For the most part I've always worn jeans and a plain shirt except for a couple of jobs where I needed a suit (never do that again). So I went from 1 to 3 bypassing 2 altogether.
I read it earlier this year and it's a lot better than what you would expect considering the subject. As you go through it you can see how seemingly small decisions made half a century ago are still influencing how we design our infrastructure today (trucks vs. trains).
First off you should never completely trust your computers. What happens if a software bug or a hardware problem occurs and says your 10 nautical miles west from where you really are? Not likely but still always good to check to make sure that your systems are running correctly.
The other reason is what if something happens to your ship and you have to abandon it before a distress call could be sent. Quite possible in times of war. You would want to know how to locate where you are so you could paddle the raft in the right direction (if you had a map or knew the location of land) or had some form of communication.
And the company says that the drives aren't as fast. They aren't claiming it. They've made the decision to have a large and slow drive versus a small and fast one. They are being open about the design choices they have made.
It doesn't have many allies in the sense like Canada and the US or NATO but it does have many allies. It has strong ties with North Korea. Then there are the trading alliances. It's a big trading partner with the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the EU, and many other countries. It is allied with Russia on some things and has a big natural gas contract. China has been buying large areas of farmland in Australia, South America, and Africa in order to guarantee food supplies. It has also been financing the building of many projects in less developed countries.
I would hope that we are not going to limit our exploration of the solar system to a couple more trips to Mars and say we're done. Let's use this to go the Moon, Mars, and anywhere else many times. It doesn't have to be manned missions. Send probes, robots, and any other missions. Just think how much cheaper science missions to the other planets could be. Maybe it would make something like the James Webb telescope but with the capability to come back to Earth orbit for repairs and upgrades possible if fuel was inexpensive enough.
Well, if you want to send people anywhere else the moon is an excellent place to try things out because if it goes pear shaped you are only a couple of days away from Earth. Once you are confident of the technologies working on the Moon then you can go forward to Mars with more confidence because Mars isn't such an extreme environment. If you go straight to Mars and something goes wrong it's at least a six month journey back home. That's a long flight in an emergency.
Yes, it was the shipping container that changed this. I read a book about the history of the shipping container and it was pretty good. I can't remember the author but I think the title of the book was simply called "The Box". Actually the shipping container might actually be one of the most disruptive technologies of the past 100 years. It drove down the cost of shipping from being the highest component to one of the lowest. It's the reason we can now send things half-ways around the world to be processed and then brought back to be sold. Major cities used to have manufacturing areas near the ports because delivery to the ships was expensive but the container changed that so the manufacturers could move out of the city to cheaper land. It radically transformed cities. At one time ships were mostly loaded by hand or cranes lifted nets filled with goods. It was labour intensive, took a long time, and items were prone to be stolen. The goods were then put into warehouses and then hand loaded onto trucks or trains. Now a ship can be unloaded and loaded in a day.
Trains got started more in the 1800s so weren't disruptive in the past 100 years. I love trains though. I wish we would use them more as they are more efficient and would get a lot of the trucks off the highways. I've come out of Toronto at night and for most part the traffic is trucks heading out of the city.
And there are people around the world who believe that the Americans are terrorists for invading countries, torturing people, and doing things like blowing up hospitals. And they are taking your advice and killing the terrorists.
BTW, the Russians aren't targeting ISIS. They are leaving that to the others. The Russians are bombing the rebels who were allied with the US that are going after Assad. The idea is that Russia and Assad can take out Assad's enemies while the rest of the world can work on ISIS. Then when Assad has complete control of Syria again then he can concentrate on ISIS.
And if everyone continues to want their space as many seem to do in the US and Canada then we have urban sprawl which brings traffic, pollution, wasted time, lots of pavement, huge costs to provide infrastructure, etc.
How's that building up working in San Francisco? I know that in Toronto there are lots of condos being built but it doesn't seem to have slowed the rate of sprawl any.
