It is a quick way of getting a read on the situation. It gives a reasonably comparable sample size and accounts for time. We are not likely to get a fire rate per mile for gas cars under 3 years old, which would be the best statistic to compare, but if you have a suggestion please supply....
But that comment doesn't account for the amount of time a given car is on the road, or age, or anything else. A good statistic to compare, which there is no way to get, would be rate of fires per car miles driven. Teslas have limited range and on average don't drive that far by comparison. They haven't been around very long either. While the average age of a Tesla is probably about one year, the average age of a gas car is likely to be greater than five years or more. I would gather average miles driven per gas car is many times that of Teslas.
So given those important statistical considerations, my "town of 20,000" makes a lot more sense, as it assumes >20,000 cars and at least equalizes the time, while miles driven is still a tilt that doesn't help Tesla's case.
I didn't even bring in to the discussion the fact that many gas car fires are in older cars due to mechanical failure. If you looked at the rate of fires for cars under 3 years old, I bet the numbers would not be so rosy for the Tesla either.
Looks like there are less than 20,000 tesla s out there. I don't know what the rate of fires is for gas cars, but if you take a town of 20,000 people, you are not likely to see 3 gas car fires in 2 years. They happen but are pretty rare.
Car fires rarely result in injury, as passengers have time to get out in almost all cases, be it electric or gas. But given the relatively small number of Teslas on the roads, this is a lot of fires. You don't see gas car fires with anything near that frequency, so it is a big deal if they don't make changes to reduce the chances of fire further. People are going to hesitate to buy the car, and insurance will skyrocket.
I just wonder how they will maintain security protocols with all these different entities they are bringing in last minute to the help fix the code. If they screw up and don't protect user information, things will get a lot worse.
A possible unintended consequence of this approach could be that future peda-wannabees could claim they believed they were talking to a virtual victim and not a real one, even if the potential victim is real.Basically, a game to see if they could pick out the virtual being. They would, of course, want to verify they are really talking to a virtual victim, thus the reason for a visit. Who could prove it wasn't just a game?
The article talks about fuel cells at the data center, server, and rack levels. At the center level, this can be done today, and I guess the researchers didn't mention Bloom box. At the server and rack level, I do agree with you that heat may be a a problem.
You might want to read one particular line in that product link which reads....."Assuming a 50% future cost reduction........"
Sorry, I forgot to clarify...ready for "cost effective and practical" deployment "for this type of use case". I just figured those parts would be obvious. But those that claim Fuel Cells are ready for mass adoption don't like to talk about those qualifiers in any kind of detail.
You have to admit that at least part of your skepticism is based on the messenger, not just the message.
No, my entire skepticism is based entirely on the content of the article, not the messenger. I will admit I am naturally skeptical of any claims for fuel cells as an economical solution for power supply where normal means already suffice because I have researched them for several uses and I monitor their progress. Change location to an isolated island, that would be a bit different.
There's really nothing new wrt Hydrogen production. Methane reforming and high temperature electrolysis are the methods for bulk production. Both require a lot of energy. The DOE had at one time been working on Very High Temperature Gas Reactors (VHTR) for the purpose of supplying high enough temperature process heat to make the conversion reasonably efficient, but industry interest has not been strong enough to keep it going.
Give me a call when those fuel cells are ready for deployment, then we can talk about all these wonderful uses. No talk about the carbon footprint of operating fuel cells?
The article mixes the use of fuel cells as a power source with efficiency improvements. The only place that makes sense is with the minor savings that may be seen by eliminating DC converters, but you will still need DC regulators which will have some losses.
A major oversight of this article is the fact that fuel cells are major heat generators, not something you want in a data center. They would need to be installed in a separated structure, therefore idea that "Rack-level fuel cells would do away with data-centre-wide electricity distribution for servers" is hard to imagine.
Helium also has the added advantage in that it is better than many other gases at transferring heat, something evidently overlooked in the article. A vacuum would minimize heat transfer to the case.
This statement is false. Nuclear power plants are the most reliable form of electrical generation we have. Maybe you just didn't check on that. They operate at extremely high capacity factors compared to every other source (except possibly Hydro). There could be some debate regarding cost, even though nuclear is low cost compared to other forms except for Nat Gas, which right now is cheaper than anything else.
On the other hand, wind and solar are the two most unreliable forms of energy production, as they are not available whenever you need the energy. And to understand reasons why solar can't scale up, you have to understand the problems that unreliability causes at the grid level and the cost of dealing with it. Just because you can build solar fast doesn't mean it is scalable. Our power grid is reliable now because of fossil and nuclear. Our power is low cost right now because of fossil and nuclear.
I have been considering using BTSync for backup. Maybe setting up a drive at my Mom's house, and backup critical data. Its good to hear that has worked for you.
All those costs are certainly included in the subsidy
What specifically, are you talking about when you say "the subsidy"? There is no subsidy that covers all those costs described. Any federal assistance to the nuclear industry is mostly covered by fees. Any "tax' money used for nuclear pales in comparison to the tax revenues generated by the industry. Please explain exactly what subsidies you are referring to.
