not following you, I guess your saying you hate the look. personally I think the old time wind mills are pretty cool looking, even the new style has a real geek factor. your other arguments seam to be wind power can't make this country self sufficient (agreed.) But their are not enough known nuclear material in the US to be self sufficient in nuclear, so it definitely can't (currently) solve the US energy problems either (unless were willing and able to kick South Africa's ass next.) Last factor is they cost a bunch today (agreed.) But thats where putting them on buildings sounds smart. IE supplement the power as close to the demand, and knock down one of the big problems of big buildings (they channel wind) at the same time. Until nuclear can be supplied from thousands of small plants, were going to have to feed, maintain, build, defend this pain in the ass electric grid.
oh shoot, the winds in the northern hemisphere are predominantly Easterly, unless we build equal numbers in the southern hemisphere were going to be speeding the earths rotation, this means I'll get old faster! These turbines are stealing my life!!!! Hillary please save me from these quacks building the things!!!
I disagree, Talked to a nuclear plant engineer working at a plant with a gas turbine auxiliary plant. They are thrilled when the turbine powers up, because they get paid more for that energy because their willing to fill peak demand. If that plant was put into constant production they would get paid the same rate as the nuclear plant, so reduced joy overall.
makes me wonder, if I were to give money into the local electric company's GreenWatts program would I get to claim the "karma" for their green energy, or does their town get the karma (assuming they are signed up for something similar, and why wouldn't they?) or is their enough "karma" to be gained we all get to claim it?
I would have posted: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=YHOO&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=msft to make his point (a point I disagree with.) Stock price (at least in this case) in no way shows "profit" then again I don't know how to get that graph in 5 minutes or less.
all decent cordless drills are all permanent magnet DC motors. *most* corded drills are brushed AC motors. These rare earth DC motors are really tolerant of low speed torque (IE you can use them as screwdrivers.) So unless you bought a really good corded drill do not use it in variable speed constantly. I think that is what causes the impression of more torque for the cordless, corded always wins at full speed, cordless usually win at anything less.
their's my catch. I started doing the same, and learned that charging a battery (even if it were free), then using that energy, costs more than just using the grid power. Thats because the battery's either costs enough that depreciation is more than the energy they serve, then they need replaced every 6 months. Or Lead acid battery's which lose 40% of your energy into heat, and I either have to cool them (keep inside) or they fail, and create acid fumes, and all kinds of nasty side effect.
The only other thoughts I have are running a generator off either a weight (perhaps a water tower) thus you always got a place to put energy. Or figuring out how to run a small heat pump (cool in sumer, heat in winter)
as long as Im careful with my key (keep it on me at all times, and only use it on safe systems), in the absence of
In a case like this, that is probably not enough. IE lawyer client privacy only goes so far even constrained to US laws (this case wouldn't be constrained to US law), so they could be forced give up all info they have on the PGP encryption keys, etc, once the lawyers actions were considered illegal. Under US law these lawyers communications being kept private would be illegal (by my under-educated) understanding, the moment that any information they received could be used to stop a future attack. Which it sounds like (in this case) would be all evidence. Assuming the following: A) the lawyers have been notified they are under investigation as well. B) if A, then destroying evidence (such as a PGP key) would be illegal. C) the Government can crack PGP when given the Key. D) the government can intercept and log all the PGP traffic, until such time they receive the key.
talking about the case would not create evidence, but transmitting it would cause it to be recorded and thus it sounds like no legal way to avoid exposing it. I am pretty technical minded, but I would have a hard time solving these issues for the lawyers, so they could transmit data that could only be viewed one time.
As you say, not exactly a security problem by MS (as explained). But encouraging more applications to install more services, seams like a bad idea, when the only reason to install it as a service is to get rid of UAC window every-time it is started. Obviously as every program starts installing a service, their will obviously be more in-secure windows systems, since once any of the new services can be hacked... It even sounds like you can't do stuff like *nix, IE assign a user/group to a application, that only has access to the control/hardware you want. The advantage of that is, once a vulnerability is found in a common service, they can't own more than just the hardware exposed to that program at install time (barring a OS hole as well), they could have all escalated privileges in windows, if the service hole allows.
predict you would have a +5 informative post had you instead said: Or would they instead go with the other manufactures who have less secure, but easily rigged (by those in power) machines.
