Still guess we can't grumble as university students of today are tomorrow's politicians.
Well, I don't think MIT turns out too many politicians - they turn out exclusively scientists and engineers. If it was politicians, I wouldn't care - we know they're a bunch of scoundrels - but what is truly frightening is that the ethics of scientists are supposedly held in higher regard than those of politicians. "Bias" is a much dirtier word in science than in politics. So to have MIT students see their advdisors and teachers getting rich off of graft is a very sad thing indeed.
One more reason I'm glad I didn't go to MIT for grad school.
I tried that, but it wouldn't fit. Then I realized the other foot already had a shoe on it. So I took that shoe off, and then put my shoe from the correct foot onto the other foor. It was really uncomfortable, though. I was walking around with no shoe on one foot, and the wrong shoe on the other foot. I kept running into things and a got a nasty festering blister on the "other foot."
So you know what, I said "fuck it," and I took that shoe off and put it back on the correct foot. Except by then I had lost the shoe that's supposed to go on the other foot. So now I'm still walking around with one shoe, but at least it's on the correct foot.
Not trying to troll, but when is it useful to save scribbles? Usually, I scribble on a napkin or whatever, but this isn't all too coherent. It's usually only useful to me when I make it a bit more coherent, and usually typed. How long do people keep srcribbles? It doesn't seem like it begs for being stored any longer than it takes me to lose it.
At what point am I going to look for something I scribbled 2 years ago?
I only see this useful for people who t y p e r e a l l y s l o w . ....
See, the thing is that they have enough bandwidth now to deliver 500 channels. So their business is getting like $50 a month from each subscriber. Once they have the bandwidth, giving you 500 channels isn't much more expensive (if at all) than giving you 3. They are not going to give a discount simply because they don't *get* a discount in terms of reduced expenses by providing fewer channels.
The only way it would make sense for them is market segmentation. In other words, if some new pricing scheme made them more money than it lost (in terms of full subscribers switching down), then they'll do it. This is why they offer a really shitty basic cable - they want it to be just better than a rooftop antenna, but limited enough that it makes you want premium.
So no, there is no system under which we all end up paying less for cable than we are now.
Host:If you could do anything to save the world, what would it be?
Contestant 1: I would make world peace, and we can all frolic like little bunnies and everyone will be happy!
Host:What a great a great answer! Contestant 2, what would you do?
Contestant 2, who looks surprisingly like David Gelernter:I would make an OS, except it's not an OS, it's a magical OS that runs the same everywhere, and can read all data, and somehow convinces asshole companies to do away with proprietary file formats. So it's like Java, and XML all together, and kind of like that browser OS based on Mozilla too. Oh, and it won't be slower than dookie. I promise.
Host:Christ, and I thought "World Peace" was a dipshit answer.
Yes. They are. As pointed out a few months ago,./ is now taking for-pay "stories." I wouldn't mind this, except for the fact that they don't mark them as such. I mean, even crappy magazines with no journalistic integrity at all (ok, maxim) at least states what's advertising and not. I think./ seriously compromises its integrity by trying to camouflage them.
I think we all know what the next step is - basically, some variant of DVD audio. Hello region codes, compression, and tight control over hardware manufacturers. When that happens, we're really screwed.
...but the powers that be would lynch them. Remember, hardware manufacturers license the DVD technology (basically DeCSS), and that license can be revoked. I bet putting a HDD in a DVD player would do it.;) Even with the combo DVD/VHS players, they make it so you can't simply do a direct record (I'm sure at the insistence of the entertainment industry). Naturally, anyone with intelligence can re-route the audio and video from output back to input, but still...
With reason, though. Of all the companies they've taken on, I can't think of any flat-out LOSSES for MS. Netscape - DEAD. Dr. DOS - DEAD. Niedermayer - DEAD! (Sorry, couldn't resist). Their worst "losses" are semi-stalemates where they gradually erode market share (realmedia, Sun, AOL, and maybe, though WAY too early to call...apache?). So I wouldn't feel too good about my Adobe stock, maybe. Of course, I don't see them going after Photoshop.
I love MS's business model:
1. establish monopoly.
2. Target competitor.
3. Devise MS version of competitor's product - similar but incompatible.
4. Integrate into Windows and distribute for free.
5. Prevent computer manufacturers from including competitor's product.
6. Watch company die.
7. Get sued.
8. String out suit until you win or until suit is no longer relevant.
9. 2 days later...GOTO 2.
