, I dismantled it to remove the âoesolar cellâ.I discovered that it was a fake, a thin strip of plastic separate from the body made to look like a solar cell.
The only real way to tell would be to remove the batteries from the calculator, put it in the sun, and see if it works. (and of course if it didn't work, it might just be that it was broken, which might explain why it was left in the gutter)
Let's suppose that in a few years someone discovers definitive proof that there is life a few thousand light years away.
It will be big news for a week or two. People who are into the idea of ETs will be happy; people who aren't comfortable with them will question (or flat out disbelieve) the evidence. Everyone will discuss the possible implications until they get bored with the topic.
After a month or so, it will fade into the cultural background and life will continue as before. With no way to get there and no means to communicate, the fact of the existence of extra-terrestrial life simply won't have much impact on anyone's day-to-day life.
Slashdot Mirror
The cost of mining and burning coal is basically the same, and there's nothing new in wind-turbine technology to make it more effective.
While there may not be any dramatic breakthroughs, wind-turbine technology is become more cost-effective through good old economies-of-scale: bigger turbines, and larger production runs.
There's no new rush for wind-generating operations because there's nothing new to "phase in".
The new thing to phase in would be economical wind-turbines (as opposed to the smaller, more expensive-per-watt turbines of previous decades). And arguably, it's happening now (at least in places where conditions are favorable to wind)
So who wants to bet against the powers that be choosing to increase military spending rather than spend a fraction as much actually breaking our addiction to fossil fuels? Anybody? Aww, come on, I've got all this money just burning a hole in my pocket, I'll give you good odds..
I've got $50 that says they will break their oil addiction, at some point. (of course, that point may be only when there's no more oil remaining to be extracted... ;^) )
Power companies may or may not be dumb (YMMV), but like any large institution that manages expensive infrastructure, they are slow to react.
It's not like the day after wind power becomes cheaper than coal power a million windmills will spring up. More likely the power companies will operate their coal plants until it's not longer economical to do so (or until they are forced to stop, whichever comes first) and gradually phase in renewable power instead of building/upgrading their existing coal infrastructure.
i.e. Just because it would be cheaper for them to build windmills now than to build a coal plant now, doesn't mean it would be cheaper for them to build windmills now than to keep using the coal plant they already paid for.
Because, you know, without pollution fewer people would get sick and die.
There, fixed that for you.
Of course coal is cheaper when so much of the cost is hidden in externalities.
Any predictions on when renewables will be cheaper than coal even when coal's externalities are not factored in?
(No snark intended; I'm interested because if/when that happens, the case for renewables becomes much easier to make, as the motivation is no longer group-interest but self-interest: by continuing to burn coal, electricity producers would be literally throwing money away)
What should really happen is Mr. Rossi should patent his device, and then anyone who wants to can read the patent and build their own replica, if they wish to do so. (Of course to sell their replica they would need to license the design from Mr. Rossi, since it would be patented)
Until the technology has actually matured there's no safe solution.
Even if SnapChat worked 100% as advertised, it wouldn't be a safe solution, since your recipient could always take a photo of the image using another camera or phone. It's the DRM problem all over again, except now the "publisher" is some teenager rather than the movie industry.
Seems legit
And the head of the CDC is like any other elected official.
Except for, you know, not being elected.
I don't think you understand what this generator is doing. It extends the range of the car. The exact opposite of your complaint.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Of course it extends the range when you're running the generator. The rest of the time, however, it reduces the range, because you're pulling additional weight and adding additional drag.
So yes, overall the range is extended, just not by as much as you might think -- and not, in most automaker's opinions, enough to make it worth the hassle.
3D isn't hard.
3D that doesn't make people nauseous is hard.
Give us model E, the 40 K sedan. The rich people have paid enough money and you have built the credibility. Continuing to make play things too expensive for the masses is not how you are going to have long term impact or create disruptive technologies.
The Model 3 (nee model E) will only only be cheap if Tesla can get cheap batteries to power it. Tesla's plan for getting cheap batteries is to produce them at huge scale in their GigaFactory (tm). Therefore, don't hold your breath for cheap Teslas until after the GigaFactory (tm) is complete and functioning.
So there has to be something more to this idea because it hasn't happened yet. What am I missing here?
It's not a bad idea, and the TZero had a trailer like that as an option.
