My biggest CFL savings was in the lights for my garage door opener.The openers an older unit that probably wasn't installed correctly and it shakes a bit so it was burning out incandescent's every month or two. Two years after replacing them with CFL's I'm still on the same units, net savings excluding power is probably a couple bucks and I haven't had to get on a ladder after pulling the cars out which is nice.
Even being very pessimistic and saying local PF dropping from.8 to.5 would increase transmission losses by 160% that means total transmissions losses would be 16% of total generated load. Dropping load from 100W to 22W seems like a no brainer to me. As to light quality, there are 98CRI 5000K fluorescent bulbs out there (though 93CRI is the best I have seen in CFL's). The ones I had installed over my cube are slightly blue tinged compared to noon day summer sun but still tons better than any other artificial light source I have seen.
The marginal cost to the power company to produce a watt of electricity is really, really low. So, if everyone switched all of their lighting to CFL's with a.5pf then the power company still saves money by prolonging the utility of their capital outlay in their plant and transmission systems because even the apparent power is still half that of incandescent's.
CFL's are still a better deal, check out these for instance, same lumens/watt, similar CRI, better color temp, one seventh the price for one fourth the life so about half the dollars per lumen/hour =) If you want REALLY good color and high lumens/watt (62.5) check out these 98 CRI 5000K beauties. I recently had work pick some up to combat season affective disorder (winter blues) and they are great. They have just a tinge of blue to their output but are otherwise quite close to sunlight. It's was amazing seeing them next to normal tubes as we replaced them, the normal tubes gave a weak sickly color by comparison.
Time for slightly more expensive bulbs then. It's not like PF correction is particularly hard, it just costs a couple bucks a bulb. My datacenter UPS's report a demand side load factor of.91 and that includes a fairly large amount of load with no PF correction.
Today you just buy 2.5" drives with 2" platters, much more cost effective =) As an example HP 146GB 15K 2.5" has a full stoke latency of 4.85ms, nearly as fast as the average (short stroke) latency of a 144GB 10K 3.5" drive (3.9ms). No way the 2.5" cost 2x more =)
I would absolutely do RAID-1 for any system where the data has more value than a second drive. As far as them running for years, sure the X-25E is rated at 1PB of random writes. Even our busiest SAN volumes have only seen about 14TB of writes in 2.5 years, this is for a 1 million row per month OLTP and reporting system. If you have a single RAID1 today there is no way you are pushing enough IOPS to fail the drive in less than 5 years. SSD's have another advantage which is that even when a cell has failed they are still readable so you shouldn't lose data if you manage to wear it out.
Cool, when I bought mine the 64GB wasn't available and the 32GB was almost that much. That's why SSD's are so cool right now, even at the high end the $/GB is falling rapidly, much more so then enterprise HDD's. 450GB 15K FC drives are about three times that much so about 1/3rds the $/GB but MUCH higher $/IOP.
Not ones you'd use in an enterprise! X-25e is the only SLC based flash with a decent controller under $1k and it's still $24/GB. Unless you have a WORM application that needs fast seeks (pretty rare) MLC based flash isn't a good fit for most enterprise applications. The only areas we've found for them are log drives for high transation database servers where the insane IOPS per $ make sense and cache for a BI system which still sees enough writes to rule out MLC. Oh and their analysis is based on a rather small set of data, I'm at a midsized shop and I have more storage online and a more varied workload than that.
I never said don't do it, I just said that it may not turn out to be cost effective. I'm all for progress and research to advance the human condition but just because we can do something doesn't mean we should or will.
Delivery, how are you going to introduce suppressor T cells through a weaponized agent? There are plenty of things more dangerous than your typical bio-agent, they just can't be easily weaponized.
Nah, most of the people receiving the Nobel are top of their field and hence well compensated, the money is nice but it's not what motivates most of the recipients.
It has more to do with how many people will be ABLE to get a transplant, a large reason so many people don't have health insurance in the US is because it's freaking expensive. In countries with socialized healthcare it's likely that such costly measures will be rejected or have such significant wait times that attrition will reduce costs. The fact is building, maintaining, and staffing such facilities is exceedingly expensive and so it might not turn out to be the most cost effective (efficient) solution. Actuaries put a cost on human life every day and wishing for universal state of the art health coverage isn't going to make it happen.
