So using your example of saving 1.25 kWh per day works out to almost $12 a month for me, or about $140 a year. Still not oodles of money, but enough to motivate me to factor energy efficiency into the equation when I replace something. Blown out incandescent? Replace it with a CFL. Wine cooler keeps breaking down (when it's not running the compressor 24/7)? Replace it with a more reliable model that's also more energy efficient.
And your point is? Replacing broken equipment with more energy-efficient equipment is perfectly reasonable, even if your electricity costs aren't excessive. Which is why, when my AC broke down a few years ago, I replaced it with the most energy-efficient one I could.
The question comes to a head when you do preemptive replacement. Is it worth the trouble to replace a perfectly good AC with one that is more energy efficient? Only if the new one will pay for itself in savings on electricity in a reasonable time.
It's also enough incentive to make a few spontaneous changes, like replacing the power strip in my wife's office with a $30 one that cuts off all the peripherals when her computer is shut down.
Have you saved $30 on your electric bill yet from the new power strip? Just curious, really....
You are perhaps right, though the statement: "If every home uses 250 watts/hr less during peak times, we can put off building a 14 billion dollar nuclear power plant for another 17 years" is an easy way to sell the idea that if everyone contributes, it does pay off handsomely for everyone.
Might be, if everyone hated nuclear power. I'd rather have the nuclear power plant (and 50 more like it) built right now, than find excuses to put it off.
The list goes on. Anything that prevents a 250 watt drain on the grid during peak times will reduce the problem dramatically if millions of homes participated. Say 2 million homes used 250W/hr less at peak times for any given grid supply area: 500MegaWatt hour savings. That's a lot of savings.
And if every home saves 250W/hour for five hours a day, then each of them will see about $4 per month savings on their electric bill.
Which is so trivial that noone will bother with the effort required to make the savings.
You won't sell a conservation measure on the notion "the country will save oodles of money", you have to sell it on "YOU will save oodles of money". Which is, frankly, pretty hard to do these days - unless you happen to live in an uninsulated house, with a 30 year old AC/Heater, there's not really a whole lot you can do to significantly (key word here is significantly) affect your monthly bill.
Panspermia might be a workable idea for passing organisms and code between planets in one solar system, but not for interstellar travel.
And, of course, if you bother to read the paper, you find that he says pretty much the same thing. The only Panspermia he deals with is between planets in the same solar system. He leaves interstellar panspermia as an exercise (in futility?) for others.
Most production cars today are made to last somewhere between four to eight years.
I don't think I've ever owned an automobile that wasn't at least ten years old when I disposed of it (the one that lasted only ten years was totalled when a pickup ran into it - so I gave it to someone who like messing with that sort of thing, and he's still driving it 13 years later).
If you look at the region of the world where Islam is most popular, or at least the area where most of the countries that are Islamic theocracies, you'll see that that region was actually very, very, scientifically advanced a few centuries ago. For some reason, the people over there got tired of being enlightened and went BACK into the dark ages.
If by "a few centuries", you mean "eight or so", then you're quite correct about their scientific advancement (though perhaps "scientific" is arguable, as the scientific method wasn't part of the their world picture).
It should be pointed out that "For some reason..." isn't a mystery, though. They stopped that whole enlightened thing when the Turks and Mongols came in and started killing everyone except the peasantry in that region. Tamerlane, for instance, basically did to Persia what Pol Pot tried to do for Cambodia - kill off everyone more educated than your average donkey.
Nah, Christians have always been more of the sticking swords in people, and nailing them to crosses kind.
Umm, you DO know that the people who did that "nailing them to crosses" thing weren't actually Christians, right? Technically, they (the Romans) were what used to be called "pagans".
You just happen to live in a part of the world (and in a time) where making fun of the bible doesn't get you killed. If you're an American there are parts of your own country where that isn't true.
Which parts of the USA are those? I've lived all over the USA at one time or another, excluding Alaska, and have never even heard of anyone doing that sort of thing, much less met anyone advocating it.
Even China's Tianamen Square atrocity has a western parallel with the USA's killing of Vietnam war protesters at Kent State University in 1970.
