As I said, I think they must be mostly driving downhill (somehow), or something similar. I average about 5 miles per kWh, though it's taken me a month of practice to work up to that. That's with top speeds of around 65 and average speeds of around 35. When I first got the car I was getting 3.8... and I thought I already knew how to drive efficiently.
At low speeds (22 mph is a good number), I've found that I can get around 10 miles per kWh, on average. The car is quite efficient, if the driver does a good job.
It actually means you give more and longer prison sentences than others. Where I come from we usually try to help the criminals(!) in the cases where it's clear they are not in control of their own lives. I know it might sound kind of funny to help them instead of punishing them, but the punishment includes "correctional" measures.
Good point. Sentences in the US are more about punishment than rehabilitation. But we also criminalize a lot of stuff (especially drug-related) that should not be a crime.
Nissan has a stats site for Leaf owners that compiles stats, ranks efficiencies, etc., for those who opt in. It's fairly interesting, and it does provide some motivation for driving more efficiently, which isn't a bad thing. The top drivers must only drive downhill, though. They get 22+ miles per kWh, which is insanely good.
The Nissan site is provided and operated by Nissan, though, rather than a fan.
There are a lot of cool things that can be done with a highly-computerized car that has its own 3G Internet connection and GPS. They're barely scratching the surface. It really makes me want to hack my car, but I don't want to void the warranty.
The difficulty of doing reliable water and oil separation for long periods, at low cost and with low power cost
Perhaps not so difficult if the water is still steam when it exits the expansion chamber. Then you'd be separating liquid oil from gaseous water (which would then have to be condensed). So the energy cost would essentially just be a bit more waste heat than is absolutely necessary. If you could separate them effectively while liquid you could try to tune the water/oil ratio so that the water flashes to steam but then cools back to just below the boiling point as it expands.
I should think the water won't last long in the oil as its being heated to 700 degrees, the watter should boill off and be recoverable with a condensor.
Only if the water is still steam when it exits the expansion chamber -- which should be easy enough to achieve by balancing the amount of oil and water injected, taking the temperatures of both into consideration.
You are right in that it's no proof in itself. What makes it suspicious is the timing.
And even the combination of search and timing aren't proof. But that's why we have juries, whose job it is to weigh the totality of the evidence. If the jury was teetering on the edge of convicting but could find just enough doubt to call it reasonable, perhaps this bit of information would have pushed them the other direction. Or not. But it's the sort of thing that should have been presented to them.
You could have just said "No, I can't name a single person who has been wrongfully executed recently."
The statement is meaningless.
Lack of knowledge of error says nothing about lack of error -- it just means we don't know we're screwing up. More precisely, we do know we're screwing up... we just don't know which verdicts are wrong. Perhaps new technologies will edge us a little closer, but it's likely there will always be room for mistakes.
FWIW, I'm not particularly bothered by the death penalty. I think there are people who are beyond any hope of rehabilitation, who should never be allowed to be free, and I don't see the point in paying to keep them locked up for decades, so we might as well kill them. But the existence of errors in the process is inevitable, and the fact that there is no possibility of recourse after execution is a valid point, as is the fact that, at least the way we do it, it's arguably cheaper to lock them up until they die of natural causes than it is to kill them.
No, she's innocent. She wasn't proven guilty. Why is this so hard to understand?
Acquittal != innocence.
Similarly, conviction != guilt.
The goal of the system is to approximate accuracy, with a strong bias towards acquittal where the situation is in doubt. Hopefully, you can assume that a conviction is a very strong indicator of guilt, but you can't assume that an acquittal indicates innocence.
I completely agree that you've justified the use of the adjective "deep" in regard to "deep architectures" (and I got that before writing my post). I still don't get how this "deep" has much to do with "learning,"
It's for the same reason as "deep architecture", essentially. Early ANN training methods did not effectively propagate training through many layers of nodes, so the learning was "shallow". New methods allow training each layer at a time, so training can be effectively performed on deep layers. Deep training/learning.
I see your point if you try to interpret the "deep" as implying some sort of more profound learning of the domain. It's not. It's just deep in the sense that deep layers can be effectively trained (i.e. learn). Of course, deep learning may allow the deep nodes to discover very non-obvious meta-features, so the learning may be deep in the sense of profundity. But that's not required for the name to be applicable.
in a closed-loop system like the one they're proposing here you need to remove the 85% of the energy you don't convert into work
Why? It seems to me that in a system like this one the ideal temperature for the injected water would be just below the boiling point. Retaining heat in the water would reduce the amount of energy you need to inject in the form of hot oil for the same power stroke. The ratio and amount of oil and water to be injected will be highly dependent upon the temperatures of both, but with a computerized control system that doesn't seem like it would be a problem.
