Because the sun is shining while the car is at work, but not while the car is back home. Battery cars are a great match to the PV that could be on every roof it it had efficient consumption of the power, also making the power infrastructure more distributed, thereby efficient and reliable.
battery pack efficiency of 97 percent and a recharge time of around 6 minutes when charged from a direct current source
Solar photovoltaic and fuel cells generate direct current. Usually they go through an inverter, that loses 10-25% of the energy (as heat, and burns out the part for replacement about every 5 years). A battery like this would mean keeping that energy without losing it. Leaving a battery charging at home while driving the car around, then swapping it into the car when the car returns home - or reverse the positions for batteries charging at work or at whatever daytime destination. That battery can also power household devices, like the many devices that really consume DC, which waste power running from wall current into rectifiers.
This kind of device could improve not only transit energy, but also residential (and commercial sites that reverse the locations).
I'd like the OS to have a reliable (hard to crack) indicator to the user showing whenever any mic or camera HW is being accessed, like a red light in the Desktop manager display, and an easily readable display of the XML log of accesses.
As it is I put metal foil tape over them now, disconnecting them physically when I can, and rely on external camera/mic peripherals that I plug in on demand.
The lawsuit would cripple Android development. Android development is the biggest source of growth for Java development; meanwhile.Net is eating Java's share of the server market, while the applet market is nearly dead. If Oracle wins this lawsuit, it will help kill Java. Just filing the lawsuit raises the risk in business calculations of whether to develop in Java, so it's already helping kill Java.
Dalvik VM competes with the JVM, but that kind of competition is also part of why Java has succeeded widely, on many platforms. Invoking IP, especially with dubious (and not even sufficiently specific) claims, to kill a competing JVM is indeed a severe lockdown. And the willingness to use the tactic in this case tells others who Oracle might want to compete with that there are extra risks in getting in that business, even when they're not really valid. Java is a language, it's an API, it's a bytecode, it's a JVM - all of which have been touted as independent of each other as developers choose, for 15 years now. That independence and openness have been key to its success, and Oracle is shutting that down.
Killing Java isn't Oracle's plan, as Java is one of its biggest assets it bought along with Sun. But Oracle is a ruthless competitor, interested in control more than in the "coopetition" in which Sun engaged to grow Java successfully. As Google's counterclaim cites, Oracle favored the very Java developments at Google that it's now working to stop, until Oracle owned Java. It's a lockdown by definition as you agree, and it's severe by comparison to the successful "laissez faire" management of Java by Sun.
Java caught on quickly largely because it was open: the language specification was published without prohibiting 3rd parties from implementing it in their own VM, etc. Copyrighting the class library API, which is half of Oracle's charges here, is a severe lockdown. Oracle's grab to control more of Java than even Sun did is going to kill the spirit of the community that cares about openness which keeps Java alive.
Perhaps this move is why so many Sun Java people left suddenly in the past month or so. Or perhaps Oracle has even more greedy plans to own more of Java while shrinking it to an also-ran behind.Net (and its emerging Silverlight that will run everywhere Java does).
I don't have any interest in telling you any of my personal details, especially either possible criminal activity or extremely personal ones. Especially in a public post. Those details are available to people who I trust, not people I know only as someone to whom I have to keep explaining their own stupidity.
This is basic social knowledge. You really are stupid.
No, you think that because you're stupid. Like how you keep insisting that "Teabagger" is a sexual term, after you fools named yourself after it. Because you're obsessed with the sex you cannot get, when the rest of us who are smart really care only that you barbarians are trying to grab power over us.
There's no convincing you Teabaggers of anything except that Democrats are the problem (despite you Republicans being the problem). So instead I'm just using you as a prop to show others how stupid y'all are.
Except those rules are enforced by the government. Selective enforcement by biased officials is a real danger. Especially since election campaigns are extremely time sensitive, and the government can interfere with critical turning points that cannot be remedied after appealing elsewhere in the government. Leaving the finance system out of government hands, except in enforcing equal access to a shared fund which is simple and transparent, is the lowest risk of a government corrupting the system even further.
Obama's "outrageous claims" in his SotU are now proven exactly true. But you Republicans don't care about the truth, or America's sovereignty. You care only about getting power, and using it for your corporate sponsors.
There is no room for even $1 spent in American elections by foreign corporations and foreign kings. Putting it in scare quotes doesn't change the unacceptable nature.
You Republicans love to talk about protecting the US from foreign influence, until it pays for your party to win elections. After being so wrong in every way for so long, you Republicans really should take a break from pretending you're competent in governing this country. Your reliance on foreign corporate and monarchial investment to get more power shows you're not.
