I'm not a design geek, but I don't see a problem with the site. Could you concisely iterate what is wrong with it? I do not consider "I don't like it" to be a very strong argument.
BAH! You only apply that filter because it is the sort of thing that Microsoft has done throughout it's entire existence. There is absolutely no proof that they intend to do what you claim.
A wise business man told me once in my young exuberance that ideas are cheap. It's implementations and solutions that are hard.
So you have a idea (cheap) that is implementable (not quite as cheap, but much less expensive in software than it used to be). You want to implement the idea and then sit back while the bucks roll in. Sorry. The 'Golden Years' have passed. The industry has matured, and now you have to work for your money.
Consult engineers in any other industry and discover how much they have to work on and how much they can expect to make off of a single 'invention'.
That's because the EU won't let their 'subjects' do anything.
Had one such person asking about plans for shops to build an airplane in. Turns out that a person isn't allowed to just start building something in his own garage anytime he so chooses. A government inspector must come around first and approve his workspace. Personally, I was somewhat taken aback by the intrusiveness, but he seemed to take is a normal.
Can't be sued if the government has to approve everything first anyway.
A house with a footprint of 2000 square feet say 40x50 has a perimeter of 180 linear feet. With an "eco" stud every 2 feet that works out to about 90 studs plus corners which are a bit more complicated but you typically don't have many corners... At 5 mins each this adds about 8 hours to the construction time of a typical house and the only incremental cost is the fiberglass which we can estimate to be about 3800 square feet (ie 1800 square feet of walls plus 2000 square feet in the ceilings).
Have you priced the difference between a 2x6 and the typical poorly dried sticks that most contractors build houses (and I do use that term lightly) out of? You may be able to knock an 'eco-stud' together in 5-minutes, but you won't be able to do that for 8 hours. The typical construction worker wouldn't do it, even if he could. Hell, it would be enough for me if the contractors would throw a $3 piece of PVC under the driveway in the off change that I might want to run a wire or phone cable to the other side without going around the back of the house. In short, it ain't gonna happen.
My wife's a real-estate agent. There are exactly two factors that determine the price of a house. Location and square footage. Number of bedrooms, and bathrooms fall in a very distant second. 'Quality' is a subjective term that no appraiser wants to be sued over and the mortgage companies don't care (no box for quality on the spreadsheet).
Advertisement supported media has already destroyed TV and most print media, and Microsoft treats their customers bad enough already. The last thing we need is for them to start treating their customers as products to sell to advertisers.
He who pays the piper, calls the tune...
Re:Problems are over-hyped
on
Requiem for Usenet
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The main reason it's easier to find the information is that the web forums destroy the simple Usenet format. Plain text, subjects threaded, and all in my mail reader.
Vs. Log in to multiple websites (like I think bullshit sessions are important enough to have a username and password for each), wade through pages of advertisements and flashing icons, for a few snippets of signal.
Give me the text only Usenet groups any day.
And before anyone points out the obvious, I consider Slashdot to be a different animal due to the article submission and moderation mechanisms.
take it from a father with three kids in college at once: it's brutal.
My situation may be special, because I live in North Carolina, but I suspect that your kids should get a job. I worked my way through college, while supporting a wife and two children. No money from parents. Only $15k in loans (which are almost paid off after 10 yrs. PRAISE GLOREAH!!).
Really, it's like the parent said. College is now an extended high school. I haven't saved a nickle for my boys to go to college, and I don't plan to. I've seen enough kids aimlessly wasting their parent's money there to last me a lifetime. If they don't want it enough to work for it, they don't want it.
These trucks generally don't start and stop enough to justify the extra weight and cost.
That wholly depends on which truck is where.
Short haul trucks (like I used to drive) do a lot of city driving, speed going up and down just like in a car. Truckers also spend a lot of time on the brakes when going down hills. Burn augmentation is most effective in the high torque/low RPM operational range (a sparked engine uses spark advance for this purpose), and the polution aspects have their most visible results in the city.
The generator($$) would be no more expensive than a quality alternator, would save on brake wear (eliminating the need for obnoxious JakeBrakes), store excess energy in a relatively small battery bank (that would increase acceleration efficiency further). The storage vessel could be a container of only a few cubic feet, providing for a big boost when it is needed most.