Yeah, if we equate the shooting of 13 students (four killed, nine wounded, 67 shots fired) by National Guardmen with the killing of 2000-3000 students (killed and wounded, using tanks and infantry) by the Chinese People's Army (their equivalent of the US Army, not the National Guard).
Well, it would be impressive if it didn't cost $27,000+ for a two-seater.
And if it weren't designed to be "comfortable" only for people shorter than I am. When someone says it's comfortable for someone up to 6'1", they really mean 5'10", in my experience. And even if they really meant 6'1", that's a bit shy of how long I am.
Basically, it's a nice tech-toy, of no practical value to your average person. Note that your "average person" doesn't have a lot of use for a car that you can't carry your family in, much less one that only goes ~120 miles.
And I have to wonder whether that 120 mile range they tout is with a driver, or with a driver, a full grown passenger, a small child, and a trunk full of groceries...
I mean lets face it, is there any chance of the debt EVER being paid off?
No.
Which reminds me of a tale from the Depression years:
At the funeral of a banker, one of the mourners goes up to the Banker's son, and tells him, "Your father was a good man. Why, one time I was a mite short, and he offered to lend me $20. When I told him I wasn't sure I'd be able to pay him back, he told me not to worry about it. He said that if I gave him $1 every week, I could pay him that $20 back just whenever it suited me. Let me tell you, he was as good as his word - I paid him $1 every week, and he never did ask for his $20 back, and that's been nearly 30 years now."
I've been married for 25+ years, so I think I have a clue about women.
They want men who will father, provide for, and protect vibrant offspring.
They do in fact want all these things. Note that the man providing for and protecting the vibrant offspring isn't necessarily the one they want to father said vibrant offspring.
once you determine the real criteria that women are using, you can the knowledge of these criteria to your advantage and charm all kinds of women.
Yes, and all kinds of women are quite used to all kinds of charmers. Reading the manual only helps if you have a bit of what it takes WITHOUT the manual.
"Highly intelligent, creative, socially supportive guys" can go out and read The Mystery Method. It's written by a former Dungeons and Dragons dork. Yes, it works. It's easier than you think.
And guys like Bill Clinton (who is highly intelligent, may be creative, but isn't socially supportive) will still get the girls. Or guys like your local biker, who is none of the above, of course.;)
That's not to say that some mutant gene can't become dominant in the human race. Any mutation will, mathematically, either become extremely widespread or it will die out. But the process is more like a random walk with absorbing boundaries than it is like natural selection.
Hate to say this, but on a local perspective, with no extreme environmental pressure applied, ALL evolution looks like "a random walk with absorbing boundaries".
If we can now take care of some of the genetic factors that would limit someone in a more primitive society, then we can start emphasizing the factors that provide advantages in a more sophisticated one. If someone is highly intelligent and creative and socially supportive, then that's a reason we want them and it's a plus if a no-longer issue prevents them from passing on their genes.
You seem to be working under the delusion that evolution is something that someone has control over. Other than the women, I mean. Face it, being highly intelligent and creative and socially supportive may be really desirable, but unless the WOMEN are looking to screw men like that (or the men screw women like that), it ain't gonna be.
What's going to happen is that women will continue to screw the same guys they've been screwing, and the highly intelligent, creative, socially supportive guys will continue to spend time in their basement trying to justify why women should be chasing them in droves.
That doesn't seem likely in this case though. They'll probably be trying to make an example of him. That's just wrong, IMO.
The phrase you're looking for is "pour encourager les autres". An example can be useful from time to time, for deterrent value.
Realistically, he'll likely get no more than he would if he'd hacked any rich/powerful/famous person's email. Alas, the days of equal treatment under the law never really existed (and I'm not talking about just the USA either - haven't been able to verify a time or place in history where the wealthy were subject to the law in the same way as the poor), contrary to popular rumour. The powerful have always gotten special treatment.
This was in the early 1950's. Before the lawsuit frenzy that has struck America. If it had happened today, I'd imagine she'd sue the guy who built her house for not making it Meteor-proof.
Just don't go crazy... Have you seen the rates at which big lotto winners end up declaring bankruptcy?
