Lithium-ion batteries are 80-90% efficient at charging, meaning that if you have to charge a battery on the pier in order to charge the ferry (explained in TFA as necessarily to buffer to load on the grid), then your charging efficiency is about 72% (0.85**2). That means the 150KWH that you have to spend on-ferry means you have to draw 210KWH from the grid. YMMV, but here in the US that's gonna run $35-40, much more than "a cup of coffee and a waffle".
Other than the double charge loss, which stood out as kind of costly, this seems like a solid and sensible engineering project. What I'd really like to hear is someone to do a 10-year follow up on whether they met their cost estimates and what else was interesting (hopefully nothing).
Actually, in general, following up seems like a good idea. We do a lot of hyping about the future and the present, not a lot of the boring work of "hey, so what happened to $COOL_IDEA or $NEW_PROJECT?" Maybe there should be a/. category for that:-)
To be fair, this is not about "non-practicing entities" -- aka patent trolls. The companies that are suing actually do sell real physical golf balls incorporating some of the patents into the manufacturing process and design.
Maybe those patents are invalid, IANAPL, but this is definitely not a case of "those who can't, sue".
Your developers should be smart enough to maintain their own security if they need admin rights, the ones that aren't can be weeded out immediately.
Indeed, most are smart enough. But it takes just one dumb (or groggy) developer to let an adversary yank a useful credential and start moving laterally through your network. I mean, even your developer's normal-privilege git account is enough to plant a backdoor in the code without any fancy persistent-threat-acrobatics added on top.
Don't get me wrong, I still think devs should have super-user privileges on their development machines. But things like IDS, monitoring, logging and other tools are quite useful to help them maintain security and catch the occasional slip up that can have outsize effects. Don't get in the way, but insist that access to sensitive materials requires some form of monitoring and audit trail. And have a solid legal policy that entitles you to access that data in order to investigate potential breaches while at the same time having a solid company policy that says you won't fish for any reason.
By default, it won't auto-update unless you are plugged in and on WiFi, which seems like a good time to be doing maintenance like this. You can opt-in to automatic downloads over cellular, if you prefer.
It's not venue-shopping, it's part of the design of our system that the Supreme Court weighs in only after the issue has been litigated in multiple circuits, especially if the circuits are split.
For one thing, if many or all of the circuits agree, there's much less reason to have the Court weigh in. But moreover, it means that the Court can draw on the full record of opinion and reasoning from all the lower courts to better inform their decision.
If these are lithium ion batteries would it be possible to ship them by air given all the shipping restrictions that are placed on lithium ion batteries currently?
The restrictions are on shipping them on passenger airplanes. You can still fly them around on a cargo plane, where the tolerance for risk has always been significantly higher.
But if you're one of the many of us who actively fight being tracked, we're going to be relegated to second-hand internet user thanks to Google's monopoly.
Whatever happened to you happened because the owner of the site chose to use ReCaptcha as a tool to prevent bots. You have no right to insist that a particular website cater a particular user experience to you -- if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere.
And what monopoly are we talking about here? There's certainly no monopoly on plugins to detect bots, there are dozens. Google might (probably even) have a monopoly on search, but that's hardly relevant to the captcha story. . .
Yes, pollution is bad for your health. In no way is that a false statement.
At the same time, living in a pre-industrial society is also very bad for your health. As it living in a poorer society for a number of important reasons.
And since (unfortunately) we cannot yet have an industrial society without some pollution, it's disingenuous to say that pollution causes those deaths because we don't know if reducing it, and thereby reducing our output, would be beneficial or harmful at each margin. It's somehow implying that the pollution isn't accepted as part of trade-off -- or that we intentionally pollute with no side benefit -- which is ludicrous.
Of course, by the same vein that not all polluting activities are harmful on the margin, not all are beneficial on the margin either. Clearcutting rainforest to make room for banana groves is almost certainly a net harm. Burning natural gas to electrify rural areas that didn't previously have power is almost certainly a net gain. In between there's a whole realm of less obvious answers.
There's a future where all our power comes from nuclear and renewable and all our food is grown or synthesized on a small amount of land. We aren't there yet, and so we have to pick and chose.
