A historian derives fact from the past. so do archeologists. a theologian might study religious history, but once he goes from an abstract study to belief in it, he becomes a storyteller.
ad hominems don't make your position valid either.
then do with your feelings like you suggest they do with their software. getting upset at others behavior in this case is pretty emo. you can't expect them not to express this dissatisfaction with the new software while you readily express yours about their expression.
I can understand getting upset when what's being touted as a replacement for an environment you depend on is complete crap. While there is nothing wrong with removing unneeded complexity to gain simplicity, today's trend in software (and gui) design is to eschew any capability/flexibility that prevents it from being simple.
sure it can.. revoke the diploma. you might retain the skills, but you won't get hired as the bureaucratic process requires all the right documents in the right places.
instead of preaching maybe you should tell us all why that's the case. perhaps the reason you made that money is because society as a whole is seriously in conflict with reality.
ok. you get what you pay for. However, it's not required to buy the highest end hw to play games. the games I like to play require me to see detail on screen, so the size is less important than image quality and low latency.. in fact the larger screen would force me to pan my eyes more often, slowing response. in addtion, unlike crts, modern hdtvs add a ton of lag making time sensitive gameplay (like fighting/driving) a pain in the ass. fps is out of the question. it's ok if you're messing around at a party, but if you really want to do your best, it's annoying. double that if your tv's timing is different from your buddies.' perfect your timing on one and play on the other, see what happens. I know many play that way and do well, but that's because the games are slowed down and paced to make up for it. Compared with traditional pc shooters, gameplay is still like driving a car with a pair of tweezers...and rubberbands
I have played the GTA and Fallout series a lot on a console, still do. Good games are good games. Also I find it easier to play for a long time when I am seated in my big couch in front of my big tv, not on a desk chair with a "tiny" 24 inch monitor.
good compared with what exactly? certainly not the games that lasted for years due to flexible community expandability. I had fun with fallout3 but I wouldn't have bothered with a clunky joypad if that's all I had. inferior controls lead to inferior mechanics. add the ergonomics of a kb/mouse and the couch/tv/controller thing of the 80s and early 90s is painful for all but the simplest games. I am disappointed that the industry decided to backslide rather than move forward to even better interfaces. rather than make newer more challenging stuff, they moved towards games anyone can win... those 'achievements' embedded in every game now are a prime example of this mentality. another would be regen health.
to each their own, but I've largely stopped playing simply because there aren't many good games coming out nowadays.. today's top titles last maybe 5-10hrs at the most and cost $60. they're too easy. the multiplayer ones are hobbled by horrible portals designed simply to keep the players hooked on the vendor in order to keep playing.. that way the vendor can pull the plug if their old product starts to threaten their newest cash cow. it also prevents other threats like community mods and content.
you also gave up 1. better control interface. this is a killer for me. I don't even bother with fps on a console. after years of quake, it's like returning to the dark ages. 2. lower latency display with higher resolution and sharper image. graphics heavy games like battlefield3 aren't even 720p on consoles. the output is scaled to 720 by the console, then refiltered again by the tv before display. most hdtvs have horrible latency as well. that coupled with the joypad interface makes the whole game akin to driving drunk compared with kb/mouse. without any gfx upgrades, titles will look better on a pc monitor and gfx card. 3. proper pc titles come with map and mod making utilities, dedicated server binaries that give players the ability to setup and control the game any way they want outside of the vendor's portal, and minimal whitelist style drm at the worst. These things add value to the game to give it longer staying power, and thus mor time for people like yourself to become skilled. consoles cater to the here today gone tomorrow attitude that publishers foster to increase their profits. yes, battlefield 3 fails here.
that 'people are the problem' mindset is how cops look at the world. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a technological tyranny...even if that means a few more people die per year because of their own stupidity.
humans still have far better contextual awareness than even the best ai. automated cars remove the human ability to deal with unexpected situations...ones not handled by the ai. while humans sometimes fuck up and fail to avoid an accident, a computer will cheerfully cause one if it gets the context wrong. when they do fail it's spectacular.
of course, then there's the social issue.. once a computer is placed between you and your car, business and government will not be able to resist sticking their hands into the programming..
