more people spending the same amount of global money? nice thought. think harder. and when I commented on life-spans, I did so regarding relative life-spans. the two are completely different. Please read every word, not just the ones you recognize from grade school.
I'm not in either situation. I do cook at home as often as I like. But I'm an entrepreneur. I sign my own cheques, make my own hours, and watch friends and family struggle throughout.
I didn't say cut out only women. I just said not enough jobs for everyone.
As for harassment, men have always treated other men a certain way. When women show up, and expect men to behave differently, that's the problem. Men treating women the way men treat men causes complaints. It's not sexist. It's the exact opposite of harassment. And yet, still complaints.
It's not about being too "caveman", it's about preferring to behave a certain way, upon which all men agree, and with which women disagree. And welcome to segregated sports. There's a reason.
And yes, men are more feminine now than ever before. Start reading.
you've got neighbours, also parents in a similar way. the "other" as you call them, has exactly the same life but at the office. working all day for a paycheck that someone else (you) is going to spend for them. forced to wake up to your boss's schedule, plus commuting and traffic and weather, go to a place that isn't yours, where you can't control the decorations, the window coverings, nor the other humans around you. you can't leave, you can't change things. you can't change the colour of the paint nor even the temperature of the room!
and, routinely, your boss forces you to travel even farther away. your time management isn't your own. you get yelled at by your "other" (again, you) for being late when you had no control over the schedule, the traffic, the weather, nor the car. you spend about 12 hours every day outside of your own life -- under someone else's collective thumb.
look, in either case, you can love your life. and in either case you can hate your life. you can certainly make things more or less difficult for your other. but it slides both ways -- well, not for me; I'm in a different situation entirely, and intentionally because I hate both of those others.
but just like you say everything you do is for your other, that includes spending all of the money they make -- because they don't even have the time to spend it.
ideally, you would each switch every month, or every "project". which would be great if you shared a career, or a business. it would bring innovation and everything. but I'm the only one who thinks of such things. go figure.
and sexual harassment in the workplace, greater unemployment, shorter female lifespans (relatively), more feminine men.
as a cognitive exercize, what would you say if having twice as many humans in the workforce were simply too much for the economy to bare? What if we simply can't produce that many jobs per capita? Simply put, not everyone can have a job if society is to thrive. What then?
Love my career. Started my own business 20 years ago, at 14, and it's wonderful. But it's a far cry from cooking for a family. Just look at women's average age of death these days. Relatively speaking, it's gone down. It turns out that working for a living adds biological stress that they just didn't have before.
Caged bird, sure. But having twice as many humans in the workforce actually hurts the workforce too.
I could care less about women's lib. Quite frankly, I'd give anything to be a women in the '50s. What a great life. I'm still hoping that women take all of the current jobs, and just let me stay at home cooking and cleaning and caring for children. That's all way better than commuting, working in an office, and the general stress of clients and deadlines.
All of that aside, who's on the bank notes really doesn't have any significance to anybody at all. It doesn't affect lives. So if a bunch of people want to put a woman onto a bank notes, I couldn't care less. Quite frankly, it'd be a welcome change from the really really old guy on our some of our current notes. Although, the queen on the most recent quarter around here really is looking quite ancient.
To think that someone would care so much that they'd resort to death-threats, especially after-the-fact, is way worse than criminal: it's just plain silly. There are so many better things against which to argue.
there could have always been a sign under the shirt to promote the shorts. pickup the shirt, see the sign. it was never hard.
but there's always been technology to do all of that stuff. it used to be called a salesperson. they've gone extinct in most stores these days. but if you have a fist of cash, and you walk up to a human with a name tag, you can still get all of that old-school service at no additional cost.
