The issue here is not a 4th amendment violation, at least directly. It's a technology advance that combines things that aren't 4th amendment violations 'what a police officer sees while patrolling' into a fully itemized searchable tracking database that does violate the 4th amendment's 'spirit'.
The data 'seen' at the time is not 4th amendment violating, but the storage and persistence of said data *should* be a 4th amendment violation. Technology is trumping even the Constitution and we need to update our concepts to match what is now possible for the government.
as a serious question, do you get any kind of ice dams building up? a white roof would at least minimize any heat generated by the roof producing said ice dams.
I'm in the mid atlantic so we get a lot of freeze/thaw cycles where this can be a significant problem, not sure how much it might exist in Minnesofsckingcoldsota;-)
There is the reverse, less heat generated in winter argument as you say. But consider this, if there's less heat being generated, less likely that some of the snow melts and runs off and freezes into your gutters.
Granted most solar installations don't cover even 1/2 of a roof's area, but the AC brings up at least a plausible concept to explore.
Personally though I figure that if they are spraying the roof it's because there are holes in the roof made by the fire and they are hoping the water goes in said holes; in which case the panels likely aren't in place anymore since the trusses will have burnt through. Not to mention the burning of said solar panels in the fire, can't be exactly great for the environment. (No idea how much more worse than the burning of the household materials already is...could be a very small addition of bad stuff).
I'd love to use LED lighting everywhere but it is too darn expensive for me still.
This is *exactly* what I'm talking about. You tax the incandescent bulbs rather than outright ban them and use the money to subsidize the currently more expensive 'better' option. So you can buy the LEDs cheaper, and we all get to save money and the environment by not burning as much coal:)
Ask yourself why the horse-and-buggy or water bucket didn't have to be explicitly banned to fall into obsolescence whereas the incandescent bulb for some reason does...
Maybe perhaps because the cars didn't have to have their 'waste' cleaned up on the streets of cities, think about how much they would cost if you had to pay for all the CO2 released? There are a lot of reasons why cars are not as good as horses. Cars don't make more of themselves. They contribute to global warming. They can't be 'fueled' simply by tying them up in the yard.
Equally, there are even more reasons why cars are a massive upgrade from horses, which is why they supplanted horse and buggies.
Some say they like the warmth(heat)
This is complete rubbish, only the truly misinformed (or wildly specific user - see the post above about growing tropical plants in the winter) believe they get actual usable heat out of bulbs.
some prefer the color
Funny how corporate america seems to function ok using pretty much all fluorescent bulbs. People will get over it and the tech will improve. In the mean time, we'll be saving 12 billion dollars a year that we don't have to pay in taxes to build more power plants.
some don't want to deal with mercury
Since coal is the primary power source today, you're already getting *more* mercury than the CFLs would possibly contribute to the environment. And that's only if they aren't disposed of properly. There's no way currently to stop the coal mercury from being released.
some have extreme temperatures to deal with
Which is why I would have preferred not banning but taxing incandescents to drive desired behavior.
whatever the concern, incandescents have a purpose
To give off light. Which other technologies do more efficiently.
if there was a perfect replacement, they would obsolete themselves (much as the horse and buggy has
Just like renewable sources of energy will supplant fossil fuel sources...Eventually. But if there are downsides to the status quo that cause serious consequences, do you keep doing the status quo until the consequences are so massive it costs double or triple the problem to fix? Or do you start driving desired behavior prior to reaching that tipping point?
The latter is far and away cheaper in the long run. But you apparently don't want to think of the world you're leaving to your children.
GP was talking about a very localized/concentrated toxic amount of Hg that requires a Hazmat team to properly dispose of the breakage.
A single bulb breaking requires a hazmat team? sources please...
You're talking about a whole-environment slight increase in Hg in parts-per-million style.
Quite right, when you convert localized single bulb mercury to parts per million it doesn't even register. Systemic wide area pollution of greater amounts is much worse. Which was my point.
