I've read that the Energy Star people admit they screwed up with CFL, but are determined to not make the same mistake with LED
In order to get the Energy Star label, a CFL bulb has to meet certain efficiency requirements. But the rating says nothing about longevity. In theory, fluorescent bulbs should last a long time. But the built-in electronics are the usual source of failure. This is particularly the case with ceiling lights and other bulbs where the electronics are on the top, and often in an area where they do not get much cooling. So, the cheap - or more importantly *Crappy* - bulbs can carry the same certification as the good ones. So, CFL got a bad name, which is also fail for the Energy Star folks.
With LED bulbs, the Energy Star people wanted to make sure that they don't make the same mistake. So, in order to get the label, a bulb has to meet the efficiency standards, plus demonstrate that they can handle the run-length requirements. And there are many different requirements, depending on the type of bulb and its intended usage. In order to get the Energy Star label, they are tested for something like 9 months.
So, the moral of the story is that if you buy an LED that carries the Energy Star label, it should not fail prematurely. But the down-side is that LED technology continues to improve, with the most recent chips putting out something like 250 Lumens/Watt. An agile manufacturer might be able to quickly get this technology to market with an excellent new bulb. But it cannot carry the Energy Star label until it has been through rigorous testing, which takes nearly a year.
I remember when Sun made the switch from SunTools to X-Windows. 1987'ish I thought they were nuts using a (slow) client-server architecture when we were fighting for graphics performance. As usual, it turned out to be another smart technical decision by Sun.
Here's a product review of a handful of small, inexpensive oscilloscopes. http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/w... They look kind of handy compared to my ancient HP.
In that case, we should be focused on pollutants rather than CO2. CO2 is a trace gas that is essential to life.
CO2 is not even listed among pollutants in the Clean Air Act. It was put into that category by EPA as an executive measure, after the Supreme Court authorized them in 2007 to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... This was done for the sole purpose of furthering the global warming agenda.
NASA says that the mean sea level has been rising at the rate of 3.2 mm per year trend since 1993. At that rate, it will take 952 years before the ocean rises 10 feet. So, if you decide to hang out on the beach for the rest of your life, be prepared to lift your beer a few inches.
You don't even need to click on the TFA to see the glaring text: "The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so"
That's really lame scaremongering. And especially bad timing:
"The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSID), with the support of the NASA Earth Sciences, just announced that Antarctic sea ice has expanded to all-time record levels for April. " http://www.breitbart.com/Big-P...
I've heard of them. In addition to finding home pages, they can also turn up links to climategate emails like this: http://eric.worrall.name/Clima...
“I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them. I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah)”
If I were defending a defamation lawsuit, these emails would be of particular interest.
What seems to be missing from this article: Mark Steyn, a conservative talk show host, called Mann a fraud. So, Mann is suing Steyn for defamation. As his defense, Steyn is trying to prove that the data was manipulated and cherry picked. Therefore, proving that Steyn's comments were justified. So, Steyn requested the data under the FIOA, since Mann's work was publicly funded.
But Mann - the scientist who warns us that global warming is real and dangerous based on a computer model - refuses to give out the computer code and data that he used to form his assertions. To me, this doesn't sound very scientific or very honest.
Snowden's best chance of survival is to stay in the limelight, where his keepers will risk public scrutiny if he is harmed. So, assuming that becoming a tool was Snowden's only choice, his required tool-task wasn't that bad. Just lob a softball question to Putin, and let Putin respond with propaganda. Snowden didn't have to lie or endorse anything, and it gave him the necessary renewal of his 15 minutes of fame.
There is an interesting and informative debate to be had. But like any debate, it is a waste of time for those who remain closed-minded (on either side of any issue) and only looking for a win.
Consider that the Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago, whereas Man has only been on the scene for about 200,000 years. There is probably a large pool of knowledge that is not available to Man. Based on elapsed time and size of the universe compared to Earth, you'd have to be pretty arrogant to think that Man has anything more than a speck of knowledge. And that is even with the assumption that time is linear. If you allow for screwing with the concept of time, then it gets even worse. What happened before the Big Bang?
Maybe the earth is just a petri dish or set of dishes, where "the creator(s)" used an eye dropper full of pond scum, to see what evolves. Maybe the creator is planning to keep the parts that have certain characteristics, and then flush the rest down the toilet. The truth is that we don't know. It could be possible that the creationists and evolutionists are both right -- or both wrong.
