Cisco is a company that is run by MBAs and powered by crappy offshored Indian labor. These clowns are not interested in anything except their next quarterly earnings report.
So... why are they creating an open source codec? Lets see...
Maybe they want everyone everywhere to be watching streaming video all the time, and so all of the service providers will want bigger and faster cisco routers for all of the extra traffic.
it also means bringing support – including full tools, debugging, and project systems – for Node.js and Python."
That stuff is running quite well under raspbian, relatively mature code. What would be the point of running node.js or python on a very buggy beta release of an operating system when you can do the same thing on a mature stable system? You will find bugs, you will report them, the whole thing will slow you down, and you will be doing Microsoft's QA job for them and getting paid nothing for it.
Of course those don't need cooling towers but I'm not really sure why that matters?
My point is that nuclear plant operators are supposed to be extra careful but in fact they are no more careful than any other humans. If they cannot be trusted with maintaining a cooling tower, why can you think they can be trusted with nuclear material?
An environmentalist is a person who is 10 times better than you because they use only 99.9% of the resources that you do. Or in some cases (like Al Gore), many, many times more resources.
The wealthy guys who own the solar panel factories, they drive around in fancy cars and use more gas than you do, does that mean they are not environmentalists?
Then what non-fossil, non-nuclear source of electric power would meet demand on a calm night?
Modern buildings have really minimal heating requirements. In many industrial and commercial settings, the humans and machinery are already providing more than enough heat. Even in the coldest parts of New England you can have very small heating requirements with modern construction.
So between better insulation and LED lamps and more efficient computers and better refrigerator insulation we are all looking at much lower power consumption than ever. I'm sure my place could run all night just fine on a car battery's worth of juice.
I think it plays into the 'humans don't notice small change'.
The issue is that humans live for only a short time, even though the ramifications of their decisions go on for many generations after they are dead.
Humans are unable to see past their own experiences and are unable to even think about what will happen to their children. We see it over and over and over again.
Humans are perhaps a bit more intelligent than the yeast in your beer, but only a bit.
with anything worth having there is risk, and power is worth having
what is it that's more worth having? more power for your ever decreasing energy needs or a planet for your children to live in? it's pretty goddamn selfish to only include yourself in your wealth calculations
You must be talking to clint eastwood's imaginary chair, because nobody is saying that. Do you really assert that living with solar panels and wind energy is equivalent to living in caves?
Really? Between LED bulbs, more efficient computers and a better refrigerator, I've reduced my personal power consumption pretty steadily over the years. I know I am small potatoes, but big buildings can also reduce their consumption by pretty massive amounts with a retrofit:
"In 2011, the Empire State Building beat its year-one energy-efficiency guarantee by 5 percent, saving $2.4 million, and in year two, it beat it by almost 4 percent.
The core building retrofit is completed except for the build-out of high-performance space for new tenants. Once that's finished, $4.4 million is expected to be saved each year, about a 38 percent cut in energy consumption."
And then there is the Conde Nast building:
"Environmentally friendly gas-fired absorption chillers, along with a high-performing insulating and shading curtain wall, ensure that the building does not need to be heated or cooled for the majority of the year."
Water's thermal behaviour is identical whether it is heated by nuclear, coal, the sun or your kettle.
I'm not dumping my kettle into the connecticut river
there are plenty of energy sources that don't create waste heat, but isn't it funny that you don't bother to mention any of those, but my teakettle somehow fits your argument
"The study found that from 2006-2010, between the months of May and October, Vermont Yankee’s discharge exceeded the permitted rise in temperature 58 percent of the time. In June, that number rose to 74 percent. The report also noted that temperature increases near the nuclear plant held at least 22.5 miles downstream in Massachusetts."
Yeah you can see whatever you want to see if you don't bother to look.
the impact would have been identical at a coal or gas plant.
Again you can think what you want, but the facts disagree with you:
"Additionally, because nuclear fission is less thermodynamically efficient than the combustion of coal, the water required to generate nuclear power is slightly greater than that of coal-fired power."
We can have nuclear plants with a more forgiving design so no number of homer simpsons, natural disasters, unnatural disasters, and deliberate sabotage could trigger a meltdown.
Slashdot Mirror
Cisco is a company that is run by MBAs and powered by crappy offshored Indian labor. These clowns are not interested in anything except their next quarterly earnings report.
So... why are they creating an open source codec? Lets see...
Maybe they want everyone everywhere to be watching streaming video all the time, and so all of the service providers will want bigger and faster cisco routers for all of the extra traffic.
The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance. Did you forget that?
where's the freedom in running a closed source operating system? is microsoft paying you for your eternal vigilance?
I'm gonna take a cue from my fellow AC, cut the fanboyism.
what's the problem, i'm sure it will be an interesting platform when the release notes are not chock full of "this isn't working correctly yet"
it also means bringing support – including full tools, debugging, and project systems – for Node.js and Python."
That stuff is running quite well under raspbian, relatively mature code. What would be the point of running node.js or python on a very buggy beta release of an operating system when you can do the same thing on a mature stable system? You will find bugs, you will report them, the whole thing will slow you down, and you will be doing Microsoft's QA job for them and getting paid nothing for it.
Win10IoT isn't for hobbyists, it's for embedded system vendors.
You will get as much tech support as you pay for. pay nothing, get nothing.