I can't actually imagine $100 million worth of ANYTHING that I want. After the first year or three, I'd end up donating most of it to charity. Less a couple hundred grand for living/travel expenses.
The airlines have been screaming for a while, it does.
I hear from my brother than Southwest bought a crapload of jetfuel futures when the price hit $2 per gallon or so. So they'll be running cheap till that runs out (and the people who sold them the fuel will be screaming).
does what this kid did really deserve 250K and 5 years? Really?
Almost irrelevant. Those were the MAXIMUM allowable sentences, not the minimum. Most likely, this kid gets hit for 3-11 months (so he won't be tainted with that "felon" label), mostly community service, plus $5000-10,000 in fines.
Which is less than he deserves, really. If you're serious about privacy rights, you shouldn't have the attitude that privacy rights only attach to people you like.
This is the dumbest crime ever. If he really did it, I just wish he would say, "Yeah I did it, I'm an idiot - just look at my goofy hair." Then they could cite him with a $200 fine for disorderly conduct and we could all move on with our lives.
I read a lot about privacy on/. But somehow I'm not surprised when the privacy being illegally invaded is someone you don't like.
Remember, Rights (privacy or otherwise) are meant to protect the people you don't like from you, and you from the people who don't like you. You don't need to be protected from your friends....
Anyways - consider this. You keep your cars, every inner-city type that don't travel long distances that buys a EV will help keep your gasoline costs down.
Somehow, I doubt that very seriously. I don't see gasoline prices dropping significantly in future, no matter what people drive. Demand from China and India will be more than enough to keep prices high from here on out.
Going by my 750 mile trips to my parents - I end up stopping 3 times for gas. Driving through the upper midwest I have to judge my stops a bit in order to maintain a reserve between stations, so I generally end up topping off with still having half a tank once due to the way the towns are.
I normally figure 45-60 minutes for lunch, after being in a car for that long I take a nice sit down meal. I've also plotted out starting early, having breakfast around 7-8, then lunch at 12-1, dinner 5-6. At 300 miles a pop(4 hours@75), that's 1200 miles in a day. Call it 800 to have a healthy reserve, 8 hours of sleep, and not precisely placed charging/eating areas.
You travel at a more leisurely rate than I do. When I drive, I want to get it DONE. So I get up early, drive 400 miles or so, get gas and a sandwich at McD's, and get back in my car within fifteen minutes of stopping. And I'm where I want to be and relaxing early in the afternoon, rather than late in the evening. Drives my wife crazy, mind you, but I can live with that if it gets me out of the car sooner.
Note that some of the places I go cost less to fly than to drive, if there's a car waiting for me there. NOT a rental, which drives the price back up well above driving. But when I visit family, it usually costs no more than a few dollars more to fly than to drive (always assuming I can get someone to pick me up at the airport;) ). In situations like that, I think long and hard before I decide whether to fly or drive.
Note that $10/gallon gasoline will probably shift a lot of my driving to flying, assuming flying costs don't go up proportionally. Which they probably will.
And, finally, note that I don't have any real objection to EV's. They just don't suit ME. Right now, today. That may change in the future, and my personal use (or lack of same) for EV's should in no way suggest that I'm bothered in any way however slight if YOU (or anyone else) buys one.
Nor am I offended if they go on the market and do well. Especially since that will increase the chances that they'll be available used in five years or so, when I'm looking to replace one car or another. Never can tell, if it's the right car that needs replacing, an EV/HEV or hybrid might well be the answer.
Hell, I might win the Powerball next week (unlikely, I only buy a ticket when the prize if over $100 million, and that won't happen next week), and buy three new cars, all hybrids or HEV's....
Slashdot Mirror
And your point is? Replacing broken equipment with more energy-efficient equipment is perfectly reasonable, even if your electricity costs aren't excessive. Which is why, when my AC broke down a few years ago, I replaced it with the most energy-efficient one I could.
The question comes to a head when you do preemptive replacement. Is it worth the trouble to replace a perfectly good AC with one that is more energy efficient? Only if the new one will pay for itself in savings on electricity in a reasonable time.
