After a few months, however, McKinstry abandoned the bot, insisting that the premise of the test was flawed. He developed an alternative yardstick for AI, which he called the Minimum Intelligent Signal Test. The idea was to limit human-computer dialog to questions that required yes/no answers. (Is Earth round? Is the sky blue?) If a machine could correctly answer as many questions as a human, then that machine was intelligent. "Intelligence didn't depend on the bandwidth of the communication channel; intelligence could be communicated with one bit!" he later wrote.
According to that criteria, a dead-tree book is "intelligent."
Intelligence requires the ability to answer "yes" or "no". Sometimes, the intelligent answer is "maybe". Sometimes, its "I don't know." And, ironically, sometimes, its "fuck off and die."
Classic example of a question that can't be properly answered by a yes or no: "Do you still beat your wife?" Intelligence goes beyond simple logic.
If the supplier thinks WalMart is overcharging, and that the tag should only cost 20 cents, they can always do it themselves.
If, on the other hand, their cost to do it would be $5.00, why not let WalMart ding them for $2.00?
Look, WallyWorld is not my favourite store, since I'm pretty much boycotting the crap that comes out of China nowadays, and I still insist on standing in line at the grocery store to talk to a HUMAN rather than use the self-checkout machines, but rfid tags on palettes makes sense, if only from a worker safety point of view. No more need to get a jigger and move a palette to find the bill under layers of stretch-wrap, dig it out, re-wrap it, and put it back where it was. If you;re in a hurry (and who isn't) you tend to take short-cuts. Squeeze into a tight spot. Sit on the battery pack and ride the jigger around instead of walking behind it (fun to do, but taking the corners too fast is a bit of a bitch, and n00bs always end up running into something - usually a palette of something breakable or another worker).
Board Games. Monopoly, Risk, Scrabble, etc. All trademark (not copyright) protected.
Video Games. All protected by copyright and trademark
Books. Copyrighted.
All brand name products, from electronics to food to motor oil to running shoes.
None of these are fungible. Ask any parent whose kid insists on Nike or Captain Crunch. Or any car owner who insists on Valvoline. Or EVERYONE who wants a Wii.
Advantageous genes will tend to become dominant. Disadvantageous genes will either be removed from the gene pool, or be recessive, so that it would take one from each parent for the disadvantageous gene to express itself.
That mechanism alone is sufficient to explain why advantageous genes are "preferentially" passed on.
Pass along too many disadvantageous genes, and your descendants can't compete, and are removed from the gene pool - so after enough generations, we would only see those populations that had passed along mostly advantageous genes.
The initial population had some groups with many more disadvantageous genes. They're gone. The "feed stock" or gene pool that is left, is better. Previously, there were also portions of the population that "preferentially" passed on the crap genes - random combinations of genes would do this, as well as explain why they disappear over generations, leaving only the "preferrance to good genes."
When the environment changes, some of those recessive genes, as well as some random mutations, will be more beneficial than the current "preferred genes". They will, over generations, become the new "preferred genes", as those who don't have them can't compete as well for the same resources.
We have to be careful about anthropomorphizing what we're looking at. "Preference" isn't the same as what we generally use the term.
Also, some genetics is counter-intuitive. A good example is stupidity, which is actually a survival trait (which is the real explanation why stupidity isn't bred out of humans - it has value in enabling the bearers of the "stupid" genes to laive long enough to pass on their genes). People who are less curious aren't going to explore as much, try new things, etc., so they end up taking fewer risks, or the risks they take are the same ones everyone else who is similarly stupid|dull|whatever takes, and mostly survivies. They won't be flying a kite during a thunderstorm to see what lightning is made of. They won't think to eat that funny-looking animal, until they see someone else do it. So human breeding has a preference for stupidity and unoriginality. Its a survival trait for the species (if you're skeptical, just look at how people pair up/choose their mates, or look at how almost everyone insists on following fashion trends - being "original" by copying the latest:-)
This doesn't mean that stupidity is an unalloyed good thing. It just means that, if it doesn't interfere with people getting to the point of passing their genes onto the next generation, it won't be selected out of the population. Look at how stupidity abounds - how people *know* they're being stupid, and can't stop. They smoke. They over-eat. They use Windows, then curse their computer, then buy another one with Windows (the defintion of stupidity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results:-). The *sort of* elect Bush - twice! They drive too fast, they drive too slow, they drive when it would take less time to walk than it does to get in the car, drive to the corner store, and maneuver into the cramped parking lot - then they curse how hard it is to park... again.