In Canada there are three main national parties (Conservatives, Liberals, NDP), a fourth national party (Greens), and a party that only runs in the province of Quebec (Bloc). In a nutshell the Conservatives are like the Republicans (turning more Tea Party like all the time), the NDP could be said to be left-wing Democrats, and the Liberals are somewhere in the middle but lean more towards the NDP. However they do take some policies from the Conservatives. They voted in favour of C-51 which was the big surveillance and anti-terrorism legislation bill that the Conservatives pushed through recently.
And the Green Party is where you would expect them to be out on the left past the NDP. However for this election they have softened some of their policies. For example they aren't coming out against the tar sands development. They want the crude to be refined in Alberta instead of being sent away. I think that they are going to get hammered this election because many of their supporters are going to be voting for candidates that can defeat the Conservative candidate. Having the per vote funding end this year is also going to hurt them because it gives further incentive for strategic voting.
The two big determining factors in the election are will enough people go out to vote and will the NDP and Liberals split the left vote to allow the Conservatives to win again. The Conservatives have traditionally had very good voter turnout while the other parties haven't had as good. Also people might hear that the Liberals are doing well in the polls and figure that they will win it so there's no point in voting since one vote won't make a difference.
I'm sure that the Queen has probably worked that out a long time ago. She'd be a much more capable leader than most of the people that have been elected. Prince Charles on the other hand...
I think it's the diesel powered delivery truck. If it wasn't for that you wouldn't have gotten all of your fancy stuff to your home in an efficient manner, including your refrigerators.
Except there are things in fixed supplies. Land for one thing. Imagine another 100,000 people in San Francisco and it's impact on housing prices. Or another 250,000. How about another 1M in Toronto? I know that we are going to get those people added there one day but the longer it takes to get there the more time we have to figure out ways to better deal with those numbers in an environmentally friendly manner and in a way that people can, hopefully, afford. Right now it's very difficult to life in a larger city because of the cost but that's where the jobs are. More people in the cities would just make living in them even more expensive.
The ever expanding economy is an old way of thinking which has brought us the environmental problems of today. It can't just be growth, growth, growth.
I just started canning but with a water bath canner that also does the steam method. This means I'm more limited in what I am able to can. Anything has to be in a acidic liquid or sugar syrup or similar state (such as apple sauce). I can't do items such as meat or plain vegetables as I could if I had a pressure canner. Foods prepared this way are at their best for one year though are still good for longer.
USGS can monitor the situation with respect to the earthquakes but what could they do about making sure the tanks are safe or what would happen if the tanks failed? Maybe FEMA.
It might have been a joke in reference to an ex-science teacher running for the Conservatives in the Canadian election that says the ground will absorb oil spills.
From the article at CBC: "Oil is a natural substance. So spilling into the environment, the land will absorb it, 'cause that's what oil is," she said during an interview with CPAC (Cable Public Affairs Channel).
I was thinking that the $1M a year was probably the savings just from buying electricity off-peak and using it on-peak. The article mentions that the electricity supplier would then be able to ask them to switch to the batteries when there was very high demand. Normally companies that do this, or shut down some equipment, get rebates so that probably is on top of the figure quoted. And I'm sure that they are getting a good price with all of this publicity they are generating for Tesla.
But yes, a 30 year payback isn't normally something a company would do. So either the owner is an eco-warrior that's trying to prevent fossil fuel peak power generation plants from running as much or there's some accounting that isn't being shared.
Yes, it's $25k per battery, each battery can store 100kWh, and they are saying that all of the installed batteries will be able to offset 10MW of reserve capacity. However specs for the battery seem to be a bit sparse so I don't know how fast the battery can discharge or even the physical size of the battery. The article mentioned that the batteries at the first site would take up five parking spaces (I can't see one being that large).
The home models provide a continuous 5kW of power but that would be too low for this one. If we assume that they want to almost discharge their batteries during the peak period and leave enough for a short backup period let's guess seven hours for a full discharge which would give us a continuous 14kW power, approximately. So then they would be ordering on the order of 700 batteries which works out to $17.5M leaving the rest for installation.
Slashdot Mirror
For the most part I've always worn jeans and a plain shirt except for a couple of jobs where I needed a suit (never do that again). So I went from 1 to 3 bypassing 2 altogether.