No, impeachment is a political institution, which is why it originates in the House and is decided in the Senate, with the only Judicial Branch involvement being the Chief Justice presiding over the Senate "trial", but with no jurisprudential power other than what the Congress votes to give them in the specific case.
It is reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Misdemeanors are mismanagement or misleadership in the language of the day.
The goal of Republicans is indeed to impeach Obama, as they have said throughout his term. Just like they impeached Clinton, to paralyze the elected government (a frequent Republican priority). Just because Republicans abuse impeachment to override electoral politics doesn't mean that impeachment isn't still correct when an official abuses their power. In the case of Supreme Court justices, impeachment is the only way to check their power when they abuse it. Just because we haven't impeached and removed justices before doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Indeed, the corrupt and dysfunctional condition of our officials shows we impeach far too infrequently - the lack of precedent argues for more impeachment, not less.
The actual harm is that foreign corporations, foreign monarchs, are exercising more influence in American elections than nearly all Americans can. Not to mention the adequately unacceptable influence in elections of American corporations. None of which is acceptable in a national democracy - corporations aren't people.
The simple fact is that you are a Republican, so you don't want to see fellow Republicans impeached. An exclusively political reason that you are dressing up in neutralized terms, but which protects Republicans. At all costs.
Yes we should reform corporate law. We should have a Supreme Court ruling on a law that explicitly states that corporations are not "persons". Your other points are good, too.
But donating money to someone else is not speech. And corporations do not have rights, like free speech.
No, it's a serious interest conflict for the government to control funding of candidates who are supposed to be independent and change governement, perhaps totally, if they win. Public funding removes the separation and independence, and gives the government too much power to control who can run to change it.
The fairest and simplest system is to simply allow any US citizen (human, not corporation) to donate as much as they want, but never to an individual candidate. Instead, anyone donates not to the candidate, but to a fund shared by everyone in the same race for the office. Everyone registered can withdraw their equal share. There should be no advantage in winning an election because the people who prefer you have more money, even if more people would have preferred you at the ballot box without that money advantage. The system would be simple, completely easy to understand, and transparent. And by removing the money advantage, it would crank way down the amount of money spent on elections. Which would set the campaigning closer to the issues, rather than a PR campaign of special effects and "swamping out" the competition so voters can't hear them.
The government should offer equal access to TV, radio, websites and leaflets to all candidates at public expense. But the actual financing of campaigns, which do cost money to run to get out the message and respond to constituents and the media, should be left to American citizens.
Back in January 2010, Obama gave the State of the Union right after the Court handed down the Citizens United decision. Obama told Congress, with several of the Supremes sitting in the front row, that the decision would allow foreign corporations to influence US elections, which most Americans still realize is a terrible development. Justice Alito, who had just decided in the majority to allow corporations "free speech" by spending unlimited money in US political campaigning, was mad: he angrily mouthed "not true". The corporate mass media attacked Obama for "picking on the justices" by warning Congress and "embarrassing" the court, but of course failed to examine whether it was true.
Less than a year later, we see it was totally true. We see that foreign corporations have invested huge amounts of money campaigning in the 2010 election. Republican candidates have gotten hundreds of $millions spent to elect them, sponsored by corporations including many foreign ones. The "US" Chamber of Commerce (Inc.) collects money from lots of foreign corporations, especially Indian ones that want US jobs shipped there, foreign banks like Credit Suisse and HSBC that want financial reform repealed, and even corporations owned by foreign kings, like the Emir of Bahrain. Foreign kings are spending more in US election campaigns than US citizens.
Whether you think that's OK or not (it is very not OK), Alito was totally wrong. And a jerk about it. Not surprising, since Alito was installed by Bush. Alito swore in his Senate confirmation hearings that he would respect established law, but his Citizens United decision overturned lots of established law, went against the basic understanding that corporations are not people, and recklessly unleashed foreign corporate power on US election campaigns.
He should be impeached. Then he'll be free to skip the State of the Union the way he plans to from now on because he can't stand criticism of his abominable rulings.
No, you're just stupid. Like the rest of you Republicans - I mean "libertarians". Teabagger stupid.
Only Teabaggers can think liberals are simultaneously too tolerant and intolerant. I don't know about liberals, but I am intolerant of stupid. I'm not inherently good, but I'm inherently smart. Smart enough to tell that you Republicans are stupid.
Obama was born in Hawaii, and actually won his inaugural election - unlike Bush/Cheney who stole it. You voted for McCain, who was born in Panama.
