It's not a matter of 100 Mbps or 25 Mbps. You can download something at 100 Mbps and in ten seconds you'll be done. Your neighbor can then use that SAME 100 Mbps of capacity for a few seconds. So you, your neighbor, and 98 other people all get 100 Mbps when you want it. At 100 Mbps, it takes you a lot longer to read a web page than it does to load it, and a lot longer to listen to a song than to download it. You use zero Mbps when you're sleeping, at work, running errands, cooking dinner - overall you use the bandwidth about 1% of the time.
Compare that to if eBay connected their servers to Google fiber connections. Servers would be using the bandwidth all the time. It couldn't be shared with neighbors, so Google would need to add dedicated capacity just for those servers. That costs alot more to have it all to yourself versus sharing with 99 other people.
They provide X Mbps for a few seconds at a time. For example, a page on eBay might be 5 Mb and take one second to load, that's 5 Mbps. When you're not loading a page, another customer is using that bandwidth. A residential user might be downloading 1% of the time, so 50Mbps of capacity serves 100 users at about 50 Mbps.
On the other hand, a popular server is serving customers approximately 100% of the time. No-one else can share that bandwidth since the server is constantly using it. Therefore, server bandwidth costs about 100 times as much as residential bandwidth, simply because the server is using.it all the time so it can't be shared.
$55 million original estimate for site development $90 million paid to one company for site development $500 million total site cost including servers, salaries, etc.
I can understand you want to promote your business, mdsolar, but be intellectually honest. France is currently building three more reactors and designing the next generation. Electricity is their third largest export because they generate it at a muchlower cost than their neighbors.
Far from moving away from solar, they are thoroughly enjoying it's benefits and building more.
Linus signs off on many changes everyday. He does expect you to read the code before trying to change it. That was the problem before - someone put up a change.org petition that made clear they had no idea how it worked.
France sells billions of dollars of power they generate to other countries. Their energy cost is among the lowest in the industrialized world, and it's nuclear. The infographic you linked where someone is imagining what-if scenarios is nice and all, but in the real world, the actual cost that is really paid is low for nuclear. France has been doing nuclear in a big way for almost 40 years, they aren't imagining what they think it might cost.
Let's assume you and the commenter above you are both correct. 3600 X $3.50 =$12,600 USD. 10% of countries have a GNI less than $1,200 / year. So for the bottom 10% of countries, that's still ten years of income for the solar power. Since the system lasts about ten years before it needs to be replaced, 100% of all their income, every penny they make, would be spent on solar power, leaving $0 for food, etc.
We're actually using more gasoline today than we were ten years ago, when it cost half as much. That's even though so many of us are unemployed.
We're using alot more fuel than we were ten years ago - 10-15% of that fuel used to be food, that's the only change. We're burning a lot of ethanol and slightly more gasoline. Overall fuel usage is right about on trend. It's just more expensive fuel is all.
This is the exact same statement, with different locations:
Someone living on 5th Avenue will need a lot more money to sustain himself than someone living on 8 Mile.
That is accounted for in an elegant way. The guy in London chooses to spend money to buy something - the London life. He does NOT have to spend any more to sustain himself because he could go live in India. If you can afford to buy the uptown lifestyle, you are more wealthy than someone who can't.
It even works for things like taxes. Taxes make the cost of living higher, but the money buys us things like keeping the wars thousands of miles away. So the higher cost of living buys a wealthier lifestyle. Unskilled wages in London really is far wealthier than India.
If you didn't believe paying more for London buys you a nicer life, you'd move to India. Of course there are minor differences due to efficiency. Texas might be cheaper per value than New York because in NY you're paying someone to tell you what size soda to buy, but those effects aren't dominant.
> Even poor people can afford 1Kw home solar systems. > 3rd world businesses can too, enough to run a welder, or a mill
At the average installed cost of $0.90 / watt, a 1 Kw solar system costs as much as most people in the world make in 10 years. Poor, globally, is under $1,500 / year.
A welder?!?! A little welder for auto repair is 200 amp @ 120V - 240V, or at least 24,00 watts. That's $21,600 of solar panels to run that welder.
The EPA says industry accounts for 14% . Electricity is 38% and automobiles are 31%.
