Um, no it isn't. And you're either spreading disinformation or seriously retarded if you think so. Did you attend government schools? The GP seriously asked what "carbon" sequestration was, and so far has just gotten a bunch of half-joking bullshit replies.
We don't dig up CO2 out of the ground. So burying it is not the "opposite" of anything. We dig up coal (carbon) out of the ground. Burning carbon and oxygen produces CO2. "Carbon" sequestration is burying that CO2 in the ground. They are not at all opposites.
CO2 is an end-product. It is an energy sink. When buried in the ground, it is a liability, not an asset like coal. The process is not reversable. This is not pedantry but basic middle-school level chemistry that shouldn't even have to be discussed on/. if not for idiots like you confusing the issue with blatant falsehoods.
Apply Civil Rights Uniformly. Restore Habeas Corpus and eliminate kangaroo courts. Try prisoners as either POWs or in our own criminal courts. End renditions. And for FSM's sake, end the discrimination against gay couples and soldiers.
1) Habeas Corpus is not a "civil" right. 2) Are you really suggesting we afford civil rights to non-Americans? Equal voting rights? Employment? 3) Does ending affirmative action fall under the rubric of "applying civil rights uniformly", or do you have some exception in mind? 4) Do single people get whatever it is your proposing for gay couples, or again is there an exception?
So, there is or isn't a "terrific excess" of intermittent energy? The amount of wind energy hasn't changed in the last decade. You can't have it both ways...
Uh, it's not obvious? Our energy is supplied by finite resources. We "need" to maintain our current energy output at our current price point. Otherwise our lives will all get shittier.
I don't see why it's stupid to talk about general energy "needs" while many gladly accept using government force to provide "healthcare needs" that basically amount to adding a few years to the lives of people who are already ridiculously old by historical standards.
Nooooooo it isn't. Please don't spread this misinformation.
Industry and a bunch of ignorant environmental groups continue referring to CO2 as simply "carbon", as though they were interchangeable. They are not.
CO2 is the product of carbon combustion. Coal is carbon. CO2 is *not* carbon. "Carbon credits" are actually credits for CO2 emissions. "Carbon sequestration" is actually the sequestration of CO2.
It's just you. Given that we're talking renewable energy that's doable now with existing technology, that's hugely impressive. I'm not sure you realize exactly how dependent we are upon the energy from fossil fuels.
Barring cost-effective fusion, global power consumption will simply not be able to continue rising like it has. If we ever get to the point that everyone on Earth has half the energy usage of an American today, we will be lucky.
I'm curious, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty for nuclear power, and for what? Are you talking about waste disposal or accident insurance or what?
You realize that nuclear is already fairly heavily regulated, huge security costs are imposed, and they already pay for waste storage and insurance for the most part.
This is absolutely correct. Windmills running at a fraction of their capacity are still cheaper than the available storage technologies, and will be for some time. Until that changes, there is no economic reason to invest in implementing energy storage.
I know you're joking, but in the interests of pedantry the answer is that the cost per transaction is higher for gold. One person buying $1000 worth of gold could be the equivalent of several weeks worth of soda sales.
Also there are fairly large costs involved in transporting and stocking sugary-water. Gold has much lower overhead, based on it's high worth per pound. $1000 worth of gold weighs an ounce. $1000 worth of soda weighs several hundred pounds.
You have to understand. Microsoft has no idea what it's supposed to do either. It's just supposed to compete with Wave.
It's different things to different people. And if any of them manage to pony up some cash for it, then Microsoft will make it do what they want it to do.
This is typical. Nearly every application from Internet Explorer to PocketPC started out as a completely non-functional response to a successful competitor, an empty husk with a snazzy name and lots of marketing dollars. Why do you think we're seeing this on Slashdot, really? I mean, you don't find it coincidental that Microsoft has a never-ending stream of new products waiting in the wings, ready to announce mere weeks after any of it's competitors announce something similar?