I bought my current 3 BR TH in 2004 and replaced every bulb with CFLs. I think I've replaced 4-5 bulbs in 5 years including the ones I'm using outdoors against specs. And I'm mostly buying Home Depot stock stuff. Bulb life seems pretty reasonable to me. The only ones I'm not including are ones I placed on dimmers against specs as well. That didn't work so well;-) They make dimmer capable ones now but haven't tried them yet.
Incidentally, incandescent bulbs often are used as small heaters because it's very easy to run the infrastructure to one of them.
This was actually something that even engineers missed when they started replacing traffic signal bulbs with CFLs. Come winter a lot more snow built up because there wasn't as much heat being produced.
These situations are the exception rather than the rule and there are solutions available to correct the problems.
I use CFLs *outside* all year round, they'll work just fine in a fridge. LEDs would actually be more suited to that anyway.
Is an oven light really something worth spending 12 BILLION dollars a year on? Perhaps there's an exception for such things, I don't know. Personally I would have preferred a tax tariff on all incandescent bulbs to price them competitively with CFLs then let the market really decide which is best.
A washbucket with a scrubbing board takes less energy than a washing machine
And it also uses quite a bit more water...just like washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher. Of course both of those examples are time duration activities...providing light is not. Nice try though:)
Just because something is more efficient, doesn't mean that it will work as a good replacement.
Yep, we should just go back to horse n buggy, because those things used less energy and produced net zero emissions.
The 'most efficient' at the task at hand is what is important, rather than the energy used. The time saved by driving versus horseback, by not washing dishes or clothes by hand also factor into that 'efficiency' since i can do multiple things at once that you can't doing them by hand.
Providing light is the job in this case and using less energy to do the job *is* a worthy goal.
Anyway, it's too late already. All the American light bulb plants have been forcibly shut down, so if you want incandescent bulbs, you'll need to buy them from China.
This is a valid point. I would have preferred to simply tax incandescent bulbs to price the CFL's competitively. I wonder who opposed such types of taxes hmm? Oh yes, Mr. Joe "I'm sorry BP" Barton and his GOP brethren. They've made this bed with their 'no tax is a good tax' orthodoxy and they get the blame for such things.
It's also amazing how *saving* consumers BILLIONS per year is somehow bad according to you and the GOP. Party of fiscal responsibility be damned! The 'tax and spend' Dems are far more fiscally responsible.
As you're numbers indicate you use significantly more electricity in the winter because of heat. I will extrapolate that you don't use significantly less 'light' in the winter than you do in the summer.
So in order to provide the same amount of heat with bulbs as your heaters provide you'd need to be living inside a friggin lighthouse search light in terms of brightness.
Incandescent bulbs do give off more heat than CFLs. They do not give off equivalent heat as actual 'heaters' do. To say nothing of the fact that 'heaters' are on the floor and bulbs generally are 'high up'. That again won't heat well without something else circulating the air further increasing the energy the incandescent bulbs would use.
yes it is. Incandescent bulbs are a seriously poor way to heat homes.
Light bulbs reduce the need for central heating in cold areas.
And increase it in hot areas which is just about half the US at a minimum in the summer.
They also provide a better light spectrum.
Technology issue that is being solved.
They also aren't as toxic when you break them.
Funny, the article addresses this. *More* mercury is released by the coal plants to power the extra energy needs of incandescent bulbs than is in the CFL bulbs themselves. So the 'toxicity' issue is moot. 'Neither' would be a better option of course.
Of course if you switch to all renewable energy sources the 'efficiency' issue also becomes just about moot since the 'fuel' would be free.
Wanna take odds on what Mr. Joe "I'm sorry BP" Barton thinks about renewable energy?
And uses more energy. If you're problem is insulation, i.e. retaining heat, fix the insulation problem, not just sweep it under the rug by fixing the symptom.
