Nice trick there, telling us the cost based on your "wage" - which to us is an arbitrary number.
For me, it's very concrete, believe me, but you don't expect to make public my payslip on/., do you? (all I can say, I'm not paid to the top of the industry, I enjoy a quiet life now).
How many monthly electricity payments did it cost you? How long before it pays for itself?
My estimations for the time to total RoI: between 5 and 6 years at the current rates on energy. But they do have a nasty habit to increase year after year in Australia so it may be shorter. (they say that's because of network maintenance: I reckontheir insurance premiums went up)
Solar probably wouldn't run most Slashdotter's desktops, especially during the normal hours of use. This on the other hand...
It runs mine, and they (2 x) are running day and nighr (I'm just too lazy to power them down) and are not a low down spec: AMD FX-8150, 32 GB RAM, 3 HDD in RAID 5. The video cards are not screamers, though.
...but they've done the bait and switch before. I'm sure Microsoft will say something similar before the launch of their console.
I already know what they are going to say: 't was a misunderstanding. We wanted to say we'll still support a second controller for another hand to join in the game"
The only reason why we are not using our own generators right now is because they are too tedious and twiddly factor. If you could produce reliable energy without the twiddle factor we would not be in this mess we are.
Ummm... I recently installed PVes on my roof. Tedious? I don't think so. Expensive? It was 1.5 month worth of my wage. Warranty for 25 years, I guess they'll last at least 12 without degrading in performance too much. Reliable? Well, as reliable as the Sun is... would I be able to invest in an 15K buffer system, I'm sure I could live "off power grid" even in winter time (summer time, I'm pushing on the grid twice as much as I'm consuming).
What point I'm trying to make? I'm less dependent know on the power producers than I was 1 year ago and I didn't need to sell my first born for it.
"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost?
Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
They could have problem if they don't actively try to demote pirate sites, because then, they would be no different from the Pirate Bay and could be charged with copyright infringment support.
Yes, our copyright laws are stupid and should go away and be replaced with some form of support for IP creators which doesn't depend on artificial distribution restrictions.
If so, why not pay some lobbyist to advice changing the laws instead of caving to RIAA's potential "legal extortion" and implement half baked solutions to a wrong formulated problem?
It doesn't matter if Amit Singhal "indicated that it would start lowering", I'd be grateful to know if Google is actually obligated to do so.
Who says they should be obligated? The RIAA didn't say that, nor did they imply it. All they stated was that, in their opinion, Google has not done what they said they would do.
Would I be in Google's shoes, my answer to them would be: "Tough luck, I tried. Would you like to pay me to try harder?"
Rather than charge, which would discourage real users from reporting websites they could implement simple measures to stop the automated reporting...
Well, this would be a bad business stance
I mean: if "reporting copyright breaches" is such a "sought after" type of product/service, why not "expand you income channels" and aks money for it to a level it becomes profitable?
I don't see where they have any obligation other than reducing their exposure to a lawsuit that accuses them of facilitating copyright infringement.
If that's the truth, then here's my opinbion: Google has done enough.
Anything more than that and Google should charge RIAA for extra services (also in my opinion: it should have charge them even for processing the takedown notices: even a reasonable amount of 0.05 cents per request would have done wonders).
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost?
Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
From the article that you didn't bother to read before offering an unimformed opinion.
It wasn't an opinion (um- or not uminformed), it was a question. And since the quoted para (thank you for it) doesn't answer it, let me repeat it:
from where and since when is there an obligation for Google to "please" RIAA?
It doesn't matter if Amit Singhal "indicated that it would start lowering", I'd be grateful to know if Google is actually obligated to do so. In depending the answer, I'll be able to form an opinion (at least for myself) on whether or not Google has done enough in spite of RIAA wanting it to do much more.
...that Google realizes this is just a complete waste of time and put a couple of interns on it, so they could get the RIAA to stop calling them day and night.
Wouldn;t it be cheaper to buy some auto-response systems and put them in the "RIAA support lines" with the message of "Your call is important to us. An operator will be with you as soon as possible (a.k.a never). Please hold and jerk off"?