..and since you'll have control over your car, you stand a greater chance of avoiding such idiocy. if the cars were automated, you would not be able to avoid a computer fuck up because its ai failed to pick up on relevant context.
damage from tpm hurts a free society because it allows unilateral control from authority without sufficient mitigating oversight. that's why an imperfect system is best if a free society is the end goal.
control over your own hardware is only part of the issue.
yes, after all, the point of taxation is to modify behavior that goes against the collective good, not to simply fund a service we all share a need for. this creates lots of good will among the citizenry...
we still can't even perfect automated train signaling systems... there are still people in the loop because sometimes equipment fails, or is programmed incorrectly...and this is a simplistic cart-on-rails A leaves houston at 90Mph, and cart-on-rails B leaves chicago at 87Mph.. style problem compared to the result you speak of. at most you're dealing with a half dozen trains with known speeds and precise routes.. forget about piles of cars on streets.
compared to the logistics of driving, those systems are simplistic, only requiring a few inputs of simplistic data sampled at low rates, and one or maybe two outcomes based on that data (deploy airbag/antilock brakes etc).. even the cars that have auto-max braking concern me because they may anticipate when I most definitely do not want it to. computers are faster than humans, no question, but they are not as aware. hell even the electronic throttles in modern cars overanticipate, often getting the wrong idea..they also lag. I had the 'pleasure' of driving a 2011 with electronic everything, including throttle. it's a crapshoot whether the car will do nothing for a second, or rocket out from under me after a light change. in situations like this, consistency is safer than some lame heuristic programmed into a microcontroller somewhere. Keep it simple stupid is key here. stupid simple doesn't break or create unexpected behavior either.
then there's the messy issues of politicians and businessmen inserting themselves into the programming once the machine is placed between you and your car. until you can guarantee a society that will respect my freedoms and liberty, stay away from my steering wheel and shifter.
argument from authority. that one anecdote could be right, you never know until you determine the facts. TV is not any worse than any other influence in the environment.. too few can severely limit a child's worldview.. of course we're talking about the under 5yo set, so much of this is N/A anyway.
maybe if you quit worshiping wingnut politics and focus on the fact that most 'science' concerning heavily politicized issues (like child development) is highly suspect due to many so-called scientists sacrificing correctness for money or ideological reasons, you'd discover that even vaunted federal organizations like the AAP doesn't have all the bases covered. if TV is 'bad', then it's not so just because the nanny state says so..I can guarantee that its 'goodness' or 'badness' is subjective and different for each child/family.
Fucking faggots.. ('hate' speech: don't like it? then don't use it yourself)
this tool-as-art trend is what's ruining a lot of good software nowadays. for tools, asthetics are not as important as functionality. in this particular case, moving tabs around is a reasonable request.. someone at google is just too lazy to refactor his code to include the feature (probably because he designed it around the assumption of not having it).
how much extra carbon do we generate if we suddenly switched everyone from ICE to EV? like you said, electrical transmission and storage is inefficient so we'd have to burn more fossil fuel to make up for that. whether the burning happens at the plant, or in your car's engine, the efficiencies are probably similar.. even if the plant is substantially more efficient, coupling it with the additional transmissions, conversions, and storage issues, make the EV less tenable (until we're on a fossil fuel free grid with cheaper electricity).
the original argument was not about terrorists, not about whether petroleum is oil, or whether coal is dirty or clean, so I'm not going to address them. I'll strip it down to a basic level for you and I'll use 'fossil fuels' instead of the previous terms to silence your non sequiturs..