Usually its a couple orders of magnitude cheaper to redesign the system to not require operation at midnight, but thats a higher level system failure.
In the near term, for residential power production I think the best method is to use the grid for "storage". The system would need to be able to gracefully shut down and restart without human intervention, though. PV handles that very gracefully and naturally, this would have to be engineered for it.
I just read TFA, and what is described is in no way a combustion engine. Nothing is combusted.
They seem to carefully avoid mentioning it, but most oils when preheated to 700 degrees F (holy cow) and atomized in air will burn pretty well.
Since they plan to recover and reuse all of the oil, they must be assuming a type of oil that won't burn at the temperatures used. The GP is right: according to the article there's no combustion in the process. The design is an unusual sort of steam engine.
Of course, this raises the question of why it's better than a more traditional solar-powered steam engine. It clearly avoids the need to deal with high-pressure steam anywhere except in the "combustion" chamber, and if it can work well in slightly modified ICE designs then we already have a lot of factories cranking out the base platform. I have to think that it's less efficient than a true multi-stage steam engine, though. We learned how to make those things really efficient many decades ago.
If you can not control yourself when faced with temptation, you have issues that divorce alone is not going to fix.
Utter nonsense.
Specifically with marital fidelity, it's very common that people who intend to be faithful get too close to another member of the opposite sex, spending so much time with them (at work, for example) that feelings begin to develop, and non-physical intimacy gets gradually greater and greater, to the point that it eventually turns physical. Of course, the infidelity began long before it turned physical, and possibly before either party realized what was happening.
But the same holds with all sorts of temptation. If you're struggling to control your weight, it's a bad idea to put a big bowl of your favorite candy on your desk. If you're an alcoholic, it's a bad idea to go into a bar. If you used to be addicted to cigarettes, it's a bad idea to hang out with the smokers behind the building.
Relying solely on self-control when faced repeatedly with the same temptation is pretty much a guaranteed way to fail. It's much smarter to structure your life so that you minimize your exposure to whatever you're trying to avoid.
A Sunday School teacher explained it to me this way:
There was a stagecoach owner who needed to hire a new driver. Three men came in to be interviewed. In addition to all of his other questions, the owner asked each of them "How close can you drive to the edge of a cliff without going over?"
The first responded "I can get so close that the edge of the iron rim lines up exactly with the cliff edge."
The second said "I can get so close that the half of the rim hangs over the edge."
The third said "I don't know. I stay as far away from the edge as possible."
The owner hired the third man.
If you want to avoid temptation, the very best way to do it is to avoid putting yourself in a position where you might someday be tempted. A wise man told me shortly after I got married that it would be prudent for me to avoid, whenever possible, ever being alone with a woman other than my wife. I've followed that advice, and I've never been even remotely tempted to stray, and I doubt I ever will. Be tempted, I mean. I'm quite certain that I will never be unfaithful.
I think the ultimate business communication vehicle will look something like a cross between e-mail and a web forum
This thing you refer to; I think we used to call it "Usenet".
USENET plus good threaded readers have some nice characterestics, yes, and those memories probably guide my perceptions. However, you need a version of USENET where not all conversations are public. Each conversation needs to be available to all of its participants, and it must be possible to add participants at will (and for participants to remove themselves, or at least avoid being notified). E-mail accomplishes those things very well, and USENET does not, but USENET provides full history for anyone who joins late while e-mail does not. The ideal solution also needs to handle attachments nicely -- I think Gmail + Drive could do that very well, if Gmail attachments were actually automatically uploaded to drive and replaced by links (which can be opened in-line) and if Gmail found a nice way to collect and organize the attachments in a conversation. The ideal solution also needs to integrate text and video/audio chat. Gmail with Gchat and Google+ hangouts could potentially get there as well -- chats are already loggable, but the logs don't get integrated into the e-mail thread (whether or not they get made available to the rest of the thread participants would have to be easily-controllable, if they were) without an explicit copy-and-paste operation, and hangouts would need to be recorded to be added. Good automatic transcription would be very useful as well, especially if it can be leveraged to make the audio record nicely searchable.
So, no, USENET is not the ideal solution, though it does have a couple of elements which are important.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said, I think they must be mostly driving downhill (somehow), or something similar. I average about 5 miles per kWh, though it's taken me a month of practice to work up to that. That's with top speeds of around 65 and average speeds of around 35. When I first got the car I was getting 3.8... and I thought I already knew how to drive efficiently.
At low speeds (22 mph is a good number), I've found that I can get around 10 miles per kWh, on average. The car is quite efficient, if the driver does a good job.
It actually means you give more and longer prison sentences than others. Where I come from we usually try to help the criminals(!) in the cases where it's clear they are not in control of their own lives. I know it might sound kind of funny to help them instead of punishing them, but the punishment includes "correctional" measures.
