suburban homes (which are admittedly otherwise environmentally disastrous)
Well most anything modern industrial humans do is environmentally disastrous;-)
The difference with solar is that generation efficiency is less important...because you have so much possible surface area from which to generate power. The roof and sides of every building, windows, roadways, etc. We're not there yet, but nothing else allows that widespread a power generation base...with no additional footprint.
Obviously, great density/efficiency in your generation means you need less area, but you can get the same result with a larger foot print all being very close to actual power demand.
current numbers. things are only going to get more efficient both on the server side and the solar panel side.
There are multiple MW solar roof installs running right now.
OP/Troll questioned destroying habitat. clearly there are ways to generate more than enough solar without covering a single bit of ground that we aren't already covering. Parking lot covers, window films - obviously not so much for the data centers but buildings next door? New tech will only increase that ability.
This is a very solvable problem only waiting on the initiative to get it started. Perhaps the first iterations only provide 30%. that's still a hell of a lot better than a negative percent that fossil fuel provides since the cost of it's pollution isn't factored into it's on going use.
Glad we agree it's feasible then, just a matter of scale. We have lots of buildings just waiting to generate power while just 'sitting there'.
Nobody said they had to generate it all directly on site. And when the roads and every other manmade surface are producing power, habitat destruction will be the straw man it always was.
data centers generally aren't lacking for available roof space so no taking up any more land. Hell give tech 10-20 years and the roads themselves will be providing us power. They have window films today that generate electricity.
But keep sucking on that sweet sweet tail pipe o crude
The key fact is the Sun has vastly more capacity than we will need in the next few thousand years, let alone the next few decades. There's literally an oil well on every street corner. The difficulty for now is storing that for later use.
You also touched on another key factor. When the fuel is free, efficiency of generation can be a very low priority. Sure it costs more to build a bigger array, but not nearly as much as trying the infinity cost of doubling your solar panel efficiency if the tech don't yet exist. With a gas or coal plant you can build it bigger, but then you have on going fuel costs. With solar, just a bigger initial outlay and then all the power you need is basically free.
And lets also remember that corporate software has so many many bugs and vulnerabilities that they had to schedule a MONTHLY day to do them. Only to find yet more bugs so critically important that they broke their own rules well more than 2 times to release out of cycle fixes.
OS will almost always beat corporate in terms of defects and response time. Anyone care to guess how many 'heartbleeds' currently exist in Windows code that we know nothing about?
I do love how the climate deniers will say we can't possibly study the earth to predict the future...and then trot out the earth as something that will allow them to predict the future...
I know this OP isn't necessarily in that camp but the post jogged that thought into my brain...
yes I agree the ISP would have motive pay a bribe to get better results. but you said worked at an ISP and have been solicited for bribes; i.e. been offered money by the speed test companies. That's the reverse situation. What motivation would the speed test company have for such a payment?
If you're claiming the speed test companies tried to get you to pay them for better results, that's extortion, not a bribe. Still bad, but not what you're original statement indicated.
Not saying it doesn't happen, the point is it isn't necessary. If I'm an ISP, prioritizing traffic from known speedtest sites is a lot easier, cheaper and covers more people.
But to the point, OP asked:
Why would an ISP bribe [a speed test site]
And you answered
I work for an ISP, and I've been solicited for bribes
That's the exact reverse situation he described...
What I read in the article is the gov't wanted Telia to share their lines (that the gov't actually built before Telia became a private entity) and Telia said no.
That sounds a LOT like Verizon today.
So the municipalities built their own network around Telia. Which our federal gov't is conveniently blocking our municipalities from doing in many cases.
looking at what works/doesn't work... is helpful but still an analogy
I say it's absolutely necessary. Monopolies by private entities without hefty regulation are bad. They have a built in incentive to provide as little as possible for as much money as possible - they are for profit entities.
For profit will always screw the customer...its about making as much money as you can. What mitigates this natural desire is the competition so that when someone gets greedy like that, competitors provide, ahem, competition.
