Not true, Norway produces 90% of its own energy needs, and the only partner it imports energy from is Sweden, which guess what, also produces all its electricity wholly from renewable sources.
Given that the most efficient diesel ferry engines are about 52% efficient, 72% from battery losses doesn't seem too bad. Also, given that all of Norway's electricity is generated from renewables, there's a massive efficiency gain in not having to refine oil or transport it.
Yes - and externalising them is exactly the key to reducing them.
By putting them at the generating station, you allow that generating station to use wind, waves, gravitational potential energy, light, nuclear decay,... to power the vehicle, rather than petrol.
Further, you also simply make the whole system more efficient - petrol motors are horribly inefficient, typically around 30-35%. The very very very best, used in Formula 1 cars only achieve around 50% efficiency. And that's ignoring all the other efficiency losses involved in a petrol vehicle, such as the efficiency of the gearbox, the transmission losses of petrol from having to drive a truck carrying it out to the petrol station, and the generation losses in refining the oil.
Finally, that's all assuming that you're right that the generation station causes emmissions... Which you aren't. Currently, 99% of electricity production for the Norwegian grid is from renewable sources.
There's no reason that ESPN couldn't be the go-to source of high quality online streams of sporting events, along with very lucrative ways of monetizing them, if they'd actually thought about this a few years ago.
That's rather the point - this bill isn't banning the EPA from doing research that they don't publish publicly, it's banning them from using that research to back up their actions on environmental protection.
There can be 20 papers out there all showing the same result that something harms humans, but as long as 19 of them rely on HIPPA based research, the EPA can't do anything, because there's not 2 papers reproducing the same result with entirely public data.
This is the liberal media that thought it would be a good idea to run with a story about how President Trump is into watersports and hires Russian prostitutes to piss on beds once slept in by the Obamas, despite the fact that it was completely unverified and unverifiable.
No, this is the liberal media that thought it would be a good idea to run with a story that a British intelligence agency had leaked a document with several derogatory statements about President Trump, and that several intelligence agencies had suggested that it was trustworthy.
Those were actual, facts, you know, things that could be verified. Every single article about this that I'm aware of stated that the dossier may not be accurate, but that intelligence agencies suggested it might be true.
It turns out after a while that at least a significant portion of the document is true, so they seem to have had a good basis there.
The problem is that "enough dollars" is way way way more than a million.
It's worth far more than a million dollars to them to be able to sell everyone else's data. It's just not a good value proposition to sell this data, and get the law back in place.
My prediction - the telecoms companies won't be willing to sell the data, because it's worth more to them to keep it, and not have the Obama era law reinstated.
Yup, it's based on an assumption that everything the government does is inherently overhead, and then uses that false assumption to prove that the government is wasting tons of money.
We're talking about everything that is not manufacturing the rocket. That is... designing the bloody thing.
The thing I find surprising about the 72% figure is not how high it is - it's how low it is. It apparently is only costing 3 times as much to design an entirely new rocket system than it costs to build the first vehicle.
I'm actually amazed that 28% of the cost is going on building the rocket, because you know... Someone has to fucking design the thing.
Why is it surprising that the design of a brand new rocket system costs a significant proportion of the cost of building the first rocket of that type?
That's a big assumption. Today's business class seats on a 747 cost about $5000 minimum, first class even more. Assuming they're going to be supersonic *and* half the price is pretty strange.
Which is of course, why you shouldn't be rendering anything on the CPU;)
The CPU shouldn't be doing anything other than issuing draw calls to the graphics hardware.
Further to that. Your assertion is effectively equal to "it's reasonable to use all the CPU to do nothing but render the screen on 5 year old hardware".
Why the hell would anything be in the CPU's memory when you're rendering the screen? All of this should be happening on the GPU, without any bitting of things from CPU memory.
If you're spending 2ms per frame to do nothing but render windows in a standard windowing environment, then you're wasting *huge* amounts of resources. 2ms is enough to render hundreds of draw calls with millions of polygons.
That's why you don't see your system sat their idling at 13% CPU usage as you drag a window around the screen.
Remember - your system today is roughly 10 times faster than the system you had 4 years ago. Are you trying to claim that 4 year old systems needed 100% of the CPU just to render windows on the screen?