I think it's not done more often because it's not that practical: in particular, dragging a heavy trailer around is awkward and reduces your car's range, and a generator powerful enough to recharge your car sufficiently while it drives is going to be fairly large/heavy. Factor in the additional cost, and most manufacturers figure the cheaper and simpler approach is just to keep the car light and maximize its range that way.
I see how this is a good deal for Amazon, not so much how it's fair for the competitors or good for the human race.
Dunno about whether it's fair to the competitors or not, but having robots do pick-and-place is good for the human race -- pick-and-place is a terrible job for a human to have to do. 8+ hours of RSI-inducing mindless tedium every day? No thanks. Let the robots do it and have the humans do something meaningful.
Being able to sleep soundly at night knowing that your car is really pre-owned is well worth the money you pay for it being Certified!
Well at least you know you won't end up like this guy...
Its just a matter of sheer amount of robots that need to be built.
No worries, once we've built the first few robot-building robots, robot population growth will be limited only by the availability of electricity and raw materials. By 2030 we should be somewhere between the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" and "Gray Goo" stages. ;)
And while all 13 boats are busy flashing lights and playing Metallica at the decoy boat, the other boat does whatever it was planning to do.
Or... perhaps the software designers have considered that possibility and programmed the boats so that some will remain on patrol, and/or some will break off to handle the second attacker?
They aren't complete idiots, you know. If they were, the drones wouldn't be able to steer.
For the price of 13 robotic boats they've raised the cost of an attack to... stealing two boats instead of one?
You've raised the cost of an attack to stealing N boats (where N is the number of boats required to overrun the drones' defense) plus (more importantly) N crews. My guess is that finding people who are both willing to go on a suicide mission AND proficient at piloting a boat and setting off explosives is the bottleneck, not the theft/purchase of a boat.
Plus even if/when someone does get past the drones, it's likely that bypassing the drones will have bought the ship enough time to bring up its internal defenses to deal with them. (come to think of it, perhaps they should convert a few dozen of these to land duty and place them on the White House lawn...)
And I'd like to see anyone who gets bitten by
if (BIT_FLAG == foo & BIT_MASK)
and doesn't spot the problem right away figure that one out without looking at the object.
Never underestimate the power of interrogation-via-printf() ;^)
I *do* like the ability to free up resources in a c++ destructor, but as he points out, that's not something you want to rely on in system software.
I also like that ability, and I think it would be great to rely on it in system software. Unlike my unreliable brain (squirrel!) the compiler never forgets to call the destructor at the appropriate time.
Perhaps I'm missing some reason why it's not a good idea to automate that task?
Only hipsters use the term "hipster" derisively. It's fun to watch.
Does a hipster have a Buddha-nature?
This is the most serious question of all.
If you say yes or no,
You yourself become a hipster.
Schools are too poor to pay for a whole fleet of brand new buses and the charging infrastructure around it.
If the batteries reduced the buses' operating costs to the point where the upgrades/purchases would pay for themselves in a few years (and that's a big if!), it would not be difficult to arrange financing for the buses. The schools wouldn't have to pay anything extra, and the schools and the lenders would split the savings, profiting both parties.
You spend more time waiting for the file to decompress than actual loading into memory.
If you had a really slow CPU and a really fast hard drive, that might be the case. Most computers these days have a really fast CPU compared to their hard drive, though.
When I got home, I dismantled it to remove the âoesolar cellâ.I discovered that it was a fake, a thin strip of plastic separate from the body made to look like a solar cell.
Thin film solar, perhaps?
The only real way to tell would be to remove the batteries from the calculator, put it in the sun, and see if it works. (and of course if it didn't work, it might just be that it was broken, which might explain why it was left in the gutter)
Registry bloat is not a problem, it's clueless users who cannot maintain their system.
In other words, it's a problem. A solution that requires all users to have technical knowledge isn't a solution, it's a fantasy.
Let's suppose that in a few years someone discovers definitive proof that there is life a few thousand light years away.
It will be big news for a week or two. People who are into the idea of ETs will be happy; people who aren't comfortable with them will question (or flat out disbelieve) the evidence. Everyone will discuss the possible implications until they get bored with the topic.
After a month or so, it will fade into the cultural background and life will continue as before. With no way to get there and no means to communicate, the fact of the existence of extra-terrestrial life simply won't have much impact on anyone's day-to-day life.
Net effect on humanity: minimal.