During the second world war airplanes flew over isolated pacific islands for the first time. One tribe that had never encountered technology built a bamboo and thatch airplane shaped idol of the God that flew over their island.
If the pilot's good, see. I mean, if he's really... sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low, you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane, like a '52, vroom! There's jet exhaust, flyin' chickens in the barnyard!
Wow. I watched "Strangelove" for the umpteenth time a couple of weeks ago. When George C. Scott delivers that line, I'm transported back to the early '60s, when a BUFF flew low over my yard north of Amarillo. It was magnificent and terrifying (not to mention LOUD).
any unit record (IBM card) equipment - now, they had rhythm!
Line printer - chain was better than drum for rhythmic sound
I knew a 129 (keypunch) operator who could literally make the machine rock - she was extremely fast and accurate, and had a pronounced rhythmic technique.
As for line printers, I used to run a 1419 MICR reader (with the covers open and interlocks disabled, of course), while the results of my efforts were printing behind me on a 1403 (also with the cover raised, of course). When a "totals" page printed, a full line (132 columns) of asterisks marked it, making an unbelievable (and unearthly) screech.
Heck, the teachers used to draft us (students) to run the machines for them - never for a test targeted at the draftees, of course. I even had to prepare a master copy once.
Ask Big Energy why they must build more conventional plants when they add wind to the grid, and why those conventional plants have to be running while the wind farms are generating.
Ok, the answers to that one are so blazingly obvious I wonder why you bothered to ask. The obvious answer is that demand is increasing all the time so they need to build more plants anyway. Also the wind doesn't blow all the time, so it needs to be supplemented. As for those plants running while the wind farms are generating... Hmm, maybe because they cost a lot to build, the companies that built them want to run them as much as they can and sell the power?
Seriously, the stuff you're saying comes off like a bit of a crazy rant. I certainly get that some people don't like these wind farms being built next to them. How that equates into the wind farms being some giant conspiracy to erect towers that don't really generate power (which seems to be what you're implying), I have no idea.
I apologize - perhaps this will explain my viewpoint.
The conventional plants aren't being built to meet new demand, but as a backup to the wind farms. When a large portion of power provided on the grid is from wind, there must be an almost equivalent capacity available as spinning reserve, because the grid is a demand driven system. In other words, the reserve must be up and running, and ready to be switched onto the grid at a moment's notice if the wind dies. In Texas, that usually equates to a gas or coal fired generator. So, how do wind farms remove any carbon dioxide from electric generation, when the conventional generators have to run, even when not supplying anything to the grid? Why not just build the conventional plants, and forget about the wind?
The reason the developers build wind farms is that the Gum'mit makes it highly profitable to do so. Besides the Feds supplying almost all of the funds, there's also accelerated depreciation, carbon credits, local goverment tax abatements, and so forth. One of the first guys to jump on the wind farm bandwagon was Ken Lay, of Enron infamy.
I advocated wind generation for nearly forty years. When I took a serious look at it, I found that it makes no sense in a grid system. The entire "wind" movement is a method of moving tax dollars into the pockets of companies who don't need them.
At what point will the technology provide more useful energy output than is required to manufacture and maintain the system? Will it substantially reduce fossil fuel usage, or is it another ruse, like the wind farms?
Oh dear, a Slashdot poster has made what appears to be a false claim about the EROI of wind farms.
Time to google around a bit and see if there's anything to it....
This analysis reviews and synthesizes the literature on net energy return for electric power generation by wind turbines. Energy return on investment (EROI) is the ratio of energy delivered to energy costs. [...] Our survey shows an average EROI for just the operational studies is 19.8 (n=60; std. dev=13.7) This places wind in a favorable position relative to fossil fuels, nuclear, and solar power generation technologies in terms of EROI."
So, to sum up the above summary -- parent poster is wrong. As a matter of historical record, the average wind farm produces about 20 times more much energy than it expends on construction and maintenance.
Oh dear, a Slashdot poster appears to share the same opinions as the Big Energy Companies. Please google a little further and take a look at http://www.wind-watch.org/ for a different point of view.
