And kudos to the Army for sponsoring this. It's the least they could do to support their sons and daughters who give life and, in many cases, limb for their country.
Actually, if you look at the history of medicine (especially emergency medicine) it owes a lot to the military. Many civilians are alive today because of the R&D investments made by military forces around the world.
Also, keep in mind that an "improved" limb is only as good as the method which it is attached to the body and the strength of the body itself. For instance, an arm capable of lifting 50 kg while securely attached to a stand may not be able to lift 50 kg when attached to a body.
I can only speak for myself but I don't think Android will go the distance. The quality isn't there. I jumped from Apple to Android a year ago, knowing that Android was in its infancy but expecting it to mature and improve. It hasn't. Yes some things have changed but for the most part it all feels a bit flimsy and incomplete, in my opinion. When I got my iPhone, three years ago, iOS was a more solid product than Android is today. (Of course iOS wasn't as feature-rich, but it was more polished, and nowadays it's catching up on features.) My blunt feeling about Android is that it proves the validity of Apple's locked-down approach: Apple has a solid, stable product, whereas Android has become fragmented and unreliable. I hope everyone else who jumped to Android is loving it and continues to do so, but for me, I'll be knocking on Apple's door again in the not too distant future. All the law suits are silly -- products should compete on quality and price, those are the realms in which consumers make our choices.
I've been running Cyanogenmod for a couple years now, and I couldn't go back to the stock firmware. If nothing else, Steve Kondik and his crew have demonstrated that Google could certainly have done better. To be fair, Google has supported him in his efforts, and a lot of what Cyanogen does goes back into the AOSP. Pretty much how you would hope a major open-source project would work.
My problem with Apple and IPhone has nothing to do with the technology or the operating system... it's that I don't like who I'd have to thank for it. I also don't want anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with that personal computer in my shirt pocket. I wouldn't accept that for my desktop machine or my laptop, and I fail to see why I should sit still for that kind of treatment when it comes to my smartphone.
which servers farms already do. GreenPeace is using lies and misleading data to confirm any bias they have, and try to sell it to the public. That's what angers me.
Yes. The big boys care about environmental impact (well, at least the energy cost of that impact) because they use so much power that it affects their bottom line. If you're building a datacenter, you can't do a whole lot to reduce your processing requirements: you need what you need. You can only charge so much for your services. Consequently, reducing power consumption (and, incidentally, your environmental footprint) by increasing datacenter efficiency is logical and entirely justifiable from a business perspective. That's always the case with any large business which uses a significant amount of power: it's pretty easy to figure the payback period of any investment made in energy efficiency.
As much as I now despise greenpeace, and there numbers are simply wrong, I do feel it should be pointed out that there is nothing wrong with wanting a system you are using to be more efficient.
True, but this is one case where you can generally assume the private sector will do the job themselves, because it directly improves the bottom line. The business case for data-center efficiency is clear, and the payback on the investment can be easily calculated.
That would explain his house, that uses 50 times the power that a normal house would use. He's just trying to level the field and make up for all those "green" houses.
Yes, but Big Al buys "carbon credits" in third-world countries to offset his own consumption. Of course, those folks are laughing all the way to the bank and not changing their own habits one little bit.
I have to admit, I DO wonder how America, with a quarter (give or take) the population, can consume 1/7th (give or take) more electricity than China. (I may have understated China's population, in which case this becomes even more mind-boggling.)
One of the biggest consumers of power in the United States is residential refrigeration. Air conditioning too, but even people without A.C. have a refrigerator and/or a freezer which is cycling continuously 24/7, 365 days a year.
If you have a hydroponics facility and a nuclear power plant powering it there will be some people that can survive it. They are already building some of these facilities in a city I can't remember.
Not for long, Keep in mind that any such technology would have to be designed to operate for decades without access to fuel or spare parts. Remember, once civilization collapses there will be no more production of high-technology goods of any kind. Right now your typical power plant requires constant maintenance, and isn't going to just sit there generating power for an extended period without something critical going out.
So sure, the folks clustered around that power plant might survive for a while, but if it was designed to commercial standards they won't last long.
At the very least it would allow some people to survive like some military guys that kill people who get near it. There's even a possibility of converting materials industrially into food pellets.
And to improve efficiency even further, you can take the corpses of the people the military guys killed, and convert them into food pellets.
Have to think of a good name, one that wouldn't give any clues about the source of raw material to upset the population, maybe imply that it comes from soy plants, and is green.
As I said. I bloody hate these hypocrites. They make it hard for the rest of us to be taken seriously when we voice our concerns.
