I think that pretty much sums up the way that the scientists on these kind of projects really think about these things, and I find it reassuring. They are just as unenthusiastic about the prospect disappearing into nothingness as you are. They are smarter than me. They are also almost certainly smarter than you. If they are comfortable enough to joke/make bets then I'm not worried.
I read that as referring to other MS products - the immense number of companies still buying expensive MS Office licenses because they're stuck with MS file formats, for example.
It's definitely a nice idea, and I don't want to be discouraging, but keep continuing support in mind - both generally (can you commit to keeping it patched and secure for the next x amount of time?) and in emergencies (they're relying on the system, it goes down, how much of a problem is that going to cause them and how are they going to get it fixed?).
The problem with many password rules is that you're often trading a moderately difficult technical attack for a fairly simple social attack.
It doesn't matter that your users have to chose a password that'd take 10^15 years to crack if 90% of them then have to keep it written on a post-it stuck to their monitor just to remember how to log in every morning.
The (relatively) recent Fossett crash is a prime example of this -- His aircraft was not equipped with a ELT beacon at all (in violation of law) and had he been ELT equipped, he would have been found within a day.
I hadn't heard this before, but my first thought now is WTF?!
What kind of reasons would there be for him doing something like that?
A bit of an odd aside, but the first thing that struck me there was how much those GPS units cost. What makes them so different to normal consumer ones?
I think your information is a little out of date. According to the original article, the panels used are 18% efficient and the warranty assures 90% capacity at 12 years and 80% of capacity at 25 years.
Why can't one do what he did? It appears to be a successfully functioning system that will cost him the same over the next decade as the power would have done anyway, continue to provide almost free power for the subsequent 15 years, and/or leave him with a tangible asset with (some) value if he sells his house before the panels fail.
There's a link in the article to the one written when the system was installed. Total cost (after rebates and so on) was about $36,000 and the estimated break even time is about nine or ten years - similar to what you said (assuming energy prices are relatively static).
One thing that the author does point out is that when those ten years are through, he'll have spent the same amount of money but paid into a tangible asset that increases the value of his house rather than just throwing cash he'll never see again at the utility companies. It does seem to make pretty good sense, from that point of view.
Firstly, he's not bitching about it. To quote TFA:
But Is It Really Worth It? For a variety of reasons: cost, that "green" feeling, and the idea that I have an asset that generates income on my roof, I personally think it's worth it. Overall, the system has been operating smoothly.
Secondly, if you look at the article he wrote when the system was installed, you'll see that he looked into a variety of options and chose the one that he felt fitted his situation best. It is estimated to pay for itself within 10 years, which seems perfectly sensible to me - as he points out, he's pumping money into an asset that increases the value of his house rather than simply giving it away to the electrical company.
I don't see how it's half-assed, it's working perfectly well, it appears cost-effective so far and he says he's happy with it. You don't seem to be trolling, I don't think, but your post just fails to make sense.
You're right, but I'd say that any objections you may have are to the light-sport plane classification itself, not this particular aircraft.
I don't know enough about it to hold an opinion either way, but if you're worried about someone crashing the Terrafugia into your roof you should be equally worried about them doing so with any of these. The fact its road worthy isn't giving it a licensing class any less rigorous than other currently available (non-roadworthy) planes.
There's a quick solution to that problem, and it doesn't even require any technical or legislative changes: don't call it a flying car!
Even their website doesn't use the term 'car'; it's clearly marketed towards pilots not drivers and they call it a "Roadable Aircraft". It's being sold to people who already fly, but want to be able to get from door to door rather than airfield to airfield - an idea which makes sense to me.
Very true, but I kinda hope that organisations dealing with top secret information don't get their security procedures from BBC articles that feel the need to explain where you'd find a hard drive.
I think that's the point here - anyone who needs to physically destroy their drives probably already does so. Anyone who needs to be told what a hard drive is by 'Which?' magazine would probably be served much better by a quick explanation of actual deletion vs. hitting 'format' or even dumping things in the recycle bin.