BTW - I live in West Texas - we're surrounded by these beasts. It's all a scam foisted on us by companies like (early adopter) Enron. The winners are the developers, the losers are the customers neighbors, and wildlife. Ask the folks in North Texas, who had to deal with a brownout a few years ago when the winds died. Ask Big Energy why they must build more conventional plants when they add wind to the grid, and why those conventional plants have to be running while the wind farms are generating. Ask the residents of Great Britain and Europe how wonderful wind is. Ask how much carbon does wind energy eliminate from overall emissions. (/soapbox)
Yes, efficiency is what it's really about. At what point will the technology provide more useful energy output than is required to manufacture and maintain the system? Will it substantially reduce fossil fuel usage, or is it another ruse, like the wind farms?
They are not remotely the same thing. A customer can be influential as an individual. Referring to a customer as a "consumer" is an Orwellian Newspeak method of trying to disempower them, to tilt the balance of market power in your own favor without having earned it. It is belittling and degrading and shows a certain contempt that can only come from taking them for granted.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good thing the TSA makes everyone remove their shoes!
I quite agree. I also propose a study on the source pool of politicians, namely, lawyers.
+++, Please!
Did someone not tell Iran this? Or is this just dick-waving?
Correct on the first guess!
During the second world war airplanes flew over isolated pacific islands for the first time. One tribe that had never encountered technology built a bamboo and thatch airplane shaped idol of the God that flew over their island.
"The Gods Must Be Crazy".
See? This is what is wrong with our education system.
Why wasn't I taught this in school?
Different reading lists? Censorship? It's hard to say...
What if we pay well in advance?
Wait, never mind. That assumes an honest politician.
In Texas, an "honest politician" is one that, when bought, STAYS bought.
If the pilot's good, see. I mean, if he's really... sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low, you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane, like a '52, vroom! There's jet exhaust, flyin' chickens in the barnyard!
Wow. I watched "Strangelove" for the umpteenth time a couple of weeks ago. When George C. Scott delivers that line, I'm transported back to the early '60s, when a BUFF flew low over my yard north of Amarillo. It was magnificent and terrifying (not to mention LOUD).
posting to undo comment mod - sorry 'bout that.
To fully appreciate the risks, I recommend "Normal Accidents" by Charles Perrow.
And what exactly is the half life of the nastier stuph? Even after one half life, some of the isotopes are still dangerous.
ASR-33 Teletype
any unit record (IBM card) equipment - now, they had rhythm!
Line printer - chain was better than drum for rhythmic sound
I knew a 129 (keypunch) operator who could literally make the machine rock - she was extremely fast and accurate, and had a pronounced rhythmic technique.
As for line printers, I used to run a 1419 MICR reader (with the covers open and interlocks disabled, of course), while the results of my efforts were printing behind me on a 1403 (also with the cover raised, of course). When a "totals" page printed, a full line (132 columns) of asterisks marked it, making an unbelievable (and unearthly) screech.
Today, people get annoyed when I say, "Huh?".
It's hell to get old, isn't it?
Rumor has it that the alternative is worse.
Heck, the teachers used to draft us (students) to run the machines for them - never for a test targeted at the draftees, of course. I even had to prepare a master copy once.
1) If you are running a business, $7500 for all the standards in the federal code is not a lot of money.
Hey there, buddy - can you spare the odd $10K or so? I'd like to start a business...
To me, $7500 is a LOT of money.
Ask Big Energy why they must build more conventional plants when they add wind to the grid, and why those conventional plants have to be running while the wind farms are generating.
Ok, the answers to that one are so blazingly obvious I wonder why you bothered to ask. The obvious answer is that demand is increasing all the time so they need to build more plants anyway. Also the wind doesn't blow all the time, so it needs to be supplemented. As for those plants running while the wind farms are generating... Hmm, maybe because they cost a lot to build, the companies that built them want to run them as much as they can and sell the power?