I will add, having moved from Iowa to Arizona (not even the desert portion.) After 5 years of composting and watering (using some outside bio material), I now have a 30' x 6' garden where the dirt is about 70% as productive as any portion of my dads 120 Acre Iowa farm. With any luck, within another 10 years I'll have 4" of topsoil that is as every bit good as his 10" of top soil. The point being, if the sand that has not grown anything in 2000 years becomes the new arable material, short of moving thousands of barges full of soil from one location to another, it may take anywhere from 20 to 100 Years of attention to get it to decent production. (reminds me, he's driving a pickup down next month, I need to make some requests.)
sounds like the biosphere (wasn't completely successful.) Wouldn't going verticle shade the same amount of land as going horizontal. So you could either stack the people up vertically and leave the horizontal space for the plants (current citys and farms layout), or stack the plants up vertically and leave the horizontal space for humans. IE stacking a bunch of tall buildings close together they will shade each other. However if only one farmer stacks his 20 acres up a mile high, he'll only be stealing small sections of light (varies throughout the day) from his neighbors, likely no issue, unless more than a few in the same area try to do the same.
the article is that these bacteria are happy in salt water conditions
my understanding of the article, is that we will have to have 28,000 square miles of crop land producing the sugar/cellulose source for the bacteria. Then you would be able to dump that in the (salty as a option) bacteria home (ie Great Salt Lake in Utah) where the bacteria process it into a more use-able product. So you need the crop land and the bacteria land. They did mention algae as a possible cellulose source also, doubtful that will be as acceptable (politically) on a mass production basis as sharing crop land though. though that wasn't perfectly clear (to me) in the article.
the article did say their is a possibility of a 17 fold increase, reducing the size to 3.5% of the projected area for corn. So a good crop rotation of all corn land, only taking every 4th years production dedicated to petrol, other years rotate in beans (builds up the soil for grass/corn crops nicely.) Sounds like in theory this could become workable. (of course what I mean is 1/4 of the land every year goes to producing the cellulose plant, and you rotate that to different lands every year maintaining 1/4 of land out of food crop production.)
I would be interested if you ever found anything from any manufacture of a chip acknowledging this practice? I have heard many denials from manufactures stating that it was impracticable, that they would essential have to develop a new firmware for every possible failure (involves testing firmware, tracking failures seperatly, so essentially a different part number for every sector possibility) So unless a mistake was made in the design process that put a high failure rate in a certain area of the Fab process their was not a high enough upside to even consider this. This has been a defacto internet "fact" for 15 years, apart from anyone other than a "yeah I worked at a chip manufacture once, and someone once said..." I do believe this was possible in the early days, and on low volume things like supercomputer silicon. But nothing to the scale to setup a separate product line to sell the defects.
absolutely nothing you can do at higher layers that will not be compromised.
I wouldn't quite go that far, but close. Obviously secure information can be transmitted through in-secure networks. So it would definitely be possible to do things like exchange stenography images through a unsecured computer. Obviously you would have to have some security after the computer for your display/entry or interpretation of information. It is theoretically possible.
One possible solution would be to use the speaker/microphone as your route. From a Tom Clancy book, for example, they had the religious group (catholic church?) that developed their own language. Using that excessively around a determined code cracker would allow a break, but doubtful a single event would leave enough clues behind.
And an electric car powered by a coal-fired generating plant still emits much less pollution than a gasoline car.
not sure where you pulled that from? Their seams to be one clean coal plant in the US, and with batteries not being exactly green, and a pure electric car costs more to run than the same car running on hybrid (if battery replacement cost is not subsidized.) Throw in all the radio-active emissions of coal plants (none in gasoline.) Their is hope in a few years electric will be enough better, with cleaner electric power source, and better batteries. That will be the way to go "for the global environment". Don't get me wrong, the electric cars beat the current mass production gas cars by a wide margin, but it would cheaper and possibly greener to power those same aerodynamic chassis, and low rolling resistance tires from liquid, until things improve. For the local environment, electric would be better in theory. Considering low emission gas vehicles currently exhaust cleaner air than they take in (in heavy traffic), even that may be a long term goal.