"potential to kill millions" is irrational fear. Even in the worst events that have occurred, we have seen nothing of the sort. Fear should not drive the debate, facts should.
Nuclear isn't cheap, it just moves much of the cost from people's energy bills into general taxation. The government pays for insurance since no commercial insurance company would every fully insure a nuclear plant. Then you have waste disposal, security and so forth.
Nobody can get obscenely rich from renewable easy to produce energy, therefore it is not, nor will ever be practical.
Except Al Gore, of course (kidding).
But seriously, lower cost, easier to produce, reliable and clean energy that can scale up is a combination that would make you very rich if you could devise such a thing. Meanwhile, there are people today making big money off of wind and solar. It is popular, relatively easy to build or install, and is highly incentivized, making it a great place to 'make a killing' if you know how to do it.
Nuclear is very expensive to build, but overall cost including fuel, waste, O&M and regulation is very competitive. You can look at states or countries....power prices are lower where there is nuclear baseload. There is a marginal profit line today though, as natural gas has eroded that in recent years. Nat Gas is very low cost today, and the gas companies will keep it low until their is a greater dependency.
Yes, you are right, I was in error. Another thing missed in the discussion is that solar PV averages about 4 "full sun" hours a day. In an eight hour period, I would guess you would get, at a maximum, about 3.5 effective full sun hours in a normal 8 hour workday. That accounts for the fact that the cells are not producing at 100% the entire time. It varies location to location, and time of year as well. That can be factored into either the power/area or the hours. In other words, 100 w/m2 * 3.5 effective full sun hours (or whatever numbers you prefer). It is certainly more than I gave credit for. Thanks for the correction.
I don't disagree with your point, but it depends on the purpose of the test. If low scores are all due to poor questions then it needs to be fixed. If its simply just harder then the other tests, then what is the benefit of making it easier just to raise the scores. Results of standardized testing of 6 year olds does not need to be shared with the kids to start with. I should be used to track, trend, and improve the instruction. If used that way, it does not matter where the bell curve of results peaks. Ideally, you might want it to peak about 50%.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a quick way of getting a read on the situation. It gives a reasonably comparable sample size and accounts for time. We are not likely to get a fire rate per mile for gas cars under 3 years old, which would be the best statistic to compare, but if you have a suggestion please supply....
But that comment doesn't account for the amount of time a given car is on the road, or age, or anything else. A good statistic to compare, which there is no way to get, would be rate of fires per car miles driven. Teslas have limited range and on average don't drive that far by comparison. They haven't been around very long either. While the average age of a Tesla is probably about one year, the average age of a gas car is likely to be greater than five years or more. I would gather average miles driven per gas car is many times that of Teslas.
So given those important statistical considerations, my "town of 20,000" makes a lot more sense, as it assumes >20,000 cars and at least equalizes the time, while miles driven is still a tilt that doesn't help Tesla's case.
I didn't even bring in to the discussion the fact that many gas car fires are in older cars due to mechanical failure. If you looked at the rate of fires for cars under 3 years old, I bet the numbers would not be so rosy for the Tesla either.
Looks like there are less than 20,000 tesla s out there. I don't know what the rate of fires is for gas cars, but if you take a town of 20,000 people, you are not likely to see 3 gas car fires in 2 years. They happen but are pretty rare.
Car fires rarely result in injury, as passengers have time to get out in almost all cases, be it electric or gas. But given the relatively small number of Teslas on the roads, this is a lot of fires. You don't see gas car fires with anything near that frequency, so it is a big deal if they don't make changes to reduce the chances of fire further. People are going to hesitate to buy the car, and insurance will skyrocket.
I just wonder how they will maintain security protocols with all these different entities they are bringing in last minute to the help fix the code. If they screw up and don't protect user information, things will get a lot worse.
Title should have read: "Disabled apps are disabled."
Android vs IOS debate in 3.....2.......
Will I need to run an anti-virus tool on my car?
You're life will depend on Norton Antivirus.....no reason to worry.
Is there any data that correlates an increase in protest effectiveness with # of arrests? I have my doubts in makes any difference these days.
A possible unintended consequence of this approach could be that future peda-wannabees could claim they believed they were talking to a virtual victim and not a real one, even if the potential victim is real.Basically, a game to see if they could pick out the virtual being. They would, of course, want to verify they are really talking to a virtual victim, thus the reason for a visit. Who could prove it wasn't just a game?
You've pumped oil out from under the ground. That leaves a big ass hole. Perhaps the hole is changing shape because it is no longer supported?
That is the purpose of pumping gas back in to the big ass-hole
The article talks about fuel cells at the data center, server, and rack levels. At the center level, this can be done today, and I guess the researchers didn't mention Bloom box. At the server and rack level, I do agree with you that heat may be a a problem.
You might want to read one particular line in that product link which reads....."Assuming a 50% future cost reduction........"
