and thanks for showing your complete ignorance of the word "efficiency"...
if i use 100 watts and produce NOTHING, i am LESS efficient than if i use 1,000,000 watts and produce ANYTHING.
of course you could argue that an idle machine saves you boot-up time, etc...
but something thats left on overnight of for several hours while you're out for a long lunch - having the machine achieve ANYTHING is that time is hugely more efficient than something that produces NOTHING.
and yes, i agree with you, energy use would be higher, but whats the difference in consumption of a machine running at ~5-10% CPU at idle and 20%? CPU power consumption is generally NOT linear, guess the pareto paradox has something to do with that...
Not forgetting the point that if you DO increase muscle mass beyond the "normal" higher BMI becomes more or less meaningless as body fat relative to muscle mass.
Having a high BMI when you have 5-10% body fat is not a negative indicator as to health...
More muscle mass ==> Can increase calorie intake to maintain weight.
At my physical peak I needed ~4500-5000 calories a day to keep my weight constant... Two rugby sessions, two gym sessions a week.
I currently need ~2500-3000 calories a day. I did NOT burn 14,000 calories in the 4 occasions I actively excersised but I did have a lot more muscle than I do now...
dont we already have enough bacteria on this planet/in our bodies that can "mutate and start metabolizing other things"?
from what i understand there are more bacterial cells in your body than your own (in quantity, not im mass) - i think theyve got enough of a chance already
ok, so having more UV speeds up evolution, but by what factor? and how would they evolve to metabolise humans if there are no humans around?
take a look at competitive team sports... basketball, baseball, american football, regular foodball (soccer if you wish)... do teams spend money to put them at an advantage?
as will all things the main thing is to maintain some sort of balance.
as long as the rules are optimised to maximise enjoyment for the most people i'm happy with that.
i just wish people were more reasonable... oh well...
thats not the point and not the target market for this type of vehicle
there are a lot of smarts around in major cities - London, Paris, Rome, etc... but in smaller towns where parking isnt an issue? where you can actually build up some speed? on a highway? hardly ever, if at all
the thing is theres a target market, there are a lot of people who live in London who never leave the city unless they go abroad, a lot of people who live in Paris and have a fantastic rail network that will get them across the country in less time and in greater comfort than driving, not to mention at a fraction of the price (a litre of petrol in France at the moment is around EUR 1.10, so say $1.50 - ~$6 a gallon)
what proportion of these firms revenues comes from the US market? what proportion of their profits? im sure that there would be people in New York that would be interested, not everyone drives hundreds of miles every other weekend.
the smart is expensive for what it is. it is usually a second or third car in a family, predominantly used for going into town from the suburbs, or even closer. there is a HUGE market for this type of vehicle, though i completely agree its not the right choice for most people in the US.
how much analysis has been done regarding the climate change that would ensue if so much wind (read energy ==> heat) is taken out of the atmosphere?
youre messing with macro air currents, if this ends up affecting the air flow in the upper atmosphere, as no doubt it will if built on such a huge scale, what do you think will happen?
im all for "renewable" energy, the problem is that i dont think enough though has been given to the potential negative impacts that it might cause if used on such a massive scale.
to make a serious note, without the media having a field-day over this, things would be much more stable. boom would not be as excessive neither would the bust.
im not saying they wouldnt happen, just that both upside and downside excess is increased substantially by the media. having unsustainable spending during good times and cost-cutting in bad times by government doesnt help... whens the last time any "developed" country massively cut spending in good times and paid down a considerable amount of their debt?
problem is - none of the US car manufacturers (or all but a few foreign ones) can afford to buy anything right now. GM would be lucky not to go bankrupt by the end of the decade...
The basic findings reinforce whatâ(TM)s long been known about vehicle size and occupant death rates. As vehicle weight decreases, the number of occupants killed in crashes increases.
Obviously nothing to do with the fact that most SUVs have a single occupant, while smaller cars tend to have several;)
Whats preventing many businesses (larger firms) is that most have a huge amount of software written in-house.
Porting that in a live business environment would be a nightmare (though there would be the benefit of not having to "upgrade" to the new version of windows every time it comes up - enough work there...)
Slashdot Mirror
Theyre called taxis...
I'm going to kill you you son of a bitch! I know where you live!
:)
*disclaimer* I havent read the original comment and am only responding to the lack of death threats... I wouldn't want you to feel so unhated
and thanks for showing your complete ignorance of the word "efficiency"...
if i use 100 watts and produce NOTHING, i am LESS efficient than if i use 1,000,000 watts and produce ANYTHING.
of course you could argue that an idle machine saves you boot-up time, etc...
but something thats left on overnight of for several hours while you're out for a long lunch - having the machine achieve ANYTHING is that time is hugely more efficient than something that produces NOTHING.
and yes, i agree with you, energy use would be higher, but whats the difference in consumption of a machine running at ~5-10% CPU at idle and 20%? CPU power consumption is generally NOT linear, guess the pareto paradox has something to do with that...
