I'm sorry, but if you're developing in anything other than machine language, you're really leaving performance on the table. No namby pamby assembly, no wishy washy COBOL, no effete C, and definitely none of those worse options. Write it in machine language or know that you're an incompetent hack.
I think Heinlein was an optimist. The reality is that they don't think the government is charged with guaranteeing their profits, they simply think (correctly) that they can abuse the government to do so.
Re:Had to do with his management style, not policy
on
NRC Chairman Resigns
·
· Score: 1
My point is that no, that's not why we are storing it. I wish that were so, but it isn't. We're storing it because it's dangerous and we're incompetent to do anything better with it.
Re:Had to do with his management style, not policy
on
NRC Chairman Resigns
·
· Score: 1
Sure, it's not technically hard to change course. Politically, of course, it's a nightmare, because the fuel would have to be moved to a reprocessing plant.
What if they offered to exclude you from their advertising trawls for some multiple of that fee? Anyone who really cared about their privacy could opt out of the ad game, and facebook could net more money. I'd seriously consider paying facebook $100 per year if they'd agree not to sell my information in any way.
If you're going to troll like this, you could at least learn the difference between vertical and horizontal. And really, what difference would it make? I don't really see the downside for horizontal.
Social media certainly has a place in contributing to our society. I claim facebook is a net negative because they achieve their role by selling information about you to advertisers, which I think is damaging in a variety of ways. If they sold the same product by charging every user $10 per year (which would make them twice as much revenue as they currently make), then I think they'd be a huge net win for society.
The best way to make money is to sell to both sides. MS sells info on how to make your crapware difficult to remove to the crapware authors, then sells removal service. Next up will be selling removal exemptions to the crapware authors.
I think the point is some things are more important than others. e.g. mapreduce to build facebook is a net loss for humanity, but mapreduce to cure cancer is not.
I picked 600 miles as a range that covers even the fairly extreme end of the capabilities of gasoline/diesel powered cars. There are a small (but not meaningless) number of 600 mile range vehicles sold. And it also greatly increases the chance that there will be a fast-charge station within range along any major route through the country (for example, imagine trying to plan a cross country trip in an EV... you have to plan ahead where you'll refuel (whereas in a gas car your plan can simply be: i'll look for the gas station signs while i'm on the road), even with a 600 mile range, but the 600 mile range is likely to make it possible (that is, there will probably be a fast charge station every 600 miles, pretty much anywhere you'd want to go).
But i'd certain agree that even 200 miles would satisfy maybe 90% of the 'just drive around town' market.
Actually, there have been a number of big improvements to batteries over the last decade, and commercialization of improvements have been very successful. Ever since mobile devices started needing more power in a smaller package, the amount of money pouring into battery research has skyrocketed, and the result has been success. The Leaf has about 100 miles range, and there is commercial technology out there at 3x the power density that just needs to scale up manufacturing (there seems little doubt it will be in widespread use in a decade). And there is all kinds of stuff in the labs at 10x the power density, it's pretty hard for me to imagine that none of them will prove to be scalable in two decades.
I think the whole point is that myspace was in the very same situation until facebook appeared and wiped them out in just three years. Which means facebook might have as little as about four or five years left (since they are admittedly bigger than myspace ever was, it will take them longer to fall).
I think the real answer is that in a decade, 100 miles will be the low end of electric range, and the cars will have prices and features entirely competitive with gas powered sedans.
I agree with everything you're saying, now. My suggestion applies only at ten years out. We'll have clarity on the battery reliability and replacement costs then, and the used market should be viable.
It will cost the same or less than it costs now, and right now you can travel with a LEAF for about half what it costs to travel with a prius (just in terms of pure fuel costs, ignoring the price of the vehicles). Electric generation gets done by big plants, including nuclear, that can produce energy more cheaply/efficiently than gasoline can be shipped and burned in a tiny plant in your car. Those efficiencies just can't be beat by ICE.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear that pair spooning was modeled after Lewis and Clark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYBjVTMUQY0
I'm sorry, but if you're developing in anything other than machine language, you're really leaving performance on the table. No namby pamby assembly, no wishy washy COBOL, no effete C, and definitely none of those worse options. Write it in machine language or know that you're an incompetent hack.