The typical dual-axle tractor has one axle (4 tires) that is there simply to support the load. They do not have a drive axle to them. The retrofit to tire generators would be a simple bolt-on operation, and the axle would serve as a perfect containment facility. A few hundred pounds of battery wouldn't even be noticed, and that will generally weigh less than all the chrome and extra lights the typical trucker adds 8*)
The permanent magnet are on the rotor (rotor rotates, stator stays put). They're arranged this way to eliminate the need for brushes, thus increasing reliability. (Which is a great idea, btw)
Older motorcylces (and cars) did use shunt type regulators, ESPECIALLY those of the British persuasion. Lucas Electronics was one of the last companies to switch away from this technique, I'm made to understand. Anything approaching modern will have a switching type, though. Instead of dumping excess electrical energy through a resistor to produce heat, the circuit is simply switch off at a high frequency then filtered.
Take an older generator, and have it power the shunt resistor while you spin it by hand. Now disconnect the resistor and feel the generator spin up as the resistance goes away.
I wonder if it does long term damage to the engine + cooling system by running hotter than it was designed to?
The fuel is now burning in the cylinder which has coolant passages designed to carry the heat away vs the exhaust system that doesn't have that advantage.
The driver doesn't care where the fuel is burning except where it concerns getting up the next hill. If it takes 10gph with 20% burning in the exhaust, that was 8gph actually getting him up the hill. If only 10% is now burning in the exhaust, the driver will put his foot on the accelerator till he's burning 9gph, and still have more oomph to get up the hill. Overall, the engine will be running cooler.
I'm probably a bit rusty on my car mechanics, but as long as that thing is spinning you're generating electricty.
Not a bit rusty. Your car mechanics are a crumbling pile of red dust.
The alternator has to have it's rotor windings energized to produce electricity. Cut the rotor field power and you get not electricity no matter how fast you spin it.
Airplane power systems typically have a switch to cut the power to the rotor as a gaurd against a runaway alternator.
Most use simple shunt regulators for heaven's sake!
Uum..I was corrected on this not very long ago. All modern altenator use a feedback loop into the rotor field windings to control power output. PM generators typically use a switching regulator.
I also question the consequences of running a (10%?) hotter engine for those kinds of periods ie does it stress the cooling system, or wear the engine components faster?
Actually, a more efficient engine will quite possibly run cooler. It is a function of where the fuel burns. If to slow, it will burn in the exhaust system, where the heat isn't easily transferred to the coolant and removed by the radiators. Furthermore, that exhaust heating burn isn't contributing to horsepower, so the driver has to give a little more pedal to get up the hill, which means more fuel and heat overall for the same output. Built up deposits from partially burned fuel are also a big contributor to heat buildup and (by far) the biggest contributor to wear.
The everything being equal, engine that burns the most fuel in the cylinder will always be the coolest, cleanest and and longest running. The trucker quoted saving $700/month in fuel. That's the easy number to calculate. I'd estimate that he's saving half that again in repair cost and engine life extension.
Now, if they'd just generate the hydrogen with a braking motor, they'd be much better off.
Most of the junk is thrown own when accelerating...lots of low RPM, full throttle operation through un-optimum power ranges...and accelerating nearly always occurs right after...wait for it...decelerating. Save their brakes (putting all that mechanical energy to good use) and get more hydrogen just when they need it most.
BTW, they also get a lot of free oxygen from this reaction. Do they pump it into the cylinder, too?
The goal of capitalism is always to use your resource more efficiently than the next guy. The competitor that wastes their resources will always lose out.
Pollution is simply the result of unused resources. Simply put, less pollution has always been a goal...just not an obvious one. Smog only occurred because the cost of fuel resources was less than the cost of engineering and quality manufacturing resources. Today we have computers and CNC equipment and OPEC is forcing us to put them to good use 8*)
They seem to do a freaking well good job at "how people communicate" with the phone line.
And when you have a few BILLION dollars of capitalization to participate in the rules making committees, I'm sure that you'll also do a bang-up job. The large telecom companies make sure the ITU works reasonalbly well, because a inefficient ITU will cut into their revenues, which will definitely be a big no-no.
Becareful of that slippery slope: if you go down it you'll slip and then you'll be going so fast when you get to the bottam of the hill you'll carry on going and end up in the centre of the world. And its hot, you'll burn, and worse, you'll be called a cruel and heartless bastard. Shotgun is not a cruel and heartless bastard. Shotgun is merely logically challenged.
I may be logically challenged, but not in this case. Pick up any college level history book, ANY college level history book, and you'll see the same pattern repeated over and over, in all forms of government large and small. The rulers first say, "I must be put in charge of this small thing," and that is subsequently used as a vector to say, "I failed because I must have more control."
Did you pay any attention to George Bush's post-Katrina speech? Did you note that in response to the 'FEMA failure', he explicity called for the Federal government to be put in control immediately after any disaster. Note that our Constitution does not call for the federal government to be in charge of 'disasters', only foreign wars. There is a VERY good reason for this!! The 'founding fathers' were smart enough to know how governments accumulate power, and they tried to set down rules that would trip us up when we start screaming for overlords.