What the author of the above post is saying here, basically, is that they dont like being lied to which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Right, no one likes that. But that's besides that point that someone lies to you and that reveals some inconsistency in your preferences, it seems like a good time to re-evaluate.
For instance, if someone gives me Budweiser but tells me it's PBR and I drink and enjoy it, then two things are concurrently true:
1. I can be angry and truthfully say I don't like being lied to
2. If I previously didn't like Budweiser or thought it was bad beer, I should reevaluate that based on the fact that I enjoyed it.
The second point is true totally irrespective of the first.
But if I found out my favorite single malt balvenie was actually blended and not disclosed, the fact that they lied about what it was would bother me immensely.
Wait really? If you found out that the beverage that you enjoyed (for years?) due to its taste was produced in a different fashion, your reaction would be to be upset at the purveyor rather than to re-evaluate your preference for single malt?
I mean, I get that they shouldn't lie. And in many cases the labeling implicates important nutritional, ethical or ecological concerns where lying is a direct affront to the consumer's preferences. But in the example you gave, there are none of those concerns: the only relevant concern is how the scotch tastes.
It's like the cookies that consumers rate as tastier because they are labeled organic. The empirical approach when confronted with information that challenges your beliefs is to reevaluate them, not to get upset at the guy that gave you that info.
Yeah, malware purveyors and other malicious types are usually kind enough not to target people containing the latest disclosed vulnerability if they know that people are waiting on some mystical numerology before patching.
I understand that they are motivated by protecting the rights of the citizens here.
But the GP was suggesting that citizens be prohibited by those bureaucrats from running the computer software of their (potential) choice on computer hardware that they own. This is not something that I can accept as being compatible with the right of each citizen to determine what runs on his own machine.
Of course, citizens have the right to chose to run Linux or FreeBSD as well. Be careful of the future in which those options, too, are subject to the power of the State, even if those functionaries believe strongly they are protecting your rights.
The only way for the Privacy of EU Citizens to be assured of Privacy in the EU is for EU Governments to ban the Use of Windows 10. The entire OS is Spyware. Full stop.
Are you seriously claiming that that the citizens of the EU should prohibited from loading a particular piece of software on my personally owned computer?
Absolutely untrue. I work in a group that does low-level coding on a processor with 48k of RAM and 1MB of storage.
Yes, knowledge of C is essential. But so is Python. I would say that I write about 10x more Python than I do C, partially because there's so little code on the actual platform and so much test code, analysis code and framework code that needs to be written to validate that small amount of embedded code.
Diamonds and oil are well known examples of large organizations being quite capable of agreeing to keep prices high, to avoid a competitive spiral.
Except there's tons of evidence that OPEC members cheat on their quotas as soon as prices rise. This is pretty much what you would expect from greedy members: first lie to the other members' faces and then grab as much of the excess profit as you can.
I think this is what's mistaken about the modern claim that because competitive entities are sociopathic, they must be restrained from outside. The counter-claim is that multiple sociopathic entities competing against one another to satisfy demand restrain each other. The cheating among OPEC members is a nice manifestation of this counter-claim.
[ And, of course, in reality the truth lies somewhere in the muddle. But for phone carriers where consumers can switch relatively easily (and port their phone numbers), the latter seems to deliver. ]
We will know that future is here when solar can deliver the same amount of power as existing fossil fuels for the same cost, counting both labor and materials. This article is emphatic proof that we are not there yet, given the enormous labor costs associated with solar.
I really do have every hope that some alternative form of energy gains traction and reaches the kind of efficiencies needed to displace the old methods. But that hope is not some blind cheerleading that is willing to celebrate before the underlying numbers justify it.
Jobs are the input of the industry, not the output. Producing the same amount of power with less labor is a good thing.
You might as well argue that we should build roads by having crews of men busting rocks with hammers because it will product 30 times more jobs than using modern heavy equipment.
So the 2015 numbers are 33% coal and 0.6% solar. Or in other words, about 50 times as much coal power nationwide. Normalizing it that way, the solar industry takes 100 times as many workers to produce the same every as coal.
Now, you can argue that solar is a nascent industry and that a lot of the labor is in the build-out. But for now, this is a pretty silly (and expensive) sideshow.
That would cost basically nothing. You just keep the older libraries in the package, facepalm.