Sweden is ahead of us in this process. They've already seen the downside of a monopoly private entity...and like the internet sees damage, routed around it:)
The municipalities BUILT the fiber backbone to compete with entrenched monopoly Telia. read that again. They build an entire SECOND network to counter act the monopoly...
Monopolies run by private entities are bad unless heavily regulated. Said regulation divides service into 2 areas. Infrastructure and delivery. The infrastructure is regulated heavily to allow common access. Service can be offered by anybody over the infrastructure. Hence you get the best network with the best competition for the actual service.
The infrastructure contracts are now going to be pushed by the multitude of service providers using that network. This allows everyone to share the costs and reap the benefits of a common standard system.
As opposed to Verizon/ISPs which passes the FULL costs directly on to you while providing 10% of the service value? Oh and Verizon was granted plenty of subsidies to actually build the network in the first place so your tax dollars are already involved whether you like it or not.
The government shouldn't be providing services that can be done by the private sector.
The government should provide the level playing field for private companies to COMPETE. That means rules and regulations on who/what/how. That's a GOOD thing that can be abused, but still a good thing. Otherwise you end up with 4 water supply systems across your town.
Perhaps you should get out of your 'small town with 5+ choices'. The vast majority of the US has exactly 1 choice for broadband, even by the big players pathetic standards of 1-4Mb speeds. Seriously they want to classify slightly better than DSL as 'high speed' in 2014. The rest of the world has GIGABIT for $70 bucks and we're living with less than 10Mb?
If gov't can do it faster cheaper and better than the private sector...the private sector is ridiculously bad...
As for taxes...how about $100/month difference? They get much faster service for much much less per month. You're already paying those sky high 'taxes' to Verizon/Comcast but somehow it's better because it's a private company providing you not nearly as good service?
because the computer only polls at set intervals. If it only checks every six seconds, and I jam the excelerator on the 3rd second then let off, the computer thinks you're basically coasting.
Not to say it couldn't be more accurate, but it's just a dash readout it doesn't need to be super high precision. Also, see your engine temp gauge if you even have one. You don't need to know that it's 1 degree hotter now than it was 10 minutes ago; so it's at best a range with an analog indicator arm but no specific numbers thru the range.
we don't need NASCAR precision determining mpg. Dividing miles driven since the last fill up by the amount you put in gives you well within even 1/2 of a mpg. Plenty good enough for the vast majority of people.
quite a bit of logging? How about just dividing miles driven by the gallons you put in? that's as close as any normal person needs to get and is pretty damned accurate.
The extremely simple solution is separating out the costs of providing power and the costs of maintaining the grid. If you're connected, you pay for the grid maintenance whatever the cost just like everybody else.
The legacy industry isn't yet using this model so they see a threat where there is none.
Though I fully expect to see increased night time rates on the, ahem, horizon. "You want solar? No problem, but the grid rate will be $400/kwh after 8 pm...."
So you've established that all the male scientists made of straw are corrupt. Lets see some actual evidence of corruption in that 'good chunk' of 'real' scientists.
There's always purpose to investigating the unknown. If we didn't, we'd still be living in trees.
You need both. The Science figures out what is interesting enough to investigate in detail. Manned missions then do that detailed investigation. The Moon landings weren't for science - they were a political statement. The science was just a bonus of that statement. But learning how to mine asteroids? Efficiently get between the surface and LEO and points farther? Will infinitely improve the human condition. They won't do it for probably 50-100 years, but that doesn't mean we don't do them.
Now, you need a lot more unmanned missions to figure out the few manned missions that will be worth the time and money.
Slashdot Mirror
suburban homes (which are admittedly otherwise environmentally disastrous)
Well most anything modern industrial humans do is environmentally disastrous ;-)
The difference with solar is that generation efficiency is less important...because you have so much possible surface area from which to generate power. The roof and sides of every building, windows, roadways, etc. We're not there yet, but nothing else allows that widespread a power generation base...with no additional footprint.
