Because successes can be copied by other states, and failures contained. Because different states really do have different people, and what works for one group of people may not work for another. It's why we have nations and not one world government. Differences between people are good and healthy, there's no reason to force everyone to become the same.
As the supply of data center space dwindles, the price will go up. When it goes up enough, it will become profitable to build new data centers, and it will happen. It's the economy, people.
P.S. If you haven't watched "Firefly" / "Serenity" yet, you're missing the best show that was ever on Sci-Fi.
Well, I don't know about other people who didn't watch this show, but _I_ stopped watching it halfway through the pilot episode. I was just baffled by the technology available to the characters. They have ships that can move from planet to planet with relative ease (and seemingly great speed) and yet they still used 6-shooters and shotguns as their weapon of choice. WTF Mate?
If you watched more than 30 minutes, you might understand. Why is that not obvious?
The bias for the media to highlight national candidates is a symptom, not the cause. Since voters don't vote for local electors, there's no point for the media to cover them, right?
You've failed to recognize that people today still have no clue about the candidate they're voting for. There are enough links to Howard Stern in other threads. If things worked correctly, we would be still voting for electors on the local level, and electors would be people who can be trusted to make the decision and who will take the time to educate themselves about the candidates. As it is, people make snap decisions without any knowledge, and that's why we get the candidate that has the best ad campaign.
So, CO2 sequestration seems to be the new fad idea, but explain me this, please:
We dig up hydrocarbons (hydrogen + carbon) from the earth. We burn them using oxygen from the air, producing water (hydrogen + oxygen) and CO2 (carbon + oxygen).
Then we bury the CO2 (containing the oxygen that was taken out of the atmosphere) in the earth for millions of years.
Is that sustainable? We, like, need oxygen, right?
And today we get yet another lesson on why the electoral college is useless and outdated. How is it that someone can get a majority of votes and not win? Everyone's vote should be equal; having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.
Insightful my ass.
Try reading the constitution. You know, the founding document of our nation? The supreme law of the land?
People don't vote for president. States do. It's the law. Get over it.
Complete disregard for constitutional law is exactly why we're having so many problems today. (Lack of education is another one.)
Um uh, 33% x 90% is But as an electrical engineer I can tell you a large power plant is way more efficient than 33%, probably better than 90%
But the grid is, depending on the distance as bad as So the total still pans out around 1/3th, about the same as a modern (non US) car.
is... is.... super??!? is.... exploding?!?!?
IAMAEE, but as someone who knows how to read, I can tell you that a power plant can only be 90% if you include cogeneration, which is fine, but doesn't describe the efficiency of producing electricity.
Yes, the overall system efficiency is about 30%, which is quite good. Plus, the power source can be anything. Which is great.
My point was that the guy I replied to claimed that transmission and distribution are a 96% LOSS. (20% efficient in transmission and 20% efficient in distribution) That is not true.
This paper from the DOE has the numbers I was looking for. It puts average generation efficiency at 33%, and transmission efficiency at 92%. That's where I get my 30% figure.
Also, there is the question of whether the $700 represents a real savings, or simply a transfer of costs from gas to electric. Unless he's stealing power from his neighbors, of course...
For fun, try and find out how much electricity it takes to make a gallon of gasoline.:):)
Your reasoning would be sound if you didn't just make up all those numbers.
Power plants are 33% efficient on average (http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html).
Overall, transmission and distribution losses are less than 10%. That is, over 90% efficient. I can't find the reference right now, but I did not make this up.
It makes sense that more people will use non-Windows operating systems as operating systems become more irrelevant. Nowadays the computer is the web browser.
As stupid as the "launch it into space" idea is, just calling it "nuclear waste" is a problem. It should be called "unused nuclear fuel." The problem is that it's a type of nuclear fuel that can be used to make bombs, but 99% of the energy is still available to be extracted by the correct type of reactor. A thousand or ten thousand years from now, we can go dig up Yucca mountain and have huge reserves of energy. But we could use that energy now if we had the will to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
True genius is making the complicated seem trivial. This means writing as clearly as possible rather than trying for the highest scrabble word score.
There's a time and a place for "waxing loquacious": Academic papers of predefined arbitrary lengths.
Not normal conversation.
Then you would probably enjoy The Theory of Relativity In Words of Four Letters or Less:
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html
Because successes can be copied by other states, and failures contained. Because different states really do have different people, and what works for one group of people may not work for another. It's why we have nations and not one world government. Differences between people are good and healthy, there's no reason to force everyone to become the same.
I think it's disingenuous to compare Tiananmen and Kent State. Perhaps 9/11 would be a closer analogue?
Only if you're completely missing the point, and trying to use the word "disingenuous" to sound smart.
They were both a government killing their own protesting citizens. How could you miss that? 9/11 isn't analogous to Tiananmen at all!