I've always though Stallman's views were quite useful to have around.
I forget where I read it, but someone once pointed out that if you need a new computer at work you should go in asking for $10,000,000 - then when you get laughed out of the office and come back asking for a ridiculous gaming rig that costs $5000 you might just get it.
It's the same theory, in my view. Realistically he's never going to get what he wants, but just the act of having him there campaigning for it makes 'middle of the road' suggestions more reasonable by comparison.
There are plenty of terms that are thrown about to counter free speech. Some examples from the UK include laws against "inciting religious hatred" and "obscenity" - neither term is defined. There is also the chilling effect caused by the threat of legal action against content that probably does not contravene any law at all. It's made all the more effective when you look at the scope of our 'anti-terror' laws and what they can do to you if you refuse to comply.
I'd be surprised if Belgium didn't have some laws lurking on the books that make certain content illegal.
I've said it before on Slashdot, but I'll ask again: what can we do when our politicians try to do things like this. Writing letters (yes, real ones, on paper), voting and protesting have all been ignored. What realistic options are left to us?
Do you have any realistic suggestions on how to stop them? Not just on this, on everything. Voting, protesting and petitioning have failed on major issues. What options are there now?
I'm liking the sound of these iiNet people - they were the ones who wanted to say a big 'screw you' to the proposed government censorship scheme, too. Any Aussies care to comment on whether they're actually the good guys or not?
If you look at the BBC version of the article it tells the same story but with some quite different details. I'm intrigued as to how both articles manage to have such precise detail (rather than simply foregoing that level of depth) but show some clear differences.
An honest man does an honest day's work for a living, and doesn't expect, want, or attempt to get something he doesn't deserve. Scammers capitalize on greed.
There are plenty of scams that don't, that was my point. Like I said, you could probably get people to join a pyramid scheme willingly even if you told the truth - just exploit people's greed as you mentioned.
On the other hand, lying outright to the hypothetical 'honest man' is an easy way to scam him. Posing as a charity and exploiting his kindness, for example, would be a very effective way to do so.
No, there is a major difference - the Nigerians lie to you, the casinos don't.
That's basically what defines a scam, in my opinion. If you can take people at their word then you have nobody to blame but yourself for the outcome. If you can't then it becomes a whole different issue - sure, this woman was a greedy moron and I don't pity her, but the fact remains that she was lied to, the only difference is these scammers happened to be bad liars and she fell for it anyway. The only way that a lot of scams work, especially those that prey on people's good nature rather than greed, can work is by outright lying.
The adage "You can't cheat an honest man" pretty much holds if the truth is told; if you can convince people to invest in your pyramid scheme without lying to them (which, unfortunately, probably isn't that hard) then maybe they should have taken a closer look at the financial viability of what they were putting their money into. If, however, you say there's a guaranteed return rate then they should be able to take you at your word on that and have their money returned if it fails.
Actually they've been shipping cameras for a while, these are just the next in the range. The Red One was considered vapour for a while by some people - they started taking pre-orders in April 2006 and actually shipped the first 25 units in August 2007. There is apparently still some wait time between ordering and receiving the camera, but they definitely exist.
They announced the Scarlet and the Epic in April this year, and announced today they they've somewhat revised the design of them.
It's been said already by others, but just to be a little more explicit about the explanation: a megawatthour is the amount of energy produced by a one megawatt plant in one hour - it's power (watts, in this case) multiplied by time (hours). Since power is energy (joules) divided by time (seconds), this leaves you with only energy. The only difference between a joule and a megawatthour is a conversion factor.
Megawatts per hour implies division. Power divided by time, leaving you with (energy)/(time^2) - i.e. the acceleration of energy production.