You can reduce the emissions by cars primarily by increasing the production of electricity, while at the same time increasing other pollutants, so there's not much benefit working with cars until you have clean electricity.
You can get about 8% of your electricity cleanly through hydro and wind. That does mean you'll have to put up with windmills in your backyard. Massachusetts had a big problem there - they wanted wind power, but refused to have windmills.
So where are you going to get the other 92% of your energy? Natural gas is cleanER. Nuclear is really scary to the uninformed, but by FAR the cleanest. It produces an incredibly tiny amount of really nasty stuff and small amount of safe stuff that's scary because like our own bodies, it's "radioactive". Sun light is a billion times more radioactive, but for decades the "green" PR was so anti-nuclear that they are having a hell of time turning that around.
One of our favorite things to do is sit around and whine about the 1%, pretending that's not us. Most of us make over $30K, so we're one-percenters, but we like to engage in class warfare anyway.
Do you live in India or China? If not, you're probably in that top 20%. I see you have a computer or mobile device , so that almost guarantees you're in the richest few hundred million.
I make at least $50K, so I'm in the top 0.5% and I'm on Slashdot.
It should be noted that TFS uses "rich" in the global context. Here, "the rich" very much includes US beneficiaries of taxpayer subsidies such as aid to families and dependant children. If you're reading this on your phone, you are the 1%.
Minor nitpick - you're thoroughly mistaken. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying has standards for certifying software engineers just like any other branch of engineering.
"The term engineer is reserved for disciplines requiring strict standards and provable output"
Perhaps you're unaware that software can be much more provable than concrete or steel. Dlink could have had strict standards that would have prevented this problem. Few developers employ engineering methods properly, and few developers create software that is known to be reliable.
Most people building software are not engineers, just as most people building houses are not engineers and most people building machines are not engineers. Go back to your Engineering 101 book and look up the definition of "engineering". It's 100% applicable to the design of software systems. People simply fail to apply it where they should, in many cases.
The fact that I can build a shed without an engineering degree doesn't mean civil engineering doesn't exist, and simple software doesn't mean there's no such thing as properly engineered software systems.
Software people normally educated in engineering, and the systems they build fail. Does that mean that engineering a software system isn't engineering, or that non-engineers failed to engineer it properly?
Novels, movies, hairstyles, etc are not systems subject to unyielding laws which must be accounted for, or the project fails. Physical systems, such as buildings, and software systems such as databases ARE subject to unbreakable laws which will cause or prevent failure.
Engineering is about applying a set of known rules which govern the behavior of systems to a specific design. You can calculate the shear load on a bridge member, based on a specific amount of vehicle traffic, and know exactly how thick your steel must be. That's engineering. You can calculate what the IO load will be on a specific storage unit, based on a specific amount of web traffic, and know exactly how wide your RAID must be. That's also engineering.
The two problems above are extremely similar, and there is a very similar process for determining the optimal engineered solution in both cases.
Most programmers don't use proper engineering methods, and most programmers don't produce reliable designs. That's because they aren't using properly engineering methods, not because proper engineering methods don't apply.
By the way, you're distinction about physical objects vs. conceptual systems is, in a word, wrong. The reason the Obamacare sites can't take the load has everything to do with the radial velocity of a rotating mass known as a "hard drive". The drive spins at 10,000 RPM. The system tries to read opposite sides of the drive 40,000 times per second. Engineering fail.
I prefer if my systems don't BSOD if they've been restored from backup. You know, a backup and restore that actually works, rather than bricking the device.
In the few cases an app has posted on my social media accounts, it's been a benign (and true) message like "raymorris is at NY Comic Con". That's what a respectable organization might do and what I'd expect from a company that wants to keep my business.
On the other hand, what they did is misleading and they are assholes for doing it. Just because I give someone access to something doesn't excuse them for abusing that access. One of my employees has access to the company checkbook. If she abuses that access she could go to jail.
So in other words, no you have no reasonable way to prevent someone from breaking into your house, or even making it difficult to do so. You could just admit you were wrong instead of acting more and more of an asshole with each post.
