Shoes. My wife buys and returns multiple pairs of shoes every month. Occasionally she finds a pair she likes and which fit and keeps them... but most of the time she returns them. The stores seem to put up with this. I keep waiting for them to cut her off but they don't seem to have a problem with it. I guess the few pairs of shoes she buys keep them hoping for more.
As a naive observer, I'm just wondering why there is a single point of failure in this system. It seems to be that such a mission critical application should have distributed data and functionality to provide resilience... kind of like this new fangled Internet thingy. (But what do I know?)
Thanks for the research and calculations. My impression was that capacitors were not efficient and your calculations indicate that. I guess they are using them because they have a capacitor factory. This article confirms your calculations and has a nice chart. http://berc.berkeley.edu/stora...
Interesting that the plane will use supercapacitors rather than batteries to store energy for use at night. I guess power to weight is favorable. He divested from oil (smart move) and into tech and has a large supercapacitor factory.
My experience also. Opera is dramatically better on my old MacBook Air. It doesn't max out the memory or the CPU whereas Chrome and Firefox do that all the time.
Look at most tech companies under tech knowledgable leaders and under "bean counters". Take Apple under Jobs vs. Scully... no contest. Take Microsoft under Gates vs. Balmer... no contest HP under Carly Fiorina... I rest my case. Fortunately, companies such as Facebook, Tesla, Twitter, AirBnB and others still have their original tech savvy founders.
The new CEO used to work at a furniture company but is good friends with the Ford family so that's how he got his job. He knows nothing about cars or autonomous vehicles in spite of being in charge of the AV program. He's just a well connected good old boy. I don't see how this can help. Ford needs somebody who understands cars and autonomous vehicles and electric vehicles. This guy knows nothing.
Lots of resistance to the new nuclear plants (all of them... Russian, Westinghouse, and Areva) because they are so expensive: No. Aniruddh Mohan of the Observer Research Foundation says the two new Russian reactors, Kudankulam 3 and 4, have a negotiated tariff of Rs 6.30/unit. He estimates tariffs will be Rs 9 for Westinghouse and Rs 12 for Areva. News reports say India seeks to cap the Areva tariff at Rs 7/unit. These tariffs look insanely costly compared with the latest solar power deal of Rs 2.62/unit in Rajasthan. Besides, the price of solar power keeps falling, and could halve again. New N-plants could take 8-10 years to build, by which time solar power may cost just Rs 1.50/unit, and storage costs may fall below Rs 1/unit. It is crazy to build nuclear plants producing power several times costlier.
US power consumption has gone down in the past few years and it is attributed to the rapid adoption of LED bulbs. They are so cheap now that as soon as the old incandescent ones burn out (frequently), new LEDs are installed. Over the past few years I have replaced every light in my house and office building with efficient LEDs. When the old inefficient ones burn out, I put in LEDs. They get cheaper every year.
India will invest more in solar than nuclear and already has more solar capacity than nuclear. The new nuclear plants are in danger of not being built due to the high cost, GE pulling out of the bidding and Westinghouse going bankrupt. http://blogs.timesofindia.indi...
I'd be happy to charge my electric car at night if my stupid electric company would offer that rate. As it is, I just plug it in in the afternoon (peak use time) but I could easily shift that to a later time.
The paragraph doesn't state a media conspiracy. It posits a conspiracy of rich powerful vested interests (fossil fuel and nuclear) who have purchased media exposure. The only persecution is the usual one of the rich persecuting everyone else.
"Baseload" is a myth. Most utilities have a surplus of power over night and can't even give it away. They are constantly trying to drum up customers so they can keep their polluting coal plants operating at night so they have to sell the electricity very cheap (or free). (Texas has rate plans which give homeowners free electricity at night to charge their electric cars, etc.)
The problem is that "the media" picks up all kind of "fake news" from social media. If something is trending on Twitter or Facebook, etc., the media will just parrot it... the more sensational, the better. This makes the media uniquely susceptible to these kind of Russian attacks.
Since you clearly have no experience with a pre antibiotics era, I recommend you do some research. I'll give you a clue. Lots of people died of infections which are easily cured with antibiotics
Besides the fact that in the real world there is no such thing as a properly set up and secured Windows network, the properly set up and secured Windows network is still full of holes.
I hear this argument all the time. Even if it was true that virus writers find more Windows flaws because it's more popular, then why would you intentionally go with Windows, knowing that you are more likely to be targeted? It seems stupid to stick with the more popular system and know that you are more likely to be attacked. I'd rather stick with a less popular system knowing that I'm much less likely to get targeted.
Not too long ago I was traveling in Papua New Guinea on internal flights. They had absolutely no security screening to get on the plane (an Embraer jet). The only place I encountered security was in getting OFF the airplane in the Highlands... they wanted to keep people from taking weapons into that area. I agree that most security is just theatre and wouldn't deter a determined terrorist. For bombs, it's easy to do non-invasive screening of luggage and people. For guns, basic xray scanning. No more strip searches!
Slashdot Mirror
You'll never get that elephant on the plane.
Shoes.
My wife buys and returns multiple pairs of shoes every month. Occasionally she finds a pair she likes and which fit and keeps them... but most of the time she returns them.
The stores seem to put up with this. I keep waiting for them to cut her off but they don't seem to have a problem with it. I guess the few pairs of shoes she buys keep them hoping for more.