...not an entertainment system. Wait, scratch that, it's one of the best entertainment systems available. Right after a plane, a hang glider, and a few water-craft. Certainly not every car is a sports car. But if they'd stop making really comfortable, really smooth, really cubic, really roomy cars, they wouldn't be so boring to drive that they need lane change notification systems, front-collision mitigation systems, movie players, satelite radio, and thirty-seven days of music just to keep the driver awake.
you can disagree all you like, but you're wrong. It doesn't vary greatly between people. Someone with no cellular data plan can purchase a cellular data plan for less money than comcast is making off of them.
the only thing that varies greatly is just how ignorant these people are. those that don't realize they are trading a high-priced item for a low-value one are actually hurting their own economy, and their own home value. Instead of comcast paying for cell towers and data centres and rooftop rent, they aren't. so your community suffers in terms of real estate value.
oh come on, look at the value. what's wifi worth in dollars? it's already free in most businesses. my neighbours already open theirs. I'm usually home. I also have cellular connectivity within my limits most of the month.
I'm not saying that it's a bad idea. it's a great idea. everyone should open theirs and use everyone's. the problem is that comcast wants to profit from it. they want to profit from your volunteering. so it's communism for you, it's communism for me, and it's imperialism for comcast.
access to wifi isn't anywhere near as valuable as real estate. nice try. in addition, the cost of wifi is dropping, and the cost of real estate is rising.
giving me access to wifi -- which only helps me when I'm not home (and likely not using their network from home), and only when I'm not near any existing wifi, and only when I'm over my cellular usage limits -- is worth pennies. yet they are using my real estate and power and protection and maintenance at all hours of all days.
Again, no.
But I'll ask you this very simple question. Exactly how much money, in dollars, are you willing to spend for wifi access? And now go find out how much money it'll cost you to store a router, with power and network access and security, somewhere.
And don't forget, this is another the-house-always-wins game. You could have always opened your network, and your neighbour can do it too. Camcast could have always given you the switch to make it easy. The issue here is that Comcast is asking me to be a part of the greater good, and then comcast is making a profit from my volunteerism.
so you want me to host their equipment, maintain their equipment, protect their equipment, power their equipment, and house their equipment, all while they profit from that equipment and don't pay me any rent? Really? That's the plan? Free real estate? Even worse, I'm paying them for their service that I do use?
No.
Oh wait, do I get to monitor the traffic, and sell whatever I find? Or are they the only ones who can do that?
I never said that someone getting hurt is a problem. I'm all for someone getting hurt. But in all of the examples you've listed, they never made existing things worse. A cable through the ocean doesn't stop ships from crossing it. Rockets to space doesn't block out the sun -- we'll set star-gazing aside for the moment.
But embedding anything into the road makes the road worse as a road. It makes repairing the road itself worse. And consuming that kind of electricity, considering the losses, would be fine if we had enough of it already. In my country we do. In your country we don't.
So that's my line. The mouse is great, it didn't ruin the keyboard. The car didn't ruin the bicycle.
On the other side, "reduced rolling resistance" tires save fuel by eliminating "traction". That means they specifically ruin the tires in order to save a few bucks on fuel. That's a safety hazard. And your children are in the car.
My wheels aren't connected to the power grid. My house's breaker box isn't connected to the power grid. My curb is.
My desk fan is connected to my wall socket through a giant brick transformer. The wall socket is connected to my breaker panel through a fuse-like-device. My breaker panel is connected to the curb through something else. Those three connections are not a part of the power grid.
By the way, my computer power supply is only 84% efficient. That's a drop of 16% over 4 inches.
Stop reading one number that covers one segment of a multi-segment system. No one cares about the power grid. Start thinking cradle to grave.
oh, I'm with you. I'm not at all saying that lp is highly efficient. But it is very very well known. All of that spillage is understood, and the vast majority of it is at the hub, not at the consumer side. Electricity is the other way around.
while we're on the transmission part, here's my crazy idea. transmission microwave dishes road-side, pointed at the cars. A receiving dish on the cars. So there's nothing in the road. when they align, a micro-burst of micro-wave gets blasted, and caught. That's it.
you can't put them in the desert mr. bonker. you can't store, use, nor transmit power in the desert without heavy heavy loss. you want power close, not far. it's been like that in every sim city for decades.
you can put wind farther away, because cold climates are fine for electronics. but slowing the wind locally is a problem for agriculture, and aviation. So you've not only got to put them far, you need to put them in a place that won't be needed for a very long time -- because moving wind turbines is rough, legally. And you're forgetting that you can't just put a turbine anywhere. It needs to be in a windy place.