They get caught up in "bubble mentality" - the internet stock bubble, the current housing fraud bubble. Everyone else is doing it, so they should too, because imitating others is *safe*. Until it isn't. When the environment changes (physical or financial), that *safe* behaviour becomes toxic, and the minority who didn't mimic become much more competitive, much more able to survive (funny how financial systems imitate biological ones).
Anyway, I've got some code to write - gotta help rid the world of lawyers.
Imagine trying to watch "Top Gun" in your DVD player...
Maverick (Tom Cruise): "Eject eject eject!"... (*bzzzzt* disk pops out of player).
Or "Law and Order"
Cop on TV: "Stop!" (*click* - TV turns off)
Victim on TV: "He shot her! Call 911!" (*beep beep beep* - your phone dials 911, reports a shooting, SWAT team shows up at your door, taser you just because!)
Or a political broadcast:
Candidate on TV: "Vote for Me"
Your computer: "I have just registered your vote for (insert candidate on TV) as per your order"
I don't want my computer, my car, my fridge, my washer, my microwave, my lights, tv, dvd, or any other device eavesdropping on me. They can all go...())@*(& NO CARRIER
"Except that according to the arcticle, individual organisms do have a "preference" for passing on advantageous traits over disadvantageous traits."
Not quite. Starting with a population where there is a random distribution of traits, you would expect that eventually, those that are more successful would tend to "breed true", for the simple reason that those that didn't would tend to be less successful at passing on their traits overall. Also, since they no longer have the entire distribution of traits in their sub-select of the gene pool, they would tend to breed in a more limited fashion. Its why breeding a newfie with another newfie gives you newfie puppies, and not something else. Genes can only pass on their own contents.
To say that something is deterministic just means that we can predict the outcome, same as we can predict that breeding 2 newfies won't give rise to a chihuaua, and certainly not a chicken.
Look at humans. If both have only the recessive genes for blue eyes, the kids will have blue eyes. If you had an island where everyone had only the recessive genes, you're not going to expect a random distribution of eye color. The eye color for the population is therefore deterministic. There is NO randomness, outside of mutation.
Perhaps we can take an example from the current economic crisis. We could say that homeowners who bought during the housing bubble have a "definite preference" for foreclosure. It doesn't mean they want to be foreclosed on, just that its pretty much inevitable for between 2 and 6 million families over the next 2 years. They can't "dip into" home equity that isn't there to refinance, just as animals can't pass on genes they don't have.
The unfortunate use of "preference" in the article had nothing to do with any sort of decision-making - it just described the mechanism of what happens as genes are culled from the pool. Increased complexity requires this culling. An example of that is the cat's brain. 2/3 of the brain cells are destroyed as the cat matures. This way, what is left is able to function as an adult cat, rather than being a mish-mash of unordered random cells, the same way that a book makes more sense than a billion randomly thrown together letters. Sometimes, less really is more.
"evolution is not a random process, but rather occurs through the natural selection of successful traits". Like I said, how would you expect succeeding generations to compete if they inherit unsuccessful traits? The natural tendancy is for those parts of the populations that have more successful traits to outbreed the rest, with their genes becoming the largest portion of the gene pool, until the least successful just disappear because their hosts don't live long enough to breed, since they can no longer compete.
"where did this advantageous trait of preferentially passing on advantageous traits arises"
You misunderstand the nature of natural selection.
Individual organisms don't have a "preference" for passing on advantageous traits over disadvantageous traits - they can only pass on those traits they have. If those traits are disadvantageous to the next generation, the next generation is less competitive.