Sorry, I forgot to clarify...ready for "cost effective and practical" deployment "for this type of use case". I just figured those parts would be obvious. But those that claim Fuel Cells are ready for mass adoption don't like to talk about those qualifiers in any kind of detail.
You have to admit that at least part of your skepticism is based on the messenger, not just the message.
No, my entire skepticism is based entirely on the content of the article, not the messenger. I will admit I am naturally skeptical of any claims for fuel cells as an economical solution for power supply where normal means already suffice because I have researched them for several uses and I monitor their progress. Change location to an isolated island, that would be a bit different.
There's really nothing new wrt Hydrogen production. Methane reforming and high temperature electrolysis are the methods for bulk production. Both require a lot of energy. The DOE had at one time been working on Very High Temperature Gas Reactors (VHTR) for the purpose of supplying high enough temperature process heat to make the conversion reasonably efficient, but industry interest has not been strong enough to keep it going.
Give me a call when those fuel cells are ready for deployment, then we can talk about all these wonderful uses. No talk about the carbon footprint of operating fuel cells?
The article mixes the use of fuel cells as a power source with efficiency improvements. The only place that makes sense is with the minor savings that may be seen by eliminating DC converters, but you will still need DC regulators which will have some losses.
A major oversight of this article is the fact that fuel cells are major heat generators, not something you want in a data center. They would need to be installed in a separated structure, therefore idea that "Rack-level fuel cells would do away with data-centre-wide electricity distribution for servers" is hard to imagine.
Helium also has the added advantage in that it is better than many other gases at transferring heat, something evidently overlooked in the article. A vacuum would minimize heat transfer to the case.
Awesome...that encryption is a must for me. I'll keep my eye on that. Thanks again.
But nuclear power is neither cheap nor reliable. .
This statement is false. Nuclear power plants are the most reliable form of electrical generation we have. Maybe you just didn't check on that. They operate at extremely high capacity factors compared to every other source (except possibly Hydro). There could be some debate regarding cost, even though nuclear is low cost compared to other forms except for Nat Gas, which right now is cheaper than anything else.
On the other hand, wind and solar are the two most unreliable forms of energy production, as they are not available whenever you need the energy. And to understand reasons why solar can't scale up, you have to understand the problems that unreliability causes at the grid level and the cost of dealing with it. Just because you can build solar fast doesn't mean it is scalable. Our power grid is reliable now because of fossil and nuclear. Our power is low cost right now because of fossil and nuclear.
I have been considering using BTSync for backup. Maybe setting up a drive at my Mom's house, and backup critical data. Its good to hear that has worked for you.
All those costs are certainly included in the subsidy
What specifically, are you talking about when you say "the subsidy"? There is no subsidy that covers all those costs described. Any federal assistance to the nuclear industry is mostly covered by fees. Any "tax' money used for nuclear pales in comparison to the tax revenues generated by the industry. Please explain exactly what subsidies you are referring to.
"potential to kill millions" is irrational fear. Even in the worst events that have occurred, we have seen nothing of the sort. Fear should not drive the debate, facts should.
Nuclear isn't cheap, it just moves much of the cost from people's energy bills into general taxation. The government pays for insurance since no commercial insurance company would every fully insure a nuclear plant. Then you have waste disposal, security and so forth.
All those costs are certainly included.
Nobody can get obscenely rich from renewable easy to produce energy, therefore it is not, nor will ever be practical.
Except Al Gore, of course (kidding). But seriously, lower cost, easier to produce, reliable and clean energy that can scale up is a combination that would make you very rich if you could devise such a thing. Meanwhile, there are people today making big money off of wind and solar. It is popular, relatively easy to build or install, and is highly incentivized, making it a great place to 'make a killing' if you know how to do it.
Nuclear is very expensive to build, but overall cost including fuel, waste, O&M and regulation is very competitive. You can look at states or countries....power prices are lower where there is nuclear baseload. There is a marginal profit line today though, as natural gas has eroded that in recent years. Nat Gas is very low cost today, and the gas companies will keep it low until their is a greater dependency.
Yes, you are right, I was in error. Another thing missed in the discussion is that solar PV averages about 4 "full sun" hours a day. In an eight hour period, I would guess you would get, at a maximum, about 3.5 effective full sun hours in a normal 8 hour workday. That accounts for the fact that the cells are not producing at 100% the entire time. It varies location to location, and time of year as well. That can be factored into either the power/area or the hours. In other words, 100 w/m2 * 3.5 effective full sun hours (or whatever numbers you prefer). It is certainly more than I gave credit for. Thanks for the correction.
I don't disagree with your point, but it depends on the purpose of the test. If low scores are all due to poor questions then it needs to be fixed. If its simply just harder then the other tests, then what is the benefit of making it easier just to raise the scores. Results of standardized testing of 6 year olds does not need to be shared with the kids to start with. I should be used to track, trend, and improve the instruction. If used that way, it does not matter where the bell curve of results peaks. Ideally, you might want it to peak about 50%.