I don't think she'd be thanking you if the barrier was penetrated.
Yes, I'm sure that they are only going up only for studying the effects of zero gravity and not because it's a trip of a lifetime.
I read it earlier this year and it's a lot better than what you would expect considering the subject. As you go through it you can see how seemingly small decisions made half a century ago are still influencing how we design our infrastructure today (trucks vs. trains).
First off you should never completely trust your computers. What happens if a software bug or a hardware problem occurs and says your 10 nautical miles west from where you really are? Not likely but still always good to check to make sure that your systems are running correctly.
The other reason is what if something happens to your ship and you have to abandon it before a distress call could be sent. Quite possible in times of war. You would want to know how to locate where you are so you could paddle the raft in the right direction (if you had a map or knew the location of land) or had some form of communication.
I prefer spending the extra and getting the 15k RPM SSDs.
And the company says that the drives aren't as fast. They aren't claiming it. They've made the decision to have a large and slow drive versus a small and fast one. They are being open about the design choices they have made.
Really, can the US put a person into space?
It doesn't have many allies in the sense like Canada and the US or NATO but it does have many allies. It has strong ties with North Korea. Then there are the trading alliances. It's a big trading partner with the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the EU, and many other countries. It is allied with Russia on some things and has a big natural gas contract. China has been buying large areas of farmland in Australia, South America, and Africa in order to guarantee food supplies. It has also been financing the building of many projects in less developed countries.
I would hope that we are not going to limit our exploration of the solar system to a couple more trips to Mars and say we're done. Let's use this to go the Moon, Mars, and anywhere else many times. It doesn't have to be manned missions. Send probes, robots, and any other missions. Just think how much cheaper science missions to the other planets could be. Maybe it would make something like the James Webb telescope but with the capability to come back to Earth orbit for repairs and upgrades possible if fuel was inexpensive enough.
Unless it's all automated.
Well, if you want to send people anywhere else the moon is an excellent place to try things out because if it goes pear shaped you are only a couple of days away from Earth. Once you are confident of the technologies working on the Moon then you can go forward to Mars with more confidence because Mars isn't such an extreme environment. If you go straight to Mars and something goes wrong it's at least a six month journey back home. That's a long flight in an emergency.
Yes, it was the shipping container that changed this. I read a book about the history of the shipping container and it was pretty good. I can't remember the author but I think the title of the book was simply called "The Box". Actually the shipping container might actually be one of the most disruptive technologies of the past 100 years. It drove down the cost of shipping from being the highest component to one of the lowest. It's the reason we can now send things half-ways around the world to be processed and then brought back to be sold. Major cities used to have manufacturing areas near the ports because delivery to the ships was expensive but the container changed that so the manufacturers could move out of the city to cheaper land. It radically transformed cities. At one time ships were mostly loaded by hand or cranes lifted nets filled with goods. It was labour intensive, took a long time, and items were prone to be stolen. The goods were then put into warehouses and then hand loaded onto trucks or trains. Now a ship can be unloaded and loaded in a day.
Trains got started more in the 1800s so weren't disruptive in the past 100 years. I love trains though. I wish we would use them more as they are more efficient and would get a lot of the trucks off the highways. I've come out of Toronto at night and for most part the traffic is trucks heading out of the city.
"The actors sucked, there was no story but the special effects were amazing - * * * * *"
And there are people around the world who believe that the Americans are terrorists for invading countries, torturing people, and doing things like blowing up hospitals. And they are taking your advice and killing the terrorists.
BTW, the Russians aren't targeting ISIS. They are leaving that to the others. The Russians are bombing the rebels who were allied with the US that are going after Assad. The idea is that Russia and Assad can take out Assad's enemies while the rest of the world can work on ISIS. Then when Assad has complete control of Syria again then he can concentrate on ISIS.
And if everyone continues to want their space as many seem to do in the US and Canada then we have urban sprawl which brings traffic, pollution, wasted time, lots of pavement, huge costs to provide infrastructure, etc.
How's that building up working in San Francisco? I know that in Toronto there are lots of condos being built but it doesn't seem to have slowed the rate of sprawl any.