Believe me, I get it. I develop and maintain software.
Software doesn't just keep working all by itself like that, it requires continuous QA, validation and regression testing. Otherwise people like you (rightly) scream down our throats every time a new release regresses something.
I can not even upgrade WhatsApp, because for that I would need to upgrade the OS first, which I'm not going to do.
You are welcome to keep running an insecure OS and not take security updates. I would not recommend such a thing.
Windows XP only supports SHA1 for TLS -- pretty much useless for the modern secure web (SHA1 is deprecated and it's against policy to even issue new certs with it).
WhatsApp and Skype also operate servers, and likely don't want to support every protocol baked into their older software versions.
I get that you think that your old machine with an old OS should work, but that doesn't consider that there are other parties required to support it, at least for anything server-based. You can operate forever just fine in your own disconnected universe. The rest of us have will have plans to announce upgrades, let people migrate and then decommission the old stuff in an orderly fashion.
Hardware follows the same rules -- it's announced, it's supported, then it's deprecated in an orderly fashion. Complain if it's done too fast, especially in the Android space where OEMs abandon phones willy-nilly, but it's still got to happen.
All told at some margin the $100 for you to replace an ancient phone with one that can run a modern operating system is cheaper than the engineering resources required to support, validate and certify it indefinitely. Maybe that comes after 3 years, maybe 5, but logically that point has to come eventually.
And for the same reason, at some point a software company is not going to expend engineering resources supporting and validating every release against every operating system. Again, you can debate the proper point in time deprecate, but you can't seriously argue that it's wise to expend effort supporting every OS indefinitely.
Stunt? Which is the orderly upgrade of software to newer versions followed later by deprecation of the older versions? Now in cases where the software (or enabling service) is paid, I can see complaining if the "later" comes sooner than is reasonable.
Legacy software incurs support costs, at some point it's reasonable for a company to spend finite engineering resources building new things. It's a balance thing, and nothing suggests that any of these companies are going to alienate too many customers by asking people to go to the app store and click "upgrade all".
Slashdot Mirror
Lithium-ion batteries are 80-90% efficient at charging, meaning that if you have to charge a battery on the pier in order to charge the ferry (explained in TFA as necessarily to buffer to load on the grid), then your charging efficiency is about 72% (0.85**2). That means the 150KWH that you have to spend on-ferry means you have to draw 210KWH from the grid. YMMV, but here in the US that's gonna run $35-40, much more than "a cup of coffee and a waffle".
Other than the double charge loss, which stood out as kind of costly, this seems like a solid and sensible engineering project. What I'd really like to hear is someone to do a 10-year follow up on whether they met their cost estimates and what else was interesting (hopefully nothing).
Actually, in general, following up seems like a good idea. We do a lot of hyping about the future and the present, not a lot of the boring work of "hey, so what happened to $COOL_IDEA or $NEW_PROJECT?" Maybe there should be a /. category for that :-)
I would call it a body transplant.
To be fair, this is not about "non-practicing entities" -- aka patent trolls. The companies that are suing actually do sell real physical golf balls incorporating some of the patents into the manufacturing process and design.
Maybe those patents are invalid, IANAPL, but this is definitely not a case of "those who can't, sue".
Your developers should be smart enough to maintain their own security if they need admin rights, the ones that aren't can be weeded out immediately.
Indeed, most are smart enough. But it takes just one dumb (or groggy) developer to let an adversary yank a useful credential and start moving laterally through your network. I mean, even your developer's normal-privilege git account is enough to plant a backdoor in the code without any fancy persistent-threat-acrobatics added on top.
Don't get me wrong, I still think devs should have super-user privileges on their development machines. But things like IDS, monitoring, logging and other tools are quite useful to help them maintain security and catch the occasional slip up that can have outsize effects. Don't get in the way, but insist that access to sensitive materials requires some form of monitoring and audit trail. And have a solid legal policy that entitles you to access that data in order to investigate potential breaches while at the same time having a solid company policy that says you won't fish for any reason.
+1 Factually Untrue since iOS 7.
By default, it won't auto-update unless you are plugged in and on WiFi, which seems like a good time to be doing maintenance like this. You can opt-in to automatic downloads over cellular, if you prefer.