Mod this fellow up. That's about as succinct a description of misguided environmentalism as I've ever heard. The problem is that real change generally occurs from within, when those working inside the corporate and governmental sectors work towards effective solutions. Getting the population worked up about problems that either don't exist, aren't as significant as claimed, or cannot be solved by one's proposed remedies does not help. It also doesn't help if your primary focus as an environmental organization is to preserve your own existence: that leads to exactly the kind of behavior you describe.
Unless that other schmuck also demands a renewable fuel source. Then the power company either loses business or builds another solar farm.
That other schmuck can't "demand" anything from a multibillion-dollar corporation. It's all marketing hype. They'll do whatever they feel makes them the most money. Many power companies are typically shortsighted, others may take a longer view. But the idea than you can "demand" greener power from a CEO is foolish. If you want greener power, you're much better off making a play for your Congressional representative. Turn it into a voting issue, and tell them you want a regulatory stance that requires investment in greener power. That's about the only way you'll get any traction.
And if you manage to do that on a significant scale, just remember: be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it..
The problem is that the power companies themselves don't like to much green energy.
Here in Belgium , the power companies are charging more money, because they are losing money due to the fact that many people place solar collectors on the houses ( and as such use less power , causing the power company to get less money ).
Here in the U.S. power companies are required to buy back excess energy produced by consumers. So if you put up photovoltaics, or a solar generator, or have a dam on your property and put in a turbine, your local provider has to allow you to put that energy back into the grid to offset your costs (usually with a synchronized A.C. inverter.) Of course, they buy it back at a substantially lower rate. Congress didn't exactly force them to play fair.
Slashdot Mirror
And kudos to the Army for sponsoring this. It's the least they could do to support their sons and daughters who give life and, in many cases, limb for their country.
Actually, if you look at the history of medicine (especially emergency medicine) it owes a lot to the military. Many civilians are alive today because of the R&D investments made by military forces around the world.
Also, keep in mind that an "improved" limb is only as good as the method which it is attached to the body and the strength of the body itself. For instance, an arm capable of lifting 50 kg while securely attached to a stand may not be able to lift 50 kg when attached to a body.
One word: Adamantium.
"Scotty, beam me up. Kirchhoff."
As anon once said, a hundred million here, a hundred million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money
Senator Dirksen.
I can only speak for myself but I don't think Android will go the distance. The quality isn't there. I jumped from Apple to Android a year ago, knowing that Android was in its infancy but expecting it to mature and improve. It hasn't. Yes some things have changed but for the most part it all feels a bit flimsy and incomplete, in my opinion. When I got my iPhone, three years ago, iOS was a more solid product than Android is today. (Of course iOS wasn't as feature-rich, but it was more polished, and nowadays it's catching up on features.) My blunt feeling about Android is that it proves the validity of Apple's locked-down approach: Apple has a solid, stable product, whereas Android has become fragmented and unreliable. I hope everyone else who jumped to Android is loving it and continues to do so, but for me, I'll be knocking on Apple's door again in the not too distant future. All the law suits are silly -- products should compete on quality and price, those are the realms in which consumers make our choices.
I've been running Cyanogenmod for a couple years now, and I couldn't go back to the stock firmware. If nothing else, Steve Kondik and his crew have demonstrated that Google could certainly have done better. To be fair, Google has supported him in his efforts, and a lot of what Cyanogen does goes back into the AOSP. Pretty much how you would hope a major open-source project would work.
... it's that I don't like who I'd have to thank for it. I also don't want anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with that personal computer in my shirt pocket. I wouldn't accept that for my desktop machine or my laptop, and I fail to see why I should sit still for that kind of treatment when it comes to my smartphone.
My problem with Apple and IPhone has nothing to do with the technology or the operating system
using the law to extort competition?
Obviously both Apple and Microsoft found that the Mafia wasn't wrong, the extortion business is profitable.
"Damn, that's a nice cell phone you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it."
He might not have the capacity to appreciate such humor.
No, the GP is right. The battery in my pun detector was dead.
Add more filters to the Internet!!
Here's the first entry:
-Greenpeace
This kind of rhetoric is as meaningless as the average Slashdot car analogy.
And substantially less entertaining.
which servers farms already do. GreenPeace is using lies and misleading data to confirm any bias they have, and try to sell it to the public. That's what angers me.
Yes. The big boys care about environmental impact (well, at least the energy cost of that impact) because they use so much power that it affects their bottom line. If you're building a datacenter, you can't do a whole lot to reduce your processing requirements: you need what you need. You can only charge so much for your services. Consequently, reducing power consumption (and, incidentally, your environmental footprint) by increasing datacenter efficiency is logical and entirely justifiable from a business perspective. That's always the case with any large business which uses a significant amount of power: it's pretty easy to figure the payback period of any investment made in energy efficiency.