Traits that are neutral may or may not be passed on. Traits that are disadvantageous mean that the host organism is less able to compete. When there are limits on resources (and there are ALWAYS limits), the less competitive are the ones that starve.
Again, the individual organisms don't "decide" what traits to pass on - the egg and sperm pass on what they have. The only decision is in the mating process, and we all know how much of a random crap-shoot that is.
Its because it IS random that advantageous combinations of genes can come about. Their hosts offspring will be better able to compete, but there is no "preference" by the organism to pass on good genes as opposed to bad genes - it only passes on the genes it has.
Most lawyers will be obsolete within 20 years. Why pay a lawyer to do shit that you can do yourself with a bit of research? Before the web, people couldn't easily do that research, so they ended up paying big bucks for what, in many cases, is filing paperwork and making the same arguments over and over.
There was a recent article (either Asimov's or Analog) about how some members of the SFWA feel threatened because other writers are publishing on-line, and even giving their stories away for free, to "prime the pump" for their later works. Heck, even SFWA is giving away sample stories.
The internet really is changing the way people do business. I want dead trees. I *like* dead trees. However, if someone says "check out this person's work on the net", maybe I'll read it. And then maybe there'll be a list of other stuff available only in dead-tree format. And maybe I'll want some of it.
" with the main mechanism for the development favoring a natural selection of successful traits,"
Like anyone would expect the development favoring a netural selection of unsuccessful traits?
Any mechanism that favoured the selection of unsuccessful traits would be selected out of the population pretty quickly, but people who insist on believing in ID or the creation myth don't see that, just like they don't see the opposite must be true - successful traits HAVE to be selected.
Amazon approaches the publishers, tells them they have to give a 70% to 90% discount over all other sales, or they won't list any titles from that publisher at all. They also require complete access to the accounting records, to make sure the price amazon gets is at least 70% less than the next most discounted distributor.
The publishers can take it or leave it, but with book sales being almost completely driven by amazon these days, to not take it means people on the internet will never see your book unless they visit B&M stores. Amazon then only buys books that are popular, and ignores all the lesser titles unless they get a special order. That is why for many less popular books, there is a 7 to 10 week lead time, amazon has a large delay for most titles.
Books are not interchangeable. The publisher IS free to say "Sorry, we're giving you the same deal we give everyone else." Of course, this begs the question, "Do you really need a publisher?" Eventually, companies like Amazon will sign up authors directly, and go into print-on-demand and eBooks in a big way.
Of course, then we're going to see real competition, as authors will be able to say "Hey, why don't I just sell eBooks direct, and if someone wants a dead tree copy, I'll offer it via a (gasp) publisher?" Expect t see RadioHead-style direct deals from the bigger-name authors, completely cuttng out the middle man.
"The idea is to protect the small bookstores. By having the same price everywhere small bookstore can compete against big business and offer diversity in book offer and not only the 200 most sold books."
Which doesn't make sense. Let the big chains stock the big names at no profit. Let the small guy charge full price for the low-volume titles that the big chains can't carry because, even at full price, there's not enough volume. Everyone (including the consumer) wins.
Find a niche and fill it. Otherwise, you don't have a "right" to succeed, or be propped up by artificial pricing.
Up here, they're free, but I never got one, and never will, even though I'm supposedly in a "higher-risk" group (type 1 diabetes).
I mentioned this to a nurse at the local clinic, and she said she'd never get one either.
Theres a link between repeated vaccinations and arthritis and other auto-immune diseases in dogs. I'm not willing to find out that the same is true for humans. Apparently, repeated introduction of foreign bodies in "non-normal" ways (like breathing or ingestion) can confuse the immune systems ability to tell self from non-self.
Sp wash your hands, leave a window open to get fresh air, don't hang around smokers (the smoke condensate makes a great way for viral particles to "hitch a ride"), if you feel sick, stay home instead of spreading it around, don't share computer keyboards, mice, phones, etc. Avoid "anti-bacterial" cleaners - you'll depress your immune system if it isn't "challenged" often enough (see the stats on kids who grow up with dogs having less asthma than those who don't).