As the supply of data center space dwindles, the price will go up. When it goes up enough, it will become profitable to build new data centers, and it will happen. It's the economy, people.
Um, Trebek doesn't compete. He's the host of the show. The summary is stupid. The computer will be playing against other human contestants.
Well, I don't know about other people who didn't watch this show, but _I_ stopped watching it halfway through the pilot episode. I was just baffled by the technology available to the characters. They have ships that can move from planet to planet with relative ease (and seemingly great speed) and yet they still used 6-shooters and shotguns as their weapon of choice. WTF Mate?
If you watched more than 30 minutes, you might understand. Why is that not obvious?
It was a joke, son. Relax.
Oh, come on, there a lot of things more important than salary. I haven't done it recently but in 2004 I gave up $10k/year because:
I would have given up that job too. Just to pay my mortgage and support my family, I think I'd need at least $40k.
The bias for the media to highlight national candidates is a symptom, not the cause. Since voters don't vote for local electors, there's no point for the media to cover them, right?
You've failed to recognize that people today still have no clue about the candidate they're voting for. There are enough links to Howard Stern in other threads. If things worked correctly, we would be still voting for electors on the local level, and electors would be people who can be trusted to make the decision and who will take the time to educate themselves about the candidates. As it is, people make snap decisions without any knowledge, and that's why we get the candidate that has the best ad campaign.
Second that. A tiny laptop that's as powerful as an iPhone would be fine with me.
How much would you pay? Should I put it on eBay?
Haha, USA bias FTL. My bad. I'll have to find one of my countrymen to kill the fuckers then.
If someone fucked with my country that much, I'd be trying to kill the fuckers too.
There are two groups fucking with your country that much. They are Republicans and Democrats. I say you and me let's get started killing the fuckers.
So, CO2 sequestration seems to be the new fad idea, but explain me this, please:
We dig up hydrocarbons (hydrogen + carbon) from the earth. We burn them using oxygen from the air, producing water (hydrogen + oxygen) and CO2 (carbon + oxygen).
Then we bury the CO2 (containing the oxygen that was taken out of the atmosphere) in the earth for millions of years.
Is that sustainable? We, like, need oxygen, right?
And today we get yet another lesson on why the electoral college is useless and outdated. How is it that someone can get a majority of votes and not win? Everyone's vote should be equal; having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.
Insightful my ass.
Try reading the constitution. You know, the founding document of our nation? The supreme law of the land?
People don't vote for president. States do. It's the law. Get over it.
Complete disregard for constitutional law is exactly why we're having so many problems today. (Lack of education is another one.)
I'm going to get spaceolympics3022.com. Surely they'll have enough funding to buy the domain from me.
Um uh, 33% x 90% is
But as an electrical engineer I can tell you a large power plant is way more efficient than 33%, probably better than 90%
But the grid is, depending on the distance as bad as
So the total still pans out around 1/3th, about the same as a modern (non US) car.
is... is.... super??!? is.... exploding?!?!?
IAMAEE, but as someone who knows how to read, I can tell you that a power plant can only be 90% if you include cogeneration, which is fine, but doesn't describe the efficiency of producing electricity.
Yes, the overall system efficiency is about 30%, which is quite good. Plus, the power source can be anything. Which is great.
My point was that the guy I replied to claimed that transmission and distribution are a 96% LOSS. (20% efficient in transmission and 20% efficient in distribution) That is not true.
This paper from the DOE has the numbers I was looking for. It puts average generation efficiency at 33%, and transmission efficiency at 92%. That's where I get my 30% figure.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14446-filed.pdf
It is also about calculating the efficiency of electric cars, which is muy apropos.
Also, there is the question of whether the $700 represents a real savings, or simply a transfer of costs from gas to electric. Unless he's stealing power from his neighbors, of course...
For fun, try and find out how much electricity it takes to make a gallon of gasoline. :) :)
Your reasoning would be sound if you didn't just make up all those numbers.
Power plants are 33% efficient on average (http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html).
Overall, transmission and distribution losses are less than 10%. That is, over 90% efficient. I can't find the reference right now, but I did not make this up.
It makes sense that more people will use non-Windows operating systems as operating systems become more irrelevant. Nowadays the computer is the web browser.
As stupid as the "launch it into space" idea is, just calling it "nuclear waste" is a problem. It should be called "unused nuclear fuel." The problem is that it's a type of nuclear fuel that can be used to make bombs, but 99% of the energy is still available to be extracted by the correct type of reactor. A thousand or ten thousand years from now, we can go dig up Yucca mountain and have huge reserves of energy. But we could use that energy now if we had the will to do it.
I suppose it's called a "fan" so that people know what it is and what it's used for. Just a thought.
Yes, my car satisfies the requirements in the summary. :)
It's 600 tons, not 600 pounds.