I mean, they could at least have waited a week after the CKK decision!
First, they will NEVER give away source (there seems to be some confusion over what is being given away). The debate can only be over binaries.
I completely agree with you - combatting piracy (or, alternatively, charging for the OS) will simply erode their monopoly. Their business simply depends too little on revenue from the OS not to give it away, when all their other business depends on a windows platform. In fact, the better question is whether this would be interpreted as anticompetitive pricing (ie, price dumping). The only response to that is that there is no competition now.;)
However, this doesn't mean they will do it, as M$ has historically made many decisions that aren't all that smart (though, granted, they've made a lot that were). They tend to be extremely arrogant institutionally, and piracy is a fight that comes from the top (ie, Bill). Giving the OS away will leave a taste of failure in his mouth, whether it is rational or not. So no, I really don't think they will ever give windows away. And they're even stepping up their fight against piracy. XP is their first OS to use spyware for registration (I believe).
If they were smart and rational, they would continue to force OEM's to pay for crappy versions of windows, then charge for upgrades...similar to what they do now. But the key part of the plan is to back way off of piracy enforcement, as it was in the pre-BSA, pre-Win XP days. That way they have their Windows revenue AND monopoly, without fear of any "anticompetitive" claims.
Look, there is a place for this pro-Democrat FUD, and it's called the Democratic National Convention.
This decision has NOTHING to do with Ashcroft, Kotelly was the judge, and she was a CLINTON appointee. When it comes down to it, JACKSON blew this case, and the states didn't feel like waiting around for a Part 2, so most settled for crap. I can't blame DOJ, and I'm not sure that it would have been too different under Clinton. Though misguided, it's hard to argue with the idea that getting consumers some benefit is better than retrying the case until it's irrelevant and Microsoft no longer cares, so they settle.
Anyone see what Harvey Pitt's been doing lately?
I hear what NPR tells me, since they hate all things Bush administration. Face it, he could have crucified Ken Lay and you still wouldn't have thought it was enough, because he's a Republican.
We wuz robbed! Gore in '04!
I don't like Bush too much either, but running Gore is the best way to ensure his re-election. And don't start with that "robbed" crap, if you want to discount fraudulent ballots, like those cast by convicted felons that were 90+% Gore, it wouldn't have been close.
Now, let's do compare apples to apples. First, a dual 2.0 Xeon will beat the living crap out of pretty much anything, and is complete overkill for the desktop. It won't even help for games, really. It's more than fair to compare the high-end single-chip designs, like the 2.8, to dual-chip 1.25 Macs. I plugged in the same options you did, and got closer to $2300. So I would think that the difference is more than you state - a state of the art PC is $1000 cheaper than a comparable Mac.
Now, to be fair, Mac OS is the best all-around OS that I have ever seen. My next computer would be a mac if it weren't for the cost, which is even more dramatic on the low end (I can build a good, new PC for $750, double that for a good G4).
And for those of you who have said "save up," I don't want to! I would rather get more computing power for half the price with the Intel architecture. And, although it's a pain in the ass, I'll dual-boot windows and linux to get a decent OS between the two of them;).
Honestly, Motorola is KILLING apple. Their growth curve is way behind intel...meaning, if apple used to have the processor lead, they don't now.
in fact it was perfectly reasonable to consider Jackson's judicial ethics when evaluating the case on appeal. And, communication about a decision that is PENDING before you has been considered as bad behavior in the past
"Bad behavior" may deserve a reprimand, but the question is not 'Was Jackson an idiot' or 'Is Jackson a Microsoft-basher,' it was 'Was Jackson biased.' And if Jackson wasn't biased, then his ethics, or lack thereof, are not relevant to the case. This is a question of law, not of popularity. I really don't see, under LAW, how it is possible to simultaneously find that he was NOT biased and overrule his decision. As for his finding of fact, I don't think that's appealable (IANAL!!!), or they probably would have. In fact, I vaguely recall Jackson structuring his decision in this way to prevent the entire decision from being overruled.
Basically, I want to know on what legal basis this decision was made. Appeals courts are not supposed to be a "Round 2, try again," it's supposed to be whether sufficient LEGAL improprieties were committed to require an overruling of the case. If they say no bias existed, I see no reason for overturning it. I'm not saying I agree - I think he may have been biased - but I'm using the court's decision. And this would not be the first time that a multi-judge panel bench legislated. I'm sure we can all think of examples, but I don't want to leave unintentional flame-bait.
sorry, sometimes it seems like every single word in a/. commentary makes me sputter with disbelief.