CFLs *may* not be the greatest thing in the world but they are significantly more efficient than incandescent bulbs are.
I'd respect Rep Joe "I'm sorry BP" Barton a bit more (ok at all...) if he actually included things that required increased efficiency without saying what you should buy, but tax the energy hogs of incandescent bulbs...literally they want to stay in the 'stone age' and just use the older style without looking to the future.
I do like that the article states that the mercury issue is largely moot. More mercury is emitted by the coal plants burning fuel for the extra incandescent power usage than is in the CFL bulbs.
I wonder how jostling of the PC case might affect this 'bearing'? Is it possible that the spinning disc would then impact the static metal base plate?
Seems like this concept would already have been dealt with via spinning hard disk platters, but those don't weigh nearly as much as a heat sink and are segmented out specially with shock absorbers in the HD enclosure.
It is reduced but I'd wager that even coated fan blades are more efficient than a solid block of non heat conducting material, i.e. the dust caked onto the now solid heat sink. There's 'zero' airflow over the surface if you can't get to the surface.
If you *know* parts of the password or can provide a subset of possible characters, you can get it down to doable time frames. But if the gov't is cracking it, they probably don't know much if anything about the password.
The CIA/NSA botnet theory is interesting though...
automated testing is primarily for regression testing anyway. GUI / user experience 'testing' is usually after that point, since 'GUI' is just the interface and not the back end logic. Working but looking bad is inherently preferable to looking good but not working....
I love code reviews; I usually like doing them and I really want my code reviewed too.
I agree, it's one of the better learning experiences short of 'pair programming' (which I can't stand).
The single biggest problem I have is that time is never budgeted for any serious review times. Reviewing minor changes can be quick but if it's entirely new code, it needs to be reviewed in how it interacts with it's interfaced components and that add significant time to figure out if it's working properly or not.
And that my gov't contractor employer has this ridiculous 'every line of code must be reviewed' policy. We're not doing sensitive software stuff where absolute precision is required, it's just standard information systems development. Review some representative sample of the work product and move forward. The 'everything' requirement only breeds disinterest in the process itself.
I would also say we need more testers who 'are' coders, just not 'the' coders of the software being tested.
With automated testing coming along in it's depth and flexibility, implementing the tests themselves is becoming it's own version of programming.
One of my biggest gripes is testers who don't know SQL. How do you set up your test cases without preloading the database? If you're manually entering data through the app you're testing you still need to verify that data got input correctly and that involves looking under the hood in the actual DB.
You're really using the Flight 93 situation as a citation of functional security? It fucking crashed. Everyone died. Way to go, security.
Um, you do realize that plane was meant for the White House right? It didn't hit the white house *because* the passengers forced the hijackers to crash.
I always assumed they were locked, and not a flimsy piece of particleboard before that happened, but I must have been incorrect.
If you don't remember flying prior to 9/11, you *really* shouldn't be commenting on what was and wasn't 'common sense'. It was *always* common for the door to be wide open. Kids often even taken up to see the cockpit.
Furthermore, there's no evidence that Flight 93 stopped anything from happening. For all we know, they could have flown into the ocean with the exact same results, even without passenger intervention.
Except that we *do* know what their plans were, they've told us. It was to crash into the White House. Flight 93 reduced damages to 'zero' on the ground. that's a pretty damned big 'prevention'.
The underwear bomber? He didn't do it right, and it had nothing to do with the TSA. Shoe bomber? He made it on the plane. Razor-wielding crazy man? He made it on the plane. Psycho flight attendant opening doors on the runway? On the plane.
And *none* of those are 9/11 attacks. Which was my *entire* point.
Turn in your/. nickname. And your bubble gum. You aren't qualified to wield either of them...
Slashdot Mirror
The issue here is not a 4th amendment violation, at least directly. It's a technology advance that combines things that aren't 4th amendment violations 'what a police officer sees while patrolling' into a fully itemized searchable tracking database that does violate the 4th amendment's 'spirit'.