Good point. Sentences in the US are more about punishment than rehabilitation. But we also criminalize a lot of stuff (especially drug-related) that should not be a crime.
Interesting ideas, though I was actually talking about things that are for the convenience of the owner/driver.
Circulate the hot oil around the block.
but I don't want to void the warranty.
Hand in your nerd card.
Heh. $36,000 car. Leased. I'm definitely not that nerdy.
Nissan has a stats site for Leaf owners that compiles stats, ranks efficiencies, etc., for those who opt in. It's fairly interesting, and it does provide some motivation for driving more efficiently, which isn't a bad thing. The top drivers must only drive downhill, though. They get 22+ miles per kWh, which is insanely good.
The Nissan site is provided and operated by Nissan, though, rather than a fan.
There are a lot of cool things that can be done with a highly-computerized car that has its own 3G Internet connection and GPS. They're barely scratching the surface. It really makes me want to hack my car, but I don't want to void the warranty.
The difficulty of doing reliable water and oil separation for long periods, at low cost and with low power cost
Perhaps not so difficult if the water is still steam when it exits the expansion chamber. Then you'd be separating liquid oil from gaseous water (which would then have to be condensed). So the energy cost would essentially just be a bit more waste heat than is absolutely necessary. If you could separate them effectively while liquid you could try to tune the water/oil ratio so that the water flashes to steam but then cools back to just below the boiling point as it expands.
I should think the water won't last long in the oil as its being heated to 700 degrees, the watter should boill off and be recoverable with a condensor.
Only if the water is still steam when it exits the expansion chamber -- which should be easy enough to achieve by balancing the amount of oil and water injected, taking the temperatures of both into consideration.
Read my other post a few levels up in the thread.
Meanwhile, the US having more people in jail than any other means any errors of conviction without guilt are exaggerated.
No, it means we criminalize a bunch of stuff that shouldn't be criminalized.
Good for you. I disagree.
So the sanctity of life rests on COST???????
We're talking about people who've given up their right to life. Yeah, cost is all that's left. That plus the possibility that we might be wrong.
I'm not a big fan of downmoderation, but the parent is a blatant (and successful) troll. It should not be modded +5 Insightful.
You are right in that it's no proof in itself. What makes it suspicious is the timing.
And even the combination of search and timing aren't proof. But that's why we have juries, whose job it is to weigh the totality of the evidence. If the jury was teetering on the edge of convicting but could find just enough doubt to call it reasonable, perhaps this bit of information would have pushed them the other direction. Or not. But it's the sort of thing that should have been presented to them.
You could have just said "No, I can't name a single person who has been wrongfully executed recently."
The statement is meaningless.
Lack of knowledge of error says nothing about lack of error -- it just means we don't know we're screwing up. More precisely, we do know we're screwing up... we just don't know which verdicts are wrong. Perhaps new technologies will edge us a little closer, but it's likely there will always be room for mistakes.
FWIW, I'm not particularly bothered by the death penalty. I think there are people who are beyond any hope of rehabilitation, who should never be allowed to be free, and I don't see the point in paying to keep them locked up for decades, so we might as well kill them. But the existence of errors in the process is inevitable, and the fact that there is no possibility of recourse after execution is a valid point, as is the fact that, at least the way we do it, it's arguably cheaper to lock them up until they die of natural causes than it is to kill them.
She may actually be guilty.
No, she's innocent. She wasn't proven guilty. Why is this so hard to understand?
Acquittal != innocence.
Similarly, conviction != guilt.
The goal of the system is to approximate accuracy, with a strong bias towards acquittal where the situation is in doubt. Hopefully, you can assume that a conviction is a very strong indicator of guilt, but you can't assume that an acquittal indicates innocence.
That's the point. blue trane was hoping for an automated captcha-solving assistant so he wouldn't be frustrated by them.
I completely agree that you've justified the use of the adjective "deep" in regard to "deep architectures" (and I got that before writing my post). I still don't get how this "deep" has much to do with "learning,"
It's for the same reason as "deep architecture", essentially. Early ANN training methods did not effectively propagate training through many layers of nodes, so the learning was "shallow". New methods allow training each layer at a time, so training can be effectively performed on deep layers. Deep training/learning.
I see your point if you try to interpret the "deep" as implying some sort of more profound learning of the domain. It's not. It's just deep in the sense that deep layers can be effectively trained (i.e. learn). Of course, deep learning may allow the deep nodes to discover very non-obvious meta-features, so the learning may be deep in the sense of profundity. But that's not required for the name to be applicable.
in a closed-loop system like the one they're proposing here you need to remove the 85% of the energy you don't convert into work
Why? It seems to me that in a system like this one the ideal temperature for the injected water would be just below the boiling point. Retaining heat in the water would reduce the amount of energy you need to inject in the form of hot oil for the same power stroke. The ratio and amount of oil and water to be injected will be highly dependent upon the temperatures of both, but with a computerized control system that doesn't seem like it would be a problem.