... have found no evidence that RIAA is working towards providing me with a $1,000,000 dollar stipend. So what?
"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost? Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
I also wondered if the CO2 could be used directly by filtering the particles out and feeding the exhaust has through greenhouses. You would need hundreds of kilometres of greenhouse obviously.
Better still: algae ponds - being more primitive (with lower specialized morphology), the rate of conversion to biomass higher. Additional minor advantage: even if only slightly, CO2 dissolves in water - easier to contain than in a pure greenhouse.
As one effect of the introduction of carbon tax in Australia: such projects become viable.
Long time though until such projects would become mainstream, even if (quoted from the last link):
CSIRO suggests 100 square kilometres of algal ponds could provide all of Australia’s fuel needs
(100 sq.km = a square 10 km on the side. The size of the brown coal deposit being mined in open pit fashion in Latrobe valley: 50 km long, between 8 and 16 km wide > 400 sq km)
"Conversion of chemical species" is just another term for "reaction", and "production of heat" through a reaction is the same thing as "exothermic", and a shorter term for "chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant" is "oxidation". Thus to put it even shorter: combustion is exothermic oxidation.
Chill mate. My point in reply to PP: "combustion does not require fire"
(as I'm growing old, I don't feel the same geekish urge to be absolutely exact - sometime I don't feel the need of being right)
I wonder how you would go separating oxygen from nitrogen before combustion, then burning the coal on pure oxygen,
It's actually easier to separate the CO2 after the combustion.
Liquefaction temperatures and heat capacity (how much energy to extract to lower the temperature by 1 degree at constant pressure for 1 mol of gas):
* oxygen: –182.95 C heat cap: 29.38 J/(mol x K)
* nitrogen: –195.79 C heat cap : 29.12 J/(mol x K)
* carbon dioxide: – 57 C heat cap: 36.94 J/(mol x K)
So, to separate CO2 from a mix of 78% N2 and 22 % CO2 (after burning, no oxygen) you need to cool down to – 57 C something with a (weighted) average heat capacity of 30.84 J/(mol x K). To separate the oxygen from a mix of 78% N2 and 22% O2 you need to cool down to –183 C something with an average heat capacity of 29.18 J/(mol x K).
So starting from a temperature of 20C, from the same volume of gas mixture, the energy to get 22% of CO2 after combustion versus to one get 22% of oxygen before combustion is in a ratio of approx 4/10.
Normal coal burning plants could collect all their exhaust as well. It would cost part of their energy output, but not all
The problem is the other gasses after passing through the combustion chamber, which you may not want to pay for compressing and sequestring. The 78% nitrogen in the atmospheric air will still be there after burning and will contribute to the increased cost.
I wonder if the extra cost of pulverizing the carbon to 0.1mm particle size is a proper offset for the CO2 separation cost from air based combustion.
Also, since the oxygen is delivered bound to iron, the total energy generated but this process will be smaller... unless (or "even if"?) you decide to reoxidize the reduced iron by burning it again
Combustion (pron.:/kmbs.tn/) or burning is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species.
To my mind, provided that the algorithm doing the conversion is appropriately protected, pseudonymisation may be one good method of reducing the risk associated with the processing of personal data, protecting it in the event for a data breach, and thus be a form of security measure, but is unlikely to stop the data from being capable of identifying the individual, in the hands of the party carrying out the pseudonymisation.
With all respect, your mind and common sense are superseded by better minds:
Our techniques are robust to perturbation in the data and tolerate some mistakes in the adversary’s background knowledge.
We apply our de-anonymization methodology to the Netflix Prize dataset, which contains anonymous movie ratings of 500,000 subscribers of Netflix, the world’s
largest online movie rental service. We demonstrate that an adversary who knows only a little bit about an individual subscriber can easily identify this subscriber’s record in the dataset. Using the Internet Movie Database as the source of background knowledge, we successfully identified the Netflix records of known users, uncovering their apparent political preferences and other potentially sensitive information
Location-based services, which employ data from smartphones, vehicles, etc., are growing in popularity. To reduce the threat that shared location data poses to a user’s privacy, some services anonymize or obfuscate this data. In this paper, we show these methods can be effectively defeated: a set of location traces can be deanonymized given an easily obtained social network graph.