Your interesting signature references beautiful open source code. Do you know how we get beautiful open source code? I post something on my github, Tim points out how it could be improved. I make those improvements, "admittingx" that my original code had flaws. Then Mary comes along and points out more imperfections. I admit it still wasn't perfect and make the changes. Then it goes to the integrators for a repeat. That's how we end up with beautiful code, by admitting that our first thought wasn't quite right. Hell even Microsoft admits they were wrong with Windows 8. Are you as intellectually honest as Microsoft?
I am curious about your sig. What do you have going there? Tim Hunt produces some code that's beautiful in it's perfection, but you may be looking for beauty in terms of being concise and as simple as possible. There's an implementation of strcpy that's beautiful in that way, something along the lines of:
Can you? You could cover your $10,000 house with $100,000 of concrete. It'd no longer be your house, though, since you couldn't get inside. Not a bad way to handle high level nuclear waste, though.
You could set up a shotgun booby trap and you'd probably end up in prison or dead.
Armed guards 24 / 7? Two guards at $20 / hour is $50,000 / year to protect $10,000 of property, and STILL it only costs the bad guy a few bucks to shoot them.
It's normally going to cost the owner more to completely protect the property than it costs to break that protection, simply because it's easier to break things to build things. There's a law to that effect in quantum physics or something. It doesn't make sense to spend more protecting it than it's worth, therefore the cost to steal it won't be more than it's worth.
However, you CAN make it harder to steal your stuff than to steal the neighbor's stuff. You're not preventing the theft, just persuading the bad guy to steal from your neighbor.
I suppose in the naive view you could say that the death penalty for petty theft would make it more costly than it's worth. However, that's a naive calculation because it would have huge costs to the defender. When your son steals a candy bar he's dead, so that's not really an option.
Lastly, one could twist the question and bring in SPIRITUAL costs, saying that stealing, and getting away with it, costs the bad guy's soul. That might even be true, but it doesn't solve the question asked because you proposed that YOU can DO something to protect your house, not that spiritual laws already make it costly.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a matter of 100 Mbps or 25 Mbps.
You can download something at 100 Mbps and in ten seconds you'll be done. Your neighbor can then use that SAME 100 Mbps of capacity for a few seconds. So you, your neighbor, and 98 other people all get 100 Mbps when you want it. At 100 Mbps, it takes you a lot longer to read a web page than it does to load it, and a lot longer to listen to a song than to download it. You use zero Mbps when you're sleeping, at work, running errands, cooking dinner - overall you use the bandwidth about 1% of the time.
Compare that to if eBay connected their servers to Google fiber connections. Servers would be using the bandwidth all the time. It couldn't be shared with neighbors, so Google would need to add dedicated capacity just for those servers. That costs alot more to have it all to yourself versus sharing with 99 other people.
They provide X Mbps for a few seconds at a time.
For example, a page on eBay might be 5 Mb and take one second to load, that's 5 Mbps. When you're not loading a page, another customer is using that bandwidth. A residential user might be downloading 1% of the time, so 50Mbps of capacity serves 100 users at about 50 Mbps.
On the other hand, a popular server is serving customers approximately 100% of the time. No-one else can share that bandwidth since the server is constantly using it. Therefore, server bandwidth costs about 100 times as much as residential bandwidth, simply because the server is using.it all the time so it can't be shared.
$55 million original estimate for site development
$90 million paid to one company for site development
$500 million total site cost including servers, salaries, etc.
I can understand you want to promote your business, mdsolar, but be intellectually honest. France is currently building three more reactors and designing the next generation. Electricity is their third largest export because they generate it at a muchlower cost than their neighbors.
Far from moving away from solar, they are thoroughly enjoying it's benefits and building more.
Linus signs off on many changes everyday. He does expect you to read the code before trying to change it. That was the problem before - someone put up a change.org petition that made clear they had no idea how it worked.
France sells billions of dollars of power they generate to other countries. Their energy cost is among the lowest in the industrialized world, and it's nuclear.
The infographic you linked where someone is imagining what-if scenarios is nice and all, but in the real world, the actual cost that is really paid is low for nuclear.
France has been doing nuclear in a big way for almost 40 years, they aren't imagining what they think it might cost.
Let's assume you and the commenter above you are both correct. 3600 X $3.50 =$12,600 USD.
10% of countries have a GNI less than $1,200 / year. So for the bottom 10% of countries, that's still ten years of income for the solar power.