Or maybe we're playing America's Army, an unrealistic murder simulator that's creepy not only for the fact that people play it all day long, but then sign up to get paid to do it in real life.
The options could be putting batteries on genitals, raping with billy-clubs, various other naked activities, waterboarding, etc.
Don't you find it creepy that a member of the administration responsible for all of this in real life is more concerned about completely virtual environments that don't harm anyone?
Specifically, society is severely hurt when any major adult sector (male, female, black, white, asian, whatever) is silenced for any reason, self or otherwise.
Oh, good. I was worried that you might have had a point there. But it turns out you're just concerned about adults. Since the video game is about raping kids, I guess it's okay to make them feel inferior?
I mean, we wouldn't want them to feel like they're less important or anything. We certainly wouldn't want to impose unbalanced restrictions on their rights or freedoms that might make them feel like they're worse than the rest of us.
So basically if in the game you raped boys as well as girls, your professor would pretty much have no problem with it?
If you look at the diagrams on their site, you see that each solar panel is divided into 36 sections that are approximately 18x12 inches in size. You could likely cut a hole through a single section as long as you bypassed it with suitable wiring. You would lose at least 10 watts of generating capacity for each hole, depending on your inverter setup.
1) It doesn't fit on a roof. The average roof space per capita is fairly tiny. This is the reason people are most interested in small-scale, high-efficiency, and ridiculously over-priced renewable energy production methods such as solar photovoltaics.
2) Deserts are actually pretty windy. Tracking mirrors have to be over-built to stand up to the wind and avoid mis-alignment.
3) Molten salt is high-temperature. High-temperature things could possibly be dangerous. Anything potentially dangerous attracts insurance companies, bands of idiots propped-up by a government that prefers killing people via wars and resource shortages rather than allowing individuals access to useful, possibly dangerous technologies.
4) Aesthetics. Solar panels are mostly unobtrusive. Tracking mirrors and tanks filled with molten salt are industrial-looking, and thus ugly.
So the basic problem is that power from molten salt tanks must be produced and sold as a commercial venture. That means it has to compete with coal and natural-gas fired utilities, and still be efficient enough to return a profit. This will basically never happen unless governments tax fossil fuels out of existence.
Those may have been true fifty years ago. But today none of them are.
1) You missed an important reason. Clay absorbs and releases moisture from the air, regulating humidity levels. This is the reason clay is used in flower pots, and for food storage. Aside from local availability, this was one reason clay roofs were used "for hundreds of years" in desert environments. Today, however, every clay tile roof has an underlayment of asphalt roofing material. The clay is not exposed to the indoors and any benefit is lost.
2) Clay tiles are not cheap. They are one of the most expensive roofing materials. They break easily and cost more to install and maintain. Though the tiles themselves do last a long time, the asphalt underlayment mentioned in (1) still has to be replaced periodically.
3) Every house has large patches of exposed asphalt shingles around the air conditioning units, which are mounted on the roof. These don't "spontaneously combust" as you claim. In fact that's pretty much just a ridiculous myth.
Building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), especially rooftop applications, would be the biggest market for flexible PV technology, Boas says.
Roofing is a significant cost in a residential structure. Being able to integrate the roofing material with the solar panels can help make photovoltaics cost-effective.
In Las Vegas, for instance, roofs are made of expensive (and heavy) clay tiles, mostly for aesthetic reasons. These run anywhere from $30-$50 / m^2.
If Intel in any way restricts VxWorks for other architectures compared to any of Intel's, I think real time Linux work will surge.
I think so too. And since this seems to be the only card that Intel can play, I wonder what they're really up to. Because I don't think they will actually do that, since I don't think it really helps them.
It's in Intel's interest to support free operating systems, since the OS is a complementary good to the microprocessor. The availability of a functional free OS makes chips more valuable.