Take a story from the Bible. God brings people into the Holy Land and tells them to live free and prosper. Were they happy with that? No! The screamed that they wanted a king like all the other nations around them. So God said, "Ok. I'll give you a king, and he'll treat you like crap just like the kings of all the other nation do." And the people were happy with that.
Like I said, the politicians use a law that can not be argued with as a precedent. Why do you think "Do it for the children" is the rallying cry for just about every idiotic law they try to drive through? They don't care about the children and they don't give a damn if all the 'stakeholders' have a say in how the Internet is run. What they're after is control...a lever...a vector that they can use to say, "things would be much better if you just gave me a little more power." At no point will they actually make things better, unless it is a vector that gives them more power.
This was about agreeing upon principals of how they will communicate and has nothing to do with taxes.
Surely, sir, you jest. "principals of how they will communicate"? What is so hard about "I talk to you, and you talk to me"? There is no place for the UN in how people communicate. Either they do or they don't.
No this is about taxation and control. Right now they are working on the 'precedent' stage. The first move of all politicians and governments is to first set a 'precedent', usually through a policy that can't be 'morally' argued with.
"Children are dying! The Federal government must feed the children!"
Can't argue against that, even though it isn't the Federal government's job to feed the children (it's the parents, then city's, then county's, then state's job, if any). So the federal politicians set a precedent that they must feed the children. This gets extended to they must feed the old, too. Then everybody. Then everybody must eat what the government provides for them, which they do at twice the cost in the form of taxes. And if at any point, a man would say that the theiving politicians should keep their hands off the dinner table, they are labelled as a cruel and heartless bastard.
Well, OK. I'm a cruel and heartless bastard. And as such, I loudly proclaim that the UN should not be allowed to set a precedent. Connect to the Net, or create your own, I don't give a damn. But in no way should the UN have any control over how my computer communicates with another.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a design geek, but I don't see a problem with the site. Could you concisely iterate what is wrong with it? I do not consider "I don't like it" to be a very strong argument.
So, tell us again why picking on poor Southern folk is funny?
I am quite sure that this will never see a practical application ...
Can you say 'targetting computer'?
Not only will it have a pratical application, it has application in one of the few areas where money is practically no object.
BAH! You only apply that filter because it is the sort of thing that Microsoft has done throughout it's entire existence. There is absolutely no proof that they intend to do what you claim.
A wise business man told me once in my young exuberance that ideas are cheap. It's implementations and solutions that are hard.
So you have a idea (cheap) that is implementable (not quite as cheap, but much less expensive in software than it used to be). You want to implement the idea and then sit back while the bucks roll in. Sorry. The 'Golden Years' have passed. The industry has matured, and now you have to work for your money.
Consult engineers in any other industry and discover how much they have to work on and how much they can expect to make off of a single 'invention'.
Have you considered trying to bust the myth that geeks don't get laid?
If no, is that because it is to dangerous or to expensive?
(Heh, it IS a cable channel, after all).
That's because the EU won't let their 'subjects' do anything.
Had one such person asking about plans for shops to build an airplane in. Turns out that a person isn't allowed to just start building something in his own garage anytime he so chooses. A government inspector must come around first and approve his workspace. Personally, I was somewhat taken aback by the intrusiveness, but he seemed to take is a normal.
Can't be sued if the government has to approve everything first anyway.
A house with a footprint of 2000 square feet say 40x50 has a perimeter of 180 linear feet. With an "eco" stud every 2 feet that works out to about 90 studs plus corners which are a bit more complicated but you typically don't have many corners... At 5 mins each this adds about 8 hours to the construction time of a typical house and the only incremental cost is the fiberglass which we can estimate to be about 3800 square feet (ie 1800 square feet of walls plus 2000 square feet in the ceilings).
Have you priced the difference between a 2x6 and the typical poorly dried sticks that most contractors build houses (and I do use that term lightly) out of? You may be able to knock an 'eco-stud' together in 5-minutes, but you won't be able to do that for 8 hours. The typical construction worker wouldn't do it, even if he could. Hell, it would be enough for me if the contractors would throw a $3 piece of PVC under the driveway in the off change that I might want to run a wire or phone cable to the other side without going around the back of the house. In short, it ain't gonna happen.
My wife's a real-estate agent. There are exactly two factors that determine the price of a house. Location and square footage. Number of bedrooms, and bathrooms fall in a very distant second. 'Quality' is a subjective term that no appraiser wants to be sued over and the mortgage companies don't care (no box for quality on the spreadsheet).