In Canada there are three main national parties (Conservatives, Liberals, NDP), a fourth national party (Greens), and a party that only runs in the province of Quebec (Bloc). In a nutshell the Conservatives are like the Republicans (turning more Tea Party like all the time), the NDP could be said to be left-wing Democrats, and the Liberals are somewhere in the middle but lean more towards the NDP. However they do take some policies from the Conservatives. They voted in favour of C-51 which was the big surveillance and anti-terrorism legislation bill that the Conservatives pushed through recently.
And the Green Party is where you would expect them to be out on the left past the NDP. However for this election they have softened some of their policies. For example they aren't coming out against the tar sands development. They want the crude to be refined in Alberta instead of being sent away. I think that they are going to get hammered this election because many of their supporters are going to be voting for candidates that can defeat the Conservative candidate. Having the per vote funding end this year is also going to hurt them because it gives further incentive for strategic voting.
The two big determining factors in the election are will enough people go out to vote and will the NDP and Liberals split the left vote to allow the Conservatives to win again. The Conservatives have traditionally had very good voter turnout while the other parties haven't had as good. Also people might hear that the Liberals are doing well in the polls and figure that they will win it so there's no point in voting since one vote won't make a difference.
I'm sure that the Queen has probably worked that out a long time ago. She'd be a much more capable leader than most of the people that have been elected. Prince Charles on the other hand...
I think it's the diesel powered delivery truck. If it wasn't for that you wouldn't have gotten all of your fancy stuff to your home in an efficient manner, including your refrigerators.
Except there are things in fixed supplies. Land for one thing. Imagine another 100,000 people in San Francisco and it's impact on housing prices. Or another 250,000. How about another 1M in Toronto? I know that we are going to get those people added there one day but the longer it takes to get there the more time we have to figure out ways to better deal with those numbers in an environmentally friendly manner and in a way that people can, hopefully, afford. Right now it's very difficult to life in a larger city because of the cost but that's where the jobs are. More people in the cities would just make living in them even more expensive.
The ever expanding economy is an old way of thinking which has brought us the environmental problems of today. It can't just be growth, growth, growth.
I just started canning but with a water bath canner that also does the steam method. This means I'm more limited in what I am able to can. Anything has to be in a acidic liquid or sugar syrup or similar state (such as apple sauce). I can't do items such as meat or plain vegetables as I could if I had a pressure canner. Foods prepared this way are at their best for one year though are still good for longer.
USGS can monitor the situation with respect to the earthquakes but what could they do about making sure the tanks are safe or what would happen if the tanks failed? Maybe FEMA.
It might have been a joke in reference to an ex-science teacher running for the Conservatives in the Canadian election that says the ground will absorb oil spills.
From the article at CBC:
"Oil is a natural substance. So spilling into the environment, the land will absorb it, 'cause that's what oil is," she said during an interview with CPAC (Cable Public Affairs Channel).
I was thinking that the $1M a year was probably the savings just from buying electricity off-peak and using it on-peak. The article mentions that the electricity supplier would then be able to ask them to switch to the batteries when there was very high demand. Normally companies that do this, or shut down some equipment, get rebates so that probably is on top of the figure quoted. And I'm sure that they are getting a good price with all of this publicity they are generating for Tesla.
But yes, a 30 year payback isn't normally something a company would do. So either the owner is an eco-warrior that's trying to prevent fossil fuel peak power generation plants from running as much or there's some accounting that isn't being shared.
Yes, it's $25k per battery, each battery can store 100kWh, and they are saying that all of the installed batteries will be able to offset 10MW of reserve capacity. However specs for the battery seem to be a bit sparse so I don't know how fast the battery can discharge or even the physical size of the battery. The article mentioned that the batteries at the first site would take up five parking spaces (I can't see one being that large).
The home models provide a continuous 5kW of power but that would be too low for this one. If we assume that they want to almost discharge their batteries during the peak period and leave enough for a short backup period let's guess seven hours for a full discharge which would give us a continuous 14kW power, approximately. So then they would be ordering on the order of 700 batteries which works out to $17.5M leaving the rest for installation.