for a given amount of fossil fuel burned, it is more efficient to ship it, then burn it on site as needed, then to burn it, convert it to electricity (by whatever method, steam/ICE/fuel cell), transmit it, and then convert it into kinetic energy at the other end. in a system like this (which is the one we currently have), EVs DO burn them...you know when you have to charge? despite what most people think when they talk about this, charging one of these is not like charging your cellphone.. it's not 'free'. En masse, these things WILL significantly increase grid load, and thus everyones' power bill, badly, considering the equivalent spent on gasoline, which would give much more mileage and better performance per pound of carbon. This assumes similar weight, driving behavior, terrain , speed, and distance traveled. Since our electrical storage technologies are not even close to the energy density of a tank of gas, we need cheaper electricity and more efficient storage methods (I highly doubt electricity transmission methods will change much in the next 50 years). These (at least the former) must come first, BEFORE mass adoption of EVs if the goal is to reduce carbon footprint.
EVs probably do use some petroleum based products for lubrication. The plastics used to save weight for those inefficient, heavy batteries are probably petroleum based as well. There are other options, like bio plastics, but use of these depends on cost and engineering considerations (are they durable enough?). when it's time to dispose of those batteries, you've got quite a toxic mess on your hands. These things are not as green as you'd first think. could these issues be mitigated in the future? maybe, but right now that's how it is.
As for my reasoning skills, they are sufficient to discuss this topic at the level being discussed. Your language makes you out to be the one worshiping political altars, not mine.
ok lets use coal instead. someone here said it was 40% of the electric grid in the US. how does that change any of the points I made? even if coal is more efficient per unit of carbon (or whatever!) burned (I doubt it, but hey), it is still less efficient to pump all that resultant energy over great distances using electricity than it is to truck petroleum for use 'on site' in vehicles. There's a reason people don't use electricity for long term high energy tasks like home heating or even cooking. even projects like the hadron collider that require ridiculously large amounts of electricity operate relatively close to power sources in countries with a strong nuclear grid.. why? because it's cheaper and greener too.
assuming I'm 'lying' just because you disagree is fallacious. take your own advice. this makes me think it is you who has the emotional/political bandwagon to defend.. I assure you I do not. yes, my conversion explanation was simplified.. it was not intended to deceive. if you want to get into the physics and math of it, go ahead, since you infer a superior knowledge of it than I do.. ad hominems do not help do this. simply stating "an increase in EVs will reduce petroleum used" proves nothing either. this makes you sound like you're repeating propaganda.
agreed, that's a cost, but transmitting energy via electricity is not very efficient energy wise.
put 5 gallons of gas into the empty tank of your car.. drive until empty (or nearly so). calculate the mpg. try to make the driving habits of your trip something that can be reasonably duplicated with an electric. borrow an electric car and rent a gasoline generator that can charge it in its most efficient mode. drive until you run out of gas.. compare the stats.. I guarantee you will go farther, faster per unit of fuel on the conventional ICE than you will on the electric. while both the fuels and electrical characteristics of the grid are different then this simplistic setup, the point holds. this is why electrics only make sense in electricity abundant markets that are not based on burning carbon of some sort..which we do not have atm.
I understand this, but my issue is the order.. first new energy, then new cars, at least for the changeover to electric. let's make sure we have an ample supply of cheap electricity that can overcome our (compared to energy densities of transported/stored petroleum) limited storage and transmission technologies before switching the heaviest of our energy loads onto the grid.
Slashdot Mirror
A historian derives fact from the past. so do archeologists. a theologian might study religious history, but once he goes from an abstract study to belief in it, he becomes a storyteller.
ad hominems don't make your position valid either.
then do with your feelings like you suggest they do with their software. getting upset at others behavior in this case is pretty emo. you can't expect them not to express this dissatisfaction with the new software while you readily express yours about their expression.
I can understand getting upset when what's being touted as a replacement for an environment you depend on is complete crap. While there is nothing wrong with removing unneeded complexity to gain simplicity, today's trend in software (and gui) design is to eschew any capability/flexibility that prevents it from being simple.
nothing wrong with fighting BAD change.
sure it can.. revoke the diploma. you might retain the skills, but you won't get hired as the bureaucratic process requires all the right documents in the right places.
instead of preaching maybe you should tell us all why that's the case. perhaps the reason you made that money is because society as a whole is seriously in conflict with reality.
oh yeah, socialized europe is doing so well right now..