But it's not in Intel's interest to support a free OS that runs on other (cheaper) chipsets such as MIPS & ARM. So far they've done a good job of keeping Microsoft from supporting cheaper, lower-power chipsets, even as the low-power market has exploded. Linux on MIPS/ARM netbooks, on the other hand, might not be so easy to control.
So, WRT Wind River, what do you do if you're Intel? Do you support VxWorks since it doesn't compete with your desktop/laptop market, and hope that this will keep embedded Linux from making more headway on MIPS/ARM and scavenging your netbook profits? Do you support embedded Linux on x86 and hope that this will keep Linux pidgeon-holed in the embedded/geek/low-power market it currently occupies? Or do you do both, push VxWorks on MIPS/ARM and Linux on x86?
The DMCA is probably the only law broad enough to include hacking that is expressly permitted. And, even then, calendar entries probably don't rise to the level of copyright protection. So I don't see what law would have been broken.
The article says that two hospitals were unable to access patient records. Who knows what the "power surge" actually affected, but it's clear it happened at a shared datacenter.
Their paperwork increased because they couldn't access the applications hosted by the shared datacenter, which is probably some type of retarded Windows Terminal Service setup, and they also couldn't just run the applications locally. So they would have had to start recording data twice, once on paper and another time on their (remote) records system. After a while, staff would not be able to keep up with the data entry and start diverting people.
And basically this would not have happened if anyone even slightly competent had designed their electronic records system not to be dependent on a real-time data link to remote application servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no it isn't. And you're either spreading disinformation or seriously retarded if you think so. Did you attend government schools? The GP seriously asked what "carbon" sequestration was, and so far has just gotten a bunch of half-joking bullshit replies.
We don't dig up CO2 out of the ground. So burying it is not the "opposite" of anything. We dig up coal (carbon) out of the ground. Burning carbon and oxygen produces CO2. "Carbon" sequestration is burying that CO2 in the ground. They are not at all opposites.
CO2 is an end-product. It is an energy sink. When buried in the ground, it is a liability, not an asset like coal. The process is not reversable. This is not pedantry but basic middle-school level chemistry that shouldn't even have to be discussed on /. if not for idiots like you confusing the issue with blatant falsehoods.
Apply Civil Rights Uniformly. Restore Habeas Corpus and eliminate kangaroo courts. Try prisoners as either POWs or in our own criminal courts. End renditions. And for FSM's sake, end the discrimination against gay couples and soldiers.
1) Habeas Corpus is not a "civil" right.
2) Are you really suggesting we afford civil rights to non-Americans? Equal voting rights? Employment?
3) Does ending affirmative action fall under the rubric of "applying civil rights uniformly", or do you have some exception in mind?
4) Do single people get whatever it is your proposing for gay couples, or again is there an exception?
Equality is hard, isn't it?
Slashdotters have good reason to rail against it.
So, there is or isn't a "terrific excess" of intermittent energy? The amount of wind energy hasn't changed in the last decade. You can't have it both ways...
Geothermal is releasing extra heat to the environment.
What?
Uh, it's not obvious? Our energy is supplied by finite resources. We "need" to maintain our current energy output at our current price point. Otherwise our lives will all get shittier.
I don't see why it's stupid to talk about general energy "needs" while many gladly accept using government force to provide "healthcare needs" that basically amount to adding a few years to the lives of people who are already ridiculously old by historical standards.
Nooooooo it isn't. Please don't spread this misinformation.
Industry and a bunch of ignorant environmental groups continue referring to CO2 as simply "carbon", as though they were interchangeable. They are not.
CO2 is the product of carbon combustion. Coal is carbon. CO2 is *not* carbon. "Carbon credits" are actually credits for CO2 emissions. "Carbon sequestration" is actually the sequestration of CO2.
It's just you. Given that we're talking renewable energy that's doable now with existing technology, that's hugely impressive. I'm not sure you realize exactly how dependent we are upon the energy from fossil fuels.
Barring cost-effective fusion, global power consumption will simply not be able to continue rising like it has. If we ever get to the point that everyone on Earth has half the energy usage of an American today, we will be lucky.