Counterfeits are a significant danger when they move beyond the more visible realm of...
because their have never been quality issues with suppliers outsourcing their production to the lowest cost producer./sarcasm
I get your point, if you don't know who supplied the part then who follows up on a bad production run, and who do you sue to stop a re-occurring problem. Seams these items it is better to get from a reputable vendor, than it is to get them with a reputable brand.
All vegan's are vegetarians therefore a joke about a vegetarian would apply to all vegans. most vegetarians are not vegans so a joke about vegans may not apply.
read up on the modern li-ion variants before you post again.
I guess thats what separates you from me, I am working on this, your reading about it. I have tested examples of these in the real world, batteries manufactures are way optimistic (liars or damn liars come to mind.) You have only read what people with no product to sell, claim they will have, or are developing, or maybe "are testing" at the best. A quote from Yogi Berra comes to mind "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
It'd cost an *Utter Fortune*, but it'd still be 100% efficient.
nope, you'd get 100% of the electrons through it. But in the real world cost matters, with cooling costs, and atmospheric drag, this line would take all the energy from the orbit of the moon bringing it to the ground.
Which means that EVs are a lot more efficient.
OK, I'll admit if you don't want to count manufacturing costs, or maintaince costs, but only energy in use. EV's are then more efficient. Gas is still much cheaper. look at this car, according to wikipedia Lithium costs 2.8-5 Wh/US$ to buy, get 300 to 1200 cycles. Multiply that out, battery cost of lithium polymers is going to be about $.25/kWhr So while this car (if it uses lithium) batterys would cost as much to run off of electric, than in hybrid from $3.75 gallon of gas. If you ripped all that hybrid, battery stuff off, and stuck a motorcycle engine in their, it would cost much less, be much faster, and not cost as much per mile to operate over any time frrame extending past 3 years.
you're out of your league here,..li-on
I am test engineer in charge of a 3000 Hp Hybrid vehicle prototype running some very hot Sodium batterys, that while kept hot are over 99.9% efficient in charge cycle, and their energy density is actually greater than diesiel fuel per weight. Trust me, I know their are no batterys available for purchase by any person, or a company for mass production that has energy density, cycle times and efficiency for a reasonable cost per Kw Hr. It is a hope, and maybe soon, but if you car about economics and the environment, EV is not yet it.
"delivery line charge"; cost does not equal efficiency. In the US, the average transmission efficiency is 92.8%.
sorry, but in a established market like this, cost pretty much does equal efficiency, except in this case thanks to gov't involvement in things like Rural Electrification Act even this cost is subsidized. After all all the copper that is having to be added took electricity and oil to mine, process, deliver, install, and maintain. If this were a young industry just growing, I would think otherwise, it is not.
Try about 20%, give or take.
ok 45% is the efficiency the power plant would hit, and 20% was the "typical" vehicle total use. My drive not getting much gain from regen, I am not getting enough gain their.
Lithium ion batteries are over 99% efficient
with 300 typical charge cycles for a lithium battery, and a large enough volume of a metal that reacts very badly with watter. Someday, but not today.
power plants have a higher thermodynamic efficiency from burning fuel than gas engines, while battery, charger, and transmission losses are very small,
not sure what batteries/location your using. Where I live, more than half the cost of electric is in the delivery/line charge. Then you lose 15% in the charger and another 30% to the lead acid battery. So while at the power plant rock in efficiency, it doubles in cost getting to my house, then I lose half getting into and back out of the battery. I am left with 1/4 what it started out at. At 120,000 BTU per $3 gallon of gas, or 140,000 BTU per $3 gallon of diesiel I get 60,000 BTU per $3 of Electric. My understanding is Gas engine are 70-80% efficient. Since I don't travel in town, I'll take the 50MPG diesiel car over any electric charge so far.
considering most CPU's can run at 90C but most air cooled systems will recommend something below 23C ambient. Efficiency of a cooling system maintaining 60C would be much greater, which with a much higher conductivity should be fine hence the cost savings of liquid cooling.
