Lithium Ions don't even last as long as NiMH, mostly because they suffer damage each time they are charged, and also require very complicated charge controllers... The faster you try to charge them, the more damage they incur. This is why laptop batteries can go dead in under a year with frequent charge cycles.
and I never said I didn't like NiMH. NiMH are wonderful batteries to replace disposable alkalines for personal electronics. They are simply not practical for automotive use as they are not only heavy for the amount of energy they store, but also have a pretty high internal resistance which causes them to get quite warm when being charged and discharged rapidly. NiCds are better for high-current applications because they have much lower internal resistance, but they are horrible for the environment both in their manufacture and disposal.
A Hybrid engine makes good use of batteries because, while the loads are heavy, they are so transient in nature that the batteries are never deep-cycled. For chemistries like NiMH and Li-Ion, this prolongs battery life significantly. You might suck 8kW (just over 10HP) out of the battery array for 10 seconds, then put that back over the next minute or 10, depending upon the driving environment. It makes such an incredible difference to have that load taken off of the gas engine...
I don't think he's being *ignored* by companies that make hybrids. Electric motors may be cheaper to manufacture than a gas engine, but the long term manitenance costs of an electric-only car are WAY higher than a hybrid. With no gas engine, you have to have many many many more batteries. Batteries have a much shorter lifetime than pistons. Batteries are also an environmental quagmire because, while disposal of NiMH batteries is clean-ER than lead-acid, the manufacture of NiMH batteries is much more expensive and polluting. Batteries also waste a huge amount of energy just moving the mass of the batteries. Say your light 2000lb car has 500lbs of NiMH batteries in it. 25% of the energy is wasted...
Nobody is going to buy a car that you can only drive 200 miles (when the batteries are brand new), and have to spend $5k on batteries every 2 years or so.. Hybrids are a wonderful solution because they spend 10% effort to eliminate 90% of the problem. Gas Cars use most of their fuel to accelerate from a stop, but are otherwise quite efficient under constant load (i.e. steady speed). Having a little booster there takes that load-spike off the engine, allowing the energy to be put back at a constant rate later, which is much more efficient.
Electric-only may be feasible if you never go farther than a few miles, and drive very little... but in a place where people drive 100 miles every day, the maintanance costs of an electric-only vehicle make then more or less inappropriate..
Since when is 230 lumens twice the light of 1300 lumens (the 100w incandescents)? In any case, the fluorescent bulbs I got at Ikea for $5 are 1000 lumens for 20W...
They'll also have to outlaw FTP, Windows File Sharing, and the act of putting stuff on floppies, CDs, or DVDs... I guess scp will have to go, too, as will CD/DVD rippers and other Fair Use tools that we use today...
I dunno... I've used the word "denegrate" in any number of papers, editorials, and other letters that I have written over time. Admittedly, many words become political fodder during a campaign, but that does not dictate my word choice by any means.
I can't fucking believe it. Research from Berkeley that would seem to denegrate republicans. NO FUCKING WAY! Even more, that research relied on STATISTICS! Wow, conclusive proof there!
In other news, research published by the Hussein Center for Dictatorial Research has found that the Duelfer report was all lies. News at 11.
On of the ideas central to this argument is that of a centralized authority for the administration and configuration of both hardware and software. This paradigm works great in a business where there is significant brand recognition for the specific outlet of the product or service. But, in an arena dealing with distribution of commodity hardware and open-sourced software, I do not see where this business model has adequate competitive protections. Since any other company would be able to offer the same exact products and services with a) relatively little startup cost b) relatively few or no barriers to entry and c) no established brand to compete against, it would be difficult to stay in this business. It would simply be a competition to see who could run the leanest business and who could have the most effective marketing campaign.
That all fine, but there is something to be said for having an 800lb gorilla in the industry. We all hate Microsoft, but we know they are going to be there tomorrow, and the next day, and so on. In a level playing field created by open source and commodity hardware, differentiation is impossible, as will be the existence of such an 800lb gorilla. The result of this inconsistency will be a lack of confidence in standards, and there is no doubt that competing companies will fallaciously disagree to adhere to a standard in an effort to differentiate in a homogenized market.
