Yes it does exist, for example ThinkPad X1 Hybrid. And no, this update won't allow them to be used simultaneously, that is a separate issue that is not addressed here.
I didn't forget it, this calculation is based on instantaneous or average power, so EROI of the panels isn't relevant . . . nevertheless . . .
Nonsense
It turns out the EROI break even point for poly- and monocrystalline panels is 4-7 years over a lifespan of 20 - 30 years and for lower cost thin-film panels it's 2-4 years over a lifespan of 10-15, assuming installation outside the arctic / antarctic circle.
United States area = 9 trillion square meters (approximate) United states average insolation over 24hrs = 100w (pessimistic) United States average energy draw all forms of energy = 3.4 trillion watts Photovoltaic conversion factor = 15% (pessimitistic)
area * insolation * conversion factor = 135 trillion watts average over 24hrs
135 trillion watts > 3.4 trillion watts, even given these wildy pessimistic assumptions.
of course covering the whole of the USA with solar panels is ridiculous, then you have storage to deal with, but yeah, your sums are out by several orders of magnitude.
The figure alone tells us precisely nothing about waste and inefficiency, though obviously the lack of single payer, socialized medicine system is a huge efficiency problem for US healthcare, what with the PBMs, insurance corporations, etc. taking their cut and clogging up the works, not to mention the uninsured masses . . .
Anyway, 1/6 seems about right. If they had their priorities straight they would spend less on things like drug wars and the military (though I heard recently this is happening). Then there would be enough money left to spend an even greater proportion on healthcare, which after all is a fundamental indicator of the advancement of your society (and in which regard the US is a laughing stock amongst other industrialized countries).
So you'll avoid hyperinflation by engaging in the very herd-behaviour patterns that cause it? Maybe you haven't thought this through:)
What I'm arguing against here is what I see as a deep misunderstanding amongst pop-economists of thermodynamics and the economics of energy supply (eg. EROI), the disastrous failure of existing economic models to effectively manage limited energy resources, the vulnerability of economies, and industrial civilization itself, to sudden collapse in the face of declining cheap energy supplies, and ignorance amongst economists about the necessity of maintaining atmospheric homeostasis for the continued existence of our species.
I hear arguments all the time of the form "$x/bbl oil will make energy technology x economically viable.", as though there would be capacity in an economy to re-equip its industry at a time when the vast majority of its people cannot obtain food or fuel and their homes are underwater. That doesn't work at all.
Unfortunately economics today is a counterproductive pseudoscience that compromises people's critical faculties, their capacity for big picture analysis, and their ability to help us prepare for / prevent a future characterized by hazardous environmental conditions and absence of cheap, availably energy sources.
I remember reading an old Sierra On-line newsletter in the mid 80's that came in the box with Space Quest II, there was a story in there about how Steve Wozniak had suffered amnesia after a plane crash. He had written to Sierra to congratulate them on "Mystery House" for the Apple II, which he had enjoyed playing during his recovery, even though he was apparently unaware at the time of his own role in devoloping the computer used to play the game. I got the impression that the guys at Sierra were pretty pleased with themselves.
I wish I still had those newsletters . . . they're a piece of gaming history now.
I have been able to get the "IBM graphics" option to work on linux by setting the terminal program (eg gnometerm) encoding to "Western" (not UTF8), then setting TERM=pcansi in the shell and doing "tput reset". Start nethack and set the IBM Graphics and colour option, and this should give you the proper walls, shaded corridors etc
I started playing Hack over twenty years ago on an Olivetti M21, and I've never been able to handle the unix graphics.
Please have the courtesy to re-read my post and understand it, rather than skipping it trying to put ridiculous oversimplifications in my mouth.
Yes, you are suffering from the traditional prohibitionist delusions, imagining a world where children dance in circles with flowers in their hair, and drugs have been *eliminated* by sheer force of prohibition. This prohibitionist ideal has led to untold suffering by millions over decades. It is the exact kind of idealism that propagates a futile war on drugs and has ruined the economies of entire nations like Columbia.
The simplicity of your understanding of these matters is clear in your statements about the "poor implementation" of previous prohibitionist models. You need to understand that prohibition is a self-defeating concept (for example, the law of supply and demand) and there is no possibility of a successful implementation.