The data 'seen' at the time is not 4th amendment violating, but the storage and persistence of said data *should* be a 4th amendment violation. Technology is trumping even the Constitution and we need to update our concepts to match what is now possible for the government.
as a serious question, do you get any kind of ice dams building up? a white roof would at least minimize any heat generated by the roof producing said ice dams.
;-)
I'm in the mid atlantic so we get a lot of freeze/thaw cycles where this can be a significant problem, not sure how much it might exist in Minnesofsckingcoldsota
There is the reverse, less heat generated in winter argument as you say. But consider this, if there's less heat being generated, less likely that some of the snow melts and runs off and freezes into your gutters.
:)
Sometimes the bad can be helpful
Granted most solar installations don't cover even 1/2 of a roof's area, but the AC brings up at least a plausible concept to explore.
Personally though I figure that if they are spraying the roof it's because there are holes in the roof made by the fire and they are hoping the water goes in said holes; in which case the panels likely aren't in place anymore since the trusses will have burnt through. Not to mention the burning of said solar panels in the fire, can't be exactly great for the environment. (No idea how much more worse than the burning of the household materials already is...could be a very small addition of bad stuff).
This whole BS MBA compartmentalized mentality is killing America.
I sooo much prefer the "Palinization" spewing word salad on any topic imaginable that they know nothing about...
I'd love to use LED lighting everywhere but it is too darn expensive for me still.
This is *exactly* what I'm talking about. You tax the incandescent bulbs rather than outright ban them and use the money to subsidize the currently more expensive 'better' option. So you can buy the LEDs cheaper, and we all get to save money and the environment by not burning as much coal :)
Ask yourself why the horse-and-buggy or water bucket didn't have to be explicitly banned to fall into obsolescence whereas the incandescent bulb for some reason does...
Maybe perhaps because the cars didn't have to have their 'waste' cleaned up on the streets of cities, think about how much they would cost if you had to pay for all the CO2 released? There are a lot of reasons why cars are not as good as horses. Cars don't make more of themselves. They contribute to global warming. They can't be 'fueled' simply by tying them up in the yard.
Equally, there are even more reasons why cars are a massive upgrade from horses, which is why they supplanted horse and buggies.
Some say they like the warmth(heat)
This is complete rubbish, only the truly misinformed (or wildly specific user - see the post above about growing tropical plants in the winter) believe they get actual usable heat out of bulbs.
some prefer the color
Funny how corporate america seems to function ok using pretty much all fluorescent bulbs. People will get over it and the tech will improve. In the mean time, we'll be saving 12 billion dollars a year that we don't have to pay in taxes to build more power plants.
some don't want to deal with mercury
Since coal is the primary power source today, you're already getting *more* mercury than the CFLs would possibly contribute to the environment. And that's only if they aren't disposed of properly. There's no way currently to stop the coal mercury from being released.
some have extreme temperatures to deal with
Which is why I would have preferred not banning but taxing incandescents to drive desired behavior.
whatever the concern, incandescents have a purpose
To give off light. Which other technologies do more efficiently.
if there was a perfect replacement, they would obsolete themselves (much as the horse and buggy has
Just like renewable sources of energy will supplant fossil fuel sources...Eventually. But if there are downsides to the status quo that cause serious consequences, do you keep doing the status quo until the consequences are so massive it costs double or triple the problem to fix? Or do you start driving desired behavior prior to reaching that tipping point?
The latter is far and away cheaper in the long run. But you apparently don't want to think of the world you're leaving to your children.
...wow
My thoughts exactly!
GP was talking about a very localized/concentrated toxic amount of Hg that requires a Hazmat team to properly dispose of the breakage.
A single bulb breaking requires a hazmat team? sources please...
You're talking about a whole-environment slight increase in Hg in parts-per-million style.
Quite right, when you convert localized single bulb mercury to parts per million it doesn't even register. Systemic wide area pollution of greater amounts is much worse. Which was my point.