Advertisement supported media has already destroyed TV and most print media, and Microsoft treats their customers bad enough already. The last thing we need is for them to start treating their customers as products to sell to advertisers.
He who pays the piper, calls the tune...
The main reason it's easier to find the information is that the web forums destroy the simple Usenet format. Plain text, subjects threaded, and all in my mail reader.
Vs. Log in to multiple websites (like I think bullshit sessions are important enough to have a username and password for each), wade through pages of advertisements and flashing icons, for a few snippets of signal.
Give me the text only Usenet groups any day.
And before anyone points out the obvious, I consider Slashdot to be a different animal due to the article submission and moderation mechanisms.
take it from a father with three kids in college at once: it's brutal.
My situation may be special, because I live in North Carolina, but I suspect that your kids should get a job. I worked my way through college, while supporting a wife and two children. No money from parents. Only $15k in loans (which are almost paid off after 10 yrs. PRAISE GLOREAH!!).
Really, it's like the parent said. College is now an extended high school. I haven't saved a nickle for my boys to go to college, and I don't plan to. I've seen enough kids aimlessly wasting their parent's money there to last me a lifetime. If they don't want it enough to work for it, they don't want it.
These trucks generally don't start and stop enough to justify the extra weight and cost.
That wholly depends on which truck is where.
Short haul trucks (like I used to drive) do a lot of city driving, speed going up and down just like in a car. Truckers also spend a lot of time on the brakes when going down hills. Burn augmentation is most effective in the high torque/low RPM operational range (a sparked engine uses spark advance for this purpose), and the polution aspects have their most visible results in the city.
The generator($$) would be no more expensive than a quality alternator, would save on brake wear (eliminating the need for obnoxious JakeBrakes), store excess energy in a relatively small battery bank (that would increase acceleration efficiency further). The storage vessel could be a container of only a few cubic feet, providing for a big boost when it is needed most.
The typical dual-axle tractor has one axle (4 tires) that is there simply to support the load. They do not have a drive axle to them. The retrofit to tire generators would be a simple bolt-on operation, and the axle would serve as a perfect containment facility. A few hundred pounds of battery wouldn't even be noticed, and that will generally weigh less than all the chrome and extra lights the typical trucker adds 8*)
Bite it? Why would I do that just because your event log is so full another boot record can't be added?
Windows actually has quite decent remote administration tools these days, including a fairly nice infrastructure for performing remote installations.
Now why do you have to bring Sony into this?
Last time I checked you were not allowed to burn the US Flag, though.
You didn't check very well, did you?
The permanent magnet are on the rotor (rotor rotates, stator stays put). They're arranged this way to eliminate the need for brushes, thus increasing reliability. (Which is a great idea, btw)
Older motorcylces (and cars) did use shunt type regulators, ESPECIALLY those of the British persuasion. Lucas Electronics was one of the last companies to switch away from this technique, I'm made to understand. Anything approaching modern will have a switching type, though. Instead of dumping excess electrical energy through a resistor to produce heat, the circuit is simply switch off at a high frequency then filtered.
Take an older generator, and have it power the shunt resistor while you spin it by hand. Now disconnect the resistor and feel the generator spin up as the resistance goes away.
I wonder if it does long term damage to the engine + cooling system by running hotter than it was designed to?
The fuel is now burning in the cylinder which has coolant passages designed to carry the heat away vs the exhaust system that doesn't have that advantage.
The driver doesn't care where the fuel is burning except where it concerns getting up the next hill. If it takes 10gph with 20% burning in the exhaust, that was 8gph actually getting him up the hill. If only 10% is now burning in the exhaust, the driver will put his foot on the accelerator till he's burning 9gph, and still have more oomph to get up the hill. Overall, the engine will be running cooler.
Yes, those numbers do not resemble reality 8*)
I'm probably a bit rusty on my car mechanics, but as long as that thing is spinning you're generating electricty.
Not a bit rusty. Your car mechanics are a crumbling pile of red dust.
The alternator has to have it's rotor windings energized to produce electricity. Cut the rotor field power and you get not electricity no matter how fast you spin it.
Airplane power systems typically have a switch to cut the power to the rotor as a gaurd against a runaway alternator.
Most use simple shunt regulators for heaven's sake!
Uum..I was corrected on this not very long ago. All modern altenator use a feedback loop into the rotor field windings to control power output. PM generators typically use a switching regulator.
Shunt regulators went out of style in the '60s.
I also question the consequences of running a (10%?) hotter engine for those kinds of periods ie does it stress the cooling system, or wear the engine components faster?