And while we're at it, will you all please STOP PICKING YOUR NOSES!!! Just because you're in your car doesn't mean we can't see you "going for the (nose) gold". And no, I don't want to know what you do with your McNoseNuggets.
TFA says it *might* say you "up to $10/year" on electricity.
In other words, YMMV, etc.
So lets look at REAL figures.
I'll save 4 watts per drive on my 4-drive home box.
16*24*365/1000 = 140 kw/hours.
@ 7 cents/kwh, I'll save a grand total $9.80 for 4 drives, or less than $2.50/drive.
That's if I run it 24 hours/day.
Most likely consumer-use scenario is less than a buck a year. I'll leave my drives spun up at full speed all the time, thank you. Easier to save a LOT more money just by turning off the lights and monitor when I leave for the office.
" requires that phones let a caller know a 911 call is underway, but does not require an audible alarm."
So now don't bother trying to call 911 the next time there's a school massacre - you'll just be targetting yourself and earning bonus points for your Darwin Award. Fucktards strike again.
"I don't see any kids playing in the streets, ever, republican or otherwise.
What are the causes behind this?"
Video games, every kid having their own computer, dvd, etc. Being "sent to your room" is no longer punishment - the real task is to get them to come out except for meals.
Most of them also have a "limp-home" mode, for when things go dead. Its not like the laws of physics (including how diesel engines work) suddenly get suspended. It can be damned HARD to shut off a diesel engine. For example, if the oil seal splits on the turbo and engine oil gets fed into the engine intake - it'll burn, and pulling the manual fuel shut-off won't do squat. I know because I had that happen to me on a Case 780. Couldn't even stall the engine.
Want some "real fun"? Go by an idling diesel and spray a can of quick-start (ether) at the air intake. You can get it to over-rev.
Slashdot Mirror
The basic premise is flawed.
According to that criteria, a dead-tree book is "intelligent."
Intelligence requires the ability to answer "yes" or "no". Sometimes, the intelligent answer is "maybe". Sometimes, its "I don't know." And, ironically, sometimes, its "fuck off and die."
Classic example of a question that can't be properly answered by a yes or no: "Do you still beat your wife?" Intelligence goes beyond simple logic.
... and we're coming for you next.
If the supplier thinks WalMart is overcharging, and that the tag should only cost 20 cents, they can always do it themselves.
If, on the other hand, their cost to do it would be $5.00, why not let WalMart ding them for $2.00?
Look, WallyWorld is not my favourite store, since I'm pretty much boycotting the crap that comes out of China nowadays, and I still insist on standing in line at the grocery store to talk to a HUMAN rather than use the self-checkout machines, but rfid tags on palettes makes sense, if only from a worker safety point of view. No more need to get a jigger and move a palette to find the bill under layers of stretch-wrap, dig it out, re-wrap it, and put it back where it was. If you;re in a hurry (and who isn't) you tend to take short-cuts. Squeeze into a tight spot. Sit on the battery pack and ride the jigger around instead of walking behind it (fun to do, but taking the corners too fast is a bit of a bitch, and n00bs always end up running into something - usually a palette of something breakable or another worker).
Board Games. Monopoly, Risk, Scrabble, etc. All trademark (not copyright) protected.
Video Games. All protected by copyright and trademark
Books. Copyrighted.
All brand name products, from electronics to food to motor oil to running shoes.
None of these are fungible. Ask any parent whose kid insists on Nike or Captain Crunch. Or any car owner who insists on Valvoline. Or EVERYONE who wants a Wii.
Lets try again.
Advantageous genes will tend to become dominant. Disadvantageous genes will either be removed from the gene pool, or be recessive, so that it would take one from each parent for the disadvantageous gene to express itself.
That mechanism alone is sufficient to explain why advantageous genes are "preferentially" passed on.
Pass along too many disadvantageous genes, and your descendants can't compete, and are removed from the gene pool - so after enough generations, we would only see those populations that had passed along mostly advantageous genes.