And every single response to a./ commentary makes me wretch at the dripping arrogance involved. Seriously, people, this self-superior attitude pervading a large portion of the./ community is not attractive.
Basically, the judge disagreed, so threw out the decision. I mean, there are very specific things that are allowed to be considered for an appeal, and I do not believe "talking to the media" is among them. This just followed in a long string of bench legislation. I mean, IANAL, but still...
Interesting, but a bit off I think. The myth started, to my knowledge, closer to the middle east area, where rhinos are decidedly un-wooly. The myth was present in China, at least, before they had contact with Europe (~1000 BC or so).
It is very possible that the rhino is the origin. Although why someone would confuse a rhino with a horse is beyond me. But mythological combo-creatures are very common (unicorn, pegasus, centaur...), so it could certainly happen.
Also, I think the wooly guy died off a bit too early for it to have entered mythology - wouldn't swear to it, but it would likely be a first.
As pointed out, it should be possible to do this with a modem that interfaces with a sound card. So all you need is a program that captures the incoming stream and detects a pause of say, 1 sec, then plays a semi-random.wav file that the user recorded.
You know what works better? When you answer and there's a pause, you know it's a telemarketer. So when I hear another voice on the other end, I spew vulgarities in another language. Chinese works, because chances are the guy on the other end won't know if you make a few words up. They always remove you if you do that, and it's fun too.;)
How many geeks have jobs that force them to interact in the windows world? I do. This geek also needs a very functional spreadsheet for manipulating data (this geek happens to be a chemist). Unfortunately, Excel beats the hell out of Star or Openoffice spreadsheet, which truly sucks. (Anyone know of a fully-functional open source spreadsheet?)
So, since I refuse to give windows access to my machine, another alternative must be found. As for who BUYS a desktop OS...I guess someone who can't find a friend with a T1? Glad I've got one...
Solution to M$ hell? I tried crossover right after it went 1.0. I found it to be about the buggiest thing I had ever used. Office (which it was supposedly optimized for) crashed all the time. Yeah, I know it does that a lot in windows, but much more in crossover. Worst, crossover itself would get corrupted, requiring a re-install of windows. This was starting to be a weekly thing (at least).
Now, I run vm ware, and it's great. Yes, it's more expensive than crossover, and actually *RUNS* windows, requiring a license (or piracy, if you prefer). But it's stable as hell (considering windows' native limitations), pretty fast (faster than a crossover implementation on the same machine), runs effectively ALL windows programs (no more "We'll get that running next year"). Oh, and since windows runs in a virtual machine, windows doesn't have direct access to my hardware.
It's more expensive, but after a month of running either, vmware rocks and is very worth it. I know a lot of assholes will say that people shouldn't take a job that requires use of M$ products, but that attitude will keep you unemployed and living with your parents for a long time.
The house I've lived in for the last while is supplied by a well (yes, the water comes out of the "damned GROUND"). Every six months we send a sample of the water to a local lab to test for parasites and bacteria. It always comes back with zeroes across the board; zero E. Coli, zero coliform, etc. And this is without one drop of chlorine, bromine, or anything else.
First, if you like, call the EPA and ask them, on average, which has better water quality: wells or treated water. They will laugh at you. I stayed in a boarding house one summer (don't ask) and we couldn't drink the well water. It was infested with junk. If you have clean well water, good for you, but you have a sample size of 1.
Chlorine and fluorine don't taste good, which is why many people in areas with heavily-treated (or high-iron-content, for example) water prefer bottled water to their tap water. Yes, it costs more, but it's more pleasant.
"Pleasant" isn't exactly a public health issue. Also, no one really seemed to complain about the pleasantness of the water before companies like aquafina or whatever came around to try to expand their market with a perceived need. They told people they had a problem they hadn't noticed before, and like sheep, people shelled out serious amounts of cash. Marketing at its best.
As for health, I posted links to the EPA water quality site, check it out if you think I'm full of shit. Water quality is one of those things where public water supplies get a bad name because of the few really crappy systems, publicized by the incredibly lazy media that see big teaser headlines like "Is your water killing you? News at 11..." Again, check it. Neither LA nor NY had a lead, Arsenic, microbe, or really any other significant problem. I'm not going to check every system, but I think you'll be surprised after being fed FUD by the news and the bottled water companies.