Already most of the raspberry pi's I have seen people using
says the guy who works in a microsoft test lab
MS offers convenient licensing based on host count, client count, motherboard sockets, cores per CPU and concurrent hardware threads per core.
Get a lawyer.
let us know when any of these things are available at no cost, then you might convince someone
Nothing needs windoze in webdesign.
maybe not for design, but you have to have at least one windows system for testing so you can see what your web app is gonna look like on it
Of course those don't need cooling towers but I'm not really sure why that matters?
My point is that nuclear plant operators are supposed to be extra careful but in fact they are no more careful than any other humans. If they cannot be trusted with maintaining a cooling tower, why can you think they can be trusted with nuclear material?
An environmentalist is a person who is 10 times better than you because they use only 99.9% of the resources that you do. Or in some cases (like Al Gore), many, many times more resources.
The wealthy guys who own the solar panel factories, they drive around in fancy cars and use more gas than you do, does that mean they are not environmentalists?
1. dilute it back down
creating enormous volumes of material, completely impractical to store and transport without spilling it
Then what non-fossil, non-nuclear source of electric power would meet demand on a calm night?
Modern buildings have really minimal heating requirements. In many industrial and commercial settings, the humans and machinery are already providing more than enough heat. Even in the coldest parts of New England you can have very small heating requirements with modern construction.
So between better insulation and LED lamps and more efficient computers and better refrigerator insulation we are all looking at much lower power consumption than ever. I'm sure my place could run all night just fine on a car battery's worth of juice.
I think it plays into the 'humans don't notice small change'.
The issue is that humans live for only a short time, even though the ramifications of their decisions go on for many generations after they are dead.
Humans are unable to see past their own experiences and are unable to even think about what will happen to their children. We see it over and over and over again.
Humans are perhaps a bit more intelligent than the yeast in your beer, but only a bit.
with anything worth having there is risk, and power is worth having
what is it that's more worth having? more power for your ever decreasing energy needs or a planet for your children to live in? it's pretty goddamn selfish to only include yourself in your wealth calculations
I just can't see every house in america decked with enough solar panels anytime soon.
straw man alert, nobody ever said that
We should live like cavemen and never take risks?
You must be talking to clint eastwood's imaginary chair, because nobody is saying that. Do you really assert that living with solar panels and wind energy is equivalent to living in caves?
You lost me at reduced consumption.
Really? Between LED bulbs, more efficient computers and a better refrigerator, I've reduced my personal power consumption pretty steadily over the years. I know I am small potatoes, but big buildings can also reduce their consumption by pretty massive amounts with a retrofit:
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/06/29/empire-state-building-retrofit-new-projects
"In 2011, the Empire State Building beat its year-one energy-efficiency guarantee by 5 percent, saving $2.4 million, and in year two, it beat it by almost 4 percent.
The core building retrofit is completed except for the build-out of high-performance space for new tenants. Once that's finished, $4.4 million is expected to be saved each year, about a 38 percent cut in energy consumption."
And then there is the Conde Nast building:
"Environmentally friendly gas-fired absorption chillers, along with a high-performing insulating and shading curtain wall, ensure that the building does not need to be heated or cooled for the majority of the year."
Wind and Solar are unpredictable and cannot be stored for peak times.
Duh, solar happens PRECISELY during peak hours, no storage necessary! Summer peak electrical usage is for air conditioning because of THE HOT SUN.
Let's go visit Centralia Pennsylvania, surely their coal accident has calmed down by now!
what a great argument, humans can't handle coal without spilling it, so let's play with uranium instead
and none of that has anything to do with actual plant issues, thats owner/management issues
so your answer is to hire infallible space aliens to run the power plants, or are you suggesting some different collection of equally inept humans?
Water's thermal behaviour is identical whether it is heated by nuclear, coal, the sun or your kettle.
I'm not dumping my kettle into the connecticut river
there are plenty of energy sources that don't create waste heat, but isn't it funny that you don't bother to mention any of those, but my teakettle somehow fits your argument
Really, one, two and three, were fixed a long time ago.
citation required, please provide proof of perfect electromechanical systems that never ever fail
i dont think saying lead by example is a bad thing
That's not what he said, not at all. He said he cannot tolerate hypocrites. Since every human is a hypocrite, he is what you call a "psychopath"
From what I can see the other cooling towers were more than capable of handling the heat load
http://vtdigger.org/2012/10/10/study-vermont-yankee-thermal-discharge-into-connecticut-river-exceeds-limits/
"The study found that from 2006-2010, between the months of May and October, Vermont Yankee’s discharge exceeded the permitted rise in temperature 58 percent of the time. In June, that number rose to 74 percent. The report also noted that temperature increases near the nuclear plant held at least 22.5 miles downstream in Massachusetts."
Yeah you can see whatever you want to see if you don't bother to look.
the impact would have been identical at a coal or gas plant.
Again you can think what you want, but the facts disagree with you:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/02/508879/burning-rivers-how-coal-and-nuclear-are-sucking-up-our-fresh-water/
"Additionally, because nuclear fission is less thermodynamically efficient than the combustion of coal, the water required to generate nuclear power is slightly greater than that of coal-fired power."
We can have nuclear plants with a more forgiving design so no number of homer simpsons, natural disasters, unnatural disasters, and deliberate sabotage could trigger a meltdown.
citation needed