Yes, but a complete isolation environment is MUCH more expensive than a normal ICU which is MUCH more expensive than a recovery room which is MUCH more expensive than outpatient followup visits. Basically the cost for two weeks in isolation is probably in the mid 6 figure range vs high 5 to low 6 figures for the procedures.
The problem is that Oracle couldn't redistribute the fix even if they paid for it to be developed, the end users would have to pay per patch and the rates are scary expensive. The DST patch was available for Win2k but it cost several times what it did for us to automate the workaround and verify the results.
Who the hell is going to run out and buy Vista just because XP left mainstream support?!? The only time the fact that 2000 left mainstream has mattered to any company I know is when the governments of the world got cute and changed DST, and that was solved through a fairly simple if somewhat time intensive process of automating the manual workaround that Microsoft provided. Most of the time the reason you aren't running the OS that's in mainstream support is you want stability and consistency, new features and non-security fixes generally fly in the face of that concept anyways. I think most smart businesses will be waiting for Win 7 XP1/2008 R2 to perform wholesale upgrades which should mean it starts happening about the same time the economy is recovering and budgets start to loosen and allow for the upgraded hardware and manpower to do the upgrades.
Ummm, the allow Pandora for the iphone and you can tag tracks in the app and buy them at Amazon through the Pandora website. Plus it's not like Apple has a stranglehold on the smartphone market (Pandora for BB was release a few weeks ago for instance, an occurrence which has enriched my life =)
Slashdot Mirror
My biggest CFL savings was in the lights for my garage door opener.The openers an older unit that probably wasn't installed correctly and it shakes a bit so it was burning out incandescent's every month or two. Two years after replacing them with CFL's I'm still on the same units, net savings excluding power is probably a couple bucks and I haven't had to get on a ladder after pulling the cars out which is nice.
Even being very pessimistic and saying local PF dropping from .8 to .5 would increase transmission losses by 160% that means total transmissions losses would be 16% of total generated load. Dropping load from 100W to 22W seems like a no brainer to me. As to light quality, there are 98CRI 5000K fluorescent bulbs out there (though 93CRI is the best I have seen in CFL's). The ones I had installed over my cube are slightly blue tinged compared to noon day summer sun but still tons better than any other artificial light source I have seen.
The marginal cost to the power company to produce a watt of electricity is really, really low. So, if everyone switched all of their lighting to CFL's with a .5pf then the power company still saves money by prolonging the utility of their capital outlay in their plant and transmission systems because even the apparent power is still half that of incandescent's.
You know you can do more than eliminate waste in the bathroom... Oh yeah this is Slashdot so maybe you don't know =)
Freezing to death, you kind of just slowly go to sleep.
Quite buying crap, buy GE or similar name brand bulbs. They aren't that much more and out of 12 bulbs I replaced 4 years ago I have had one burn out.
Yes, next question?
CFL's are still a better deal, check out these for instance, same lumens/watt, similar CRI, better color temp, one seventh the price for one fourth the life so about half the dollars per lumen/hour =) If you want REALLY good color and high lumens/watt (62.5) check out these 98 CRI 5000K beauties. I recently had work pick some up to combat season affective disorder (winter blues) and they are great. They have just a tinge of blue to their output but are otherwise quite close to sunlight. It's was amazing seeing them next to normal tubes as we replaced them, the normal tubes gave a weak sickly color by comparison.
Time for slightly more expensive bulbs then. It's not like PF correction is particularly hard, it just costs a couple bucks a bulb. My datacenter UPS's report a demand side load factor of .91 and that includes a fairly large amount of load with no PF correction.