If I was rich, I might drink bottled water. If the taste is really worth $2/bottle better than tap...seems a bit silly, but OK. But if you've swallowed the FUD that your only way to avoid certain death at the hands of your municipal water supply....well, that is truly sheep-like.
You got it right - they only use 50/4000 = about 1% efficient....for the heat they actually remove from the system
Also realize that they only made use of a small portion of the temperature drop. Assuming they had a cold sink of infinite (relatively) mass, they should get a temperature drop of approx 65 C, assuming a typical icelandic 10 C temperature. So take that ratio as well and they made use of only about 0.4% of the maximum Carnot efficiency.
However, carnot efficiency is capped as well - you can never get all the heat in the water - so then multiply by the carnot efficiency found from 75 C and 10C, which is 0.19. So now we're down to an absolute efficiency of about 0.06%. Not too good...
To get the absolute efficiency the easy way, take 50g/s of water, and multiply by the temperature of the hot source, and also by the heat capacity of the material. Then divide the actual power by that.
Read that closer. They claim 70-80% of the theoretical Carnot maximum efficiency. The max efficiency of a carnot cycle is found from (Th-Tc)/Th, where Th is the temp. of the heat sink, and Tc is the temp of the cold sink (all temperatures in absolute temperature, like Kelvin). That max carnot efficiency is a thermodynamic law, nothing can beat it.
If they can get 70-80% of carnot, that would be great, but it isn't clear how these devices will scale - meaning they might get a great efficiency but low total power. It also isn't clear how hot they will operate (assuming the cold sink is ambient). If the temperature gradient is only a few K, goodbye efficiency (see equation above).
I made a passing glance at their website, and I didn't see an operating temperature, but I didn't look too hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Still guess we can't grumble as university students of today are tomorrow's politicians.
Well, I don't think MIT turns out too many politicians - they turn out exclusively scientists and engineers. If it was politicians, I wouldn't care - we know they're a bunch of scoundrels - but what is truly frightening is that the ethics of scientists are supposedly held in higher regard than those of politicians. "Bias" is a much dirtier word in science than in politics. So to have MIT students see their advdisors and teachers getting rich off of graft is a very sad thing indeed.
One more reason I'm glad I didn't go to MIT for grad school.
Put the shoe on the other foot
I tried that, but it wouldn't fit. Then I realized the other foot already had a shoe on it. So I took that shoe off, and then put my shoe from the correct foot onto the other foor. It was really uncomfortable, though. I was walking around with no shoe on one foot, and the wrong shoe on the other foot. I kept running into things and a got a nasty festering blister on the "other foot."
So you know what, I said "fuck it," and I took that shoe off and put it back on the correct foot. Except by then I had lost the shoe that's supposed to go on the other foot. So now I'm still walking around with one shoe, but at least it's on the correct foot.
Thanks for making me lose my shoe asshole.
Maybe I should have mentioned that I trust MS's text conversion software about as much as I trust my cat to babysit a bird.
Seriously, I've never known OCR to be more of an aid than a pain in the ass.
Not trying to troll, but when is it useful to save scribbles? Usually, I scribble on a napkin or whatever, but this isn't all too coherent. It's usually only useful to me when I make it a bit more coherent, and usually typed. How long do people keep srcribbles? It doesn't seem like it begs for being stored any longer than it takes me to lose it.
...
At what point am I going to look for something I scribbled 2 years ago?
I only see this useful for people who t y p e r e a l l y s l o w . .
See, the thing is that they have enough bandwidth now to deliver 500 channels. So their business is getting like $50 a month from each subscriber. Once they have the bandwidth, giving you 500 channels isn't much more expensive (if at all) than giving you 3. They are not going to give a discount simply because they don't *get* a discount in terms of reduced expenses by providing fewer channels.
The only way it would make sense for them is market segmentation. In other words, if some new pricing scheme made them more money than it lost (in terms of full subscribers switching down), then they'll do it. This is why they offer a really shitty basic cable - they want it to be just better than a rooftop antenna, but limited enough that it makes you want premium.
So no, there is no system under which we all end up paying less for cable than we are now.
Host:If you could do anything to save the world, what would it be?
Contestant 1: I would make world peace, and we can all frolic like little bunnies and everyone will be happy!