Being used to gunning your engine through a yellow light isn't a valid defense.
That is a way to beat the yellow. IE if the red hits 3 seconds after the green changes, and your 2 seconds away from the intersection you have 2 choices, lock em up and get rear-ended, or gun it and beat the red. (or maintain a safe speed and get ticketed.)
Slashdot Mirror
not following you, I guess your saying you hate the look. personally I think the old time wind mills are pretty cool looking, even the new style has a real geek factor.
your other arguments seam to be wind power can't make this country self sufficient (agreed.) But their are not enough known nuclear material in the US to be self sufficient in nuclear, so it definitely can't (currently) solve the US energy problems either (unless were willing and able to kick South Africa's ass next.)
Last factor is they cost a bunch today (agreed.) But thats where putting them on buildings sounds smart. IE supplement the power as close to the demand, and knock down one of the big problems of big buildings (they channel wind) at the same time. Until nuclear can be supplied from thousands of small plants, were going to have to feed, maintain, build, defend this pain in the ass electric grid.
I disagree, Talked to a nuclear plant engineer working at a plant with a gas turbine auxiliary plant. They are thrilled when the turbine powers up, because they get paid more for that energy because their willing to fill peak demand. If that plant was put into constant production they would get paid the same rate as the nuclear plant, so reduced joy overall.
makes me wonder, if I were to give money into the local electric company's GreenWatts program would I get to claim the "karma" for their green energy, or does their town get the karma (assuming they are signed up for something similar, and why wouldn't they?) or is their enough "karma" to be gained we all get to claim it?
I would have posted:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=YHOO&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=msft
to make his point (a point I disagree with.) Stock price (at least in this case) in no way shows "profit" then again I don't know how to get that graph in 5 minutes or less.
all decent cordless drills are all permanent magnet DC motors. *most* corded drills are brushed AC motors. These rare earth DC motors are really tolerant of low speed torque (IE you can use them as screwdrivers.)
So unless you bought a really good corded drill do not use it in variable speed constantly. I think that is what causes the impression of more torque for the cordless, corded always wins at full speed, cordless usually win at anything less.
their's my catch. I started doing the same, and learned that charging a battery (even if it were free), then using that energy, costs more than just using the grid power. Thats because the battery's either costs enough that depreciation is more than the energy they serve, then they need replaced every 6 months. Or Lead acid battery's which lose 40% of your energy into heat, and I either have to cool them (keep inside) or they fail, and create acid fumes, and all kinds of nasty side effect.
The only other thoughts I have are running a generator off either a weight (perhaps a water tower) thus you always got a place to put energy. Or figuring out how to run a small heat pump (cool in sumer, heat in winter)
In a case like this, that is probably not enough. IE lawyer client privacy only goes so far even constrained to US laws (this case wouldn't be constrained to US law), so they could be forced give up all info they have on the PGP encryption keys, etc, once the lawyers actions were considered illegal. Under US law these lawyers communications being kept private would be illegal (by my under-educated) understanding, the moment that any information they received could be used to stop a future attack.
Which it sounds like (in this case) would be all evidence.
Assuming the following:
A) the lawyers have been notified they are under investigation as well.
B) if A, then destroying evidence (such as a PGP key) would be illegal.
C) the Government can crack PGP when given the Key.
D) the government can intercept and log all the PGP traffic, until such time they receive the key.
talking about the case would not create evidence, but transmitting it would cause it to be recorded and thus it sounds like no legal way to avoid exposing it.
I am pretty technical minded, but I would have a hard time solving these issues for the lawyers, so they could transmit data that could only be viewed one time.