Since the system lasts about ten years before it needs to be replaced, 100% of all their income, every penny they make, would be spent on solar power, leaving $0 for food, etc.
We're actually using more gasoline today than we were ten years ago, when it cost half as much. That's even though so many of us are unemployed.
We're using alot more fuel than we were ten years ago - 10-15% of that fuel used to be food, that's the only change. We're burning a lot of ethanol and slightly more gasoline. Overall fuel usage is right about on trend. It's just more expensive fuel is all.
Nuclear:
Requires a 8X5 meter pool of water to store the used fuel for a few years.
Coal / biomass / ethanol:
Belches millions of pounds of noxious fumes into the air.
A hard choice?
This is the exact same statement, with different locations:
Someone living on 5th Avenue will need a lot more money to sustain himself than someone living on 8 Mile.
That is accounted for in an elegant way. The guy in London chooses to spend money to buy something - the London life. He does NOT have to spend any more to sustain himself because he could go live in India. If you can afford to buy the uptown lifestyle, you are more wealthy than someone who can't.
It even works for things like taxes. Taxes make the cost of living higher, but the money buys us things like keeping the wars thousands of miles away. So the higher cost of living buys a wealthier lifestyle. Unskilled wages in London really is far wealthier than India.
If you didn't believe paying more for London buys you a nicer life, you'd move to India. Of course there are minor differences due to efficiency. Texas might be cheaper per value than New York because in NY you're paying someone to tell you what size soda to buy, but those effects aren't dominant.
> Even poor people can afford 1Kw home solar systems.
> 3rd world businesses can too, enough to run a welder, or a mill
At the average installed cost of $0.90 / watt, a 1 Kw solar system costs as much as most people in the world make in 10 years. Poor, globally, is under $1,500 / year.
A welder?!?! A little welder for auto repair is 200 amp @ 120V - 240V, or at least 24,00 watts. That's $21,600 of solar panels to run that welder.
My health insurance just went from $430 / month to $950 / month. It feels kind of like a cucumber being shoved ...
The EPA says industry accounts for 14% .
Electricity is 38% and automobiles are 31%.
You can reduce the emissions by cars primarily by increasing the production of electricity, while at the same time increasing other pollutants, so there's not much benefit working with cars until you have clean electricity.
You can get about 8% of your electricity cleanly through hydro and wind. That does mean you'll have to put up with windmills in your backyard.
Massachusetts had a big problem there - they wanted wind power, but refused to have windmills.
So where are you going to get the other 92% of your energy? Natural gas is cleanER.
Nuclear is really scary to the uninformed, but by FAR the cleanest. It produces an incredibly tiny amount of really nasty stuff and small amount of safe stuff that's scary because like our own bodies, it's "radioactive". Sun light is a billion times more radioactive, but for decades the "green" PR was so anti-nuclear that they are having a hell of time turning that around.
You must be new here. Welcome.
One of our favorite things to do is sit around and whine about the 1%, pretending that's not us.
Most of us make over $30K, so we're one-percenters, but we like to engage in class warfare anyway.
Do you live in India or China? If not, you're probably in that top 20%. I see you have a computer or mobile device , so that almost guarantees you're in the richest few hundred million.
I make at least $50K, so I'm in the top 0.5% and I'm on Slashdot.
It should be noted that TFS uses "rich" in the global context. Here, "the rich" very much includes US beneficiaries of taxpayer subsidies such as aid to families and dependant children. If you're reading this on your phone, you are the 1%.
Minor nitpick - you're thoroughly mistaken. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying has standards for certifying software engineers just like any other branch of engineering.
"The term engineer is reserved for disciplines requiring strict standards and provable output"
Perhaps you're unaware that software can be much more provable than concrete or steel. Dlink could have had strict standards that would have prevented this problem. Few developers employ engineering methods properly, and few developers create software that is known to be reliable.
Most people building software are not engineers, just as most people building houses are not engineers and most people building machines are not engineers. Go back to your Engineering 101 book and look up the definition of "engineering". It's 100% applicable to the design of software systems. People simply fail to apply it where they should, in many cases.
The fact that I can build a shed without an engineering degree doesn't mean civil engineering doesn't exist, and simple software doesn't mean there's no such thing as properly engineered software systems.