Host:What a great a great answer! Contestant 2, what would you do?
Contestant 2, who looks surprisingly like David Gelernter:I would make an OS, except it's not an OS, it's a magical OS that runs the same everywhere, and can read all data, and somehow convinces asshole companies to do away with proprietary file formats. So it's like Java, and XML all together, and kind of like that browser OS based on Mozilla too. Oh, and it won't be slower than dookie. I promise.
Host:Christ, and I thought "World Peace" was a dipshit answer.
Yes. They are. As pointed out a few months ago, ./ is now taking for-pay "stories." I wouldn't mind this, except for the fact that they don't mark them as such. I mean, even crappy magazines with no journalistic integrity at all (ok, maxim) at least states what's advertising and not. I think ./ seriously compromises its integrity by trying to camouflage them.
Does that make you AR Retentive?
Who mods this up?
I think we all know what the next step is - basically, some variant of DVD audio. Hello region codes, compression, and tight control over hardware manufacturers. When that happens, we're really screwed.
...of course, they are entitled to charge a "replacement cost"....you pay for 2-way shipping + handling...which will undoubtedly come to about $15.
Bastards.
...but the powers that be would lynch them. Remember, hardware manufacturers license the DVD technology (basically DeCSS), and that license can be revoked. I bet putting a HDD in a DVD player would do it. ;) Even with the combo DVD/VHS players, they make it so you can't simply do a direct record (I'm sure at the insistence of the entertainment industry). Naturally, anyone with intelligence can re-route the audio and video from output back to input, but still...
With reason, though. Of all the companies they've taken on, I can't think of any flat-out LOSSES for MS. Netscape - DEAD. Dr. DOS - DEAD. Niedermayer - DEAD! (Sorry, couldn't resist). Their worst "losses" are semi-stalemates where they gradually erode market share (realmedia, Sun, AOL, and maybe, though WAY too early to call...apache?). So I wouldn't feel too good about my Adobe stock, maybe. Of course, I don't see them going after Photoshop.
I love MS's business model:
1. establish monopoly.
2. Target competitor.
3. Devise MS version of competitor's product - similar but incompatible.
4. Integrate into Windows and distribute for free.
5. Prevent computer manufacturers from including competitor's product.
6. Watch company die.
7. Get sued.
8. String out suit until you win or until suit is no longer relevant.
9. 2 days later...GOTO 2.
I mean, they could at least have waited a week after the CKK decision!
...doesn't mean they'll do it.
;)
First, they will NEVER give away source (there seems to be some confusion over what is being given away). The debate can only be over binaries.
I completely agree with you - combatting piracy (or, alternatively, charging for the OS) will simply erode their monopoly. Their business simply depends too little on revenue from the OS not to give it away, when all their other business depends on a windows platform. In fact, the better question is whether this would be interpreted as anticompetitive pricing (ie, price dumping). The only response to that is that there is no competition now.
However, this doesn't mean they will do it, as M$ has historically made many decisions that aren't all that smart (though, granted, they've made a lot that were). They tend to be extremely arrogant institutionally, and piracy is a fight that comes from the top (ie, Bill). Giving the OS away will leave a taste of failure in his mouth, whether it is rational or not. So no, I really don't think they will ever give windows away. And they're even stepping up their fight against piracy. XP is their first OS to use spyware for registration (I believe).
If they were smart and rational, they would continue to force OEM's to pay for crappy versions of windows, then charge for upgrades...similar to what they do now. But the key part of the plan is to back way off of piracy enforcement, as it was in the pre-BSA, pre-Win XP days. That way they have their Windows revenue AND monopoly, without fear of any "anticompetitive" claims.
Look, there is a place for this pro-Democrat FUD, and it's called the Democratic National Convention.
This decision has NOTHING to do with Ashcroft, Kotelly was the judge, and she was a CLINTON appointee. When it comes down to it, JACKSON blew this case, and the states didn't feel like waiting around for a Part 2, so most settled for crap. I can't blame DOJ, and I'm not sure that it would have been too different under Clinton. Though misguided, it's hard to argue with the idea that getting consumers some benefit is better than retrying the case until it's irrelevant and Microsoft no longer cares, so they settle.
Anyone see what Harvey Pitt's been doing lately?
I hear what NPR tells me, since they hate all things Bush administration. Face it, he could have crucified Ken Lay and you still wouldn't have thought it was enough, because he's a Republican.