I think the more important, and bigger lesson here is that it is not only expected, but completely appropriate to break the rules if the circumstances justify it.
First of all, under no circumstances does an instance of truancy need to involve the police. Truancy is an administrative violation and should be dealth with as such. Second, the further automation of "law" enforcement is only going to lead to 1984. Look at these new Red-Light cams that issue a ticket to the registered owner of the car, regardless of who was driving? How is it legal for someone to be criminally liable for a crime that someone else committed, just because they did so with that person's vehicle? Automated law enforcement is also prone to error. "The computer said you weren't in class, so you're suspended," even though the teacher and student both said the student was present. This is not so far fetched under an automated, zero-tolerance system.
This is all bad... very very bad... and inexcusable.
"Congress hasn't said that we DON'T have the power to do this, so we're going to go ahead on the assumption that we do."
Uhhh, that's not the way the government works. A government agency must be given the authority to regulate by Congress, which is ultimately accountable to the People. A government agency can't just do whatever the hell they please just because they feel like it. They must have a mandate and be granted Congressional authority to do so.
"Does this mean we will soon have telescopes outside of our homes soon to pick up high definition TV signals instead of our current 18 inch dishes?"
What kind of asinine question is this? I love it when someone makes themself look like a fucking moron trying to ask some insightful question in their article submission in a thinly veiled attempt at having their submission accepted.
Of course we aren't going to soon use optics for TV distribution. It makes no sense. If a TV station were going to go out of their way to build a transmitter just to serve the house at 123 Any Street, that would be one thing, but TV stations want, and are required by law, to serve as many people as possible. Also, how does it make sense to use this hypothetical optical wide distribution scheme in an atmosphere that is detrimental to the transmission method? You think your dish TV gets bad in thunderstorms? Just wait until the fog rolls in on your laser receiver.
Sheesh, the really sad thing is that freakin' timothy couldn't be bothered to exercise an iota of critical thinking skills on this one... fucking christ...
I work some part time hours at a national bike shop chain (I can't afford the hobby without the discount hehehe)... We try to get everyone's name and address when we make a sale so that if a receipt is lost and the customer has a return, we can look up the receipt.
This reduces risk of "return slip fraud" by a great deal. Also, we issue return slips with the customers name on them and, subject to the discretion of the store manager, only that customer can use the return slip. Of course, the manager can decide to take it from someone else, but having a human being in the chain makes fraud less likely.
We never ever ever refuse a return, we simply require a name and address to do it, and 99.9% of customers LIKE our system. They LIKE having the ability to look up a lost receipt, and when presented with the option of putting their name in the computer and on the receipt for that purpose, about 90% of them agree and say it's a good idea. The other 10% are typically small cash sales like a tube or other small consumable (tubes, lube, other things that can't be returned anyway).
Of course, name capture is also great for plastering the Earth with our catalogs..;p
With the dollar getting CLOBBERED against foreign currency, it is less and less cost effective to move jobs overseas. I believe that we are nearing the point where it is cheaper and easier to move jobs to more rural locations within the US, where people tend to be willing to work for less money than in urban and/or unionized locations.
I'm not a bitter manager, and managers at my company certainly don't make less than the developers (hardware and software).. but I find it hard to imagine that there isn't language in their hiring agreement that states clearly that salaried exempt employees are paid for the completion of assigned duties and tasks, regardless of how much time it takes to complete them. This is pretty standard language that finds its way into just about any hiring agreement. My company, however, does seem more ethical in that we do pay overtime for anything over 45 hours, so long as it is approved in advance. In general, any overtime that is the result of schedule acceleration is approved, but we won't approve o/t pay if someone is behind their usual schedule. We don't pay 1.5x, just straight time, but it's something.