Right, indeed - it's completely retarded that they're chewing 13% CPU to blink a little square on the screen. Thankfully, modern graphics architectures don't require that.
Only shitty coding and crappy interpreted languages get you that.
I mean, those 80s graphics books are well worth having, and excellent sources of how to take shortcuts when shortcuts are necessary.
However, it's worth remembering, that they're exactly that - shortcuts. The techniques used in those books are usually much less general than those used by modern windowing systems, and because of that, don't support all kinds of things that turn out to be important to user experience.
They don't support doing any kind of blending of layers, only blitting bits. They don't support any kinds of transforms on things that you're bitting. They don't support being able to smoothly animate things.
All of these are livable with, but not a great user experience. Hence why we've moved away from them, and to applying general purpose massively parallel compute to the embarrasingly parallel task of drawing things on a screen.
It's clearly not because they're a single item, or the previous item in the list would have had "or" instead of a comma.
If the intent had been that this was one item, the law would have said "The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing or packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods."
We are already there, the problem is that there's a bunch of people who's opinion is "well, it doesn't affect my property, since that's all in oil that's well inland; thus the answer is we do nothing".
They all like to disguise the argument "we do nothing, and fuck everyone that isn't me" as "well, the evidence really isn't very strong, I mean, I'm not convinced it's really happening"
As soon as you introduce selective DRM for selected platforms and devices, it's not universal anymore.
Which is rather the point. By including DRM in the standard, you allow everyone to implement the exact same thing, and make it universally available on all devices.
By not including DRM, you would cause all the companies that wanted it to go away and implement it in some weird, proprietary way, that only works on the biggest platforms.
You get support for more devices by putting it in the standard, not fewer.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, thankfully though, the production and transmission losses for electricity are far lower than the production and transmission losses for diesel.
Not true, Norway produces 90% of its own energy needs, and the only partner it imports energy from is Sweden, which guess what, also produces all its electricity wholly from renewable sources.
Given that the most efficient diesel ferry engines are about 52% efficient, 72% from battery losses doesn't seem too bad. Also, given that all of Norway's electricity is generated from renewables, there's a massive efficiency gain in not having to refine oil or transport it.
Yes - and externalising them is exactly the key to reducing them.
By putting them at the generating station, you allow that generating station to use wind, waves, gravitational potential energy, light, nuclear decay, ... to power the vehicle, rather than petrol.
Further, you also simply make the whole system more efficient - petrol motors are horribly inefficient, typically around 30-35%. The very very very best, used in Formula 1 cars only achieve around 50% efficiency. And that's ignoring all the other efficiency losses involved in a petrol vehicle, such as the efficiency of the gearbox, the transmission losses of petrol from having to drive a truck carrying it out to the petrol station, and the generation losses in refining the oil.
Finally, that's all assuming that you're right that the generation station causes emmissions... Which you aren't. Currently, 99% of electricity production for the Norwegian grid is from renewable sources.
They should have seen this coming years ago.
There's no reason that ESPN couldn't be the go-to source of high quality online streams of sporting events, along with very lucrative ways of monetizing them, if they'd actually thought about this a few years ago.
That's rather the point - this bill isn't banning the EPA from doing research that they don't publish publicly, it's banning them from using that research to back up their actions on environmental protection.
There can be 20 papers out there all showing the same result that something harms humans, but as long as 19 of them rely on HIPPA based research, the EPA can't do anything, because there's not 2 papers reproducing the same result with entirely public data.
$60 a month for 10Mb/s internet?
What the fuck is this shit comcast?
This is the liberal media that thought it would be a good idea to run with a story about how President Trump is into watersports and hires Russian prostitutes to piss on beds once slept in by the Obamas, despite the fact that it was completely unverified and unverifiable.
No, this is the liberal media that thought it would be a good idea to run with a story that a British intelligence agency had leaked a document with several derogatory statements about President Trump, and that several intelligence agencies had suggested that it was trustworthy.
Those were actual, facts, you know, things that could be verified. Every single article about this that I'm aware of stated that the dossier may not be accurate, but that intelligence agencies suggested it might be true.
It turns out after a while that at least a significant portion of the document is true, so they seem to have had a good basis there.
The problem is that "enough dollars" is way way way more than a million.