We wuz robbed! Gore in '04!
I don't like Bush too much either, but running Gore is the best way to ensure his re-election. And don't start with that "robbed" crap, if you want to discount fraudulent ballots, like those cast by convicted felons that were 90+% Gore, it wouldn't have been close.
Now, let's do compare apples to apples. First, a dual 2.0 Xeon will beat the living crap out of pretty much anything, and is complete overkill for the desktop. It won't even help for games, really. It's more than fair to compare the high-end single-chip designs, like the 2.8, to dual-chip 1.25 Macs. I plugged in the same options you did, and got closer to $2300. So I would think that the difference is more than you state - a state of the art PC is $1000 cheaper than a comparable Mac.
;).
Now, to be fair, Mac OS is the best all-around OS that I have ever seen. My next computer would be a mac if it weren't for the cost, which is even more dramatic on the low end (I can build a good, new PC for $750, double that for a good G4).
And for those of you who have said "save up," I don't want to! I would rather get more computing power for half the price with the Intel architecture. And, although it's a pain in the ass, I'll dual-boot windows and linux to get a decent OS between the two of them
Honestly, Motorola is KILLING apple. Their growth curve is way behind intel...meaning, if apple used to have the processor lead, they don't now.
in fact it was perfectly reasonable to consider Jackson's judicial ethics when evaluating the case on appeal. And, communication about a decision that is PENDING before you has been considered as bad behavior in the past
/. commentary makes me sputter with disbelief.
./ commentary makes me wretch at the dripping arrogance involved. Seriously, people, this self-superior attitude pervading a large portion of the ./ community is not attractive.
"Bad behavior" may deserve a reprimand, but the question is not 'Was Jackson an idiot' or 'Is Jackson a Microsoft-basher,' it was 'Was Jackson biased.' And if Jackson wasn't biased, then his ethics, or lack thereof, are not relevant to the case. This is a question of law, not of popularity. I really don't see, under LAW, how it is possible to simultaneously find that he was NOT biased and overrule his decision. As for his finding of fact, I don't think that's appealable (IANAL!!!), or they probably would have. In fact, I vaguely recall Jackson structuring his decision in this way to prevent the entire decision from being overruled.
Basically, I want to know on what legal basis this decision was made. Appeals courts are not supposed to be a "Round 2, try again," it's supposed to be whether sufficient LEGAL improprieties were committed to require an overruling of the case. If they say no bias existed, I see no reason for overturning it. I'm not saying I agree - I think he may have been biased - but I'm using the court's decision. And this would not be the first time that a multi-judge panel bench legislated. I'm sure we can all think of examples, but I don't want to leave unintentional flame-bait.
sorry, sometimes it seems like every single word in a
And every single response to a
Is your "Sexiest human since the invention of the alphabet."
Basically, the judge disagreed, so threw out the decision. I mean, there are very specific things that are allowed to be considered for an appeal, and I do not believe "talking to the media" is among them. This just followed in a long string of bench legislation. I mean, IANAL, but still...
Interesting, but a bit off I think. The myth started, to my knowledge, closer to the middle east area, where rhinos are decidedly un-wooly. The myth was present in China, at least, before they had contact with Europe (~1000 BC or so).
It is very possible that the rhino is the origin. Although why someone would confuse a rhino with a horse is beyond me. But mythological combo-creatures are very common (unicorn, pegasus, centaur...), so it could certainly happen.
Also, I think the wooly guy died off a bit too early for it to have entered mythology - wouldn't swear to it, but it would likely be a first.
As pointed out, it should be possible to do this with a modem that interfaces with a sound card. So all you need is a program that captures the incoming stream and detects a pause of say, 1 sec, then plays a semi-random .wav file that the user recorded.
Does anyone KNOW of any such anti-spam software?
You know what works better? When you answer and there's a pause, you know it's a telemarketer. So when I hear another voice on the other end, I spew vulgarities in another language. Chinese works, because chances are the guy on the other end won't know if you make a few words up. They always remove you if you do that, and it's fun too. ;)
How many geeks have jobs that force them to interact in the windows world? I do. This geek also needs a very functional spreadsheet for manipulating data (this geek happens to be a chemist). Unfortunately, Excel beats the hell out of Star or Openoffice spreadsheet, which truly sucks. (Anyone know of a fully-functional open source spreadsheet?)