1 to 2 cents per kWh huh? How much do you pay per kWh at the other end? I pay around 14 cents. And sometimes that's subsidized. 2 cents could be as much as 14% of the final retail cost. That's after installing it, after moving it, after approving it, before transmitting it, before distributing it, before billing it.
Why would you think that 2 cents per kWh is a small number? You've taken a big number, and then used a unit that represents the smallest portion of it. Why didn't you just use microwatt hours. Then it would have been even smaller. Instead, try using a dollars-per-month number. See how big it actually is when you're paying it with tax dollars.
"distribution" and "in the grid" and "transmission" aren't end points and they aren't cradle to grave. For example, if it's 7% from the power plant to the curb, then it's another 7% from the curb to your fuse box in your basement, and then that big transformer that you plug in loses another 7%, and then there's loss in the motor of your desk fan. Then the 7% "distribution" from the power plant to your property is still correct. But it's no where near the desk fan.
"transmission" can be how much exists at the end of the five mile wire down the street, but it might have taken three devices along the way to keep it going, and those devices need electricity to run. so sure 93% of the electricity was transmitted, and it also cost us a few hundreds watts to make that happen. Factor that into your percentage.
The thing about fuels is that they are stored energy. The storage doesn't usually degrade at all. If the truck has 50 gallons of gasolene when it leaves, it's got 50 gallons of gasolene when it arrives. These days, motors can be quite mechanically efficient at converting explosions into crankshafts. But in any case, we know exactly how much fuel the truck burned to transport the gasolene, and we know exactly how many times the crank shaft turns and how much horsepower we got out of it.
But when we transmit electricity, it's an open system without solid checkpoints. It isn't one wire that travels from the plant to your driveway. There's loss everywhere, there's powered equipment throughout, and most of it isn't a part of the "distribution" or "transmission" loss. These are all either calculated estimates or incomplete segments.
Do you know how much loss ocurrs at your breaker panel? Did you consider a better panel? Your computer's power supply also has a real-world loss. It's about 20% typically. Really really good ones are 10%. And that's over a distance of twelve inches, an directly into computer circuitry, in a clean and controlled indoor environment.
I think volvo, and most people, forget that the benefit of fuels (solid, liquid, or gaseous) is that they are very cheap to transport. Electricity, on the other hand, is insanely expensive to transport. Think about a 10% loss for every major hop. The middle of the road in a large city is likely 4 major hops from the power plant. That takes 100 down to 65. That's up to a 35% total loss.
That means generating more electricity -- a lot more electricity. There's no way to do that without huge environmental compromises. Wind turbines slow the wind, consume territory, look hideous, require huge maintenance, and make noise. Solar panels take up a huge about of territory, polute to manufacture, and require total replacement to upgrade.
On top of all of that, live current traveling across the city everywhere requires a level of infrastructure that simply doesn't exist. Roads tear, there's snow and ice and water and sand and debris. And pot holes, and pedestrians, and squirrels.
And you're going to make repairing the road that much more time consuming and costly? now every road construction crew needs specialized electricians just to fix the pavement?
Thanks for the solution based on more complicated and more specialized and more expensive infrastructure. I could have done that too. Hey! Let's just put electricity everywhere! That'll solve our electricity problem!
I'll do one better. Let's electrify the air itself. Very little, we don't want chain lightning. But just enough that it's there. And then we'll have these vaccuum suckers on all the cars, and as they move they'll suck in the air, and absorb the electricity that we'll store in the humidity itself. And we'll only electrify the air over highways. And somehow, it won't kill the billions of insects that get sucked up and electrified.
Hey volvo, how many insects are going to get fried during your electricity transfer? Will it be millions per minute per mile of road?
Slashdot Mirror
more people spending the same amount of global money? nice thought. think harder.
and when I commented on life-spans, I did so regarding relative life-spans. the two are completely different. Please read every word, not just the ones you recognize from grade school.
I'm not in either situation. I do cook at home as often as I like. But I'm an entrepreneur. I sign my own cheques, make my own hours, and watch friends and family struggle throughout.