If it were said by a random person on the street I wouldn't really give it too much concern, but when this person is dealing with a power generation company it's just not the kind of error that they would be likely to make if they knew what they were talking about. Especially since the link implies that the response was written, so there's not even the issue of tripping over ones words while talking.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that pretty much sums up the way that the scientists on these kind of projects really think about these things, and I find it reassuring. They are just as unenthusiastic about the prospect disappearing into nothingness as you are. They are smarter than me. They are also almost certainly smarter than you. If they are comfortable enough to joke/make bets then I'm not worried.
I read that as referring to other MS products - the immense number of companies still buying expensive MS Office licenses because they're stuck with MS file formats, for example.
It's definitely a nice idea, and I don't want to be discouraging, but keep continuing support in mind - both generally (can you commit to keeping it patched and secure for the next x amount of time?) and in emergencies (they're relying on the system, it goes down, how much of a problem is that going to cause them and how are they going to get it fixed?).
The problem with many password rules is that you're often trading a moderately difficult technical attack for a fairly simple social attack.
It doesn't matter that your users have to chose a password that'd take 10^15 years to crack if 90% of them then have to keep it written on a post-it stuck to their monitor just to remember how to log in every morning.
You consider it spoiled to be paid for the extra work that you do?
I hadn't heard this before, but my first thought now is WTF?!
What kind of reasons would there be for him doing something like that?
A bit of an odd aside, but the first thing that struck me there was how much those GPS units cost. What makes them so different to normal consumer ones?
I think your information is a little out of date. According to the original article, the panels used are 18% efficient and the warranty assures 90% capacity at 12 years and 80% of capacity at 25 years.
Why can't one do what he did? It appears to be a successfully functioning system that will cost him the same over the next decade as the power would have done anyway, continue to provide almost free power for the subsequent 15 years, and/or leave him with a tangible asset with (some) value if he sells his house before the panels fail.
I don't understand your objections.
There's a link in the article to the one written when the system was installed. Total cost (after rebates and so on) was about $36,000 and the estimated break even time is about nine or ten years - similar to what you said (assuming energy prices are relatively static).
One thing that the author does point out is that when those ten years are through, he'll have spent the same amount of money but paid into a tangible asset that increases the value of his house rather than just throwing cash he'll never see again at the utility companies. It does seem to make pretty good sense, from that point of view.
Firstly, he's not bitching about it. To quote TFA:
Secondly, if you look at the article he wrote when the system was installed, you'll see that he looked into a variety of options and chose the one that he felt fitted his situation best. It is estimated to pay for itself within 10 years, which seems perfectly sensible to me - as he points out, he's pumping money into an asset that increases the value of his house rather than simply giving it away to the electrical company.
I don't see how it's half-assed, it's working perfectly well, it appears cost-effective so far and he says he's happy with it. You don't seem to be trolling, I don't think, but your post just fails to make sense.
You're right, but I'd say that any objections you may have are to the light-sport plane classification itself, not this particular aircraft.
I don't know enough about it to hold an opinion either way, but if you're worried about someone crashing the Terrafugia into your roof you should be equally worried about them doing so with any of these. The fact its road worthy isn't giving it a licensing class any less rigorous than other currently available (non-roadworthy) planes.
There's a quick solution to that problem, and it doesn't even require any technical or legislative changes: don't call it a flying car!
Even their website doesn't use the term 'car'; it's clearly marketed towards pilots not drivers and they call it a "Roadable Aircraft". It's being sold to people who already fly, but want to be able to get from door to door rather than airfield to airfield - an idea which makes sense to me.
And thus hopefully an organisation who doesn't take your security procedures from BBC articles and 'Which?' magazine...
Very true, but I kinda hope that organisations dealing with top secret information don't get their security procedures from BBC articles that feel the need to explain where you'd find a hard drive.
I think that's the point here - anyone who needs to physically destroy their drives probably already does so. Anyone who needs to be told what a hard drive is by 'Which?' magazine would probably be served much better by a quick explanation of actual deletion vs. hitting 'format' or even dumping things in the recycle bin.