Actually, a more efficient engine will quite possibly run cooler. It is a function of where the fuel burns. If to slow, it will burn in the exhaust system, where the heat isn't easily transferred to the coolant and removed by the radiators. Furthermore, that exhaust heating burn isn't contributing to horsepower, so the driver has to give a little more pedal to get up the hill, which means more fuel and heat overall for the same output. Built up deposits from partially burned fuel are also a big contributor to heat buildup and (by far) the biggest contributor to wear.
The everything being equal, engine that burns the most fuel in the cylinder will always be the coolest, cleanest and and longest running. The trucker quoted saving $700/month in fuel. That's the easy number to calculate. I'd estimate that he's saving half that again in repair cost and engine life extension.
Now, if they'd just generate the hydrogen with a braking motor, they'd be much better off.
Most of the junk is thrown own when accelerating...lots of low RPM, full throttle operation through un-optimum power ranges...and accelerating nearly always occurs right after...wait for it...decelerating. Save their brakes (putting all that mechanical energy to good use) and get more hydrogen just when they need it most.
BTW, they also get a lot of free oxygen from this reaction. Do they pump it into the cylinder, too?
The goal of capitalism is always to use your resource more efficiently than the next guy. The competitor that wastes their resources will always lose out.
Pollution is simply the result of unused resources. Simply put, less pollution has always been a goal...just not an obvious one. Smog only occurred because the cost of fuel resources was less than the cost of engineering and quality manufacturing resources. Today we have computers and CNC equipment and OPEC is forcing us to put them to good use 8*)
They seem to do a freaking well good job at "how people communicate" with the phone line.
And when you have a few BILLION dollars of capitalization to participate in the rules making committees, I'm sure that you'll also do a bang-up job. The large telecom companies make sure the ITU works reasonalbly well, because a inefficient ITU will cut into their revenues, which will definitely be a big no-no.
Becareful of that slippery slope: if you go down it you'll slip and then you'll be going so fast when you get to the bottam of the hill you'll carry on going and end up in the centre of the world. And its hot, you'll burn, and worse, you'll be called a cruel and heartless bastard. Shotgun is not a cruel and heartless bastard. Shotgun is merely logically challenged.
I may be logically challenged, but not in this case. Pick up any college level history book, ANY college level history book, and you'll see the same pattern repeated over and over, in all forms of government large and small. The rulers first say, "I must be put in charge of this small thing," and that is subsequently used as a vector to say, "I failed because I must have more control."
Did you pay any attention to George Bush's post-Katrina speech? Did you note that in response to the 'FEMA failure', he explicity called for the Federal government to be put in control immediately after any disaster. Note that our Constitution does not call for the federal government to be in charge of 'disasters', only foreign wars. There is a VERY good reason for this!! The 'founding fathers' were smart enough to know how governments accumulate power, and they tried to set down rules that would trip us up when we start screaming for overlords.
Take a story from the Bible. God brings people into the Holy Land and tells them to live free and prosper. Were they happy with that? No! The screamed that they wanted a king like all the other nations around them. So God said, "Ok. I'll give you a king, and he'll treat you like crap just like the kings of all the other nation do." And the people were happy with that.
Like I said, the politicians use a law that can not be argued with as a precedent. Why do you think "Do it for the children" is the rallying cry for just about every idiotic law they try to drive through? They don't care about the children and they don't give a damn if all the 'stakeholders' have a say in how the Internet is run. What they're after is control...a lever...a vector that they can use to say, "things would be much better if you just gave me a little more power." At no point will they actually make things better, unless it is a vector that gives them more power.
This was about agreeing upon principals of how they will communicate and has nothing to do with taxes.
Surely, sir, you jest. "principals of how they will communicate"? What is so hard about "I talk to you, and you talk to me"? There is no place for the UN in how people communicate. Either they do or they don't.
No this is about taxation and control. Right now they are working on the 'precedent' stage. The first move of all politicians and governments is to first set a 'precedent', usually through a policy that can't be 'morally' argued with.
"Children are dying! The Federal government must feed the children!"
Can't argue against that, even though it isn't the Federal government's job to feed the children (it's the parents, then city's, then county's, then state's job, if any). So the federal politicians set a precedent that they must feed the children. This gets extended to they must feed the old, too. Then everybody. Then everybody must eat what the government provides for them, which they do at twice the cost in the form of taxes. And if at any point, a man would say that the theiving politicians should keep their hands off the dinner table, they are labelled as a cruel and heartless bastard.
Well, OK. I'm a cruel and heartless bastard. And as such, I loudly proclaim that the UN should not be allowed to set a precedent. Connect to the Net, or create your own, I don't give a damn. But in no way should the UN have any control over how my computer communicates with another.