It's worth far more than a million dollars to them to be able to sell everyone else's data. It's just not a good value proposition to sell this data, and get the law back in place.
My prediction - the telecoms companies won't be willing to sell the data, because it's worth more to them to keep it, and not have the Obama era law reinstated.
Yup, it's based on an assumption that everything the government does is inherently overhead, and then uses that false assumption to prove that the government is wasting tons of money.
Except we're not talking about profit here.
We're talking about everything that is not manufacturing the rocket. That is... designing the bloody thing.
The thing I find surprising about the 72% figure is not how high it is - it's how low it is. It apparently is only costing 3 times as much to design an entirely new rocket system than it costs to build the first vehicle.
That's really fucking impressive.
This doesn't look pork barreley to me at all.
I'm actually amazed that 28% of the cost is going on building the rocket, because you know... Someone has to fucking design the thing.
Why is it surprising that the design of a brand new rocket system costs a significant proportion of the cost of building the first rocket of that type?
That's a big assumption. Today's business class seats on a 747 cost about $5000 minimum, first class even more. Assuming they're going to be supersonic *and* half the price is pretty strange.
Which is of course, why you shouldn't be rendering anything on the CPU ;)
The CPU shouldn't be doing anything other than issuing draw calls to the graphics hardware.
Further to that. Your assertion is effectively equal to "it's reasonable to use all the CPU to do nothing but render the screen on 5 year old hardware".
That's clearly not true.
Why the hell would anything be in the CPU's memory when you're rendering the screen? All of this should be happening on the GPU, without any bitting of things from CPU memory.
If you're spending 2ms per frame to do nothing but render windows in a standard windowing environment, then you're wasting *huge* amounts of resources. 2ms is enough to render hundreds of draw calls with millions of polygons.
That's why you don't see your system sat their idling at 13% CPU usage as you drag a window around the screen.
Remember - your system today is roughly 10 times faster than the system you had 4 years ago. Are you trying to claim that 4 year old systems needed 100% of the CPU just to render windows on the screen?
Right, indeed - it's completely retarded that they're chewing 13% CPU to blink a little square on the screen. Thankfully, modern graphics architectures don't require that.
Only shitty coding and crappy interpreted languages get you that.
No, as the C/C++ programmer, 0.13% of the CPU should be enough to render the entire screen at 60fps.
I mean, those 80s graphics books are well worth having, and excellent sources of how to take shortcuts when shortcuts are necessary.
However, it's worth remembering, that they're exactly that - shortcuts. The techniques used in those books are usually much less general than those used by modern windowing systems, and because of that, don't support all kinds of things that turn out to be important to user experience.
They don't support doing any kind of blending of layers, only blitting bits. They don't support any kinds of transforms on things that you're bitting. They don't support being able to smoothly animate things.
All of these are livable with, but not a great user experience. Hence why we've moved away from them, and to applying general purpose massively parallel compute to the embarrasingly parallel task of drawing things on a screen.
It's clearly not because they're a single item, or the previous item in the list would have had "or" instead of a comma.
If the intent had been that this was one item, the law would have said "The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing or packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods."
I mean, there are plenty of bits of progress that don't take us back to the dark ages being proposed.
For example, lets invest heavily in solar, wind and nuclear power.
Even those are opposed by the coal/oil drilling nut jobs.
We are already there, the problem is that there's a bunch of people who's opinion is "well, it doesn't affect my property, since that's all in oil that's well inland; thus the answer is we do nothing".
They all like to disguise the argument "we do nothing, and fuck everyone that isn't me" as "well, the evidence really isn't very strong, I mean, I'm not convinced it's really happening"
Last I checked, 78% of all meters used in the country the study was done in wasn't a "tiny fraction".
The majority of meters did not correctly measure power usage. 56% of them measured power usage much greater than was actually being used.
Where by "Unique geological features" you mean "Residents of Palo Alto repeatedly refuse to let BART be built through their town"?
As soon as you introduce selective DRM for selected platforms and devices, it's not universal anymore.
Which is rather the point. By including DRM in the standard, you allow everyone to implement the exact same thing, and make it universally available on all devices.
By not including DRM, you would cause all the companies that wanted it to go away and implement it in some weird, proprietary way, that only works on the biggest platforms.
You get support for more devices by putting it in the standard, not fewer.