Hopefully, Nye and Ham will have a polite debate that attempts to search for truth, rather than merely trying to win a meaningless "gotcha contest".
It seems like time to revisit virtualization within smartphones. Set up a VM with a bogus profile, and use that as a walled sandbox to run any questionable games or apps. If necessary, direct that VM's network traffic through an Internet proxy.
It's none of your or my business how Ford deals with its CEO. Our decisions are: 1: whether to buy a Ford or a Yugo 2: whether or not to buy shares in the company
Complaining about a company while continuing to buy their products is not a solution.
"Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 C from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 C, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 C over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 C."
Well, at least a few of us are wondering how much fanfare there would be if they discovered a record high.
Disclaimer: This is not the deep south. But with double-digits below zero F every night for the past week, some global warming would be kind of nice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Regarding self-discharge: Li-Ion has a self-discharge rate of about 1% per month. A Tesla S has an 85kwh battery pack. So, 85 *.01 / 30 = only 0.027 kwhr/day
Regarding the energy used by door locks and clocks: An average car battery is about 40 amp-hours @ about 13v. (about 0.5 kwh total capacity) Yet, you can leave a car sitting for a couple months and it still has enough energy to start the car. But the Tesla would completely drain the same battery in a half-day.
So, for a car sitting in the garage doing nothing, 1.1 kwh/day wasted energy is much better than 4.5. But it is still embarrassing for a car that claims to be green.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read that the Energy Star people admit they screwed up with CFL, but are determined to not make the same mistake with LED
In order to get the Energy Star label, a CFL bulb has to meet certain efficiency requirements. But the rating says nothing about longevity. In theory, fluorescent bulbs should last a long time. But the built-in electronics are the usual source of failure. This is particularly the case with ceiling lights and other bulbs where the electronics are on the top, and often in an area where they do not get much cooling. So, the cheap - or more importantly *Crappy* - bulbs can carry the same certification as the good ones. So, CFL got a bad name, which is also fail for the Energy Star folks.
With LED bulbs, the Energy Star people wanted to make sure that they don't make the same mistake. So, in order to get the label, a bulb has to meet the efficiency standards, plus demonstrate that they can handle the run-length requirements. And there are many different requirements, depending on the type of bulb and its intended usage. In order to get the Energy Star label, they are tested for something like 9 months.
So, the moral of the story is that if you buy an LED that carries the Energy Star label, it should not fail prematurely. But the down-side is that LED technology continues to improve, with the most recent chips putting out something like 250 Lumens/Watt. An agile manufacturer might be able to quickly get this technology to market with an excellent new bulb. But it cannot carry the Energy Star label until it has been through rigorous testing, which takes nearly a year.
Here' some info. Not a lot, but better than a picture of a couple wooden boxes. http://www.ivec.org/pawsey-sup...
I remember when Sun made the switch from SunTools to X-Windows. 1987'ish I thought they were nuts using a (slow) client-server architecture when we were fighting for graphics performance. As usual, it turned out to be another smart technical decision by Sun.
Here's a product review of a handful of small, inexpensive oscilloscopes. http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/w... They look kind of handy compared to my ancient HP.
In that case, we should be focused on pollutants rather than CO2. CO2 is a trace gas that is essential to life.
CO2 is not even listed among pollutants in the Clean Air Act. It was put into that category by EPA as an executive measure, after the Supreme Court authorized them in 2007 to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... This was done for the sole purpose of furthering the global warming agenda.
You just proved his point. "spending your day correcting other peoples grammar"
The linky points to a kernel hacking article.
Or allow people to pay more for the luxury of driving 10 mph faster. (I'm being sarcastic.)
Good point. I just mentioned it because Antarctic ice extent was one of the measurements that was used for scaremongering in the past.
If we want to talk about actual ocean rice, then we need to look at the NASA data. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
NASA says that the mean sea level has been rising at the rate of 3.2 mm per year trend since 1993. At that rate, it will take 952 years before the ocean rises 10 feet. So, if you decide to hang out on the beach for the rest of your life, be prepared to lift your beer a few inches.