Today you just buy 2.5" drives with 2" platters, much more cost effective =) As an example HP 146GB 15K 2.5" has a full stoke latency of 4.85ms, nearly as fast as the average (short stroke) latency of a 144GB 10K 3.5" drive (3.9ms). No way the 2.5" cost 2x more =)
I would absolutely do RAID-1 for any system where the data has more value than a second drive. As far as them running for years, sure the X-25E is rated at 1PB of random writes. Even our busiest SAN volumes have only seen about 14TB of writes in 2.5 years, this is for a 1 million row per month OLTP and reporting system. If you have a single RAID1 today there is no way you are pushing enough IOPS to fail the drive in less than 5 years. SSD's have another advantage which is that even when a cell has failed they are still readable so you shouldn't lose data if you manage to wear it out.
Cool, when I bought mine the 64GB wasn't available and the 32GB was almost that much. That's why SSD's are so cool right now, even at the high end the $/GB is falling rapidly, much more so then enterprise HDD's. 450GB 15K FC drives are about three times that much so about 1/3rds the $/GB but MUCH higher $/IOP.
Not ones you'd use in an enterprise! X-25e is the only SLC based flash with a decent controller under $1k and it's still $24/GB. Unless you have a WORM application that needs fast seeks (pretty rare) MLC based flash isn't a good fit for most enterprise applications. The only areas we've found for them are log drives for high transation database servers where the insane IOPS per $ make sense and cache for a BI system which still sees enough writes to rule out MLC. Oh and their analysis is based on a rather small set of data, I'm at a midsized shop and I have more storage online and a more varied workload than that.
I never said don't do it, I just said that it may not turn out to be cost effective. I'm all for progress and research to advance the human condition but just because we can do something doesn't mean we should or will.
Delivery, how are you going to introduce suppressor T cells through a weaponized agent? There are plenty of things more dangerous than your typical bio-agent, they just can't be easily weaponized.
Nah, most of the people receiving the Nobel are top of their field and hence well compensated, the money is nice but it's not what motivates most of the recipients.
It has more to do with how many people will be ABLE to get a transplant, a large reason so many people don't have health insurance in the US is because it's freaking expensive. In countries with socialized healthcare it's likely that such costly measures will be rejected or have such significant wait times that attrition will reduce costs. The fact is building, maintaining, and staffing such facilities is exceedingly expensive and so it might not turn out to be the most cost effective (efficient) solution. Actuaries put a cost on human life every day and wishing for universal state of the art health coverage isn't going to make it happen.
Yes, but a complete isolation environment is MUCH more expensive than a normal ICU which is MUCH more expensive than a recovery room which is MUCH more expensive than outpatient followup visits. Basically the cost for two weeks in isolation is probably in the mid 6 figure range vs high 5 to low 6 figures for the procedures.
The problem is that Oracle couldn't redistribute the fix even if they paid for it to be developed, the end users would have to pay per patch and the rates are scary expensive. The DST patch was available for Win2k but it cost several times what it did for us to automate the workaround and verify the results.
Yep, RHEL is 7 years total with 4 years general support and 3 years of extended support, SUSE is 5 years general and 2 years extended.
Who the hell is going to run out and buy Vista just because XP left mainstream support?!? The only time the fact that 2000 left mainstream has mattered to any company I know is when the governments of the world got cute and changed DST, and that was solved through a fairly simple if somewhat time intensive process of automating the manual workaround that Microsoft provided. Most of the time the reason you aren't running the OS that's in mainstream support is you want stability and consistency, new features and non-security fixes generally fly in the face of that concept anyways. I think most smart businesses will be waiting for Win 7 XP1/2008 R2 to perform wholesale upgrades which should mean it starts happening about the same time the economy is recovering and budgets start to loosen and allow for the upgraded hardware and manpower to do the upgrades.
Here you go from 2007, Apple inc bought the mark outright from Apple Corp and leased rights back to Apple Corp.
Amazon downloader automatically adds the track to your itunes and WMP libraries....
Ummm, the allow Pandora for the iphone and you can tag tracks in the app and buy them at Amazon through the Pandora website. Plus it's not like Apple has a stranglehold on the smartphone market (Pandora for BB was release a few weeks ago for instance, an occurrence which has enriched my life =)
Long ago that was made irrelevant by a private settlement between the parties beyond the original agreement.