Obviously, there are also ethics that go into setting a schedule, but when it boils down to argument, whatever is in black and white on paper prevails. If EA deliberately sets overly aggressive schedules that presume a work week greater than 40 hours, then that violates a number of labor laws. In all of my project management experience, we know never to regularly load a person for more than 60-70% unless things are nuts. That's our best-effort basis.
However, we do have employees that regularly ask for pay increases based on their performance, and there are some that deserve it. These are the employees that regularly exceed their schedule requirements and are naturally capable of completeting more work in the same amount of time as a regular employee. You have to understand the position of management - our goal is to pay the same rate for all work performed. Employees that earn a higher salary do so because they are more efficient and ambitious workers. So, while there is no explicit agreement, there is an implicit understanding that if we give someone an above-average or off-cycle pay increase, it is because they either have already or will in the future increase the amount of work they complete in a given work week.
I would never pay 100K to keep an employee, no matter how good they were, unless I saw some real, tangible, and immediate performance increases. I have employees that just want to work a 40 hour week and go home, and I have employees that regularly work 50 or 55 hour weeks without prior o/t approval and without being asked. The former meet their schedule requirements and get below average or average pay increases. The latter regularly exceed their performance metrics and, as a result, receive above average adjustments in their pay.
We have to, as managers, maintain equity across all employees using tangible metrics. We have to go out of our way to avoid creating uncomfortable working atmospheres. So, if I had one employee that was in the top 10% of pay, I would expect, well, demand that the employee sit in the top 10% of performers - plain and simple. If I had two regular 40-hour employees with equivalent experience and technical proficiency, and one was making 20% more than the other, and the lesser-paid employee found out, we could very easily have a lawsuit on our hands. So there are also legal reasons that we MUST expect higher paid employees to perform above and beyond.
So I'm not bitter at all, there are just a lot of realities that have to be considered.
When you twist the company's arm for a fat compensation package, you can expect to be called on to hold more responsibility. They're not going to give you that fat paycheck just because you're you. The more you get paid, the more is expected of you - it's that simple. If you hit them up for a six-figure check just for relocation, you shouldn't be surprised when they start expecting you to work long hours to get the job done...
There is absolutely nothing inexplicit about that language.
"Novell will retain all of its patents, copyrights and trademarks (except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare)..."
This is black and white language. Novell will retain all of its patents, copyrights, and trademarks, except for two specific trademarked names "UNIX" and "UnixWare." Trademarks have nothing to do with the underlying IP. Trademarks are just NAMES that a company uses to refer to its products.
The code itself is not transferred by transferring th NAME "UNIX"
"SCO lawyers will try to show that it says "that Novell keeps the copyrights except for UNIX"
This is clearly not what that says. It clearly states the Trademarks will be retained. I don't think you could find a jury stupid enough to think otherwise - but then again maybe I'm giving stupid people too much credit...
I am certainly not expecting any checks when I am older. In fact, I am hoping that the entire Social Security system as we know it is scrapped while I am still young enough to save a significant amount of money for retirement. That 13% or so of my income that is put into social security by myself and my employer is certainly not doing anything for me now. Of course, it is difficult to scrap a pyramid scheme, so whatever changes that are made are going to have to be phased in, and I am sure that it is going to hurt a few folks, but the system cannot sustain itself as it is - especially with the trust fund being invested in trust funds with sub-inflationary rates of return.
Shame on my for screwing up my analysis... I was just looking for clinton's biggest number and comparing it to 2003 and didn't look at what happened in between.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, didn't you see "The Matrx" ?
No, he'll get it in SCO Linux licenses... shipped directly from Redmond...
Just ask CBS. I am sure they have figured out which printers don't do this...