Obama protected the US economy from the devastation you voted for in Bush/Cheney twice. Health care isn't at all "taken over", just a little less profitable for the insurance cartel. Bush/Cheney/Paulson made TARP necessary, and then they passed it through Congress - Obama just managed to make it work, and recoup nearly all the money spent on it. Oh, and taxes are lower for everyone but the richest 5%, and overall lower than under Bush, while also lowering the deficit compared to the Bush deficit before Obama.
You Teabagger Republicans are really stupid. Not just because you repeat those lies crafted in some Republican PR corp, but because you think repeating them in public will fool anyone but fellow Republicans.
And the "anti-establishment" candidates are trained and funded by Karl Rove and his secret foreign corporate money. Not "anti-establishment" at all, except to fool you fools. And we'll see just how many win anywhere but the usual idiot farms that always elect Republicans.
You Republicans are autards who never learn anything. Even this post won't penetrate your haze of deluded lies.
But yeah, his middle name actually is Hussein. Which makes you a bigot. You should run for Congress, Teabagger. Republicans would vote for you. Once they're told to by some Republican corporate sponsor.
No, with failsafes and redundancies we can achieve 100% predictable control of even highly complex systems like nuke missile sites. We generally have for well over 50 years now. But indeed I don't feel perfectly safe with nukes in the world.
Good thing Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot aren't in charge of our nuke security. Or, in light of the failures at this major base, maybe you are. Not a safe feeling. But there's no hole deep enough to hide from the consequences. Instead I'd rather we fix it.
I don't feel safer knowing that some unforeseen glitch can disable all kinds of security systems. Losing control by the US command chain is one requirement for someone else to get control of them. And overall, defective control systems leave open the possibility of all kinds of other problems.
Nothing but 100% predictable control of nukes is acceptable.
Dick Cheney came to elected office from Wyoming, and claimed he was from Wyoming to avoid the law that prohibits both president and VP candidate coming from the same state (Texas, with Bush). Cheney is the devil, and dwells in the bowels of the Earth. Cheney loves nothing more than WMD like "loose nukes". He's got plenty of time on his hands, and saw on TV that Republicans are taking over again next week.
I believe we have located the Cheney Bunker. And he's grabbing nukes!
Slashdot Mirror
The market will fix this. Nobody will buy iPhones when they hear about this. And all iPhone consumers in the market will hear about it.
Right?
Because the sun is shining while the car is at work, but not while the car is back home. Battery cars are a great match to the PV that could be on every roof it it had efficient consumption of the power, also making the power infrastructure more distributed, thereby efficient and reliable.
You fucking stupid cunt.
My private life, you slave.
Solar photovoltaic and fuel cells generate direct current. Usually they go through an inverter, that loses 10-25% of the energy (as heat, and burns out the part for replacement about every 5 years). A battery like this would mean keeping that energy without losing it. Leaving a battery charging at home while driving the car around, then swapping it into the car when the car returns home - or reverse the positions for batteries charging at work or at whatever daytime destination. That battery can also power household devices, like the many devices that really consume DC, which waste power running from wall current into rectifiers.
This kind of device could improve not only transit energy, but also residential (and commercial sites that reverse the locations).
I'd like the OS to have a reliable (hard to crack) indicator to the user showing whenever any mic or camera HW is being accessed, like a red light in the Desktop manager display, and an easily readable display of the XML log of accesses.
As it is I put metal foil tape over them now, disconnecting them physically when I can, and rely on external camera/mic peripherals that I plug in on demand.
You're gay.
Anonymous Steve Ballmer Coward, your opinion is duly noted.
The lawsuit would cripple Android development. Android development is the biggest source of growth for Java development; meanwhile .Net is eating Java's share of the server market, while the applet market is nearly dead. If Oracle wins this lawsuit, it will help kill Java. Just filing the lawsuit raises the risk in business calculations of whether to develop in Java, so it's already helping kill Java.
Dalvik VM competes with the JVM, but that kind of competition is also part of why Java has succeeded widely, on many platforms. Invoking IP, especially with dubious (and not even sufficiently specific) claims, to kill a competing JVM is indeed a severe lockdown. And the willingness to use the tactic in this case tells others who Oracle might want to compete with that there are extra risks in getting in that business, even when they're not really valid. Java is a language, it's an API, it's a bytecode, it's a JVM - all of which have been touted as independent of each other as developers choose, for 15 years now. That independence and openness have been key to its success, and Oracle is shutting that down.
Killing Java isn't Oracle's plan, as Java is one of its biggest assets it bought along with Sun. But Oracle is a ruthless competitor, interested in control more than in the "coopetition" in which Sun engaged to grow Java successfully. As Google's counterclaim cites, Oracle favored the very Java developments at Google that it's now working to stop, until Oracle owned Java. It's a lockdown by definition as you agree, and it's severe by comparison to the successful "laissez faire" management of Java by Sun.