As a naive observer, I'm just wondering why there is a single point of failure in this system. It seems to be that such a mission critical application should have distributed data and functionality to provide resilience... kind of like this new fangled Internet thingy.
(But what do I know?)
Thanks for the research and calculations.
My impression was that capacitors were not efficient and your calculations indicate that.
I guess they are using them because they have a capacitor factory.
This article confirms your calculations and has a nice chart.
http://berc.berkeley.edu/stora...
Interesting that the plane will use supercapacitors rather than batteries to store energy for use at night. I guess power to weight is favorable.
He divested from oil (smart move) and into tech and has a large supercapacitor factory.
My experience also. Opera is dramatically better on my old MacBook Air. It doesn't max out the memory or the CPU whereas Chrome and Firefox do that all the time.
The car of the future is an autonomous electric vehicle.
The future is starting... now.
Ford is way behind.
Look at most tech companies under tech knowledgable leaders and under "bean counters".
Take Apple under Jobs vs. Scully... no contest.
Take Microsoft under Gates vs. Balmer... no contest
HP under Carly Fiorina... I rest my case.
Fortunately, companies such as Facebook, Tesla, Twitter, AirBnB and others still have their original tech savvy founders.
The new CEO used to work at a furniture company but is good friends with the Ford family so that's how he got his job. He knows nothing about cars or autonomous vehicles in spite of being in charge of the AV program. He's just a well connected good old boy.
I don't see how this can help. Ford needs somebody who understands cars and autonomous vehicles and electric vehicles. This guy knows nothing.
If you'll read the editorial, you'll see that it does include the cost of storage with solar and it's still much cheaper than nuclear.
Lots of resistance to the new nuclear plants (all of them... Russian, Westinghouse, and Areva) because they are so expensive:
No. Aniruddh Mohan of the Observer Research Foundation says the two new Russian reactors, Kudankulam 3 and 4, have a negotiated tariff of Rs 6.30/unit. He estimates tariffs will be Rs 9 for Westinghouse and Rs 12 for Areva. News reports say India seeks to cap the Areva tariff at Rs 7/unit.
These tariffs look insanely costly compared with the latest solar power deal of Rs 2.62/unit in Rajasthan.
Besides, the price of solar power keeps falling, and could halve again. New N-plants could take 8-10 years to build, by which time solar power may cost just Rs 1.50/unit, and storage costs may fall below Rs 1/unit. It is crazy to build nuclear plants producing power several times costlier.
US power consumption has gone down in the past few years and it is attributed to the rapid adoption of LED bulbs. They are so cheap now that as soon as the old incandescent ones burn out (frequently), new LEDs are installed. Over the past few years I have replaced every light in my house and office building with efficient LEDs. When the old inefficient ones burn out, I put in LEDs. They get cheaper every year.
India will invest more in solar than nuclear and already has more solar capacity than nuclear. The new nuclear plants are in danger of not being built due to the high cost, GE pulling out of the bidding and Westinghouse going bankrupt.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indi...
I'd be happy to charge my electric car at night if my stupid electric company would offer that rate. As it is, I just plug it in in the afternoon (peak use time) but I could easily shift that to a later time.
Not clear about "the joke". Natural gas plants are currently built and operate as peak load, not base load because they are expensive.
The paragraph doesn't state a media conspiracy. It posits a conspiracy of rich powerful vested interests (fossil fuel and nuclear) who have purchased media exposure. The only persecution is the usual one of the rich persecuting everyone else.
"Baseload" is a myth. Most utilities have a surplus of power over night and can't even give it away. They are constantly trying to drum up customers so they can keep their polluting coal plants operating at night so they have to sell the electricity very cheap (or free). (Texas has rate plans which give homeowners free electricity at night to charge their electric cars, etc.)
No.
The problem is that "the media" picks up all kind of "fake news" from social media. If something is trending on Twitter or Facebook, etc., the media will just parrot it... the more sensational, the better. This makes the media uniquely susceptible to these kind of Russian attacks.
Since you clearly have no experience with a pre antibiotics era, I recommend you do some research.
I'll give you a clue. Lots of people died of infections which are easily cured with antibiotics
So... You say you are smarter than Citigroup, HSBC, Deutsch Bank?
More like delusional.
Greenpeace just collected the sources together. They are reputable: Citigroup, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, etc.
Try reading it slowly.
Solar is happening and it is getting a lot of attention. Solar (unsubsidized) is cheaper than coal power in some places.
Besides the fact that in the real world there is no such thing as a properly set up and secured Windows network, the properly set up and secured Windows network is still full of holes.
I hear this argument all the time. Even if it was true that virus writers find more Windows flaws because it's more popular, then why would you intentionally go with Windows, knowing that you are more likely to be targeted? It seems stupid to stick with the more popular system and know that you are more likely to be attacked. I'd rather stick with a less popular system knowing that I'm much less likely to get targeted.
Not too long ago I was traveling in Papua New Guinea on internal flights. They had absolutely no security screening to get on the plane (an Embraer jet).
The only place I encountered security was in getting OFF the airplane in the Highlands... they wanted to keep people from taking weapons into that area.
I agree that most security is just theatre and wouldn't deter a determined terrorist.
For bombs, it's easy to do non-invasive screening of luggage and people.
For guns, basic xray scanning.
No more strip searches!