A LOT About Your Web Browser and Computer
The Country, Town, and City You Are Connecting From (IP Geolocation)
What Websites You Are Logged-In To (Login-Detection via CSRF)
I Know Your Name, and Probably a Whole Lot More (Deanonymization via Likejacking, Followjacking, etc.) Who You Work For
Your [Corporate] Email Address, and more
Network de-anonymization task is of multifold significance, with user profile enrichment as one of its most promising applications. After the deanonymization and alignment, we can aggregate and enrich user profile information from different online networking services and make the bundled
profiles available for end-users as well as third-party applications.
What exactly is the difference between buying a factory in France and/or one in US?
Seems to me it's still stupid to buy a factory in US. Reductio ad absurdum, assume it wouldn't be stupid, then why the choice to buy a factory in India instead of US? Wouldn't this make CEO's "high moral ground" position leaning towards hypocritical? (as in: "I'm going to buy a factory in India anyway, you know it makes business sense. But I'll use the opportunity to bash a bit these Frenchmen")
About the only part not gutted, is the GWB popularized phrase "make no mistake." Which makes sense given Obama's record -- why just embrace and extend GWB's policies when you can use his phrasification as well?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice trick there, telling us the cost based on your "wage" - which to us is an arbitrary number.
For me, it's very concrete, believe me, but you don't expect to make public my payslip on /., do you? (all I can say, I'm not paid to the top of the industry, I enjoy a quiet life now).
How many monthly electricity payments did it cost you? How long before it pays for itself?
My estimations for the time to total RoI: between 5 and 6 years at the current rates on energy. But they do have a nasty habit to increase year after year in Australia so it may be shorter.
(they say that's because of network maintenance: I reckon their insurance premiums went up)
Solar probably wouldn't run most Slashdotter's desktops, especially during the normal hours of use. This on the other hand...
It runs mine, and they (2 x) are running day and nighr (I'm just too lazy to power them down) and are not a low down spec: AMD FX-8150, 32 GB RAM, 3 HDD in RAID 5. The video cards are not screamers, though.
...but they've done the bait and switch before. I'm sure Microsoft will say something similar before the launch of their console.
I already know what they are going to say: 't was a misunderstanding. We wanted to say we'll still support a second controller for another hand to join in the game"
spring time... flu season, isn't it? Comes summer with increased risk of food poisoning?
Though... I heard that the russians astronauts just used a pencil (even if a legend, it is a reminder that low tech solutions may also work).
What? Stolen with a copper inside? Can you imagine the thieves surprise when opening the box and getting arrested on the spot?
The only reason why we are not using our own generators right now is because they are too tedious and twiddly factor. If you could produce reliable energy without the twiddle factor we would not be in this mess we are.
Ummm... I recently installed PVes on my roof. Tedious? I don't think so. Expensive? It was 1.5 month worth of my wage. Warranty for 25 years, I guess they'll last at least 12 without degrading in performance too much. Reliable? Well, as reliable as the Sun is... would I be able to invest in an 15K buffer system, I'm sure I could live "off power grid" even in winter time (summer time, I'm pushing on the grid twice as much as I'm consuming).
What point I'm trying to make? I'm less dependent know on the power producers than I was 1 year ago and I didn't need to sell my first born for it.
"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost? Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
They could have problem if they don't actively try to demote pirate sites, because then, they would be no different from the Pirate Bay and could be charged with copyright infringment support.
Yes, our copyright laws are stupid and should go away and be replaced with some form of support for IP creators which doesn't depend on artificial distribution restrictions.
If so, why not pay some lobbyist to advice changing the laws instead of caving to RIAA's potential "legal extortion" and implement half baked solutions to a wrong formulated problem?