Usually its a couple orders of magnitude cheaper to redesign the system to not require operation at midnight, but thats a higher level system failure.
In the near term, for residential power production I think the best method is to use the grid for "storage". The system would need to be able to gracefully shut down and restart without human intervention, though. PV handles that very gracefully and naturally, this would have to be engineered for it.
In case anyone thinks this is interesting enough to throw money at it, I got this link from the FAQ page: http://www.indiegogo.com/hydroice.
I thought it was interesting enough to throw it a few bucks. Could be snake oil, but it could also be really cool.
I just read TFA, and what is described is in no way a combustion engine. Nothing is combusted.
They seem to carefully avoid mentioning it, but most oils when preheated to 700 degrees F (holy cow) and atomized in air will burn pretty well.
Since they plan to recover and reuse all of the oil, they must be assuming a type of oil that won't burn at the temperatures used. The GP is right: according to the article there's no combustion in the process. The design is an unusual sort of steam engine.
Of course, this raises the question of why it's better than a more traditional solar-powered steam engine. It clearly avoids the need to deal with high-pressure steam anywhere except in the "combustion" chamber, and if it can work well in slightly modified ICE designs then we already have a lot of factories cranking out the base platform. I have to think that it's less efficient than a true multi-stage steam engine, though. We learned how to make those things really efficient many decades ago.
Of course if the thread is one about which I might need to offer input, or might need to know something about the plan, I don't mute it.
If you can not control yourself when faced with temptation, you have issues that divorce alone is not going to fix.
Utter nonsense.
Specifically with marital fidelity, it's very common that people who intend to be faithful get too close to another member of the opposite sex, spending so much time with them (at work, for example) that feelings begin to develop, and non-physical intimacy gets gradually greater and greater, to the point that it eventually turns physical. Of course, the infidelity began long before it turned physical, and possibly before either party realized what was happening.
But the same holds with all sorts of temptation. If you're struggling to control your weight, it's a bad idea to put a big bowl of your favorite candy on your desk. If you're an alcoholic, it's a bad idea to go into a bar. If you used to be addicted to cigarettes, it's a bad idea to hang out with the smokers behind the building.
Relying solely on self-control when faced repeatedly with the same temptation is pretty much a guaranteed way to fail. It's much smarter to structure your life so that you minimize your exposure to whatever you're trying to avoid.
A Sunday School teacher explained it to me this way:
There was a stagecoach owner who needed to hire a new driver. Three men came in to be interviewed. In addition to all of his other questions, the owner asked each of them "How close can you drive to the edge of a cliff without going over?"
The first responded "I can get so close that the edge of the iron rim lines up exactly with the cliff edge."
The second said "I can get so close that the half of the rim hangs over the edge."
The third said "I don't know. I stay as far away from the edge as possible."
The owner hired the third man.
If you want to avoid temptation, the very best way to do it is to avoid putting yourself in a position where you might someday be tempted. A wise man told me shortly after I got married that it would be prudent for me to avoid, whenever possible, ever being alone with a woman other than my wife. I've followed that advice, and I've never been even remotely tempted to stray, and I doubt I ever will. Be tempted, I mean. I'm quite certain that I will never be unfaithful.
This thing you refer to; I think we used to call it "Usenet".
USENET plus good threaded readers have some nice characterestics, yes, and those memories probably guide my perceptions. However, you need a version of USENET where not all conversations are public. Each conversation needs to be available to all of its participants, and it must be possible to add participants at will (and for participants to remove themselves, or at least avoid being notified). E-mail accomplishes those things very well, and USENET does not, but USENET provides full history for anyone who joins late while e-mail does not. The ideal solution also needs to handle attachments nicely -- I think Gmail + Drive could do that very well, if Gmail attachments were actually automatically uploaded to drive and replaced by links (which can be opened in-line) and if Gmail found a nice way to collect and organize the attachments in a conversation. The ideal solution also needs to integrate text and video/audio chat. Gmail with Gchat and Google+ hangouts could potentially get there as well -- chats are already loggable, but the logs don't get integrated into the e-mail thread (whether or not they get made available to the rest of the thread participants would have to be easily-controllable, if they were) without an explicit copy-and-paste operation, and hangouts would need to be recorded to be added. Good automatic transcription would be very useful as well, especially if it can be leveraged to make the audio record nicely searchable.
So, no, USENET is not the ideal solution, though it does have a couple of elements which are important.