Incidentally, incandescent bulbs often are used as small heaters because it's very easy to run the infrastructure to one of them.
This was actually something that even engineers missed when they started replacing traffic signal bulbs with CFLs. Come winter a lot more snow built up because there wasn't as much heat being produced.
These situations are the exception rather than the rule and there are solutions available to correct the problems.
I use CFLs *outside* all year round, they'll work just fine in a fridge. LEDs would actually be more suited to that anyway.
Is an oven light really something worth spending 12 BILLION dollars a year on? Perhaps there's an exception for such things, I don't know. Personally I would have preferred a tax tariff on all incandescent bulbs to price them competitively with CFLs then let the market really decide which is best.
A washbucket with a scrubbing board takes less energy than a washing machine
And it also uses quite a bit more water...just like washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher. Of course both of those examples are time duration activities...providing light is not. Nice try though :)
Just because something is more efficient, doesn't mean that it will work as a good replacement.
Yep, we should just go back to horse n buggy, because those things used less energy and produced net zero emissions.
The 'most efficient' at the task at hand is what is important, rather than the energy used. The time saved by driving versus horseback, by not washing dishes or clothes by hand also factor into that 'efficiency' since i can do multiple things at once that you can't doing them by hand.
Providing light is the job in this case and using less energy to do the job *is* a worthy goal.
Anyway, it's too late already. All the American light bulb plants have been forcibly shut down, so if you want incandescent bulbs, you'll need to buy them from China.
This is a valid point. I would have preferred to simply tax incandescent bulbs to price the CFL's competitively. I wonder who opposed such types of taxes hmm? Oh yes, Mr. Joe "I'm sorry BP" Barton and his GOP brethren. They've made this bed with their 'no tax is a good tax' orthodoxy and they get the blame for such things.
It's also amazing how *saving* consumers BILLIONS per year is somehow bad according to you and the GOP. Party of fiscal responsibility be damned! The 'tax and spend' Dems are far more fiscally responsible.
100% of 'what'? Details matter.
As you're numbers indicate you use significantly more electricity in the winter because of heat. I will extrapolate that you don't use significantly less 'light' in the winter than you do in the summer.
So in order to provide the same amount of heat with bulbs as your heaters provide you'd need to be living inside a friggin lighthouse search light in terms of brightness.
Incandescent bulbs do give off more heat than CFLs. They do not give off equivalent heat as actual 'heaters' do. To say nothing of the fact that 'heaters' are on the floor and bulbs generally are 'high up'. That again won't heat well without something else circulating the air further increasing the energy the incandescent bulbs would use.
This is not a straightforward issue.
yes it is. Incandescent bulbs are a seriously poor way to heat homes.
Light bulbs reduce the need for central heating in cold areas.
And increase it in hot areas which is just about half the US at a minimum in the summer.
They also provide a better light spectrum.
Technology issue that is being solved.
They also aren't as toxic when you break them.
Funny, the article addresses this. *More* mercury is released by the coal plants to power the extra energy needs of incandescent bulbs than is in the CFL bulbs themselves. So the 'toxicity' issue is moot. 'Neither' would be a better option of course.
Of course if you switch to all renewable energy sources the 'efficiency' issue also becomes just about moot since the 'fuel' would be free.
Wanna take odds on what Mr. Joe "I'm sorry BP" Barton thinks about renewable energy?
And uses more energy. If you're problem is insulation, i.e. retaining heat, fix the insulation problem, not just sweep it under the rug by fixing the symptom.
CFLs *may* not be the greatest thing in the world but they are significantly more efficient than incandescent bulbs are.
I'd respect Rep Joe "I'm sorry BP" Barton a bit more (ok at all...) if he actually included things that required increased efficiency without saying what you should buy, but tax the energy hogs of incandescent bulbs...literally they want to stay in the 'stone age' and just use the older style without looking to the future.