The initial population had some groups with many more disadvantageous genes. They're gone. The "feed stock" or gene pool that is left, is better. Previously, there were also portions of the population that "preferentially" passed on the crap genes - random combinations of genes would do this, as well as explain why they disappear over generations, leaving only the "preferrance to good genes."
When the environment changes, some of those recessive genes, as well as some random mutations, will be more beneficial than the current "preferred genes". They will, over generations, become the new "preferred genes", as those who don't have them can't compete as well for the same resources.
We have to be careful about anthropomorphizing what we're looking at. "Preference" isn't the same as what we generally use the term.
Also, some genetics is counter-intuitive. A good example is stupidity, which is actually a survival trait (which is the real explanation why stupidity isn't bred out of humans - it has value in enabling the bearers of the "stupid" genes to laive long enough to pass on their genes). People who are less curious aren't going to explore as much, try new things, etc., so they end up taking fewer risks, or the risks they take are the same ones everyone else who is similarly stupid|dull|whatever takes, and mostly survivies. They won't be flying a kite during a thunderstorm to see what lightning is made of. They won't think to eat that funny-looking animal, until they see someone else do it. So human breeding has a preference for stupidity and unoriginality. Its a survival trait for the species (if you're skeptical, just look at how people pair up/choose their mates, or look at how almost everyone insists on following fashion trends - being "original" by copying the latest :-)
This doesn't mean that stupidity is an unalloyed good thing. It just means that, if it doesn't interfere with people getting to the point of passing their genes onto the next generation, it won't be selected out of the population. Look at how stupidity abounds - how people *know* they're being stupid, and can't stop. They smoke. They over-eat. They use Windows, then curse their computer, then buy another one with Windows (the defintion of stupidity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results :-). The *sort of* elect Bush - twice! They drive too fast, they drive too slow, they drive when it would take less time to walk than it does to get in the car, drive to the corner store, and maneuver into the cramped parking lot - then they curse how hard it is to park ... again.
They get caught up in "bubble mentality" - the internet stock bubble, the current housing fraud bubble. Everyone else is doing it, so they should too, because imitating others is *safe*. Until it isn't. When the environment changes (physical or financial), that *safe* behaviour becomes toxic, and the minority who didn't mimic become much more competitive, much more able to survive (funny how financial systems imitate biological ones).
Anyway, I've got some code to write - gotta help rid the world of lawyers.
Imagine trying to watch "Top Gun" in your DVD player ...
Maverick (Tom Cruise): "Eject eject eject!" ... (*bzzzzt* disk pops out of player).
Or "Law and Order"
Cop on TV: "Stop!" (*click* - TV turns off)
Victim on TV: "He shot her! Call 911!" (*beep beep beep* - your phone dials 911, reports a shooting, SWAT team shows up at your door, taser you just because!)
Or a political broadcast:
Candidate on TV: "Vote for Me"
Your computer: "I have just registered your vote for (insert candidate on TV) as per your order"
I don't want my computer, my car, my fridge, my washer, my microwave, my lights, tv, dvd, or any other device eavesdropping on me. They can all go ...())@*(& NO CARRIER
"Except that according to the arcticle, individual organisms do have a "preference" for passing on advantageous traits over disadvantageous traits."
Not quite. Starting with a population where there is a random distribution of traits, you would expect that eventually, those that are more successful would tend to "breed true", for the simple reason that those that didn't would tend to be less successful at passing on their traits overall. Also, since they no longer have the entire distribution of traits in their sub-select of the gene pool, they would tend to breed in a more limited fashion. Its why breeding a newfie with another newfie gives you newfie puppies, and not something else. Genes can only pass on their own contents.
To say that something is deterministic just means that we can predict the outcome, same as we can predict that breeding 2 newfies won't give rise to a chihuaua, and certainly not a chicken.
Look at humans. If both have only the recessive genes for blue eyes, the kids will have blue eyes. If you had an island where everyone had only the recessive genes, you're not going to expect a random distribution of eye color. The eye color for the population is therefore deterministic. There is NO randomness, outside of mutation.