You don't even need to click on the TFA to see the glaring text: "The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so"
That's really lame scaremongering. And especially bad timing:
"The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSID), with the support of the NASA Earth Sciences, just announced that Antarctic sea ice has expanded to all-time record levels for April. " http://www.breitbart.com/Big-P...
"Do you know how to use a search engine?"
I've heard of them. In addition to finding home pages, they can also turn up links to climategate emails like this: http://eric.worrall.name/Clima...
“I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them. I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah)”
If I were defending a defamation lawsuit, these emails would be of particular interest.
What seems to be missing from this article: Mark Steyn, a conservative talk show host, called Mann a fraud. So, Mann is suing Steyn for defamation. As his defense, Steyn is trying to prove that the data was manipulated and cherry picked. Therefore, proving that Steyn's comments were justified. So, Steyn requested the data under the FIOA, since Mann's work was publicly funded.
But Mann - the scientist who warns us that global warming is real and dangerous based on a computer model - refuses to give out the computer code and data that he used to form his assertions. To me, this doesn't sound very scientific or very honest.
Snowden's best chance of survival is to stay in the limelight, where his keepers will risk public scrutiny if he is harmed. So, assuming that becoming a tool was Snowden's only choice, his required tool-task wasn't that bad. Just lob a softball question to Putin, and let Putin respond with propaganda. Snowden didn't have to lie or endorse anything, and it gave him the necessary renewal of his 15 minutes of fame.
GPL Sounds reasonable. In order to receive organs from other donors, you must also consent to be a donor.
It is easy for an organization or agency to load up with sock puppets, and dominate the moderation process in addition to the discourse.
This.
There is an interesting and informative debate to be had. But like any debate, it is a waste of time for those who remain closed-minded (on either side of any issue) and only looking for a win.
Consider that the Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago, whereas Man has only been on the scene for about 200,000 years. There is probably a large pool of knowledge that is not available to Man. Based on elapsed time and size of the universe compared to Earth, you'd have to be pretty arrogant to think that Man has anything more than a speck of knowledge. And that is even with the assumption that time is linear. If you allow for screwing with the concept of time, then it gets even worse. What happened before the Big Bang?
Maybe the earth is just a petri dish or set of dishes, where "the creator(s)" used an eye dropper full of pond scum, to see what evolves. Maybe the creator is planning to keep the parts that have certain characteristics, and then flush the rest down the toilet. The truth is that we don't know. It could be possible that the creationists and evolutionists are both right -- or both wrong.
Hopefully, Nye and Ham will have a polite debate that attempts to search for truth, rather than merely trying to win a meaningless "gotcha contest".
If you have to ask, the answer is no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
It seems like time to revisit virtualization within smartphones. Set up a VM with a bogus profile, and use that as a walled sandbox to run any questionable games or apps. If necessary, direct that VM's network traffic through an Internet proxy.
It's none of your or my business how Ford deals with its CEO. Our decisions are:
1: whether to buy a Ford or a Yugo
2: whether or not to buy shares in the company
Complaining about a company while continuing to buy their products is not a solution.
Meanwhile, the IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in the AR5 final draft.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/
"Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 C from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 C, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 C over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 C."
No fanfare. No mea culpa.
Mostly pattern. We used to maintain notebooks with the winning routes.
Same with most of the original old-school games. However, later versions of most games were more random than their originals.
Maybe we can get them to toss our spent fuel into an unused building at Chernobyl.
You would think so.
From TFA: " In all, Bollaert faces 31 felony counts of conspiracy, identity theft and extortion"
Well, at least a few of us are wondering how much fanfare there would be if they discovered a record high.
Disclaimer: This is not the deep south. But with double-digits below zero F every night for the past week, some global warming would be kind of nice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Regarding self-discharge: .01 / 30 = only 0.027 kwhr/day
Li-Ion has a self-discharge rate of about 1% per month. A Tesla S has an 85kwh battery pack. So, 85 *
Regarding the energy used by door locks and clocks:
An average car battery is about 40 amp-hours @ about 13v. (about 0.5 kwh total capacity) Yet, you can leave a car sitting for a couple months and it still has enough energy to start the car. But the Tesla would completely drain the same battery in a half-day.
So, for a car sitting in the garage doing nothing, 1.1 kwh/day wasted energy is much better than 4.5. But it is still embarrassing for a car that claims to be green.