I'm curious, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty for nuclear power, and for what? Are you talking about waste disposal or accident insurance or what?
You realize that nuclear is already fairly heavily regulated, huge security costs are imposed, and they already pay for waste storage and insurance for the most part.
What, in your several decades of existence on this planet, has led you to believe that knowledge springs forth from some "source"?
This is absolutely correct. Windmills running at a fraction of their capacity are still cheaper than the available storage technologies, and will be for some time. Until that changes, there is no economic reason to invest in implementing energy storage.
You mean we could end up with some type of, shudder, "Hydrogen economy", like the slashbots have been railing against for years?
BUT WHERE WILL THE HYDROGEN COME FROM? YOU CAN'T MINE IT YOU KNOW1!!1
heh
I know you're joking, but in the interests of pedantry the answer is that the cost per transaction is higher for gold. One person buying $1000 worth of gold could be the equivalent of several weeks worth of soda sales.
Also there are fairly large costs involved in transporting and stocking sugary-water. Gold has much lower overhead, based on it's high worth per pound. $1000 worth of gold weighs an ounce. $1000 worth of soda weighs several hundred pounds.
You have to understand. Microsoft has no idea what it's supposed to do either. It's just supposed to compete with Wave.
It's different things to different people. And if any of them manage to pony up some cash for it, then Microsoft will make it do what they want it to do.
This is typical. Nearly every application from Internet Explorer to PocketPC started out as a completely non-functional response to a successful competitor, an empty husk with a snazzy name and lots of marketing dollars. Why do you think we're seeing this on Slashdot, really? I mean, you don't find it coincidental that Microsoft has a never-ending stream of new products waiting in the wings, ready to announce mere weeks after any of it's competitors announce something similar?
Or maybe we're playing America's Army, an unrealistic murder simulator that's creepy not only for the fact that people play it all day long, but then sign up to get paid to do it in real life.
The options could be putting batteries on genitals, raping with billy-clubs, various other naked activities, waterboarding, etc.
Don't you find it creepy that a member of the administration responsible for all of this in real life is more concerned about completely virtual environments that don't harm anyone?
Specifically, society is severely hurt when any major adult sector (male, female, black, white, asian, whatever) is silenced for any reason, self or otherwise.
Oh, good. I was worried that you might have had a point there. But it turns out you're just concerned about adults. Since the video game is about raping kids, I guess it's okay to make them feel inferior?
I mean, we wouldn't want them to feel like they're less important or anything. We certainly wouldn't want to impose unbalanced restrictions on their rights or freedoms that might make them feel like they're worse than the rest of us.
So basically if in the game you raped boys as well as girls, your professor would pretty much have no problem with it?
If you look at the diagrams on their site, you see that each solar panel is divided into 36 sections that are approximately 18x12 inches in size. You could likely cut a hole through a single section as long as you bypassed it with suitable wiring. You would lose at least 10 watts of generating capacity for each hole, depending on your inverter setup.
1) It doesn't fit on a roof. The average roof space per capita is fairly tiny. This is the reason people are most interested in small-scale, high-efficiency, and ridiculously over-priced renewable energy production methods such as solar photovoltaics.
2) Deserts are actually pretty windy. Tracking mirrors have to be over-built to stand up to the wind and avoid mis-alignment.
3) Molten salt is high-temperature. High-temperature things could possibly be dangerous. Anything potentially dangerous attracts insurance companies, bands of idiots propped-up by a government that prefers killing people via wars and resource shortages rather than allowing individuals access to useful, possibly dangerous technologies.
4) Aesthetics. Solar panels are mostly unobtrusive. Tracking mirrors and tanks filled with molten salt are industrial-looking, and thus ugly.