It's not venue-shopping, it's part of the design of our system that the Supreme Court weighs in only after the issue has been litigated in multiple circuits, especially if the circuits are split.
For one thing, if many or all of the circuits agree, there's much less reason to have the Court weigh in. But moreover, it means that the Court can draw on the full record of opinion and reasoning from all the lower courts to better inform their decision.
If these are lithium ion batteries would it be possible to ship them by air given all the shipping restrictions that are placed on lithium ion batteries currently?
The restrictions are on shipping them on passenger airplanes. You can still fly them around on a cargo plane, where the tolerance for risk has always been significantly higher.
But if you're one of the many of us who actively fight being tracked, we're going to be relegated to second-hand internet user thanks to Google's monopoly.
Whatever happened to you happened because the owner of the site chose to use ReCaptcha as a tool to prevent bots. You have no right to insist that a particular website cater a particular user experience to you -- if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere.
And what monopoly are we talking about here? There's certainly no monopoly on plugins to detect bots, there are dozens. Google might (probably even) have a monopoly on search, but that's hardly relevant to the captcha story. . .
Yes, pollution is bad for your health. In no way is that a false statement.
At the same time, living in a pre-industrial society is also very bad for your health. As it living in a poorer society for a number of important reasons.
And since (unfortunately) we cannot yet have an industrial society without some pollution, it's disingenuous to say that pollution causes those deaths because we don't know if reducing it, and thereby reducing our output, would be beneficial or harmful at each margin. It's somehow implying that the pollution isn't accepted as part of trade-off -- or that we intentionally pollute with no side benefit -- which is ludicrous.
Of course, by the same vein that not all polluting activities are harmful on the margin, not all are beneficial on the margin either. Clearcutting rainforest to make room for banana groves is almost certainly a net harm. Burning natural gas to electrify rural areas that didn't previously have power is almost certainly a net gain. In between there's a whole realm of less obvious answers.
There's a future where all our power comes from nuclear and renewable and all our food is grown or synthesized on a small amount of land. We aren't there yet, and so we have to pick and chose.
What the author of the above post is saying here, basically, is that they dont like being lied to which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Right, no one likes that. But that's besides that point that someone lies to you and that reveals some inconsistency in your preferences, it seems like a good time to re-evaluate.
For instance, if someone gives me Budweiser but tells me it's PBR and I drink and enjoy it, then two things are concurrently true:
The second point is true totally irrespective of the first.
But if I found out my favorite single malt balvenie was actually blended and not disclosed, the fact that they lied about what it was would bother me immensely.
Wait really? If you found out that the beverage that you enjoyed (for years?) due to its taste was produced in a different fashion, your reaction would be to be upset at the purveyor rather than to re-evaluate your preference for single malt?
I mean, I get that they shouldn't lie. And in many cases the labeling implicates important nutritional, ethical or ecological concerns where lying is a direct affront to the consumer's preferences. But in the example you gave, there are none of those concerns: the only relevant concern is how the scotch tastes.
It's like the cookies that consumers rate as tastier because they are labeled organic. The empirical approach when confronted with information that challenges your beliefs is to reevaluate them, not to get upset at the guy that gave you that info.
[ There's probably a political lesson here too. ]
Yeah, malware purveyors and other malicious types are usually kind enough not to target people containing the latest disclosed vulnerability if they know that people are waiting on some mystical numerology before patching.
Ah yes, the "code as a weapon" argument. How did that work for DVD Jon?
I understand that they are motivated by protecting the rights of the citizens here.
But the GP was suggesting that citizens be prohibited by those bureaucrats from running the computer software of their (potential) choice on computer hardware that they own. This is not something that I can accept as being compatible with the right of each citizen to determine what runs on his own machine.
Of course, citizens have the right to chose to run Linux or FreeBSD as well. Be careful of the future in which those options, too, are subject to the power of the State, even if those functionaries believe strongly they are protecting your rights.
The only way for the Privacy of EU Citizens to be assured of Privacy in the EU is for EU Governments to ban the Use of Windows 10. The entire OS is Spyware. Full stop.
Are you seriously claiming that that the citizens of the EU should prohibited from loading a particular piece of software on my personally owned computer?
Absolutely untrue. I work in a group that does low-level coding on a processor with 48k of RAM and 1MB of storage.