Lithium Ions don't even last as long as NiMH, mostly because they suffer damage each time they are charged, and also require very complicated charge controllers... The faster you try to charge them, the more damage they incur. This is why laptop batteries can go dead in under a year with frequent charge cycles.
and I never said I didn't like NiMH. NiMH are wonderful batteries to replace disposable alkalines for personal electronics. They are simply not practical for automotive use as they are not only heavy for the amount of energy they store, but also have a pretty high internal resistance which causes them to get quite warm when being charged and discharged rapidly. NiCds are better for high-current applications because they have much lower internal resistance, but they are horrible for the environment both in their manufacture and disposal.
A Hybrid engine makes good use of batteries because, while the loads are heavy, they are so transient in nature that the batteries are never deep-cycled. For chemistries like NiMH and Li-Ion, this prolongs battery life significantly. You might suck 8kW (just over 10HP) out of the battery array for 10 seconds, then put that back over the next minute or 10, depending upon the driving environment. It makes such an incredible difference to have that load taken off of the gas engine...
I don't think he's being *ignored* by companies that make hybrids. Electric motors may be cheaper to manufacture than a gas engine, but the long term manitenance costs of an electric-only car are WAY higher than a hybrid. With no gas engine, you have to have many many many more batteries. Batteries have a much shorter lifetime than pistons. Batteries are also an environmental quagmire because, while disposal of NiMH batteries is clean-ER than lead-acid, the manufacture of NiMH batteries is much more expensive and polluting. Batteries also waste a huge amount of energy just moving the mass of the batteries. Say your light 2000lb car has 500lbs of NiMH batteries in it. 25% of the energy is wasted...
Nobody is going to buy a car that you can only drive 200 miles (when the batteries are brand new), and have to spend $5k on batteries every 2 years or so.. Hybrids are a wonderful solution because they spend 10% effort to eliminate 90% of the problem. Gas Cars use most of their fuel to accelerate from a stop, but are otherwise quite efficient under constant load (i.e. steady speed). Having a little booster there takes that load-spike off the engine, allowing the energy to be put back at a constant rate later, which is much more efficient.
Electric-only may be feasible if you never go farther than a few miles, and drive very little... but in a place where people drive 100 miles every day, the maintanance costs of an electric-only vehicle make then more or less inappropriate..
Since when is 230 lumens twice the light of 1300 lumens (the 100w incandescents)? In any case, the fluorescent bulbs I got at Ikea for $5 are 1000 lumens for 20W...
They'll also have to outlaw FTP, Windows File Sharing, and the act of putting stuff on floppies, CDs, or DVDs... I guess scp will have to go, too, as will CD/DVD rippers and other Fair Use tools that we use today...
I dunno... I've used the word "denegrate" in any number of papers, editorials, and other letters that I have written over time. Admittedly, many words become political fodder during a campaign, but that does not dictate my word choice by any means.
"I'm wondering if this isn't just a result of fast math, wishful thinking, and conspiracy theories."
Gee, I wonder what makes you say that?
*cough* berkeley *cough*
I can't fucking believe it. Research from Berkeley that would seem to denegrate republicans. NO FUCKING WAY! Even more, that research relied on STATISTICS! Wow, conclusive proof there!
In other news, research published by the Hussein Center for Dictatorial Research has found that the Duelfer report was all lies. News at 11.
On of the ideas central to this argument is that of a centralized authority for the administration and configuration of both hardware and software. This paradigm works great in a business where there is significant brand recognition for the specific outlet of the product or service. But, in an arena dealing with distribution of commodity hardware and open-sourced software, I do not see where this business model has adequate competitive protections. Since any other company would be able to offer the same exact products and services with a) relatively little startup cost b) relatively few or no barriers to entry and c) no established brand to compete against, it would be difficult to stay in this business. It would simply be a competition to see who could run the leanest business and who could have the most effective marketing campaign.
That all fine, but there is something to be said for having an 800lb gorilla in the industry. We all hate Microsoft, but we know they are going to be there tomorrow, and the next day, and so on. In a level playing field created by open source and commodity hardware, differentiation is impossible, as will be the existence of such an 800lb gorilla. The result of this inconsistency will be a lack of confidence in standards, and there is no doubt that competing companies will fallaciously disagree to adhere to a standard in an effort to differentiate in a homogenized market.