I've read from what I believed to be a reliable source that a frog will jump out. It seems that most humans aren't so bright.
The first sentence of my post was missing two words. That should read "software people are not normally educated in engineering ".
Thus, they often fail at engineering systems, even if they are good at coding Hangman.
Software people normally educated in engineering, and the systems they build fail. Does that mean that engineering a software system isn't engineering, or that non-engineers failed to engineer it properly?
Novels, movies, hairstyles, etc are not systems subject to unyielding laws which must be accounted for, or the project fails. Physical systems, such as buildings, and software systems such as databases ARE subject to unbreakable laws which will cause or prevent failure.
Engineering is about applying a set of known rules which govern the behavior of systems to a specific design. You can calculate the shear load on a bridge member, based on a specific amount of vehicle traffic, and know exactly how thick your steel must be. That's engineering. You can calculate what the IO load will be on a specific storage unit, based on a specific amount of web traffic, and know exactly how wide your RAID must be. That's also engineering.
The two problems above are extremely similar, and there is a very similar process for determining the optimal engineered solution in both cases.
Most programmers don't use proper engineering methods, and most programmers don't produce reliable designs. That's because they aren't using properly engineering methods, not because proper engineering methods don't apply.
By the way, you're distinction about physical objects vs. conceptual systems is, in a word, wrong. The reason the Obamacare sites can't take the load has everything to do with the radial velocity of a rotating mass known as a "hard drive". The drive spins at 10,000 RPM. The system tries to read opposite sides of the drive 40,000 times per second. Engineering fail.
I prefer if my systems don't BSOD if they've been restored from backup. You know, a backup and restore that actually works, rather than bricking the device.
Too
In the few cases an app has posted on my social media accounts, it's been a benign (and true) message like "raymorris is at NY Comic Con". That's what a respectable organization might do and what I'd expect from a company that wants to keep my business.
On the other hand, what they did is misleading and they are assholes for doing it. Just because I give someone access to something doesn't excuse them for abusing that access. One of my employees has access to the company checkbook. If she abuses that access she could go to jail.
So in other words, no you have no reasonable way to prevent someone from breaking into your house, or even making it difficult to do so. You could just admit you were wrong instead of acting more and more of an asshole with each post.
Your interesting signature references beautiful open source code. Do you know how we get beautiful open source code? I post something on my github, Tim points out how it could be improved. I make those improvements, "admittingx" that my original code had flaws. Then Mary comes along and points out more imperfections. I admit it still wasn't perfect and make the changes. Then it goes to the integrators for a repeat. That's how we end up with beautiful code, by admitting that our first thought wasn't quite right. Hell even Microsoft admits they were wrong with Windows 8. Are you as intellectually honest as Microsoft?
I am curious about your sig. What do you have going there? Tim Hunt produces some code that's beautiful in it's perfection, but you may be looking for beauty in terms of being concise and as simple as possible. There's an implementation of strcpy that's beautiful in that way, something along the lines of:
while (dest++ = src++);
Can you? You could cover your $10,000 house with $100,000 of concrete. It'd no longer be your house, though, since you couldn't get inside. Not a bad way to handle high level nuclear waste, though.
You could set up a shotgun booby trap and you'd probably end up in prison or dead.
Armed guards 24 / 7? Two guards at $20 / hour is $50,000 / year to protect $10,000 of property, and STILL it only costs the bad guy a few bucks to shoot them.
It's normally going to cost the owner more to completely protect the property than it costs to break that protection, simply because it's easier to break things to build things. There's a law to that effect in quantum physics or something. It doesn't make sense to spend more protecting it than it's worth, therefore the cost to steal it won't be more than it's worth.
However, you CAN make it harder to steal your stuff than to steal the neighbor's stuff. You're not preventing the theft, just persuading the bad guy to steal from your neighbor.
I suppose in the naive view you could say that the death penalty for petty theft would make it more costly than it's worth. However, that's a naive calculation because it would have huge costs to the defender. When your son steals a candy bar he's dead, so that's not really an option.
Lastly, one could twist the question and bring in SPIRITUAL costs, saying that stealing, and getting away with it, costs the bad guy's soul. That might even be true, but it doesn't solve the question asked because you proposed that YOU can DO something to protect your house, not that spiritual laws already make it costly.