We should throw up our hands because we are so bad at stopping drug use that we cause vastly more harm trying than the drugs do themselves.
The mistake you are making is to think that the prohibition of intoxicating substances somehow reduces the incidence of drug related deaths (innocent third party or otherwise). It does not. This is comprehensively proven in every available model of regulation or prohibition worldwide and throughout history.
Legalisation gives society the opportunity to reduce the harm associated with the use of intoxicants, and the benifits of this are now being seen in mature models like alcohol and tobacco. While the historical model for these substances has resulted in widespread abuse, no-one is suggesting advertising meth to teenagers.
In defense of the analogy put forward about cars, it is true to say that they are needed in our society, but drugs are also needed. Most drugs have medicinal uses but are classified one way or another depending on their primary use, for example as medicinal or recreational. Extending on this, it would seem to be illogical to prohibit the use of a motor vehicle, even though its primary purpose is for recreational use, simply becasue use of this type of car has in the past lead to the death of an innocent third party.
You seem to be fixated by the misconception that the legal status of an intoxicating drug has some bearing on the responsibility of the individual involved in a car crash. Hopefully you will be able to understand the difference between responsible and irresponsible use in the context of recreational activity.
Agree with car accidents / violent crime as factors dragging down life expectancy averages, but the drug use bit might be off the money as their drug use might be extending their lives.
The quote about microsoft programs in the story summary is completely and utterly out of context, the guy in the story is actually refering to people who share their cable connection with their neighbours using wireless, so their neighbours don't have to get their own - which is probably against the ISPs terms and conditions
The quote about microsoft products in the story summary is completely out of context, the story is actually refering to people who share their cable connection with their neighbours using wireless, which is probably against the AUP of the service provider.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it does exist, for example ThinkPad X1 Hybrid. And no, this update won't allow them to be used simultaneously, that is a separate issue that is not addressed here.
I didn't forget it, this calculation is based on instantaneous or average power, so EROI of the panels isn't relevant . . . nevertheless . . .
Nonsense
It turns out the EROI break even point for poly- and monocrystalline panels is 4-7 years over a lifespan of 20 - 30 years and for lower cost thin-film panels it's 2-4 years over a lifespan of 10-15, assuming installation outside the arctic / antarctic circle.
correction - should read United states average insolation over 24hrs = 100w per square meter (pessimistic)
Nonsense
United States area = 9 trillion square meters (approximate)
United states average insolation over 24hrs = 100w (pessimistic)
United States average energy draw all forms of energy = 3.4 trillion watts
Photovoltaic conversion factor = 15% (pessimitistic)
area * insolation * conversion factor = 135 trillion watts average over 24hrs
135 trillion watts > 3.4 trillion watts, even given these wildy pessimistic assumptions.
of course covering the whole of the USA with solar panels is ridiculous, then you have storage to deal with, but yeah, your sums are out by several orders of magnitude.
What in god's name are you talking about man??
ffmpeg method
When your shit is the best, they won't sue for fear of the consumer backlash.
Also, being in hungary helps.
The figure alone tells us precisely nothing about waste and inefficiency, though obviously the lack of single payer, socialized medicine system is a huge efficiency problem for US healthcare, what with the PBMs, insurance corporations, etc. taking their cut and clogging up the works, not to mention the uninsured masses . . .
Anyway, 1/6 seems about right. If they had their priorities straight they would spend less on things like drug wars and the military (though I heard recently this is happening). Then there would be enough money left to spend an even greater proportion on healthcare, which after all is a fundamental indicator of the advancement of your society (and in which regard the US is a laughing stock amongst other industrialized countries).
So you'll avoid hyperinflation by engaging in the very herd-behaviour patterns that cause it? Maybe you haven't thought this through :)
What I'm arguing against here is what I see as a deep misunderstanding amongst pop-economists of thermodynamics and the economics of energy supply (eg. EROI), the disastrous failure of existing economic models to effectively manage limited energy resources, the vulnerability of economies, and industrial civilization itself, to sudden collapse in the face of declining cheap energy supplies, and ignorance amongst economists about the necessity of maintaining atmospheric homeostasis for the continued existence of our species.