Have you saved $30 on your electric bill yet from the new power strip? Just curious, really....
Might be, if everyone hated nuclear power. I'd rather have the nuclear power plant (and 50 more like it) built right now, than find excuses to put it off.
Actually, that would be pretty surprising, considering the trial occurred when the Democrats were in power (1998-2000).
You may, if you choose, blame the verdict in the appeal on the Republicans. That at least happened during a Republican administration.
And if every home saves 250W/hour for five hours a day, then each of them will see about $4 per month savings on their electric bill.
Which is so trivial that noone will bother with the effort required to make the savings.
You won't sell a conservation measure on the notion "the country will save oodles of money", you have to sell it on "YOU will save oodles of money". Which is, frankly, pretty hard to do these days - unless you happen to live in an uninsulated house, with a 30 year old AC/Heater, there's not really a whole lot you can do to significantly (key word here is significantly) affect your monthly bill.
And, of course, if you bother to read the paper, you find that he says pretty much the same thing. The only Panspermia he deals with is between planets in the same solar system. He leaves interstellar panspermia as an exercise (in futility?) for others.
I don't think I've ever owned an automobile that wasn't at least ten years old when I disposed of it (the one that lasted only ten years was totalled when a pickup ran into it - so I gave it to someone who like messing with that sort of thing, and he's still driving it 13 years later).
If by "a few centuries", you mean "eight or so", then you're quite correct about their scientific advancement (though perhaps "scientific" is arguable, as the scientific method wasn't part of the their world picture).
It should be pointed out that "For some reason..." isn't a mystery, though. They stopped that whole enlightened thing when the Turks and Mongols came in and started killing everyone except the peasantry in that region. Tamerlane, for instance, basically did to Persia what Pol Pot tried to do for Cambodia - kill off everyone more educated than your average donkey.
Umm, you DO know that the people who did that "nailing them to crosses" thing weren't actually Christians, right? Technically, they (the Romans) were what used to be called "pagans".
Which parts of the USA are those? I've lived all over the USA at one time or another, excluding Alaska, and have never even heard of anyone doing that sort of thing, much less met anyone advocating it.
Yeah, if we equate the shooting of 13 students (four killed, nine wounded, 67 shots fired) by National Guardmen with the killing of 2000-3000 students (killed and wounded, using tanks and infantry) by the Chinese People's Army (their equivalent of the US Army, not the National Guard).
Well, it would be impressive if it didn't cost $27,000+ for a two-seater.
And if it weren't designed to be "comfortable" only for people shorter than I am. When someone says it's comfortable for someone up to 6'1", they really mean 5'10", in my experience. And even if they really meant 6'1", that's a bit shy of how long I am.
Basically, it's a nice tech-toy, of no practical value to your average person. Note that your "average person" doesn't have a lot of use for a car that you can't carry your family in, much less one that only goes ~120 miles.
And I have to wonder whether that 120 mile range they tout is with a driver, or with a driver, a full grown passenger, a small child, and a trunk full of groceries...
Which reminds me of a tale from the Depression years:
At the funeral of a banker, one of the mourners goes up to the Banker's son, and tells him, "Your father was a good man. Why, one time I was a mite short, and he offered to lend me $20. When I told him I wasn't sure I'd be able to pay him back, he told me not to worry about it. He said that if I gave him $1 every week, I could pay him that $20 back just whenever it suited me. Let me tell you, he was as good as his word - I paid him $1 every week, and he never did ask for his $20 back, and that's been nearly 30 years now."
Are you trying to suggest that evolution is directed? Under the control of some creator, perhaps?
Sorry, it just ain't so. Evolution happens. After the fact, we can look back and say "that was an evolutionary advantage because it worked.
Ahead of time, we can just guess what will work out well, and what won't. And odds are we'll be wrong more often than we're right.
I've been married for 25+ years, so I think I have a clue about women.
They do in fact want all these things. Note that the man providing for and protecting the vibrant offspring isn't necessarily the one they want to father said vibrant offspring.
Yes, and all kinds of women are quite used to all kinds of charmers. Reading the manual only helps if you have a bit of what it takes WITHOUT the manual.