So, since I refuse to give windows access to my machine, another alternative must be found. As for who BUYS a desktop OS...I guess someone who can't find a friend with a T1? Glad I've got one...
Solution to M$ hell? I tried crossover right after it went 1.0. I found it to be about the buggiest thing I had ever used. Office (which it was supposedly optimized for) crashed all the time. Yeah, I know it does that a lot in windows, but much more in crossover. Worst, crossover itself would get corrupted, requiring a re-install of windows. This was starting to be a weekly thing (at least).
Now, I run vm ware, and it's great. Yes, it's more expensive than crossover, and actually *RUNS* windows, requiring a license (or piracy, if you prefer). But it's stable as hell (considering windows' native limitations), pretty fast (faster than a crossover implementation on the same machine), runs effectively ALL windows programs (no more "We'll get that running next year"). Oh, and since windows runs in a virtual machine, windows doesn't have direct access to my hardware.
It's more expensive, but after a month of running either, vmware rocks and is very worth it. I know a lot of assholes will say that people shouldn't take a job that requires use of M$ products, but that attitude will keep you unemployed and living with your parents for a long time.
The house I've lived in for the last while is supplied by a well (yes, the water comes out of the "damned GROUND"). Every six months we send a sample of the water to a local lab to test for parasites and bacteria. It always comes back with zeroes across the board; zero E. Coli, zero coliform, etc. And this is without one drop of chlorine, bromine, or anything else.
First, if you like, call the EPA and ask them, on average, which has better water quality: wells or treated water. They will laugh at you. I stayed in a boarding house one summer (don't ask) and we couldn't drink the well water. It was infested with junk. If you have clean well water, good for you, but you have a sample size of 1.
Chlorine and fluorine don't taste good, which is why many people in areas with heavily-treated (or high-iron-content, for example) water prefer bottled water to their tap water. Yes, it costs more, but it's more pleasant.
"Pleasant" isn't exactly a public health issue. Also, no one really seemed to complain about the pleasantness of the water before companies like aquafina or whatever came around to try to expand their market with a perceived need. They told people they had a problem they hadn't noticed before, and like sheep, people shelled out serious amounts of cash. Marketing at its best.
As for health, I posted links to the EPA water quality site, check it out if you think I'm full of shit. Water quality is one of those things where public water supplies get a bad name because of the few really crappy systems, publicized by the incredibly lazy media that see big teaser headlines like "Is your water killing you? News at 11..." Again, check it. Neither LA nor NY had a lead, Arsenic, microbe, or really any other significant problem. I'm not going to check every system, but I think you'll be surprised after being fed FUD by the news and the bottled water companies.
If I was rich, I might drink bottled water. If the taste is really worth $2/bottle better than tap...seems a bit silly, but OK. But if you've swallowed the FUD that your only way to avoid certain death at the hands of your municipal water supply....well, that is truly sheep-like.
Now who's the moron?
Wow, someone needs a nap.
You got it right - they only use 50/4000 = about 1% efficient....for the heat they actually remove from the system
Also realize that they only made use of a small portion of the temperature drop. Assuming they had a cold sink of infinite (relatively) mass, they should get a temperature drop of approx 65 C, assuming a typical icelandic 10 C temperature. So take that ratio as well and they made use of only about 0.4% of the maximum Carnot efficiency.
However, carnot efficiency is capped as well - you can never get all the heat in the water - so then multiply by the carnot efficiency found from 75 C and 10C, which is 0.19. So now we're down to an absolute efficiency of about 0.06%. Not too good...
To get the absolute efficiency the easy way, take 50g/s of water, and multiply by the temperature of the hot source, and also by the heat capacity of the material. Then divide the actual power by that.
Read that closer. They claim 70-80% of the theoretical Carnot maximum efficiency. The max efficiency of a carnot cycle is found from (Th-Tc)/Th, where Th is the temp. of the heat sink, and Tc is the temp of the cold sink (all temperatures in absolute temperature, like Kelvin). That max carnot efficiency is a thermodynamic law, nothing can beat it.
If they can get 70-80% of carnot, that would be great, but it isn't clear how these devices will scale - meaning they might get a great efficiency but low total power. It also isn't clear how hot they will operate (assuming the cold sink is ambient). If the temperature gradient is only a few K, goodbye efficiency (see equation above).
I made a passing glance at their website, and I didn't see an operating temperature, but I didn't look too hard.