As you say, not exactly a security problem by MS (as explained). But encouraging more applications to install more services, seams like a bad idea, when the only reason to install it as a service is to get rid of UAC window every-time it is started. Obviously as every program starts installing a service, their will obviously be more in-secure windows systems, since once any of the new services can be hacked... It even sounds like you can't do stuff like *nix, IE assign a user/group to a application, that only has access to the control/hardware you want. The advantage of that is, once a vulnerability is found in a common service, they can't own more than just the hardware exposed to that program at install time (barring a OS hole as well), they could have all escalated privileges in windows, if the service hole allows.
predict you would have a +5 informative post had you instead said:
Or would they instead go with the other manufactures who have less secure, but easily rigged (by those in power) machines.
I will add, having moved from Iowa to Arizona (not even the desert portion.) After 5 years of composting and watering (using some outside bio material), I now have a 30' x 6' garden where the dirt is about 70% as productive as any portion of my dads 120 Acre Iowa farm. With any luck, within another 10 years I'll have 4" of topsoil that is as every bit good as his 10" of top soil. The point being, if the sand that has not grown anything in 2000 years becomes the new arable material, short of moving thousands of barges full of soil from one location to another, it may take anywhere from 20 to 100 Years of attention to get it to decent production. (reminds me, he's driving a pickup down next month, I need to make some requests.)
sounds like the biosphere (wasn't completely successful.) Wouldn't going verticle shade the same amount of land as going horizontal. So you could either stack the people up vertically and leave the horizontal space for the plants (current citys and farms layout), or stack the plants up vertically and leave the horizontal space for humans. IE stacking a bunch of tall buildings close together they will shade each other. However if only one farmer stacks his 20 acres up a mile high, he'll only be stealing small sections of light (varies throughout the day) from his neighbors, likely no issue, unless more than a few in the same area try to do the same.
my understanding of the article, is that we will have to have 28,000 square miles of crop land producing the sugar/cellulose source for the bacteria. Then you would be able to dump that in the (salty as a option) bacteria home (ie Great Salt Lake in Utah) where the bacteria process it into a more use-able product.
So you need the crop land and the bacteria land. They did mention algae as a possible cellulose source also, doubtful that will be as acceptable (politically) on a mass production basis as sharing crop land though.
though that wasn't perfectly clear (to me) in the article.
the article did say their is a possibility of a 17 fold increase, reducing the size to 3.5% of the projected area for corn.
So a good crop rotation of all corn land, only taking every 4th years production dedicated to petrol, other years rotate in beans (builds up the soil for grass/corn crops nicely.) Sounds like in theory this could become workable. (of course what I mean is 1/4 of the land every year goes to producing the cellulose plant, and you rotate that to different lands every year maintaining 1/4 of land out of food crop production.)
I would be interested if you ever found anything from any manufacture of a chip acknowledging this practice? I have heard many denials from manufactures stating that it was impracticable, that they would essential have to develop a new firmware for every possible failure (involves testing firmware, tracking failures seperatly, so essentially a different part number for every sector possibility) So unless a mistake was made in the design process that put a high failure rate in a certain area of the Fab process their was not a high enough upside to even consider this.
This has been a defacto internet "fact" for 15 years, apart from anyone other than a "yeah I worked at a chip manufacture once, and someone once said..."
I do believe this was possible in the early days, and on low volume things like supercomputer silicon. But nothing to the scale to setup a separate product line to sell the defects.
I wouldn't quite go that far, but close. Obviously secure information can be transmitted through in-secure networks. So it would definitely be possible to do things like exchange stenography images through a unsecured computer. Obviously you would have to have some security after the computer for your display/entry or interpretation of information. It is theoretically possible.
One possible solution would be to use the speaker/microphone as your route. From a Tom Clancy book, for example, they had the religious group (catholic church?) that developed their own language. Using that excessively around a determined code cracker would allow a break, but doubtful a single event would leave enough clues behind.
not sure where you pulled that from? Their seams to be one clean coal plant in the US, and with batteries not being exactly green, and a pure electric car costs more to run than the same car running on hybrid (if battery replacement cost is not subsidized.) Throw in all the radio-active emissions of coal plants (none in gasoline.)