The price tag that comes with this is too high.
ok. you get what you pay for. However, it's not required to buy the highest end hw to play games. the games I like to play require me to see detail on screen, so the size is less important than image quality and low latency.. in fact the larger screen would force me to pan my eyes more often, slowing response. in addtion, unlike crts, modern hdtvs add a ton of lag making time sensitive gameplay (like fighting/driving) a pain in the ass. fps is out of the question. it's ok if you're messing around at a party, but if you really want to do your best, it's annoying. double that if your tv's timing is different from your buddies.' perfect your timing on one and play on the other, see what happens. I know many play that way and do well, but that's because the games are slowed down and paced to make up for it. Compared with traditional pc shooters, gameplay is still like driving a car with a pair of tweezers...and rubberbands
I have played the GTA and Fallout series a lot on a console, still do. Good games are good games. Also I find it easier to play for a long time when I am seated in my big couch in front of my big tv, not on a desk chair with a "tiny" 24 inch monitor.
good compared with what exactly? certainly not the games that lasted for years due to flexible community expandability. I had fun with fallout3 but I wouldn't have bothered with a clunky joypad if that's all I had. inferior controls lead to inferior mechanics. add the ergonomics of a kb/mouse and the couch/tv/controller thing of the 80s and early 90s is painful for all but the simplest games. I am disappointed that the industry decided to backslide rather than move forward to even better interfaces. rather than make newer more challenging stuff, they moved towards games anyone can win... those 'achievements' embedded in every game now are a prime example of this mentality. another would be regen health.
to each their own, but I've largely stopped playing simply because there aren't many good games coming out nowadays.. today's top titles last maybe 5-10hrs at the most and cost $60. they're too easy. the multiplayer ones are hobbled by horrible portals designed simply to keep the players hooked on the vendor in order to keep playing.. that way the vendor can pull the plug if their old product starts to threaten their newest cash cow. it also prevents other threats like community mods and content.
you also gave up
1. better control interface. this is a killer for me. I don't even bother with fps on a console. after years of quake, it's like returning to the dark ages.
2. lower latency display with higher resolution and sharper image. graphics heavy games like battlefield3 aren't even 720p on consoles. the output is scaled to 720 by the console, then refiltered again by the tv before display. most hdtvs have horrible latency as well. that coupled with the joypad interface makes the whole game akin to driving drunk compared with kb/mouse. without any gfx upgrades, titles will look better on a pc monitor and gfx card.
3. proper pc titles come with map and mod making utilities, dedicated server binaries that give players the ability to setup and control the game any way they want outside of the vendor's portal, and minimal whitelist style drm at the worst. These things add value to the game to give it longer staying power, and thus mor time for people like yourself to become skilled. consoles cater to the here today gone tomorrow attitude that publishers foster to increase their profits. yes, battlefield 3 fails here.
that 'people are the problem' mindset is how cops look at the world. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a technological tyranny...even if that means a few more people die per year because of their own stupidity.
humans still have far better contextual awareness than even the best ai. automated cars remove the human ability to deal with unexpected situations...ones not handled by the ai. while humans sometimes fuck up and fail to avoid an accident, a computer will cheerfully cause one if it gets the context wrong. when they do fail it's spectacular.
of course, then there's the social issue.. once a computer is placed between you and your car, business and government will not be able to resist sticking their hands into the programming..
