The factors of loss is distance and voltage. Average loss means nothing because each installation would be different. Most power is generated within 500km of where it is used.
The elephant in the room is that we, as a society, are allowing these games to exist at all. Yes they are entertainment products but they should have limits on their abusive nature. I mean if you can fleece someone for $500 on a game that no one would pay $60 for - good for you you've scammed someone but $5000+ is criminal (or rather should be).
The input is free but the panels are not. If we had to take that kind of hit on our installation it'd nearly double the payback period or extend past the lifetime of the panels.
Asshole editors, inability to allow a mediocre edit be improved by others, rules that only apply to casual editors and not "the elite wikipedians" (read as crazy nut jobs with no lives on power trips), inability to make changes to articles where the thing has changed over time (like standards), on and on and on... and at the end of it all you cannot delete your account/disassociate yourself from Wikimedia because assholes.
That's the low end of the scale (1%) you're talking about 180MW+ loss on a 1000MW system just to get it to the European grid let alone the loss in converting to the voltage of that grid or distance to a major population centre. It might be viable to power Cairo, Israel, the Ivory Coast, etc. but not much more. Germany has the right idea - generate the power where it's used.
Melt all the sand into glass for the solar panels!
Assuming you could solve the sand problem, there's a bigger one: transmission loss. The Sahara isn't all that close to Europe and when you're talking anywhere from 1 to 7% transmission loss per 100km the 2,000km trip just to get to Spain's border would be bad enough let alone making it to any major centres. The closer you can build your power generation to its source the better.
We always check who's driving when someone makes a bonehead move and nearly causes an accident. 5/10 Asian women (all ages), 2/10 Asian men (primarily late twenties trying to be Brian Tee on a budget), 1/10 Elderly Caucasian, 1/10 Young male (various races), 1/10 other.
The ruling effectively made the law 'safety' > 'posted limits' and that's not at odds with programming these cars. if (safe) { obey_laws() } else { drive_safely(given_conditions) }
Dense traffic is rarely, if ever, going above the limit. Otherwise, it's called 'getting up to speed'. You accelerate as fast as you can to merge with traffic at or slightly above the speed of traffic. There's the rare cases were a car is in the right hand lane and going faster than the speed of traffic and in that scenario drivers ed teaches you to go off the end of the on ramp, if possible, and merge with traffic when you are able. It's an insanely rare scenario though.
Actually, I think it is. Once upon a time I would have been right there with you but the email ecosystem has evolved to the point where it's a mainstay and an important feature to support. I don't think JavaScript or the like have a place, but CSS/HTML absolutely do.
No they shouldn't. The courts agree as well, at least where I live, that things like posted speed limits do not apply if speed of traffic is greater and obeying the limit would create a danger to others on the road. Automated cars need to adapt to that reality not the other way around.
These drivers are the horrible, especially when they pull into the left lane to pass without speeding up. The worst though are Asians (according to my Asian brother-in-law too who's destroyed more cars in a decade than I've owned in a lifetime) - they've nearly killed me on numerous occasions; from turning right on a red light into the middle of both lanes, failing to get up to speed on an on ramp and then just turning into traffic (much like the automated cars), to the gazillion times I've had to avoid them as they lane change without checking their blind spot.
They're also running out of features that both people and businesses will pay for in an upgrade. By changing revenue streams they gain the people who won't pay and make the clueless happy with a few cosmetic updates/bug fixes. The reality is though the window is wide open for Linux to come storming in if they can get their act together.
It's a moving target that changes between situations/societies/circumstance. There is no 'one definition fits all' but something tells me you already know that and are just trying to provoke something, likely to justify your own actions.
It also has the reverse effect, when you have an ethical boss and underlings who think the boss is 'naive' the distance allows them to behave unethically as long as the boss doesn't find out.
I'm arguing that blaming Snowden is an idiotic statement because nothing he did would have compromised their ability to intercept the messages in question. They likely did intercept the messages but failed to flag/escalate them in time to do anything about it or knew about it and chose to do nothing since France was not a very forthcoming intelligence partner prior to the attacks.
Ya, especially since the attackers were communicating on an unencrypted cell network. This is a purely political statement to move their surveillance agenda along.
From the article? Yes. The "60 titles identified in the marketing material" include titles that that were voted on by users to be included AFTER the initial release, if possible.
BioShock BioShock 2 BioShock Infinite Call of Duty: Black Ops Halo: Reach Halo Wars Skate 3
Slashdot Mirror
And that's why I'm not advocating abolishing these games, just setting reasonable limits on the gouging that can go on.
The factors of loss is distance and voltage. Average loss means nothing because each installation would be different. Most power is generated within 500km of where it is used.
The elephant in the room is that we, as a society, are allowing these games to exist at all. Yes they are entertainment products but they should have limits on their abusive nature. I mean if you can fleece someone for $500 on a game that no one would pay $60 for - good for you you've scammed someone but $5000+ is criminal (or rather should be).