Their is hope in a few years electric will be enough better, with cleaner electric power source, and better batteries. That will be the way to go "for the global environment".
Don't get me wrong, the electric cars beat the current mass production gas cars by a wide margin, but it would cheaper and possibly greener to power those same aerodynamic chassis, and low rolling resistance tires from liquid, until things improve. For the local environment, electric would be better in theory. Considering low emission gas vehicles currently exhaust cleaner air than they take in (in heavy traffic), even that may be a long term goal.
because their have never been quality issues with suppliers outsourcing their production to the lowest cost producer.
I get your point, if you don't know who supplied the part then who follows up on a bad production run, and who do you sue to stop a re-occurring problem.
Seams these items it is better to get from a reputable vendor, than it is to get them with a reputable brand.
All vegan's are vegetarians therefore a joke about a vegetarian would apply to all vegans.
most vegetarians are not vegans so a joke about vegans may not apply.
I guess thats what separates you from me, I am working on this, your reading about it. I have tested examples of these in the real world, batteries manufactures are way optimistic (liars or damn liars come to mind.)
You have only read what people with no product to sell, claim they will have, or are developing, or maybe "are testing" at the best. A quote from Yogi Berra comes to mind "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
nope, you'd get 100% of the electrons through it. But in the real world cost matters, with cooling costs, and atmospheric drag, this line would take all the energy from the orbit of the moon bringing it to the ground.
OK, I'll admit if you don't want to count manufacturing costs, or maintaince costs, but only energy in use. EV's are then more efficient. Gas is still much cheaper. look at this car, according to wikipedia Lithium costs 2.8-5 Wh/US$ to buy, get 300 to 1200 cycles. Multiply that out, battery cost of lithium polymers is going to be about $.25
I am test engineer in charge of a 3000 Hp Hybrid vehicle prototype running some very hot Sodium batterys, that while kept hot are over 99.9% efficient in charge cycle, and their energy density is actually greater than diesiel fuel per weight. Trust me, I know their are no batterys available for purchase by any person, or a company for mass production that has energy density, cycle times and efficiency for a reasonable cost per Kw Hr. It is a hope, and maybe soon, but if you car about economics and the environment, EV is not yet it.
sorry, but in a established market like this, cost pretty much does equal efficiency, except in this case thanks to gov't involvement in things like Rural Electrification Act even this cost is subsidized. After all all the copper that is having to be added took electricity and oil to mine, process, deliver, install, and maintain. If this were a young industry just growing, I would think otherwise, it is not.
ok 45% is the efficiency the power plant would hit, and 20% was the "typical" vehicle total use. My drive not getting much gain from regen, I am not getting enough gain their.with 300 typical charge cycles for a lithium battery, and a large enough volume of a metal that reacts very badly with watter. Someday, but not today.
not sure what batteries/location your using. Where I live, more than half the cost of electric is in the delivery/line charge. Then you lose 15% in the charger and another 30% to the lead acid battery.
So while at the power plant rock in efficiency, it doubles in cost getting to my house, then I lose half getting into and back out of the battery. I am left with 1/4 what it started out at. At 120,000 BTU per $3 gallon of gas, or 140,000 BTU per $3 gallon of diesiel I get 60,000 BTU per $3 of Electric. My understanding is Gas engine are 70-80% efficient. Since I don't travel in town, I'll take the 50MPG diesiel car over any electric charge so far.
considering most CPU's can run at 90C but most air cooled systems will recommend something below 23C ambient. Efficiency of a cooling system maintaining 60C would be much greater, which with a much higher conductivity should be fine hence the cost savings of liquid cooling.
That is a way to beat the yellow. IE if the red hits 3 seconds after the green changes, and your 2 seconds away from the intersection you have 2 choices, lock em up and get rear-ended, or gun it and beat the red. (or maintain a safe speed and get ticketed.)