If it works economically today, it will be a better deal next year.
In other words, for people with reasonable electric bills, there isn't any reason to rush (especially if you aren't installing enough batteries to give you some independence from the grid (that's a nice feature...))
It seems like things are already at a point where subsidies should target people looking to offset AC, and the idea that they are going to continue to improve is great.
This notion is a holdover from an era when it wasn't possible to efficiently transform DC up to tens of thousands of volts. Someone already linked Wikipedia, so I'll stop.
Almost. One huge advantage of DC transmission is that you don't have to have power systems in phase to transmit power between them.
Newton's law of heating and cooling will moderate the effect (a hotter system loses energy faster...).
There isn't any reason to be super gung-ho about it, but insolation is on the order of 100 terawatts, so a few gigawatts (or a few hundred gigawatts) shouldn't lead to any irreversible catastrophe.
It smells like unfortunate to me; i.e., someone wanted confirmation that the message had been read and foolishly used a tool labeled "vote" to get the confirmation.
The competition is getting tighter. Boost is charging $50 a month for unlimited voice (and phone data), with no contract. Unless their coverage is abysmal, I would think that people will actually notice this, and that other carriers will have to do something to match it.
The gp's point was that it doesn't make any sense to insert hydrogen. There isn't a step where it helps very much, and inefficiencies soak up a lot of energy. If you use the electric grid and batteries (instead of hydrogen), you can sell a lot more of the energy to the masses.
Yay! You made up some numbers. Or quoted some 'estimates'.
That leaves aside that some of the transfers wouldn't happen, and some of them would happen over nudge-nudge-wink-wink, which has been distributed in nature for a couple of decades.
There isn't really any need to get technical about the types of traffic and so forth, just encourage the politician to craft regulation that requires the ISP to bill everybody at the same rate for each type of service that they offer (and make them bill themselves internally, and enforce it). That way, if an ISP is screwing the little guy, an aggregator can step in and kill their margin.
In a client-server setup, the ISP transmits the data across their network once.
In a p2p setup, the ISP transmits the data more than once (probably a factor of 1 + some fractional amount, but maybe a factor of 5 or 10, who knows).
There are potential savings from in-network traffic, but p2p can only result in more in-network traffic than client-server. Another caveat is that p2p may use 'less' network than client-server, but I bet it doesn't work out that way in practice.
Probably yes. If only because the Gazelles are likely to taste better to humans than the cheetahs.
(Providing a nice herd for hunting is one of the primary reasons for wolf control in the somewhat less populated areas of North America...the other is that lots of people want to live by trees and grass, but not by big dangerous animals)
Really, I don't see the problem with getting sentimental about nature, as long as it doesn't cost a lot. It makes more sense than getting sentimental about Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, and there are plenty of people who do that.
How about the ISP advertises burst and average bandwidth(the average that can be sustained for the billing period...)?
Lots of people understand that they are paying for access to a pooled resource, they don't understand why it is called unlimited ("not time limited" would at least be honest).
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of reader harder, try reading easier.
The article means that the surface area to generate 1 Watt of power (under ideal conditions) can be produced for $1.
I'm sorry, I meant environmental/disposal, but was not specific. Of course the energy density is a problem, just like with hydrogen.
(butanol looks like the best sugar derived fuel; hopefully the production tech scales)
If it works economically today, it will be a better deal next year.
In other words, for people with reasonable electric bills, there isn't any reason to rush (especially if you aren't installing enough batteries to give you some independence from the grid (that's a nice feature...))
2015 sounds fine.
It seems like things are already at a point where subsidies should target people looking to offset AC, and the idea that they are going to continue to improve is great.
This notion is a holdover from an era when it wasn't possible to efficiently transform DC up to tens of thousands of volts. Someone already linked Wikipedia, so I'll stop.
Almost. One huge advantage of DC transmission is that you don't have to have power systems in phase to transmit power between them.
With any luck, a manufacturer will want to buy them...
Newton's law of heating and cooling will moderate the effect (a hotter system loses energy faster...).
There isn't any reason to be super gung-ho about it, but insolation is on the order of 100 terawatts, so a few gigawatts (or a few hundred gigawatts) shouldn't lead to any irreversible catastrophe.
Controlling the meth heads is tough, but controlling the people willing to do business with them is manageable.
It smells like unfortunate to me; i.e., someone wanted confirmation that the message had been read and foolishly used a tool labeled "vote" to get the confirmation.
I suspect he means "...handbook that requires a reason for all firings" (so, not any random reason).
Still doesn't sound right.
Batteries really aren't that big a problem.
Wood (and the labor that utilizes it) is cheap. Most people don't stay in a house for more than 20 years, so they don't worry much about durability.
The competition is getting tighter. Boost is charging $50 a month for unlimited voice (and phone data), with no contract. Unless their coverage is abysmal, I would think that people will actually notice this, and that other carriers will have to do something to match it.
The gp's point was that it doesn't make any sense to insert hydrogen. There isn't a step where it helps very much, and inefficiencies soak up a lot of energy. If you use the electric grid and batteries (instead of hydrogen), you can sell a lot more of the energy to the masses.
Yes, where are my blinkenlites and jumper cables.
You are assuming that good ideas are harder than good integration.
More and more, I don't think so.
The problem is with the exploiters.
Yay! You made up some numbers. Or quoted some 'estimates'.
That leaves aside that some of the transfers wouldn't happen, and some of them would happen over nudge-nudge-wink-wink, which has been distributed in nature for a couple of decades.
There isn't really any need to get technical about the types of traffic and so forth, just encourage the politician to craft regulation that requires the ISP to bill everybody at the same rate for each type of service that they offer (and make them bill themselves internally, and enforce it). That way, if an ISP is screwing the little guy, an aggregator can step in and kill their margin.
In a client-server setup, the ISP transmits the data across their network once.
In a p2p setup, the ISP transmits the data more than once (probably a factor of 1 + some fractional amount, but maybe a factor of 5 or 10, who knows).
There are potential savings from in-network traffic, but p2p can only result in more in-network traffic than client-server. Another caveat is that p2p may use 'less' network than client-server, but I bet it doesn't work out that way in practice.
P2p is great for distributors though.
Why not just visit a whore? They'll sleep their way to a sandwich (or 10).
What a dick.
If he was making the other people up, no problem. Impersonating (for any reason) a real person is bullshit.
Probably yes. If only because the Gazelles are likely to taste better to humans than the cheetahs.
(Providing a nice herd for hunting is one of the primary reasons for wolf control in the somewhat less populated areas of North America...the other is that lots of people want to live by trees and grass, but not by big dangerous animals)
Really, I don't see the problem with getting sentimental about nature, as long as it doesn't cost a lot. It makes more sense than getting sentimental about Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, and there are plenty of people who do that.
How about the ISP advertises burst and average bandwidth(the average that can be sustained for the billing period...)?
Lots of people understand that they are paying for access to a pooled resource, they don't understand why it is called unlimited ("not time limited" would at least be honest).
And those bastards at the electric company prevented some mad genius from developing magic.
Bastards!