I've always though Stallman's views were quite useful to have around.
I forget where I read it, but someone once pointed out that if you need a new computer at work you should go in asking for $10,000,000 - then when you get laughed out of the office and come back asking for a ridiculous gaming rig that costs $5000 you might just get it.
It's the same theory, in my view. Realistically he's never going to get what he wants, but just the act of having him there campaigning for it makes 'middle of the road' suggestions more reasonable by comparison.
There are plenty of terms that are thrown about to counter free speech. Some examples from the UK include laws against "inciting religious hatred" and "obscenity" - neither term is defined. There is also the chilling effect caused by the threat of legal action against content that probably does not contravene any law at all. It's made all the more effective when you look at the scope of our 'anti-terror' laws and what they can do to you if you refuse to comply.
I'd be surprised if Belgium didn't have some laws lurking on the books that make certain content illegal.
I've said it before on Slashdot, but I'll ask again: what can we do when our politicians try to do things like this. Writing letters (yes, real ones, on paper), voting and protesting have all been ignored. What realistic options are left to us?
Whoooosh...
Do you have any realistic suggestions on how to stop them? Not just on this, on everything. Voting, protesting and petitioning have failed on major issues. What options are there now?
I'm liking the sound of these iiNet people - they were the ones who wanted to say a big 'screw you' to the proposed government censorship scheme, too. Any Aussies care to comment on whether they're actually the good guys or not?
If you look at the BBC version of the article it tells the same story but with some quite different details. I'm intrigued as to how both articles manage to have such precise detail (rather than simply foregoing that level of depth) but show some clear differences.
There are plenty of scams that don't, that was my point. Like I said, you could probably get people to join a pyramid scheme willingly even if you told the truth - just exploit people's greed as you mentioned.
On the other hand, lying outright to the hypothetical 'honest man' is an easy way to scam him. Posing as a charity and exploiting his kindness, for example, would be a very effective way to do so.
No, there is a major difference - the Nigerians lie to you, the casinos don't.
That's basically what defines a scam, in my opinion. If you can take people at their word then you have nobody to blame but yourself for the outcome. If you can't then it becomes a whole different issue - sure, this woman was a greedy moron and I don't pity her, but the fact remains that she was lied to, the only difference is these scammers happened to be bad liars and she fell for it anyway. The only way that a lot of scams work, especially those that prey on people's good nature rather than greed, can work is by outright lying.
The adage "You can't cheat an honest man" pretty much holds if the truth is told; if you can convince people to invest in your pyramid scheme without lying to them (which, unfortunately, probably isn't that hard) then maybe they should have taken a closer look at the financial viability of what they were putting their money into. If, however, you say there's a guaranteed return rate then they should be able to take you at your word on that and have their money returned if it fails.
Actually they've been shipping cameras for a while, these are just the next in the range. The Red One was considered vapour for a while by some people - they started taking pre-orders in April 2006 and actually shipped the first 25 units in August 2007. There is apparently still some wait time between ordering and receiving the camera, but they definitely exist.
They announced the Scarlet and the Epic in April this year, and announced today they they've somewhat revised the design of them.
It's been said already by others, but just to be a little more explicit about the explanation: a megawatthour is the amount of energy produced by a one megawatt plant in one hour - it's power (watts, in this case) multiplied by time (hours). Since power is energy (joules) divided by time (seconds), this leaves you with only energy. The only difference between a joule and a megawatthour is a conversion factor.
Megawatts per hour implies division. Power divided by time, leaving you with (energy)/(time^2) - i.e. the acceleration of energy production.
If it were said by a random person on the street I wouldn't really give it too much concern, but when this person is dealing with a power generation company it's just not the kind of error that they would be likely to make if they knew what they were talking about. Especially since the link implies that the response was written, so there's not even the issue of tripping over ones words while talking.