I didn't say cut out only women. I just said not enough jobs for everyone.
As for harassment, men have always treated other men a certain way. When women show up, and expect men to behave differently, that's the problem. Men treating women the way men treat men causes complaints. It's not sexist. It's the exact opposite of harassment. And yet, still complaints.
It's not about being too "caveman", it's about preferring to behave a certain way, upon which all men agree, and with which women disagree. And welcome to segregated sports. There's a reason.
And yes, men are more feminine now than ever before. Start reading.
you've got neighbours, also parents in a similar way. the "other" as you call them, has exactly the same life but at the office. working all day for a paycheck that someone else (you) is going to spend for them. forced to wake up to your boss's schedule, plus commuting and traffic and weather, go to a place that isn't yours, where you can't control the decorations, the window coverings, nor the other humans around you. you can't leave, you can't change things. you can't change the colour of the paint nor even the temperature of the room!
and, routinely, your boss forces you to travel even farther away. your time management isn't your own. you get yelled at by your "other" (again, you) for being late when you had no control over the schedule, the traffic, the weather, nor the car. you spend about 12 hours every day outside of your own life -- under someone else's collective thumb.
look, in either case, you can love your life. and in either case you can hate your life. you can certainly make things more or less difficult for your other. but it slides both ways -- well, not for me; I'm in a different situation entirely, and intentionally because I hate both of those others.
but just like you say everything you do is for your other, that includes spending all of the money they make -- because they don't even have the time to spend it.
ideally, you would each switch every month, or every "project". which would be great if you shared a career, or a business. it would bring innovation and everything. but I'm the only one who thinks of such things. go figure.
and sexual harassment in the workplace, greater unemployment, shorter female lifespans (relatively), more feminine men.
as a cognitive exercize, what would you say if having twice as many humans in the workforce were simply too much for the economy to bare? What if we simply can't produce that many jobs per capita? Simply put, not everyone can have a job if society is to thrive. What then?
Love my career. Started my own business 20 years ago, at 14, and it's wonderful. But it's a far cry from cooking for a family. Just look at women's average age of death these days. Relatively speaking, it's gone down. It turns out that working for a living adds biological stress that they just didn't have before.
Caged bird, sure. But having twice as many humans in the workforce actually hurts the workforce too.
I could care less about women's lib. Quite frankly, I'd give anything to be a women in the '50s. What a great life. I'm still hoping that women take all of the current jobs, and just let me stay at home cooking and cleaning and caring for children. That's all way better than commuting, working in an office, and the general stress of clients and deadlines.
All of that aside, who's on the bank notes really doesn't have any significance to anybody at all. It doesn't affect lives. So if a bunch of people want to put a woman onto a bank notes, I couldn't care less. Quite frankly, it'd be a welcome change from the really really old guy on our some of our current notes. Although, the queen on the most recent quarter around here really is looking quite ancient.
To think that someone would care so much that they'd resort to death-threats, especially after-the-fact, is way worse than criminal: it's just plain silly. There are so many better things against which to argue.
there could have always been a sign under the shirt to promote the shorts. pickup the shirt, see the sign. it was never hard.
but there's always been technology to do all of that stuff. it used to be called a salesperson. they've gone extinct in most stores these days. but if you have a fist of cash, and you walk up to a human with a name tag, you can still get all of that old-school service at no additional cost.
corrected subtitle.
Are you saying that China has counterfeit electronics? And that they don't meet safety standards? This simply must be a joke.
So, these scientists did studies on science and found one simple thing: "math is hard". Congrats.
And the "solution" is to train six year olds harder. Again, well done.
Perhaps, just maybe, there might be a better solution.