The input is free but the panels are not. If we had to take that kind of hit on our installation it'd nearly double the payback period or extend past the lifetime of the panels.
The information I've been able to locate indicates a 1.1% loss per 100km - where do you get your 3.5% per 1000km from?
Asshole editors, inability to allow a mediocre edit be improved by others, rules that only apply to casual editors and not "the elite wikipedians" (read as crazy nut jobs with no lives on power trips), inability to make changes to articles where the thing has changed over time (like standards), on and on and on... and at the end of it all you cannot delete your account/disassociate yourself from Wikimedia because assholes.
That's the low end of the scale (1%) you're talking about 180MW+ loss on a 1000MW system just to get it to the European grid let alone the loss in converting to the voltage of that grid or distance to a major population centre. It might be viable to power Cairo, Israel, the Ivory Coast, etc. but not much more. Germany has the right idea - generate the power where it's used.
Melt all the sand into glass for the solar panels!
Assuming you could solve the sand problem, there's a bigger one: transmission loss. The Sahara isn't all that close to Europe and when you're talking anywhere from 1 to 7% transmission loss per 100km the 2,000km trip just to get to Spain's border would be bad enough let alone making it to any major centres. The closer you can build your power generation to its source the better.
I'm not buying this. I smell someone with an agenda.
I smell Dice's shit... why the fuck is this on Slashdot? What the hell does it have to do with anything tech/geek related?
Arguably one of the more important historical archives in the world and your support comes down to if you like the personalities?
We always check who's driving when someone makes a bonehead move and nearly causes an accident. 5/10 Asian women (all ages), 2/10 Asian men (primarily late twenties trying to be Brian Tee on a budget), 1/10 Elderly Caucasian, 1/10 Young male (various races), 1/10 other.
The ruling effectively made the law 'safety' > 'posted limits' and that's not at odds with programming these cars. if (safe) { obey_laws() } else { drive_safely(given_conditions) }
Dense traffic is rarely, if ever, going above the limit. Otherwise, it's called 'getting up to speed'. You accelerate as fast as you can to merge with traffic at or slightly above the speed of traffic. There's the rare cases were a car is in the right hand lane and going faster than the speed of traffic and in that scenario drivers ed teaches you to go off the end of the on ramp, if possible, and merge with traffic when you are able. It's an insanely rare scenario though.
Actually, I think it is. Once upon a time I would have been right there with you but the email ecosystem has evolved to the point where it's a mainstay and an important feature to support. I don't think JavaScript or the like have a place, but CSS/HTML absolutely do.
The problem isn't the client itself, it's the fact that it needs a built in browser for HTML emails, which requires security updates.
No they shouldn't. The courts agree as well, at least where I live, that things like posted speed limits do not apply if speed of traffic is greater and obeying the limit would create a danger to others on the road. Automated cars need to adapt to that reality not the other way around.
These drivers are the horrible, especially when they pull into the left lane to pass without speeding up. The worst though are Asians (according to my Asian brother-in-law too who's destroyed more cars in a decade than I've owned in a lifetime) - they've nearly killed me on numerous occasions; from turning right on a red light into the middle of both lanes, failing to get up to speed on an on ramp and then just turning into traffic (much like the automated cars), to the gazillion times I've had to avoid them as they lane change without checking their blind spot.
They're also running out of features that both people and businesses will pay for in an upgrade. By changing revenue streams they gain the people who won't pay and make the clueless happy with a few cosmetic updates/bug fixes. The reality is though the window is wide open for Linux to come storming in if they can get their act together.
It's a moving target that changes between situations/societies/circumstance. There is no 'one definition fits all' but something tells me you already know that and are just trying to provoke something, likely to justify your own actions.
It also has the reverse effect, when you have an ethical boss and underlings who think the boss is 'naive' the distance allows them to behave unethically as long as the boss doesn't find out.
Make everything an option the USER controls.
The implications would be massive, the complexity even more so. It'll never happen but one can dream.
I'm arguing that blaming Snowden is an idiotic statement because nothing he did would have compromised their ability to intercept the messages in question. They likely did intercept the messages but failed to flag/escalate them in time to do anything about it or knew about it and chose to do nothing since France was not a very forthcoming intelligence partner prior to the attacks.
Ya, especially since the attackers were communicating on an unencrypted cell network. This is a purely political statement to move their surveillance agenda along.
Except that everything is legal if you put it in the right obfuscated terms of service.
From the article? Yes. The "60 titles identified in the marketing material" include titles that that were voted on by users to be included AFTER the initial release, if possible.
BioShock
BioShock 2
BioShock Infinite
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Halo: Reach
Halo Wars
Skate 3
All arrive in December's compatibility update.