Vote nader next time.
Yeah, that's a great idea... when nobody can afford a TV because it costs $15/person to eat at McDonalds, we won't have this problem, will we?
It doesn't, which is why the bill is unconstitutional on its face. It presumes to give advertisers the right to be heard in a citizen's private home.
I think the more important, and bigger lesson here is that it is not only expected, but completely appropriate to break the rules if the circumstances justify it.
First of all, under no circumstances does an instance of truancy need to involve the police. Truancy is an administrative violation and should be dealth with as such. Second, the further automation of "law" enforcement is only going to lead to 1984. Look at these new Red-Light cams that issue a ticket to the registered owner of the car, regardless of who was driving? How is it legal for someone to be criminally liable for a crime that someone else committed, just because they did so with that person's vehicle? Automated law enforcement is also prone to error. "The computer said you weren't in class, so you're suspended," even though the teacher and student both said the student was present. This is not so far fetched under an automated, zero-tolerance system.
This is all bad... very very bad... and inexcusable.
"Congress hasn't said that we DON'T have the power to do this, so we're going to go ahead on the assumption that we do."
Uhhh, that's not the way the government works. A government agency must be given the authority to regulate by Congress, which is ultimately accountable to the People. A government agency can't just do whatever the hell they please just because they feel like it. They must have a mandate and be granted Congressional authority to do so.
"I would sure hate to see another failed mars mission due to a missed conversion between nanometers and angstroms."
;p
That's just a factor of 100, right?
"Does this mean we will soon have telescopes outside of our homes soon to pick up high definition TV signals instead of our current 18 inch dishes?"
What kind of asinine question is this? I love it when someone makes themself look like a fucking moron trying to ask some insightful question in their article submission in a thinly veiled attempt at having their submission accepted.
Of course we aren't going to soon use optics for TV distribution. It makes no sense. If a TV station were going to go out of their way to build a transmitter just to serve the house at 123 Any Street, that would be one thing, but TV stations want, and are required by law, to serve as many people as possible. Also, how does it make sense to use this hypothetical optical wide distribution scheme in an atmosphere that is detrimental to the transmission method? You think your dish TV gets bad in thunderstorms? Just wait until the fog rolls in on your laser receiver.
Sheesh, the really sad thing is that freakin' timothy couldn't be bothered to exercise an iota of critical thinking skills on this one... fucking christ...
Let the modding down begin...
I work some part time hours at a national bike shop chain (I can't afford the hobby without the discount hehehe)... We try to get everyone's name and address when we make a sale so that if a receipt is lost and the customer has a return, we can look up the receipt.
;p
This reduces risk of "return slip fraud" by a great deal. Also, we issue return slips with the customers name on them and, subject to the discretion of the store manager, only that customer can use the return slip. Of course, the manager can decide to take it from someone else, but having a human being in the chain makes fraud less likely.
We never ever ever refuse a return, we simply require a name and address to do it, and 99.9% of customers LIKE our system. They LIKE having the ability to look up a lost receipt, and when presented with the option of putting their name in the computer and on the receipt for that purpose, about 90% of them agree and say it's a good idea. The other 10% are typically small cash sales like a tube or other small consumable (tubes, lube, other things that can't be returned anyway).
Of course, name capture is also great for plastering the Earth with our catalogs..
With the dollar getting CLOBBERED against foreign currency, it is less and less cost effective to move jobs overseas. I believe that we are nearing the point where it is cheaper and easier to move jobs to more rural locations within the US, where people tend to be willing to work for less money than in urban and/or unionized locations.
Just a thought...