It doesn't matter if Amit Singhal "indicated that it would start lowering", I'd be grateful to know if Google is actually obligated to do so.
Who says they should be obligated? The RIAA didn't say that, nor did they imply it. All they stated was that, in their opinion, Google has not done what they said they would do.
Would I be in Google's shoes, my answer to them would be: "Tough luck, I tried. Would you like to pay me to try harder?"
Rather than charge, which would discourage real users from reporting websites they could implement simple measures to stop the automated reporting ...
Well, this would be a bad business stance
I mean: if "reporting copyright breaches" is such a "sought after" type of product/service, why not "expand you income channels" and aks money for it to a level it becomes profitable?
CSIRO suggests 100 square kilometres of algal ponds
A tiny fraction of our existing stock of algae lakes, algae rivers, etc.
Count this river out, though
I don't see where they have any obligation other than reducing their exposure to a lawsuit that accuses them of facilitating copyright infringement.
If that's the truth, then here's my opinbion: Google has done enough. Anything more than that and Google should charge RIAA for extra services (also in my opinion: it should have charge them even for processing the takedown notices: even a reasonable amount of 0.05 cents per request would have done wonders).
Why? You can't afford a mosquito net?
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost? Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
From the article that you didn't bother to read before offering an unimformed opinion.
It wasn't an opinion (um- or not uminformed), it was a question. And since the quoted para (thank you for it) doesn't answer it, let me repeat it:
from where and since when is there an obligation for Google to "please" RIAA?
It doesn't matter if Amit Singhal "indicated that it would start lowering", I'd be grateful to know if Google is actually obligated to do so.
In depending the answer, I'll be able to form an opinion (at least for myself) on whether or not Google has done enough in spite of RIAA wanting it to do much more.
...that Google realizes this is just a complete waste of time and put a couple of interns on it, so they could get the RIAA to stop calling them day and night.
Wouldn;t it be cheaper to buy some auto-response systems and put them in the "RIAA support lines" with the message of "Your call is important to us. An operator will be with you as soon as possible (a.k.a never). Please hold and jerk off"?
... have found no evidence that RIAA is working towards providing me with a $1,000,000 dollar stipend. So what?
"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost?
Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
I also wondered if the CO2 could be used directly by filtering the particles out and feeding the exhaust has through greenhouses. You would need hundreds of kilometres of greenhouse obviously.
Better still: algae ponds - being more primitive (with lower specialized morphology), the rate of conversion to biomass higher. Additional minor advantage: even if only slightly, CO2 dissolves in water - easier to contain than in a pure greenhouse.
As one effect of the introduction of carbon tax in Australia: such projects become viable.
Long time though until such projects would become mainstream, even if (quoted from the last link):
CSIRO suggests 100 square kilometres of algal ponds could provide all of Australia’s fuel needs
(100 sq.km = a square 10 km on the side. The size of the brown coal deposit being mined in open pit fashion in Latrobe valley: 50 km long, between 8 and 16 km wide > 400 sq km)
"Conversion of chemical species" is just another term for "reaction", and "production of heat" through a reaction is the same thing as "exothermic", and a shorter term for "chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant" is "oxidation". Thus to put it even shorter: combustion is exothermic oxidation.
Chill mate.
My point in reply to PP: "combustion does not require fire"
(as I'm growing old, I don't feel the same geekish urge to be absolutely exact - sometime I don't feel the need of being right)
.
I wonder how you would go separating oxygen from nitrogen before combustion, then burning the coal on pure oxygen,
It's actually easier to separate the CO2 after the combustion.
Liquefaction temperatures and heat capacity (how much energy to extract to lower the temperature by 1 degree at constant pressure for 1 mol of gas):
* oxygen: –182.95 C heat cap: 29.38 J/(mol x K)
* nitrogen: –195.79 C heat cap : 29.12 J/(mol x K)
* carbon dioxide: – 57 C heat cap: 36.94 J/(mol x K)
So, to separate CO2 from a mix of 78% N2 and 22 % CO2 (after burning, no oxygen) you need to cool down to – 57 C something with a (weighted) average heat capacity of 30.84 J/(mol x K).
