I don't know. A gallon of gas will get a good lot of vehicles 20 miles and weighs about 8 pounds. Apparently, something like the Tesla takes about 200 watt hours to go a mile, which is about 2.75 pounds of lithium ion (that number is pretty rough, but probably within a factor of 2 or so).
So 10 pounds of gasoline takes you about 4 times further than 10 pounds of batteries. What you are saying would certainly work, but it would be a lot more effort.
What is ignorant about comparing "I would LOVE an electric car, if the problems of range, battery life and recharging time can be (are?) solved practically." to sarcasm? It doesn't appear to be sarcastic to me, but it damn well could be.
The distinction is meaningless. Benefiting others makes them feel good or otherwise satisfies some urge of theirs, which is exactly a benefit to themselves.
It's a reasonable way to sort some good from some evil, but it is very hard to establish pure altruism, it is usually beneficial to the giver.
Everybody is always manipulating the world towards their own ends. Good and evil often mean little more than 'agrees with me' and 'doesn't agree with me'. The best, brightest, most decent person you know goes out and makes the world a better place. That is still manipulating it to their own ends.
Also, is an armchair activist someone who wishes they had principles to stand up for, I don't really understand what that means?
Not necessarily at today's population densities (so technology can have a real impact on peoples ability to obtain food).
This project is pretty clearly about increasing quality of life, not resource exploitation, so there really isn't any reason to direct your attitude at it.
At least you read the headline. If you read the summary, you will see that the Yahoo! board offered to sell the company to Microsoft for $33 a share. I guess someone could twist that into giving them the finger, but I wouldn't.
Sorry for the double reply, but I should point out that I only said that Microsoft was not an *interesting* monopoly. If you complain about their excess market power, we don't have to waste time arguing over whether it has "sufficient control" or not, saving a bunch and still accurately reflecting your position (which seems to be that they have too much market power).
The current board previously rejected an offer higher than the one that they are now asking Microsoft to accept. Apparently because they thought they were awesome, as nothing else makes any sense.
So instead we pander to your assertion that OpenGL would be teh mores awsum! if Microsoft hadn't 'forced' DirectX onto the market? As far as I am aware, there is nothing in DirectX that makes it more difficult for video manufacturers to support OpenGL, and they pretty much have feature parity.
(and yes, protected path DRM is a stupid mis-feature, but it isn't a problem until they turn off the unprotected path)
Can we please use "Microsoft's market power" or something, if it was an interesting monopoly, Redhat and Apple wouldn't be able to stay in business (whereas it is just a situation where people think they have concentrated more power than seems hunky dory).
I'll actually be worried when I can't save a text file or rtf file (or not run Open Office, etc.) on a Microsoft operating system. Everything prior to that is just hysterics (and there doesn't seem to be an ongoing slide down a slope, open formats and code are gaining traction, not losing it).
Your choice of framing heavily marginalizes your message (I don't mean that it dilutes what you are intending to say, I mean that huge swaths of people simply won't take you seriously, regardless of the merits of your argument)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. A gallon of gas will get a good lot of vehicles 20 miles and weighs about 8 pounds. Apparently, something like the Tesla takes about 200 watt hours to go a mile, which is about 2.75 pounds of lithium ion (that number is pretty rough, but probably within a factor of 2 or so).
So 10 pounds of gasoline takes you about 4 times further than 10 pounds of batteries. What you are saying would certainly work, but it would be a lot more effort.
What is ignorant about comparing "I would LOVE an electric car, if the problems of range, battery life and recharging time can be (are?) solved practically." to sarcasm? It doesn't appear to be sarcastic to me, but it damn well could be.
Yeah, they just reach the point where discharging them further would damage them.
A person can walk to a gas station and buy 2 or 3 gallons of gasoline and carry it to their car. That isn't ever going to happen with batteries.
(that doesn't make batteries useless or anything, but there is a fundamental difference in the convenience and portability of the energy storage)
Indistinguishable from sarcasm.
The distinction is meaningless when trying to decide if they are manipulating the world to their own ends.
v.tr.9:
http://www.answers.com/called
I just figured he liked to snack on the stuff that he excised, especially for surgeries that had an audience.
The distinction is meaningless. Benefiting others makes them feel good or otherwise satisfies some urge of theirs, which is exactly a benefit to themselves.
It's a reasonable way to sort some good from some evil, but it is very hard to establish pure altruism, it is usually beneficial to the giver.
Everybody is always manipulating the world towards their own ends. Good and evil often mean little more than 'agrees with me' and 'doesn't agree with me'. The best, brightest, most decent person you know goes out and makes the world a better place. That is still manipulating it to their own ends.
Also, is an armchair activist someone who wishes they had principles to stand up for, I don't really understand what that means?
In short, the conspiracy would be more complicated than the actual event.
That's what he said. He meant that developers should respect that people are capable of making their own decisions and offer them the chance to do so.
Not necessarily at today's population densities (so technology can have a real impact on peoples ability to obtain food).
This project is pretty clearly about increasing quality of life, not resource exploitation, so there really isn't any reason to direct your attitude at it.
Yeah, I don't think of it as low. At this point, lower, but not low.
At least you read the headline. If you read the summary, you will see that the Yahoo! board offered to sell the company to Microsoft for $33 a share. I guess someone could twist that into giving them the finger, but I wouldn't.
Sorry for the double reply, but I should point out that I only said that Microsoft was not an *interesting* monopoly. If you complain about their excess market power, we don't have to waste time arguing over whether it has "sufficient control" or not, saving a bunch and still accurately reflecting your position (which seems to be that they have too much market power).
The current board previously rejected an offer higher than the one that they are now asking Microsoft to accept. Apparently because they thought they were awesome, as nothing else makes any sense.
So instead we pander to your assertion that OpenGL would be teh mores awsum! if Microsoft hadn't 'forced' DirectX onto the market? As far as I am aware, there is nothing in DirectX that makes it more difficult for video manufacturers to support OpenGL, and they pretty much have feature parity.
(and yes, protected path DRM is a stupid mis-feature, but it isn't a problem until they turn off the unprotected path)
Yep.
Can we please use "Microsoft's market power" or something, if it was an interesting monopoly, Redhat and Apple wouldn't be able to stay in business (whereas it is just a situation where people think they have concentrated more power than seems hunky dory).
I'll actually be worried when I can't save a text file or rtf file (or not run Open Office, etc.) on a Microsoft operating system. Everything prior to that is just hysterics (and there doesn't seem to be an ongoing slide down a slope, open formats and code are gaining traction, not losing it).
Read the comment again, he is saying that Apple's profit margins are higher, sure, but their routers aren't any better.
The obvious one. Obviously.
Wow. Just. WOW.
Yeah, I don't *need* to know, so I'm just gonna run away as fast as I damn well can.
Your choice of framing heavily marginalizes your message (I don't mean that it dilutes what you are intending to say, I mean that huge swaths of people simply won't take you seriously, regardless of the merits of your argument)