Yes, knowledge of C is essential. But so is Python. I would say that I write about 10x more Python than I do C, partially because there's so little code on the actual platform and so much test code, analysis code and framework code that needs to be written to validate that small amount of embedded code.
So this whole dichotomy is totally nuts.
Diamonds and oil are well known examples of large organizations being quite capable of agreeing to keep prices high, to avoid a competitive spiral.
Except there's tons of evidence that OPEC members cheat on their quotas as soon as prices rise. This is pretty much what you would expect from greedy members: first lie to the other members' faces and then grab as much of the excess profit as you can.
I think this is what's mistaken about the modern claim that because competitive entities are sociopathic, they must be restrained from outside. The counter-claim is that multiple sociopathic entities competing against one another to satisfy demand restrain each other. The cheating among OPEC members is a nice manifestation of this counter-claim.
[ And, of course, in reality the truth lies somewhere in the muddle. But for phone carriers where consumers can switch relatively easily (and port their phone numbers), the latter seems to deliver. ]
I can't afford a house because of how the mathematics of mortgages work
That's like saying I can't fill a bathtub by pissing it once because of the mathematics of how volume works.
I agree, there is a bright future for solar.
We will know that future is here when solar can deliver the same amount of power as existing fossil fuels for the same cost, counting both labor and materials. This article is emphatic proof that we are not there yet, given the enormous labor costs associated with solar.
I really do have every hope that some alternative form of energy gains traction and reaches the kind of efficiencies needed to displace the old methods. But that hope is not some blind cheerleading that is willing to celebrate before the underlying numbers justify it.
Jobs are the input of the industry, not the output. Producing the same amount of power with less labor is a good thing.
You might as well argue that we should build roads by having crews of men busting rocks with hammers because it will product 30 times more jobs than using modern heavy equipment.
So the 2015 numbers are 33% coal and 0.6% solar. Or in other words, about 50 times as much coal power nationwide. Normalizing it that way, the solar industry takes 100 times as many workers to produce the same every as coal.
Now, you can argue that solar is a nascent industry and that a lot of the labor is in the build-out. But for now, this is a pretty silly (and expensive) sideshow.
That would cost basically nothing. You just keep the older libraries in the package, facepalm.
Believe me, I get it. I develop and maintain software.
Software doesn't just keep working all by itself like that, it requires continuous QA, validation and regression testing. Otherwise people like you (rightly) scream down our throats every time a new release regresses something.
I can not even upgrade WhatsApp, because for that I would need to upgrade the OS first, which I'm not going to do.
You are welcome to keep running an insecure OS and not take security updates. I would not recommend such a thing.
Windows XP only supports SHA1 for TLS -- pretty much useless for the modern secure web (SHA1 is deprecated and it's against policy to even issue new certs with it).
WhatsApp and Skype also operate servers, and likely don't want to support every protocol baked into their older software versions.
I get that you think that your old machine with an old OS should work, but that doesn't consider that there are other parties required to support it, at least for anything server-based. You can operate forever just fine in your own disconnected universe. The rest of us have will have plans to announce upgrades, let people migrate and then decommission the old stuff in an orderly fashion.
Hardware follows the same rules -- it's announced, it's supported, then it's deprecated in an orderly fashion. Complain if it's done too fast, especially in the Android space where OEMs abandon phones willy-nilly, but it's still got to happen.
All told at some margin the $100 for you to replace an ancient phone with one that can run a modern operating system is cheaper than the engineering resources required to support, validate and certify it indefinitely. Maybe that comes after 3 years, maybe 5, but logically that point has to come eventually.
And for the same reason, at some point a software company is not going to expend engineering resources supporting and validating every release against every operating system. Again, you can debate the proper point in time deprecate, but you can't seriously argue that it's wise to expend effort supporting every OS indefinitely.
Stunt? Which is the orderly upgrade of software to newer versions followed later by deprecation of the older versions? Now in cases where the software (or enabling service) is paid, I can see complaining if the "later" comes sooner than is reasonable.
Legacy software incurs support costs, at some point it's reasonable for a company to spend finite engineering resources building new things. It's a balance thing, and nothing suggests that any of these companies are going to alienate too many customers by asking people to go to the app store and click "upgrade all".