Perhaps we can take an example from the current economic crisis. We could say that homeowners who bought during the housing bubble have a "definite preference" for foreclosure. It doesn't mean they want to be foreclosed on, just that its pretty much inevitable for between 2 and 6 million families over the next 2 years. They can't "dip into" home equity that isn't there to refinance, just as animals can't pass on genes they don't have.
The unfortunate use of "preference" in the article had nothing to do with any sort of decision-making - it just described the mechanism of what happens as genes are culled from the pool. Increased complexity requires this culling. An example of that is the cat's brain. 2/3 of the brain cells are destroyed as the cat matures. This way, what is left is able to function as an adult cat, rather than being a mish-mash of unordered random cells, the same way that a book makes more sense than a billion randomly thrown together letters. Sometimes, less really is more.
"evolution is not a random process, but rather occurs through the natural selection of successful traits". Like I said, how would you expect succeeding generations to compete if they inherit unsuccessful traits? The natural tendancy is for those parts of the populations that have more successful traits to outbreed the rest, with their genes becoming the largest portion of the gene pool, until the least successful just disappear because their hosts don't live long enough to breed, since they can no longer compete.
... no more lip reading for them.
"where did this advantageous trait of preferentially passing on advantageous traits arises"
You misunderstand the nature of natural selection.
Individual organisms don't have a "preference" for passing on advantageous traits over disadvantageous traits - they can only pass on those traits they have. If those traits are disadvantageous to the next generation, the next generation is less competitive.
Traits that are neutral may or may not be passed on. Traits that are disadvantageous mean that the host organism is less able to compete. When there are limits on resources (and there are ALWAYS limits), the less competitive are the ones that starve.
Again, the individual organisms don't "decide" what traits to pass on - the egg and sperm pass on what they have. The only decision is in the mating process, and we all know how much of a random crap-shoot that is.
Its because it IS random that advantageous combinations of genes can come about. Their hosts offspring will be better able to compete, but there is no "preference" by the organism to pass on good genes as opposed to bad genes - it only passes on the genes it has.
Or 4 x 1TB hard drives ($180 ea) gives you $720, so throw in $10 to boot the os off a usb key.
Cheap linux box? Well, you don't need to supply a monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, or even much ram - you do the math.
Your story sounds interesting. Maybe we can post it here. Read this for more info. Thanks.
- He's a lawyer
- Lawyers are people (well, sort of).
- Many people can be dumb as sacks of shit.
- Ergo, many lawyers are dumb sacks of shit.
Most lawyers will be obsolete within 20 years. Why pay a lawyer to do shit that you can do yourself with a bit of research? Before the web, people couldn't easily do that research, so they ended up paying big bucks for what, in many cases, is filing paperwork and making the same arguments over and over.There was a recent article (either Asimov's or Analog) about how some members of the SFWA feel threatened because other writers are publishing on-line, and even giving their stories away for free, to "prime the pump" for their later works. Heck, even SFWA is giving away sample stories.
The internet really is changing the way people do business. I want dead trees. I *like* dead trees. However, if someone says "check out this person's work on the net", maybe I'll read it. And then maybe there'll be a list of other stuff available only in dead-tree format. And maybe I'll want some of it.
Like anyone would expect the development favoring a netural selection of unsuccessful traits?
Any mechanism that favoured the selection of unsuccessful traits would be selected out of the population pretty quickly, but people who insist on believing in ID or the creation myth don't see that, just like they don't see the opposite must be true - successful traits HAVE to be selected.
Books are not interchangeable. The publisher IS free to say "Sorry, we're giving you the same deal we give everyone else." Of course, this begs the question, "Do you really need a publisher?" Eventually, companies like Amazon will sign up authors directly, and go into print-on-demand and eBooks in a big way.
Of course, then we're going to see real competition, as authors will be able to say "Hey, why don't I just sell eBooks direct, and if someone wants a dead tree copy, I'll offer it via a (gasp) publisher?" Expect t see RadioHead-style direct deals from the bigger-name authors, completely cuttng out the middle man.