Obviously, great density/efficiency in your generation means you need less area, but you can get the same result with a larger foot print all being very close to actual power demand.
current numbers. things are only going to get more efficient both on the server side and the solar panel side.
There are multiple MW solar roof installs running right now.
OP/Troll questioned destroying habitat. clearly there are ways to generate more than enough solar without covering a single bit of ground that we aren't already covering. Parking lot covers, window films - obviously not so much for the data centers but buildings next door? New tech will only increase that ability.
This is a very solvable problem only waiting on the initiative to get it started. Perhaps the first iterations only provide 30%. that's still a hell of a lot better than a negative percent that fossil fuel provides since the cost of it's pollution isn't factored into it's on going use.
Glad we agree it's feasible then, just a matter of scale. We have lots of buildings just waiting to generate power while just 'sitting there'.
Nobody said they had to generate it all directly on site. And when the roads and every other manmade surface are producing power, habitat destruction will be the straw man it always was.
data centers generally aren't lacking for available roof space so no taking up any more land. Hell give tech 10-20 years and the roads themselves will be providing us power. They have window films today that generate electricity.
But keep sucking on that sweet sweet tail pipe o crude
The key fact is the Sun has vastly more capacity than we will need in the next few thousand years, let alone the next few decades. There's literally an oil well on every street corner. The difficulty for now is storing that for later use.
You also touched on another key factor. When the fuel is free, efficiency of generation can be a very low priority. Sure it costs more to build a bigger array, but not nearly as much as trying the infinity cost of doubling your solar panel efficiency if the tech don't yet exist. With a gas or coal plant you can build it bigger, but then you have on going fuel costs. With solar, just a bigger initial outlay and then all the power you need is basically free.
And lets also remember that corporate software has so many many bugs and vulnerabilities that they had to schedule a MONTHLY day to do them. Only to find yet more bugs so critically important that they broke their own rules well more than 2 times to release out of cycle fixes.
OS will almost always beat corporate in terms of defects and response time. Anyone care to guess how many 'heartbleeds' currently exist in Windows code that we know nothing about?
I do love how the climate deniers will say we can't possibly study the earth to predict the future...and then trot out the earth as something that will allow them to predict the future...
I know this OP isn't necessarily in that camp but the post jogged that thought into my brain...
yes I agree the ISP would have motive pay a bribe to get better results. but you said worked at an ISP and have been solicited for bribes; i.e. been offered money by the speed test companies. That's the reverse situation. What motivation would the speed test company have for such a payment?
If you're claiming the speed test companies tried to get you to pay them for better results, that's extortion, not a bribe. Still bad, but not what you're original statement indicated.
But to the point, OP asked:
Why would an ISP bribe [a speed test site]
And you answered
I work for an ISP, and I've been solicited for bribes
That's the exact reverse situation he described...
That sounds a LOT like Verizon today.
So the municipalities built their own network around Telia. Which our federal gov't is conveniently blocking our municipalities from doing in many cases.
looking at what works/doesn't work ... is helpful but still an analogy
I say it's absolutely necessary. Monopolies by private entities without hefty regulation are bad. They have a built in incentive to provide as little as possible for as much money as possible - they are for profit entities.
:)
For profit will always screw the customer...its about making as much money as you can. What mitigates this natural desire is the competition so that when someone gets greedy like that, competitors provide, ahem, competition.
Sweden is ahead of us in this process. They've already seen the downside of a monopoly private entity...and like the internet sees damage, routed around it
The municipalities BUILT the fiber backbone to compete with entrenched monopoly Telia. read that again. They build an entire SECOND network to counter act the monopoly...
Monopolies run by private entities are bad unless heavily regulated. Said regulation divides service into 2 areas. Infrastructure and delivery. The infrastructure is regulated heavily to allow common access. Service can be offered by anybody over the infrastructure. Hence you get the best network with the best competition for the actual service.