To separate the oxygen from a mix of 78% N2 and 22% O2 you need to cool down to –183 C something with an average heat capacity of 29.18 J/(mol x K).
So starting from a temperature of 20C, from the same volume of gas mixture, the energy to get 22% of CO2 after combustion versus to one get 22% of oxygen before combustion is in a ratio of approx 4/10.
Normal coal burning plants could collect all their exhaust as well. It would cost part of their energy output, but not all
The problem is the other gasses after passing through the combustion chamber, which you may not want to pay for compressing and sequestring. The 78% nitrogen in the atmospheric air will still be there after burning and will contribute to the increased cost.
I wonder if the extra cost of pulverizing the carbon to 0.1mm particle size is a proper offset for the CO2 separation cost from air based combustion.
Also, since the oxygen is delivered bound to iron, the total energy generated but this process will be smaller... unless (or "even if"?) you decide to reoxidize the reduced iron by burning it again
Combustion (pron.: /kmbs.tn/) or burning is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species.
Oh that's not economically feasible either because each one requires a lot of labor to build? Hmm.... *thinks*
That's a so simple one you don't need to be an engineer, even a CEO can answer to that: buy or build a plant into a lower wages country.
(grin)
>
To my mind, provided that the algorithm doing the conversion is appropriately protected, pseudonymisation may be one good method of reducing the risk associated with the processing of personal data, protecting it in the event for a data breach, and thus be a form of security measure, but is unlikely to stop the data from being capable of identifying the individual, in the hands of the party carrying out the pseudonymisation.
With all respect, your mind and common sense are superseded by better minds:
Robust De-anonymization of Large Sparse Datasets
Our techniques are robust to perturbation in the data and tolerate some mistakes in the adversary’s background knowledge.
We apply our de-anonymization methodology to the Netflix Prize dataset, which contains anonymous movie ratings of 500,000 subscribers of Netflix, the world’s largest online movie rental service. We demonstrate that an adversary who knows only a little bit about an individual subscriber can easily identify this subscriber’s record in the dataset. Using the Internet Movie Database as the source of background knowledge, we successfully identified the Netflix records of known users, uncovering their apparent political preferences and other potentially sensitive information
Deanonymizing Mobility Traces: Using Social Networks as a Side-Channel
Location-based services, which employ data from smartphones, vehicles, etc., are growing in popularity. To reduce the threat that shared location data poses to a user’s privacy, some services anonymize or obfuscate this data. In this paper, we show these methods can be effectively defeated: a set of location traces can be deanonymized given an easily obtained social network graph.
I know... series (scroll to the bottom of the page)
A LOT About Your Web Browser and Computer
The Country, Town, and City You Are Connecting From (IP Geolocation)
What Websites You Are Logged-In To (Login-Detection via CSRF)
I Know Your Name, and Probably a Whole Lot More (Deanonymization via Likejacking, Followjacking, etc.)
Who You Work For
Your [Corporate] Email Address, and more
De-anonymizing social networks
Network de-anonymization task is of multifold significance, with user profile enrichment as one of its most promising applications. After the deanonymization and alignment, we can aggregate and enrich user profile information from different online networking services and make the bundled profiles available for end-users as well as third-party applications.
Actually you know what? lmgtfy
What exactly is the difference between buying a factory in France and/or one in US?
Seems to me it's still stupid to buy a factory in US. Reductio ad absurdum, assume it wouldn't be stupid, then why the choice to buy a factory in India instead of US?
Wouldn't this make CEO's "high moral ground" position leaning towards hypocritical? (as in: "I'm going to buy a factory in India anyway, you know it makes business sense. But I'll use the opportunity to bash a bit these Frenchmen")
About the only part not gutted, is the GWB popularized phrase "make no mistake." Which makes sense given Obama's record -- why just embrace and extend GWB's policies when you can use his phrasification as well?
Hmmm... I don't know, I was expecting a bit of a higher "class" from him.