The internet is a truly disruptive technology.
"The idea is to protect the small bookstores. By having the same price everywhere small bookstore can compete against big business and offer diversity in book offer and not only the 200 most sold books."
Which doesn't make sense. Let the big chains stock the big names at no profit. Let the small guy charge full price for the low-volume titles that the big chains can't carry because, even at full price, there's not enough volume. Everyone (including the consumer) wins.
Find a niche and fill it. Otherwise, you don't have a "right" to succeed, or be propped up by artificial pricing.
Up here, they're free, but I never got one, and never will, even though I'm supposedly in a "higher-risk" group (type 1 diabetes).
I mentioned this to a nurse at the local clinic, and she said she'd never get one either.
Theres a link between repeated vaccinations and arthritis and other auto-immune diseases in dogs. I'm not willing to find out that the same is true for humans. Apparently, repeated introduction of foreign bodies in "non-normal" ways (like breathing or ingestion) can confuse the immune systems ability to tell self from non-self.
Sp wash your hands, leave a window open to get fresh air, don't hang around smokers (the smoke condensate makes a great way for viral particles to "hitch a ride"), if you feel sick, stay home instead of spreading it around, don't share computer keyboards, mice, phones, etc. Avoid "anti-bacterial" cleaners - you'll depress your immune system if it isn't "challenged" often enough (see the stats on kids who grow up with dogs having less asthma than those who don't).
And while we're at it, will you all please STOP PICKING YOUR NOSES!!! Just because you're in your car doesn't mean we can't see you "going for the (nose) gold". And no, I don't want to know what you do with your McNoseNuggets.
TFA says it *might* say you "up to $10/year" on electricity.
In other words, YMMV, etc.
So lets look at REAL figures.
I'll save 4 watts per drive on my 4-drive home box. 16*24*365/1000 = 140 kw/hours.
@ 7 cents/kwh, I'll save a grand total $9.80 for 4 drives, or less than $2.50/drive.
That's if I run it 24 hours/day.
Most likely consumer-use scenario is less than a buck a year. I'll leave my drives spun up at full speed all the time, thank you. Easier to save a LOT more money just by turning off the lights and monitor when I leave for the office.
" requires that phones let a caller know a 911 call is underway, but does not require an audible alarm."
So now don't bother trying to call 911 the next time there's a school massacre - you'll just be targetting yourself and earning bonus points for your Darwin Award. Fucktards strike again.
"I don't see any kids playing in the streets, ever, republican or otherwise. What are the causes behind this?"
Video games, every kid having their own computer, dvd, etc. Being "sent to your room" is no longer punishment - the real task is to get them to come out except for meals.
And all those other engines have suddenly raptured? Nah ...
Glow plugs? Amateur. When its really cold, what you need is
- a 5-gallon can with some diesel and a rag in it (light it, shove it under the oilpan for 5 minutes)
- a horking big battery and some booster cables
- a can of ether
Make sure everything's in neutral, put one cable on the frame, and the other directly on the starter, and spray some ether into the air intake.Anyone depending on glow plugs when a machine has been stopped for a week at -35 is going to be disappointed.
Most of them also have a "limp-home" mode, for when things go dead. Its not like the laws of physics (including how diesel engines work) suddenly get suspended. It can be damned HARD to shut off a diesel engine. For example, if the oil seal splits on the turbo and engine oil gets fed into the engine intake - it'll burn, and pulling the manual fuel shut-off won't do squat. I know because I had that happen to me on a Case 780. Couldn't even stall the engine.
Want some "real fun"? Go by an idling diesel and spray a can of quick-start (ether) at the air intake. You can get it to over-rev.
I've run diesel engines with NO electric power (dead/frozen battery, broken alternator belt). As long as the fuel is gravity-fed, it'll run.
Fat chance stopping someone who decided to take a front-end loader to make an "ATM withdrawal".
40% of all smartphones AT LAUNCH is well on the way ...