...is some good shit. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. Yum!
This post brought to you by Yum! brands!
I think Heinlein was an optimist. The reality is that they don't think the government is charged with guaranteeing their profits, they simply think (correctly) that they can abuse the government to do so.
My point is that no, that's not why we are storing it. I wish that were so, but it isn't. We're storing it because it's dangerous and we're incompetent to do anything better with it.
I listen to pandora, actually.
Sure, it's not technically hard to change course. Politically, of course, it's a nightmare, because the fuel would have to be moved to a reprocessing plant.
I haven't needed to pirate anything in years, everything has a free and good-enough equivalent now. What does anyone pirate today?
I'm afraid you're in for disappointment if you do more reading. Yucca was for permanent storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Original_standard
But why reply when you can post at the top level and wander off into a land of complete imagination?
What if they offered to exclude you from their advertising trawls for some multiple of that fee? Anyone who really cared about their privacy could opt out of the ad game, and facebook could net more money. I'd seriously consider paying facebook $100 per year if they'd agree not to sell my information in any way.
If you're going to troll like this, you could at least learn the difference between vertical and horizontal. And really, what difference would it make? I don't really see the downside for horizontal.
Somehow I doubt the poster had enough intelligence to know what a regular expression is, much less how they work.
Social media certainly has a place in contributing to our society. I claim facebook is a net negative because they achieve their role by selling information about you to advertisers, which I think is damaging in a variety of ways. If they sold the same product by charging every user $10 per year (which would make them twice as much revenue as they currently make), then I think they'd be a huge net win for society.
No kidding. Though I am left wondering what the five letter swear word that starts with 'f' is.
It's hard to imagine how this article could be worded much more neutrally.
The best way to make money is to sell to both sides. MS sells info on how to make your crapware difficult to remove to the crapware authors, then sells removal service. Next up will be selling removal exemptions to the crapware authors.
I think the point is some things are more important than others. e.g. mapreduce to build facebook is a net loss for humanity, but mapreduce to cure cancer is not.
I picked 600 miles as a range that covers even the fairly extreme end of the capabilities of gasoline/diesel powered cars. There are a small (but not meaningless) number of 600 mile range vehicles sold. And it also greatly increases the chance that there will be a fast-charge station within range along any major route through the country (for example, imagine trying to plan a cross country trip in an EV ... you have to plan ahead where you'll refuel (whereas in a gas car your plan can simply be: i'll look for the gas station signs while i'm on the road), even with a 600 mile range, but the 600 mile range is likely to make it possible (that is, there will probably be a fast charge station every 600 miles, pretty much anywhere you'd want to go).
But i'd certain agree that even 200 miles would satisfy maybe 90% of the 'just drive around town' market.
Actually, there have been a number of big improvements to batteries over the last decade, and commercialization of improvements have been very successful. Ever since mobile devices started needing more power in a smaller package, the amount of money pouring into battery research has skyrocketed, and the result has been success. The Leaf has about 100 miles range, and there is commercial technology out there at 3x the power density that just needs to scale up manufacturing (there seems little doubt it will be in widespread use in a decade). And there is all kinds of stuff in the labs at 10x the power density, it's pretty hard for me to imagine that none of them will prove to be scalable in two decades.
I think the whole point is that myspace was in the very same situation until facebook appeared and wiped them out in just three years. Which means facebook might have as little as about four or five years left (since they are admittedly bigger than myspace ever was, it will take them longer to fall).
You're making the parent's point for them.
I think the real answer is that in a decade, 100 miles will be the low end of electric range, and the cars will have prices and features entirely competitive with gas powered sedans.
I agree with everything you're saying, now. My suggestion applies only at ten years out. We'll have clarity on the battery reliability and replacement costs then, and the used market should be viable.
It will cost the same or less than it costs now, and right now you can travel with a LEAF for about half what it costs to travel with a prius (just in terms of pure fuel costs, ignoring the price of the vehicles). Electric generation gets done by big plants, including nuclear, that can produce energy more cheaply/efficiently than gasoline can be shipped and burned in a tiny plant in your car. Those efficiencies just can't be beat by ICE.