I'm not a bitter manager, and managers at my company certainly don't make less than the developers (hardware and software).. but I find it hard to imagine that there isn't language in their hiring agreement that states clearly that salaried exempt employees are paid for the completion of assigned duties and tasks, regardless of how much time it takes to complete them. This is pretty standard language that finds its way into just about any hiring agreement. My company, however, does seem more ethical in that we do pay overtime for anything over 45 hours, so long as it is approved in advance. In general, any overtime that is the result of schedule acceleration is approved, but we won't approve o/t pay if someone is behind their usual schedule. We don't pay 1.5x, just straight time, but it's something.
Obviously, there are also ethics that go into setting a schedule, but when it boils down to argument, whatever is in black and white on paper prevails. If EA deliberately sets overly aggressive schedules that presume a work week greater than 40 hours, then that violates a number of labor laws. In all of my project management experience, we know never to regularly load a person for more than 60-70% unless things are nuts. That's our best-effort basis.
However, we do have employees that regularly ask for pay increases based on their performance, and there are some that deserve it. These are the employees that regularly exceed their schedule requirements and are naturally capable of completeting more work in the same amount of time as a regular employee. You have to understand the position of management - our goal is to pay the same rate for all work performed. Employees that earn a higher salary do so because they are more efficient and ambitious workers. So, while there is no explicit agreement, there is an implicit understanding that if we give someone an above-average or off-cycle pay increase, it is because they either have already or will in the future increase the amount of work they complete in a given work week.
I would never pay 100K to keep an employee, no matter how good they were, unless I saw some real, tangible, and immediate performance increases. I have employees that just want to work a 40 hour week and go home, and I have employees that regularly work 50 or 55 hour weeks without prior o/t approval and without being asked. The former meet their schedule requirements and get below average or average pay increases. The latter regularly exceed their performance metrics and, as a result, receive above average adjustments in their pay.
We have to, as managers, maintain equity across all employees using tangible metrics. We have to go out of our way to avoid creating uncomfortable working atmospheres. So, if I had one employee that was in the top 10% of pay, I would expect, well, demand that the employee sit in the top 10% of performers - plain and simple. If I had two regular 40-hour employees with equivalent experience and technical proficiency, and one was making 20% more than the other, and the lesser-paid employee found out, we could very easily have a lawsuit on our hands. So there are also legal reasons that we MUST expect higher paid employees to perform above and beyond.
So I'm not bitter at all, there are just a lot of realities that have to be considered.
When you twist the company's arm for a fat compensation package, you can expect to be called on to hold more responsibility. They're not going to give you that fat paycheck just because you're you. The more you get paid, the more is expected of you - it's that simple. If you hit them up for a six-figure check just for relocation, you shouldn't be surprised when they start expecting you to work long hours to get the job done...
There is absolutely nothing inexplicit about that language.
"Novell will retain all of its patents, copyrights and trademarks (except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare)..."
This is black and white language. Novell will retain all of its patents, copyrights, and trademarks, except for two specific trademarked names "UNIX" and "UnixWare." Trademarks have nothing to do with the underlying IP. Trademarks are just NAMES that a company uses to refer to its products.
The code itself is not transferred by transferring th NAME "UNIX"
Mmmmmm... Scones.... Off to the corner bakery I go! Hah!
"SCO lawyers will try to show that it says "that Novell keeps the copyrights except for UNIX"
This is clearly not what that says. It clearly states the Trademarks will be retained. I don't think you could find a jury stupid enough to think otherwise - but then again maybe I'm giving stupid people too much credit...
I am certainly not expecting any checks when I am older. In fact, I am hoping that the entire Social Security system as we know it is scrapped while I am still young enough to save a significant amount of money for retirement. That 13% or so of my income that is put into social security by myself and my employer is certainly not doing anything for me now. Of course, it is difficult to scrap a pyramid scheme, so whatever changes that are made are going to have to be phased in, and I am sure that it is going to hurt a few folks, but the system cannot sustain itself as it is - especially with the trust fund being invested in trust funds with sub-inflationary rates of return.
Shame on my for screwing up my analysis... I was just looking for clinton's biggest number and comparing it to 2003 and didn't look at what happened in between.