I do like that the article states that the mercury issue is largely moot. More mercury is emitted by the coal plants burning fuel for the extra incandescent power usage than is in the CFL bulbs.
I wonder how jostling of the PC case might affect this 'bearing'? Is it possible that the spinning disc would then impact the static metal base plate?
Seems like this concept would already have been dealt with via spinning hard disk platters, but those don't weigh nearly as much as a heat sink and are segmented out specially with shock absorbers in the HD enclosure.
It is reduced but I'd wager that even coated fan blades are more efficient than a solid block of non heat conducting material, i.e. the dust caked onto the now solid heat sink. There's 'zero' airflow over the surface if you can't get to the surface.
The fans are still pushing air over the surface.
Assuming you've got a long random password? I believe centuries is the current time frame for decryption.
linky
If you *know* parts of the password or can provide a subset of possible characters, you can get it down to doable time frames. But if the gov't is cracking it, they probably don't know much if anything about the password.
The CIA/NSA botnet theory is interesting though...
Actively destroying potential evidence is an actual crime. Refusing to disclose said data in this case is constitutionally protected*.
You *really* don't want to do the former in any circumstance short of disclosing that you actually were the mastermind behind 9/11.
* at time of submit (sigh)
Whoever said that you have to arrange your papers and effects in such a way that the government can understand it?
I believe that is the 'new boss', who is eerily similar to the 'old boss'...
Made. Of. Win.
Awesome!
automated testing is primarily for regression testing anyway. GUI / user experience 'testing' is usually after that point, since 'GUI' is just the interface and not the back end logic. Working but looking bad is inherently preferable to looking good but not working....
I love code reviews; I usually like doing them and I really want my code reviewed too.
I agree, it's one of the better learning experiences short of 'pair programming' (which I can't stand).
The single biggest problem I have is that time is never budgeted for any serious review times. Reviewing minor changes can be quick but if it's entirely new code, it needs to be reviewed in how it interacts with it's interfaced components and that add significant time to figure out if it's working properly or not.
And that my gov't contractor employer has this ridiculous 'every line of code must be reviewed' policy. We're not doing sensitive software stuff where absolute precision is required, it's just standard information systems development. Review some representative sample of the work product and move forward. The 'everything' requirement only breeds disinterest in the process itself.
I would also say we need more testers who 'are' coders, just not 'the' coders of the software being tested.
With automated testing coming along in it's depth and flexibility, implementing the tests themselves is becoming it's own version of programming.
One of my biggest gripes is testers who don't know SQL. How do you set up your test cases without preloading the database? If you're manually entering data through the app you're testing you still need to verify that data got input correctly and that involves looking under the hood in the actual DB.
You're really using the Flight 93 situation as a citation of functional security? It fucking crashed. Everyone died. Way to go, security.
Um, you do realize that plane was meant for the White House right? It didn't hit the white house *because* the passengers forced the hijackers to crash.
I always assumed they were locked, and not a flimsy piece of particleboard before that happened, but I must have been incorrect.
If you don't remember flying prior to 9/11, you *really* shouldn't be commenting on what was and wasn't 'common sense'. It was *always* common for the door to be wide open. Kids often even taken up to see the cockpit.
Furthermore, there's no evidence that Flight 93 stopped anything from happening. For all we know, they could have flown into the ocean with the exact same results, even without passenger intervention.
Except that we *do* know what their plans were, they've told us. It was to crash into the White House. Flight 93 reduced damages to 'zero' on the ground. that's a pretty damned big 'prevention'.
The underwear bomber? He didn't do it right, and it had nothing to do with the TSA. Shoe bomber? He made it on the plane. Razor-wielding crazy man? He made it on the plane. Psycho flight attendant opening doors on the runway? On the plane.
And *none* of those are 9/11 attacks. Which was my *entire* point.
/. nickname. And your bubble gum. You aren't qualified to wield either of them...
Turn in your