Java caught on quickly largely because it was open: the language specification was published without prohibiting 3rd parties from implementing it in their own VM, etc. Copyrighting the class library API, which is half of Oracle's charges here, is a severe lockdown. Oracle's grab to control more of Java than even Sun did is going to kill the spirit of the community that cares about openness which keeps Java alive.
Perhaps this move is why so many Sun Java people left suddenly in the past month or so. Or perhaps Oracle has even more greedy plans to own more of Java while shrinking it to an also-ran behind .Net (and its emerging Silverlight that will run everywhere Java does).
I don't have any interest in telling you any of my personal details, especially either possible criminal activity or extremely personal ones. Especially in a public post. Those details are available to people who I trust, not people I know only as someone to whom I have to keep explaining their own stupidity.
This is basic social knowledge. You really are stupid.
No, you think that because you're stupid. Like how you keep insisting that "Teabagger" is a sexual term, after you fools named yourself after it. Because you're obsessed with the sex you cannot get, when the rest of us who are smart really care only that you barbarians are trying to grab power over us.
There's no convincing you Teabaggers of anything except that Democrats are the problem (despite you Republicans being the problem). So instead I'm just using you as a prop to show others how stupid y'all are.
Thanks for your predictable compliance.
You Republicans are traitors. You voted for Bush/Cheney twice, and have no business saying anyone is "the worst ever".
Except those rules are enforced by the government. Selective enforcement by biased officials is a real danger. Especially since election campaigns are extremely time sensitive, and the government can interfere with critical turning points that cannot be remedied after appealing elsewhere in the government. Leaving the finance system out of government hands, except in enforcing equal access to a shared fund which is simple and transparent, is the lowest risk of a government corrupting the system even further.
Obama's "outrageous claims" in his SotU are now proven exactly true. But you Republicans don't care about the truth, or America's sovereignty. You care only about getting power, and using it for your corporate sponsors.
There is no room for even $1 spent in American elections by foreign corporations and foreign kings. Putting it in scare quotes doesn't change the unacceptable nature.
You Republicans love to talk about protecting the US from foreign influence, until it pays for your party to win elections. After being so wrong in every way for so long, you Republicans really should take a break from pretending you're competent in governing this country. Your reliance on foreign corporate and monarchial investment to get more power shows you're not.
No, impeachment is a political institution, which is why it originates in the House and is decided in the Senate, with the only Judicial Branch involvement being the Chief Justice presiding over the Senate "trial", but with no jurisprudential power other than what the Congress votes to give them in the specific case.
It is reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Misdemeanors are mismanagement or misleadership in the language of the day.
The goal of Republicans is indeed to impeach Obama, as they have said throughout his term. Just like they impeached Clinton, to paralyze the elected government (a frequent Republican priority). Just because Republicans abuse impeachment to override electoral politics doesn't mean that impeachment isn't still correct when an official abuses their power. In the case of Supreme Court justices, impeachment is the only way to check their power when they abuse it. Just because we haven't impeached and removed justices before doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Indeed, the corrupt and dysfunctional condition of our officials shows we impeach far too infrequently - the lack of precedent argues for more impeachment, not less.
The actual harm is that foreign corporations, foreign monarchs, are exercising more influence in American elections than nearly all Americans can. Not to mention the adequately unacceptable influence in elections of American corporations. None of which is acceptable in a national democracy - corporations aren't people.
The simple fact is that you are a Republican, so you don't want to see fellow Republicans impeached. An exclusively political reason that you are dressing up in neutralized terms, but which protects Republicans. At all costs.
Yes we should reform corporate law. We should have a Supreme Court ruling on a law that explicitly states that corporations are not "persons". Your other points are good, too.
But donating money to someone else is not speech. And corporations do not have rights, like free speech.
Where's the citations that back up any of your assertions?
No, it's a serious interest conflict for the government to control funding of candidates who are supposed to be independent and change governement, perhaps totally, if they win. Public funding removes the separation and independence, and gives the government too much power to control who can run to change it.
The fairest and simplest system is to simply allow any US citizen (human, not corporation) to donate as much as they want, but never to an individual candidate. Instead, anyone donates not to the candidate, but to a fund shared by everyone in the same race for the office. Everyone registered can withdraw their equal share. There should be no advantage in winning an election because the people who prefer you have more money, even if more people would have preferred you at the ballot box without that money advantage. The system would be simple, completely easy to understand, and transparent. And by removing the money advantage, it would crank way down the amount of money spent on elections. Which would set the campaigning closer to the issues, rather than a PR campaign of special effects and "swamping out" the competition so voters can't hear them.