Not forgetting the point that if you DO increase muscle mass beyond the "normal" higher BMI becomes more or less meaningless as body fat relative to muscle mass.
Having a high BMI when you have 5-10% body fat is not a negative indicator as to health...
Excercising ==> More muscle mass.
Muscle mass burns calories...
More muscle mass ==> Can increase calorie intake to maintain weight.
At my physical peak I needed ~4500-5000 calories a day to keep my weight constant... Two rugby sessions, two gym sessions a week.
I currently need ~2500-3000 calories a day. I did NOT burn 14,000 calories in the 4 occasions I actively excersised but I did have a lot more muscle than I do now...
The key is balance...
dont we already have enough bacteria on this planet/in our bodies that can "mutate and start metabolizing other things"?
from what i understand there are more bacterial cells in your body than your own (in quantity, not im mass) - i think theyve got enough of a chance already
ok, so having more UV speeds up evolution, but by what factor? and how would they evolve to metabolise humans if there are no humans around?
seriously, this is NOT a real issue...
the toothbrush/shaver arguement?
do you not think it might have something to do with being watertight?
just a thought....
Then what about just "wind"?
Why "default" rather than "standard"? Why are people constantly giving words multiple meanings? bastards.
what about an ant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbZMSpvl9ng
take a look at competitive team sports... basketball, baseball, american football, regular foodball (soccer if you wish)... do teams spend money to put them at an advantage?
as will all things the main thing is to maintain some sort of balance.
as long as the rules are optimised to maximise enjoyment for the most people i'm happy with that.
i just wish people were more reasonable... oh well...
thats not the point and not the target market for this type of vehicle
there are a lot of smarts around in major cities - London, Paris, Rome, etc... but in smaller towns where parking isnt an issue? where you can actually build up some speed? on a highway? hardly ever, if at all
the thing is theres a target market, there are a lot of people who live in London who never leave the city unless they go abroad, a lot of people who live in Paris and have a fantastic rail network that will get them across the country in less time and in greater comfort than driving, not to mention at a fraction of the price (a litre of petrol in France at the moment is around EUR 1.10, so say $1.50 - ~$6 a gallon)
what proportion of these firms revenues comes from the US market? what proportion of their profits? im sure that there would be people in New York that would be interested, not everyone drives hundreds of miles every other weekend.
the smart is expensive for what it is. it is usually a second or third car in a family, predominantly used for going into town from the suburbs, or even closer. there is a HUGE market for this type of vehicle, though i completely agree its not the right choice for most people in the US.
uhm... isnt it an electric car? what exactly do you mean by "start"? theres no need for it to idle...
dark basements below older human habitation? im sure theyll find a new asexual species resembling man...
braking regeneration, check
suspension regeneration, check
exhaust gas regeneration, check (in form of turbos)
need to get heat out of the exhaust system/cooling system and regenerate that... need some more weight efficient peltiers...
The UK doesnt have massive national debt? Really? Since when?
how much analysis has been done regarding the climate change that would ensue if so much wind (read energy ==> heat) is taken out of the atmosphere?
youre messing with macro air currents, if this ends up affecting the air flow in the upper atmosphere, as no doubt it will if built on such a huge scale, what do you think will happen?
im all for "renewable" energy, the problem is that i dont think enough though has been given to the potential negative impacts that it might cause if used on such a massive scale.
to make a serious note, without the media having a field-day over this, things would be much more stable. boom would not be as excessive neither would the bust.
im not saying they wouldnt happen, just that both upside and downside excess is increased substantially by the media. having unsustainable spending during good times and cost-cutting in bad times by government doesnt help... whens the last time any "developed" country massively cut spending in good times and paid down a considerable amount of their debt?
problem is - none of the US car manufacturers (or all but a few foreign ones) can afford to buy anything right now. GM would be lucky not to go bankrupt by the end of the decade...
Of course, since the greenhouse gases are still building up, it takes more and more ice each time. Thus solving the problem once and for all.
But...
ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!
It should be GeoNANOblogging! Keep with the times!
Apple overcharging its "loyal customers"?! Shock Horror!
The basic findings reinforce whatâ(TM)s long been known about vehicle size and occupant death rates. As vehicle weight decreases, the number of occupants killed in crashes increases.
;)
Obviously nothing to do with the fact that most SUVs have a single occupant, while smaller cars tend to have several
Whats preventing many businesses (larger firms) is that most have a huge amount of software written in-house.
Porting that in a live business environment would be a nightmare (though there would be the benefit of not having to "upgrade" to the new version of windows every time it comes up - enough work there...)
... will it blend?