The infrastructure contracts are now going to be pushed by the multitude of service providers using that network. This allows everyone to share the costs and reap the benefits of a common standard system.
As opposed to Verizon/ISPs which passes the FULL costs directly on to you while providing 10% of the service value? Oh and Verizon was granted plenty of subsidies to actually build the network in the first place so your tax dollars are already involved whether you like it or not.
The government shouldn't be providing services that can be done by the private sector.
The government should provide the level playing field for private companies to COMPETE. That means rules and regulations on who/what/how. That's a GOOD thing that can be abused, but still a good thing. Otherwise you end up with 4 water supply systems across your town.
Perhaps you should get out of your 'small town with 5+ choices'. The vast majority of the US has exactly 1 choice for broadband, even by the big players pathetic standards of 1-4Mb speeds. Seriously they want to classify slightly better than DSL as 'high speed' in 2014. The rest of the world has GIGABIT for $70 bucks and we're living with less than 10Mb?
If gov't can do it faster cheaper and better than the private sector...the private sector is ridiculously bad...
As for taxes...how about $100/month difference? They get much faster service for much much less per month. You're already paying those sky high 'taxes' to Verizon/Comcast but somehow it's better because it's a private company providing you not nearly as good service?
I'm going to guess Britain's drivers ed is also a bit more strenuous than the US...so you have better skilled drivers on average than we do
because the computer only polls at set intervals. If it only checks every six seconds, and I jam the excelerator on the 3rd second then let off, the computer thinks you're basically coasting.
Not to say it couldn't be more accurate, but it's just a dash readout it doesn't need to be super high precision. Also, see your engine temp gauge if you even have one. You don't need to know that it's 1 degree hotter now than it was 10 minutes ago; so it's at best a range with an analog indicator arm but no specific numbers thru the range.
we don't need NASCAR precision determining mpg. Dividing miles driven since the last fill up by the amount you put in gives you well within even 1/2 of a mpg. Plenty good enough for the vast majority of people.
quite a bit of logging? How about just dividing miles driven by the gallons you put in? that's as close as any normal person needs to get and is pretty damned accurate.
The extremely simple solution is separating out the costs of providing power and the costs of maintaining the grid. If you're connected, you pay for the grid maintenance whatever the cost just like everybody else.
The legacy industry isn't yet using this model so they see a threat where there is none.
Though I fully expect to see increased night time rates on the, ahem, horizon. "You want solar? No problem, but the grid rate will be $400/kwh after 8 pm...."
So you've established that all the male scientists made of straw are corrupt. Lets see some actual evidence of corruption in that 'good chunk' of 'real' scientists.
The reality, of course, is that the split is far closer to 99/1 than to 50/50.
the manifestation of this by John Oliver
The fact that a good chunk of scientists are just that corrupt doesn't help either.
And most of those are the ones actively discrediting the 'good' ones because they've been paid off by the fossil fuel industry.
Seriously though, what evidence do you have that 'a good chunk' are corrupt?
this won't be 'taking' your wallet. Just reading it from afar....
There is no purpose to manned spaceflight.
There's always purpose to investigating the unknown. If we didn't, we'd still be living in trees.
You need both. The Science figures out what is interesting enough to investigate in detail. Manned missions then do that detailed investigation. The Moon landings weren't for science - they were a political statement. The science was just a bonus of that statement. But learning how to mine asteroids? Efficiently get between the surface and LEO and points farther? Will infinitely improve the human condition. They won't do it for probably 50-100 years, but that doesn't mean we don't do them.
Now, you need a lot more unmanned missions to figure out the few manned missions that will be worth the time and money.
Remember, these aren't real jobs. Gov't spending doesn't create jobs or so some political party keeps claiming...
so far pretty much every 'case' of ACA pricing people out or not covering them has been found to be fake. Details, links or you're just trolling.