...not an entertainment system. Wait, scratch that, it's one of the best entertainment systems available. Right after a plane, a hang glider, and a few water-craft. Certainly not every car is a sports car. But if they'd stop making really comfortable, really smooth, really cubic, really roomy cars, they wouldn't be so boring to drive that they need lane change notification systems, front-collision mitigation systems, movie players, satelite radio, and thirty-seven days of music just to keep the driver awake.
you can disagree all you like, but you're wrong. It doesn't vary greatly between people. Someone with no cellular data plan can purchase a cellular data plan for less money than comcast is making off of them.
the only thing that varies greatly is just how ignorant these people are. those that don't realize they are trading a high-priced item for a low-value one are actually hurting their own economy, and their own home value. Instead of comcast paying for cell towers and data centres and rooftop rent, they aren't. so your community suffers in terms of real estate value.
enjoy.
oh come on, look at the value. what's wifi worth in dollars? it's already free in most businesses. my neighbours already open theirs. I'm usually home. I also have cellular connectivity within my limits most of the month.
I'm not saying that it's a bad idea. it's a great idea. everyone should open theirs and use everyone's. the problem is that comcast wants to profit from it. they want to profit from your volunteering. so it's communism for you, it's communism for me, and it's imperialism for comcast.
still, no.
access to wifi isn't anywhere near as valuable as real estate. nice try. in addition, the cost of wifi is dropping, and the cost of real estate is rising.
giving me access to wifi -- which only helps me when I'm not home (and likely not using their network from home), and only when I'm not near any existing wifi, and only when I'm over my cellular usage limits -- is worth pennies. yet they are using my real estate and power and protection and maintenance at all hours of all days.
Again, no.
But I'll ask you this very simple question. Exactly how much money, in dollars, are you willing to spend for wifi access? And now go find out how much money it'll cost you to store a router, with power and network access and security, somewhere.
And don't forget, this is another the-house-always-wins game. You could have always opened your network, and your neighbour can do it too. Camcast could have always given you the switch to make it easy. The issue here is that Comcast is asking me to be a part of the greater good, and then comcast is making a profit from my volunteerism.
Nice try. No.
so you want me to host their equipment, maintain their equipment, protect their equipment, power their equipment, and house their equipment, all while they profit from that equipment and don't pay me any rent? Really? That's the plan? Free real estate? Even worse, I'm paying them for their service that I do use?
No.
Oh wait, do I get to monitor the traffic, and sell whatever I find? Or are they the only ones who can do that?
I never said that someone getting hurt is a problem. I'm all for someone getting hurt. But in all of the examples you've listed, they never made existing things worse. A cable through the ocean doesn't stop ships from crossing it. Rockets to space doesn't block out the sun -- we'll set star-gazing aside for the moment.
But embedding anything into the road makes the road worse as a road. It makes repairing the road itself worse. And consuming that kind of electricity, considering the losses, would be fine if we had enough of it already. In my country we do. In your country we don't.
So that's my line. The mouse is great, it didn't ruin the keyboard. The car didn't ruin the bicycle.
On the other side, "reduced rolling resistance" tires save fuel by eliminating "traction". That means they specifically ruin the tires in order to save a few bucks on fuel. That's a safety hazard. And your children are in the car.
See the difference?
My wheels aren't connected to the power grid. My house's breaker box isn't connected to the power grid. My curb is.
My desk fan is connected to my wall socket through a giant brick transformer. The wall socket is connected to my breaker panel through a fuse-like-device. My breaker panel is connected to the curb through something else. Those three connections are not a part of the power grid.
By the way, my computer power supply is only 84% efficient. That's a drop of 16% over 4 inches.
Stop reading one number that covers one segment of a multi-segment system. No one cares about the power grid. Start thinking cradle to grave.
oh, I'm with you. I'm not at all saying that lp is highly efficient. But it is very very well known. All of that spillage is understood, and the vast majority of it is at the hub, not at the consumer side. Electricity is the other way around.
while we're on the transmission part, here's my crazy idea. transmission microwave dishes road-side, pointed at the cars. A receiving dish on the cars. So there's nothing in the road. when they align, a micro-burst of micro-wave gets blasted, and caught. That's it.
you can't put them in the desert mr. bonker. you can't store, use, nor transmit power in the desert without heavy heavy loss. you want power close, not far. it's been like that in every sim city for decades.
you can put wind farther away, because cold climates are fine for electronics. but slowing the wind locally is a problem for agriculture, and aviation. So you've not only got to put them far, you need to put them in a place that won't be needed for a very long time -- because moving wind turbines is rough, legally. And you're forgetting that you can't just put a turbine anywhere. It needs to be in a windy place.