So the basic problem is that power from molten salt tanks must be produced and sold as a commercial venture. That means it has to compete with coal and natural-gas fired utilities, and still be efficient enough to return a profit. This will basically never happen unless governments tax fossil fuels out of existence.
http://www.porlaputa.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/nintendo-nerd-lord.jpg
Those may have been true fifty years ago. But today none of them are.
1) You missed an important reason. Clay absorbs and releases moisture from the air, regulating humidity levels. This is the reason clay is used in flower pots, and for food storage. Aside from local availability, this was one reason clay roofs were used "for hundreds of years" in desert environments. Today, however, every clay tile roof has an underlayment of asphalt roofing material. The clay is not exposed to the indoors and any benefit is lost.
2) Clay tiles are not cheap. They are one of the most expensive roofing materials. They break easily and cost more to install and maintain. Though the tiles themselves do last a long time, the asphalt underlayment mentioned in (1) still has to be replaced periodically.
3) Every house has large patches of exposed asphalt shingles around the air conditioning units, which are mounted on the roof. These don't "spontaneously combust" as you claim. In fact that's pretty much just a ridiculous myth.
The clay tiles are almost purely aesthetic.
Building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), especially rooftop applications, would be the biggest market for flexible PV technology, Boas says.
Roofing is a significant cost in a residential structure. Being able to integrate the roofing material with the solar panels can help make photovoltaics cost-effective.
In Las Vegas, for instance, roofs are made of expensive (and heavy) clay tiles, mostly for aesthetic reasons. These run anywhere from $30-$50 / m^2.
If Intel in any way restricts VxWorks for other architectures compared to any of Intel's, I think real time Linux work will surge.
I think so too. And since this seems to be the only card that Intel can play, I wonder what they're really up to. Because I don't think they will actually do that, since I don't think it really helps them.
It's in Intel's interest to support free operating systems, since the OS is a complementary good to the microprocessor. The availability of a functional free OS makes chips more valuable.
But it's not in Intel's interest to support a free OS that runs on other (cheaper) chipsets such as MIPS & ARM. So far they've done a good job of keeping Microsoft from supporting cheaper, lower-power chipsets, even as the low-power market has exploded. Linux on MIPS/ARM netbooks, on the other hand, might not be so easy to control.
So, WRT Wind River, what do you do if you're Intel? Do you support VxWorks since it doesn't compete with your desktop/laptop market, and hope that this will keep embedded Linux from making more headway on MIPS/ARM and scavenging your netbook profits? Do you support embedded Linux on x86 and hope that this will keep Linux pidgeon-holed in the embedded/geek/low-power market it currently occupies? Or do you do both, push VxWorks on MIPS/ARM and Linux on x86?
The DMCA is probably the only law broad enough to include hacking that is expressly permitted. And, even then, calendar entries probably don't rise to the level of copyright protection. So I don't see what law would have been broken.
And a senior sysadmin type costs $60-80k a year, plus 25% for bennies. That's pretty damned expensive for a small practice.
1) Remote/local datacenters are not mutually exclusive.
2) On-site sysadmins are not necessary.
3) We're not talking about a "small practice", rather a $25 million / year hospital.
4) Why are you continuing to argue about this? You don't appear to even have a good idea of what is possible, let alone an optimal setup.
The costs involved in putting your own data center into your care setting are enormous.
Sure, there are costs. But they aren't "enormous". All it takes is a couple of racks on site.
Not only that, but having your data restricted to your blah blah...
I didn't say anything about restricting data to anywhere.
The article says that two hospitals were unable to access patient records. Who knows what the "power surge" actually affected, but it's clear it happened at a shared datacenter.
Their paperwork increased because they couldn't access the applications hosted by the shared datacenter, which is probably some type of retarded Windows Terminal Service setup, and they also couldn't just run the applications locally. So they would have had to start recording data twice, once on paper and another time on their (remote) records system. After a while, staff would not be able to keep up with the data entry and start diverting people.
And basically this would not have happened if anyone even slightly competent had designed their electronic records system not to be dependent on a real-time data link to remote application servers.