And guys like Bill Clinton (who is highly intelligent, may be creative, but isn't socially supportive) will still get the girls. Or guys like your local biker, who is none of the above, of course. ;)
Hate to say this, but on a local perspective, with no extreme environmental pressure applied, ALL evolution looks like "a random walk with absorbing boundaries".
Umm, Cro Magnon WERE Homo Sapiens. Perhaps you meant Neandertal?
You seem to be working under the delusion that evolution is something that someone has control over. Other than the women, I mean. Face it, being highly intelligent and creative and socially supportive may be really desirable, but unless the WOMEN are looking to screw men like that (or the men screw women like that), it ain't gonna be.
What's going to happen is that women will continue to screw the same guys they've been screwing, and the highly intelligent, creative, socially supportive guys will continue to spend time in their basement trying to justify why women should be chasing them in droves.
The phrase you're looking for is "pour encourager les autres". An example can be useful from time to time, for deterrent value.
Realistically, he'll likely get no more than he would if he'd hacked any rich/powerful/famous person's email. Alas, the days of equal treatment under the law never really existed (and I'm not talking about just the USA either - haven't been able to verify a time or place in history where the wealthy were subject to the law in the same way as the poor), contrary to popular rumour. The powerful have always gotten special treatment.
This was in the early 1950's. Before the lawsuit frenzy that has struck America. If it had happened today, I'd imagine she'd sue the guy who built her house for not making it Meteor-proof.
I can't actually imagine $100 million worth of ANYTHING that I want. After the first year or three, I'd end up donating most of it to charity. Less a couple hundred grand for living/travel expenses.
I hear from my brother than Southwest bought a crapload of jetfuel futures when the price hit $2 per gallon or so. So they'll be running cheap till that runs out (and the people who sold them the fuel will be screaming).
Almost irrelevant. Those were the MAXIMUM allowable sentences, not the minimum. Most likely, this kid gets hit for 3-11 months (so he won't be tainted with that "felon" label), mostly community service, plus $5000-10,000 in fines.
Which is less than he deserves, really. If you're serious about privacy rights, you shouldn't have the attitude that privacy rights only attach to people you like.
Irrelevant. Illegally obtained/disclosed evidence is inadmissable in court.
I read a lot about privacy on /. But somehow I'm not surprised when the privacy being illegally invaded is someone you don't like.
Remember, Rights (privacy or otherwise) are meant to protect the people you don't like from you, and you from the people who don't like you. You don't need to be protected from your friends....
Somehow, I doubt that very seriously. I don't see gasoline prices dropping significantly in future, no matter what people drive. Demand from China and India will be more than enough to keep prices high from here on out.
You travel at a more leisurely rate than I do. When I drive, I want to get it DONE. So I get up early, drive 400 miles or so, get gas and a sandwich at McD's, and get back in my car within fifteen minutes of stopping. And I'm where I want to be and relaxing early in the afternoon, rather than late in the evening. Drives my wife crazy, mind you, but I can live with that if it gets me out of the car sooner.
Note that some of the places I go cost less to fly than to drive, if there's a car waiting for me there. NOT a rental, which drives the price back up well above driving. But when I visit family, it usually costs no more than a few dollars more to fly than to drive (always assuming I can get someone to pick me up at the airport ;) ). In situations like that, I think long and hard before I decide whether to fly or drive.
Note that $10/gallon gasoline will probably shift a lot of my driving to flying, assuming flying costs don't go up proportionally. Which they probably will.
And, finally, note that I don't have any real objection to EV's. They just don't suit ME. Right now, today. That may change in the future, and my personal use (or lack of same) for EV's should in no way suggest that I'm bothered in any way however slight if YOU (or anyone else) buys one.
Nor am I offended if they go on the market and do well. Especially since that will increase the chances that they'll be available used in five years or so, when I'm looking to replace one car or another. Never can tell, if it's the right car that needs replacing, an EV/HEV or hybrid might well be the answer.
Hell, I might win the Powerball next week (unlikely, I only buy a ticket when the prize if over $100 million, and that won't happen next week), and buy three new cars, all hybrids or HEV's....