1 to 2 cents per kWh huh? How much do you pay per kWh at the other end? I pay around 14 cents. And sometimes that's subsidized. 2 cents could be as much as 14% of the final retail cost. That's after installing it, after moving it, after approving it, before transmitting it, before distributing it, before billing it.
Why would you think that 2 cents per kWh is a small number? You've taken a big number, and then used a unit that represents the smallest portion of it. Why didn't you just use microwatt hours. Then it would have been even smaller. Instead, try using a dollars-per-month number. See how big it actually is when you're paying it with tax dollars.
"distribution" and "in the grid" and "transmission" aren't end points and they aren't cradle to grave. For example, if it's 7% from the power plant to the curb, then it's another 7% from the curb to your fuse box in your basement, and then that big transformer that you plug in loses another 7%, and then there's loss in the motor of your desk fan. Then the 7% "distribution" from the power plant to your property is still correct. But it's no where near the desk fan.
"transmission" can be how much exists at the end of the five mile wire down the street, but it might have taken three devices along the way to keep it going, and those devices need electricity to run. so sure 93% of the electricity was transmitted, and it also cost us a few hundreds watts to make that happen. Factor that into your percentage.
The thing about fuels is that they are stored energy. The storage doesn't usually degrade at all. If the truck has 50 gallons of gasolene when it leaves, it's got 50 gallons of gasolene when it arrives. These days, motors can be quite mechanically efficient at converting explosions into crankshafts. But in any case, we know exactly how much fuel the truck burned to transport the gasolene, and we know exactly how many times the crank shaft turns and how much horsepower we got out of it.
But when we transmit electricity, it's an open system without solid checkpoints. It isn't one wire that travels from the plant to your driveway. There's loss everywhere, there's powered equipment throughout, and most of it isn't a part of the "distribution" or "transmission" loss. These are all either calculated estimates or incomplete segments.
Do you know how much loss ocurrs at your breaker panel? Did you consider a better panel? Your computer's power supply also has a real-world loss. It's about 20% typically. Really really good ones are 10%. And that's over a distance of twelve inches, an directly into computer circuitry, in a clean and controlled indoor environment.
so says the anonymous.
next time, instead of using a dictionary to instruct you on proper diction, you might try using a lexicon to teach you some definitions.
keep reading my friend. "distribution" doesn't start at the plant and end at the wheels.
I think volvo, and most people, forget that the benefit of fuels (solid, liquid, or gaseous) is that they are very cheap to transport. Electricity, on the other hand, is insanely expensive to transport. Think about a 10% loss for every major hop. The middle of the road in a large city is likely 4 major hops from the power plant. That takes 100 down to 65. That's up to a 35% total loss.
That means generating more electricity -- a lot more electricity. There's no way to do that without huge environmental compromises. Wind turbines slow the wind, consume territory, look hideous, require huge maintenance, and make noise. Solar panels take up a huge about of territory, polute to manufacture, and require total replacement to upgrade.
On top of all of that, live current traveling across the city everywhere requires a level of infrastructure that simply doesn't exist. Roads tear, there's snow and ice and water and sand and debris. And pot holes, and pedestrians, and squirrels.
And you're going to make repairing the road that much more time consuming and costly? now every road construction crew needs specialized electricians just to fix the pavement?
Thanks for the solution based on more complicated and more specialized and more expensive infrastructure. I could have done that too. Hey! Let's just put electricity everywhere! That'll solve our electricity problem!
I'll do one better. Let's electrify the air itself. Very little, we don't want chain lightning. But just enough that it's there. And then we'll have these vaccuum suckers on all the cars, and as they move they'll suck in the air, and absorb the electricity that we'll store in the humidity itself. And we'll only electrify the air over highways. And somehow, it won't kill the billions of insects that get sucked up and electrified.
Hey volvo, how many insects are going to get fried during your electricity transfer? Will it be millions per minute per mile of road?