A new study says Greenpeace activists are not showing any sign of reducing their CO2 emission while breathing.
Yes. About the only good thing about a Greenpeace member is that they exhale carbon dioxide. After all, it's needed by plants.
Brining Gore into this just shows you can't divorce your statement from false ideological beliefs.
No, Gore brought himself into this. He's as much of an environmental fruitcake as these Greenpeace types, and unfortunately just as influential.
About Greenpeace, a theater troupe whose desire for headlines outweighs any real contribution to the debate.
A troupe whose political influence, unfortunately, far outweighs any real contribution they've ever made.
As much as I now despise greenpeace, and there numbers are simply wrong, I do feel it should be pointed out that there is nothing wrong with wanting a system you are using to be more efficient.
True, but this is one case where you can generally assume the private sector will do the job themselves, because it directly improves the bottom line. The business case for data-center efficiency is clear, and the payback on the investment can be easily calculated.
That would explain his house, that uses 50 times the power that a normal house would use. He's just trying to level the field and make up for all those "green" houses.
Yes, but Big Al buys "carbon credits" in third-world countries to offset his own consumption. Of course, those folks are laughing all the way to the bank and not changing their own habits one little bit.
I have to admit, I DO wonder how America, with a quarter (give or take) the population, can consume 1/7th (give or take) more electricity than China. (I may have understated China's population, in which case this becomes even more mind-boggling.)
One of the biggest consumers of power in the United States is residential refrigeration. Air conditioning too, but even people without A.C. have a refrigerator and/or a freezer which is cycling continuously 24/7, 365 days a year.
If you have a hydroponics facility and a nuclear power plant powering it there will be some people that can survive it. They are already building some of these facilities in a city I can't remember.
Not for long, Keep in mind that any such technology would have to be designed to operate for decades without access to fuel or spare parts. Remember, once civilization collapses there will be no more production of high-technology goods of any kind. Right now your typical power plant requires constant maintenance, and isn't going to just sit there generating power for an extended period without something critical going out.
So sure, the folks clustered around that power plant might survive for a while, but if it was designed to commercial standards they won't last long.
At the very least it would allow some people to survive like some military guys that kill people who get near it. There's even a possibility of converting materials industrially into food pellets.
And to improve efficiency even further, you can take the corpses of the people the military guys killed, and convert them into food pellets.
Have to think of a good name, one that wouldn't give any clues about the source of raw material to upset the population, maybe imply that it comes from soy plants, and is green.
Re-read the comment you dummy.
Yes. Crystal clear comprehension malfunction.
Not very accurate, however.
That's why he also said:
So maybe if you claim you only charge your car during the night when the temporary dirty generators are offline, you're better of.
Oh... So... you're paying for "green" power, but what you get the same electricity everyone else gets... ok... now I'm with you.
Ha. It sounds more like marketing hype to me.
As I said. I bloody hate these hypocrites. They make it hard for the rest of us to be taken seriously when we voice our concerns.
Mod this fellow up. That's about as succinct a description of misguided environmentalism as I've ever heard. The problem is that real change generally occurs from within, when those working inside the corporate and governmental sectors work towards effective solutions. Getting the population worked up about problems that either don't exist, aren't as significant as claimed, or cannot be solved by one's proposed remedies does not help. It also doesn't help if your primary focus as an environmental organization is to preserve your own existence: that leads to exactly the kind of behavior you describe.
Unless that other schmuck also demands a renewable fuel source. Then the power company either loses business or builds another solar farm.
That other schmuck can't "demand" anything from a multibillion-dollar corporation. It's all marketing hype. They'll do whatever they feel makes them the most money. Many power companies are typically shortsighted, others may take a longer view. But the idea than you can "demand" greener power from a CEO is foolish. If you want greener power, you're much better off making a play for your Congressional representative. Turn it into a voting issue, and tell them you want a regulatory stance that requires investment in greener power. That's about the only way you'll get any traction.
And if you manage to do that on a significant scale, just remember: be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it..
The problem is that the power companies themselves don't like to much green energy.
Here in Belgium , the power companies are charging more money, because they are losing money due to the fact that many people place solar collectors on the houses ( and as such use less power , causing the power company to get less money ) .
Here in the U.S. power companies are required to buy back excess energy produced by consumers. So if you put up photovoltaics, or a solar generator, or have a dam on your property and put in a turbine, your local provider has to allow you to put that energy back into the grid to offset your costs (usually with a synchronized A.C. inverter.) Of course, they buy it back at a substantially lower rate. Congress didn't exactly force them to play fair.
Androgynous Green Women
(oh come on...)
Like these three? Although, come to think it, maybe "androgynous" isn't quite right.