I hear arguments all the time of the form "$x/bbl oil will make energy technology x economically viable.", as though there would be capacity in an economy to re-equip its industry at a time when the vast majority of its people cannot obtain food or fuel and their homes are underwater. That doesn't work at all.
Unfortunately economics today is a counterproductive pseudoscience that compromises people's critical faculties, their capacity for big picture analysis, and their ability to help us prepare for / prevent a future characterized by hazardous environmental conditions and absence of cheap, availably energy sources.
Once the energy cost of producing a barrel of oil gets anywhere near the energy we can retrieve from it, game over
but Intel chips do make IBM clones
exactly
Unfortunately Macs are now IBM clones
Flamebait? This is the most insightful comment here
make -j x
or
export CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=x
__
filter error?
No! Coffee passed through the gastrointestinal tract of the Sumatran civet cat within the last four hours has the best falvour.
errr . . . except that he is being extradited to the USA
As you were.
I remember reading an old Sierra On-line newsletter in the mid 80's that came in the box with Space Quest II, there was a story in there about how Steve Wozniak had suffered amnesia after a plane crash. He had written to Sierra to congratulate them on "Mystery House" for the Apple II, which he had enjoyed playing during his recovery, even though he was apparently unaware at the time of his own role in devoloping the computer used to play the game. I got the impression that the guys at Sierra were pretty pleased with themselves.
I wish I still had those newsletters . . . they're a piece of gaming history now.
I have been able to get the "IBM graphics" option to work on linux by setting the terminal program (eg gnometerm) encoding to "Western" (not UTF8), then setting TERM=pcansi in the shell and doing "tput reset". Start nethack and set the IBM Graphics and colour option, and this should give you the proper walls, shaded corridors etc
I started playing Hack over twenty years ago on an Olivetti M21, and I've never been able to handle the unix graphics.
Please have the courtesy to re-read my post and understand it, rather than skipping it trying to put ridiculous oversimplifications in my mouth.
Yes, you are suffering from the traditional prohibitionist delusions, imagining a world where children dance in circles with flowers in their hair, and drugs have been *eliminated* by sheer force of prohibition. This prohibitionist ideal has led to untold suffering by millions over decades. It is the exact kind of idealism that propagates a futile war on drugs and has ruined the economies of entire nations like Columbia.
The simplicity of your understanding of these matters is clear in your statements about the "poor implementation" of previous prohibitionist models. You need to understand that prohibition is a self-defeating concept (for example, the law of supply and demand) and there is no possibility of a successful implementation.
We should throw up our hands because we are so bad at stopping drug use that we cause vastly more harm trying than the drugs do themselves.
The mistake you are making is to think that the prohibition of intoxicating substances somehow reduces the incidence of drug related deaths (innocent third party or otherwise). It does not. This is comprehensively proven in every available model of regulation or prohibition worldwide and throughout history.
Legalisation gives society the opportunity to reduce the harm associated with the use of intoxicants, and the benifits of this are now being seen in mature models like alcohol and tobacco. While the historical model for these substances has resulted in widespread abuse, no-one is suggesting advertising meth to teenagers.
In defense of the analogy put forward about cars, it is true to say that they are needed in our society, but drugs are also needed. Most drugs have medicinal uses but are classified one way or another depending on their primary use, for example as medicinal or recreational. Extending on this, it would seem to be illogical to prohibit the use of a motor vehicle, even though its primary purpose is for recreational use, simply becasue use of this type of car has in the past lead to the death of an innocent third party.
You seem to be fixated by the misconception that the legal status of an intoxicating drug has some bearing on the responsibility of the individual involved in a car crash. Hopefully you will be able to understand the difference between responsible and irresponsible use in the context of recreational activity.
India has tried, WTO wins again.
9
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=545
Oh wow, it's got defcon lights, cool
Agree with car accidents / violent crime as factors dragging down life expectancy averages, but the drug use bit might be off the money as their drug use might be extending their lives.
Just a slight oversimplification, that's all.
The quote about microsoft programs in the story summary is completely and utterly out of context, the guy in the story is actually refering to people who share their cable connection with their neighbours using wireless, so their neighbours don't have to get their own - which is probably against the ISPs terms and conditions
The quote about microsoft products in the story summary is completely out of context, the story is actually refering to people who share their cable connection with their neighbours using wireless, which is probably against the AUP of the service provider.