The government should offer equal access to TV, radio, websites and leaflets to all candidates at public expense. But the actual financing of campaigns, which do cost money to run to get out the message and respond to constituents and the media, should be left to American citizens.
Back in January 2010, Obama gave the State of the Union right after the Court handed down the Citizens United decision. Obama told Congress, with several of the Supremes sitting in the front row, that the decision would allow foreign corporations to influence US elections, which most Americans still realize is a terrible development. Justice Alito, who had just decided in the majority to allow corporations "free speech" by spending unlimited money in US political campaigning, was mad: he angrily mouthed "not true". The corporate mass media attacked Obama for "picking on the justices" by warning Congress and "embarrassing" the court, but of course failed to examine whether it was true.
Less than a year later, we see it was totally true. We see that foreign corporations have invested huge amounts of money campaigning in the 2010 election. Republican candidates have gotten hundreds of $millions spent to elect them, sponsored by corporations including many foreign ones. The "US" Chamber of Commerce (Inc.) collects money from lots of foreign corporations, especially Indian ones that want US jobs shipped there, foreign banks like Credit Suisse and HSBC that want financial reform repealed, and even corporations owned by foreign kings, like the Emir of Bahrain. Foreign kings are spending more in US election campaigns than US citizens.
Whether you think that's OK or not (it is very not OK), Alito was totally wrong. And a jerk about it. Not surprising, since Alito was installed by Bush. Alito swore in his Senate confirmation hearings that he would respect established law, but his Citizens United decision overturned lots of established law, went against the basic understanding that corporations are not people, and recklessly unleashed foreign corporate power on US election campaigns.
He should be impeached. Then he'll be free to skip the State of the Union the way he plans to from now on because he can't stand criticism of his abominable rulings.
No, you're just stupid. Like the rest of you Republicans - I mean "libertarians". Teabagger stupid.
Only Teabaggers can think liberals are simultaneously too tolerant and intolerant. I don't know about liberals, but I am intolerant of stupid. I'm not inherently good, but I'm inherently smart. Smart enough to tell that you Republicans are stupid.
No, I'm not condescending. You Republicans are just stupid. So "correct" looks "condescending" to you.
You are a parody of yourself.
Obama was born in Hawaii, and actually won his inaugural election - unlike Bush/Cheney who stole it. You voted for McCain, who was born in Panama.
Obama protected the US economy from the devastation you voted for in Bush/Cheney twice. Health care isn't at all "taken over", just a little less profitable for the insurance cartel. Bush/Cheney/Paulson made TARP necessary, and then they passed it through Congress - Obama just managed to make it work, and recoup nearly all the money spent on it. Oh, and taxes are lower for everyone but the richest 5%, and overall lower than under Bush, while also lowering the deficit compared to the Bush deficit before Obama.
You Teabagger Republicans are really stupid. Not just because you repeat those lies crafted in some Republican PR corp, but because you think repeating them in public will fool anyone but fellow Republicans.
And the "anti-establishment" candidates are trained and funded by Karl Rove and his secret foreign corporate money. Not "anti-establishment" at all, except to fool you fools. And we'll see just how many win anywhere but the usual idiot farms that always elect Republicans.
You Republicans are autards who never learn anything. Even this post won't penetrate your haze of deluded lies.
But yeah, his middle name actually is Hussein. Which makes you a bigot. You should run for Congress, Teabagger. Republicans would vote for you. Once they're told to by some Republican corporate sponsor.
No, with failsafes and redundancies we can achieve 100% predictable control of even highly complex systems like nuke missile sites. We generally have for well over 50 years now. But indeed I don't feel perfectly safe with nukes in the world.
Good thing Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot aren't in charge of our nuke security. Or, in light of the failures at this major base, maybe you are. Not a safe feeling. But there's no hole deep enough to hide from the consequences. Instead I'd rather we fix it.
I don't feel safer knowing that some unforeseen glitch can disable all kinds of security systems. Losing control by the US command chain is one requirement for someone else to get control of them. And overall, defective control systems leave open the possibility of all kinds of other problems.
Nothing but 100% predictable control of nukes is acceptable.
Dick Cheney came to elected office from Wyoming, and claimed he was from Wyoming to avoid the law that prohibits both president and VP candidate coming from the same state (Texas, with Bush). Cheney is the devil, and dwells in the bowels of the Earth. Cheney loves nothing more than WMD like "loose nukes". He's got plenty of time on his hands, and saw on TV that Republicans are taking over again next week.
I believe we have located the Cheney Bunker. And he's grabbing nukes!