Seriously, the stuff you're saying comes off like a bit of a crazy rant. I certainly get that some people don't like these wind farms being built next to them. How that equates into the wind farms being some giant conspiracy to erect towers that don't really generate power (which seems to be what you're implying), I have no idea.
I apologize - perhaps this will explain my viewpoint.
The conventional plants aren't being built to meet new demand, but as a backup to the wind farms. When a large portion of power provided on the grid is from wind, there must be an almost equivalent capacity available as spinning reserve, because the grid is a demand driven system. In other words, the reserve must be up and running, and ready to be switched onto the grid at a moment's notice if the wind dies. In Texas, that usually equates to a gas or coal fired generator. So, how do wind farms remove any carbon dioxide from electric generation, when the conventional generators have to run, even when not supplying anything to the grid? Why not just build the conventional plants, and forget about the wind?
The reason the developers build wind farms is that the Gum'mit makes it highly profitable to do so. Besides the Feds supplying almost all of the funds, there's also accelerated depreciation, carbon credits, local goverment tax abatements, and so forth. One of the first guys to jump on the wind farm bandwagon was Ken Lay, of Enron infamy.
I advocated wind generation for nearly forty years. When I took a serious look at it, I found that it makes no sense in a grid system. The entire "wind" movement is a method of moving tax dollars into the pockets of companies who don't need them.
Here is one (of many) links which may help explain: http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/11/22/wind-energy-realities/
At what point will the technology provide more useful energy output than is required to manufacture and maintain the system? Will it substantially reduce fossil fuel usage, or is it another ruse, like the wind farms?
Oh dear, a Slashdot poster has made what appears to be a false claim about the EROI of wind farms.
Time to google around a bit and see if there's anything to it....
This analysis reviews and synthesizes the literature on net energy return for electric power generation by wind turbines. Energy return on investment (EROI) is the ratio of energy delivered to energy costs. [...] Our survey shows an average EROI for just the operational studies is 19.8 (n=60; std. dev=13.7) This places wind in a favorable position relative to fossil fuels, nuclear, and solar power generation technologies in terms of EROI."
So, to sum up the above summary -- parent poster is wrong. As a matter of historical record, the average wind farm produces about 20 times more much energy than it expends on construction and maintenance.
Oh dear, a Slashdot poster appears to share the same opinions as the Big Energy Companies. Please google a little further and take a look at http://www.wind-watch.org/ for a different point of view. BTW - I live in West Texas - we're surrounded by these beasts. It's all a scam foisted on us by companies like (early adopter) Enron. The winners are the developers, the losers are the customers neighbors, and wildlife. Ask the folks in North Texas, who had to deal with a brownout a few years ago when the winds died. Ask Big Energy why they must build more conventional plants when they add wind to the grid, and why those conventional plants have to be running while the wind farms are generating. Ask the residents of Great Britain and Europe how wonderful wind is. Ask how much carbon does wind energy eliminate from overall emissions. (/soapbox)
Yes, efficiency is what it's really about. At what point will the technology provide more useful energy output than is required to manufacture and maintain the system? Will it substantially reduce fossil fuel usage, or is it another ruse, like the wind farms?
Ibogaine? I hear that Santorum is heavy into the Ibogaine... (/HST)
Speaking of flashbacks... :-)
You mean it tastes like glass? But I don't want to have my throat sliced up by broken glass!
That being said, anything that can keep me in FreeBSD more, and Windows 7 less, without losing the programs I like, is a good thing.
s/gl//
:-)
I concur.
Check out 'most anything written by Edgar Rice Burroughs.
Because you rednecks are always stupid enough to pick up the check?
I resemble that remark, you insensitive clod!
They are not remotely the same thing. A customer can be influential as an individual. Referring to a customer as a "consumer" is an Orwellian Newspeak method of trying to disempower them, to tilt the balance of market power in your own favor without having earned it. It is belittling and degrading and shows a certain contempt that can only come from taking them for granted.
Thank you. Well said.
Does anyone else take exception to the use of the word "consumer" instead of "customer"?