..and since you'll have control over your car, you stand a greater chance of avoiding such idiocy. if the cars were automated, you would not be able to avoid a computer fuck up because its ai failed to pick up on relevant context.
damage from tpm hurts a free society because it allows unilateral control from authority without sufficient mitigating oversight. that's why an imperfect system is best if a free society is the end goal.
control over your own hardware is only part of the issue.
uh no.. people choose android when they need something more than idiot box that takes calls and plays drm 'd content.
yes, after all, the point of taxation is to modify behavior that goes against the collective good, not to simply fund a service we all share a need for. this creates lots of good will among the citizenry...
we still can't even perfect automated train signaling systems... there are still people in the loop because sometimes equipment fails, or is programmed incorrectly...and this is a simplistic cart-on-rails A leaves houston at 90Mph, and cart-on-rails B leaves chicago at 87Mph.. style problem compared to the result you speak of. at most you're dealing with a half dozen trains with known speeds and precise routes.. forget about piles of cars on streets.
compared to the logistics of driving, those systems are simplistic, only requiring a few inputs of simplistic data sampled at low rates, and one or maybe two outcomes based on that data (deploy airbag/antilock brakes etc).. even the cars that have auto-max braking concern me because they may anticipate when I most definitely do not want it to. computers are faster than humans, no question, but they are not as aware. hell even the electronic throttles in modern cars overanticipate, often getting the wrong idea..they also lag. I had the 'pleasure' of driving a 2011 with electronic everything, including throttle. it's a crapshoot whether the car will do nothing for a second, or rocket out from under me after a light change. in situations like this, consistency is safer than some lame heuristic programmed into a microcontroller somewhere. Keep it simple stupid is key here. stupid simple doesn't break or create unexpected behavior either.
then there's the messy issues of politicians and businessmen inserting themselves into the programming once the machine is placed between you and your car. until you can guarantee a society that will respect my freedoms and liberty, stay away from my steering wheel and shifter.
..only as good as the programmer who programmed it..
yeah the instances of it will be less, but when they do happen, they'll happen en masse. think about it.
argument from authority. that one anecdote could be right, you never know until you determine the facts. TV is not any worse than any other influence in the environment.. too few can severely limit a child's worldview.. of course we're talking about the under 5yo set, so much of this is N/A anyway.
maybe if you quit worshiping wingnut politics and focus on the fact that most 'science' concerning heavily politicized issues (like child development) is highly suspect due to many so-called scientists sacrificing correctness for money or ideological reasons, you'd discover that even vaunted federal organizations like the AAP doesn't have all the bases covered. if TV is 'bad', then it's not so just because the nanny state says so..I can guarantee that its 'goodness' or 'badness' is subjective and different for each child/family.
Fucking faggots.. ('hate' speech: don't like it? then don't use it yourself)
this tool-as-art trend is what's ruining a lot of good software nowadays. for tools, asthetics are not as important as functionality. in this particular case, moving tabs around is a reasonable request.. someone at google is just too lazy to refactor his code to include the feature (probably because he designed it around the assumption of not having it).
how much extra carbon do we generate if we suddenly switched everyone from ICE to EV? like you said, electrical transmission and storage is inefficient so we'd have to burn more fossil fuel to make up for that. whether the burning happens at the plant, or in your car's engine, the efficiencies are probably similar.. even if the plant is substantially more efficient, coupling it with the additional transmissions, conversions, and storage issues, make the EV less tenable (until we're on a fossil fuel free grid with cheaper electricity).
the original argument was not about terrorists, not about whether petroleum is oil, or whether coal is dirty or clean, so I'm not going to address them. I'll strip it down to a basic level for you and I'll use 'fossil fuels' instead of the previous terms to silence your non sequiturs..
for a given amount of fossil fuel burned, it is more efficient to ship it, then burn it on site as needed, then to burn it, convert it to electricity (by whatever method, steam/ICE/fuel cell), transmit it, and then convert it into kinetic energy at the other end. in a system like this (which is the one we currently have), EVs DO burn them...you know when you have to charge? despite what most people think when they talk about this, charging one of these is not like charging your cellphone.. it's not 'free'. En masse, these things WILL significantly increase grid load, and thus everyones' power bill, badly, considering the equivalent spent on gasoline, which would give much more mileage and better performance per pound of carbon. This assumes similar weight, driving behavior, terrain , speed, and distance traveled. Since our electrical storage technologies are not even close to the energy density of a tank of gas, we need cheaper electricity and more efficient storage methods (I highly doubt electricity transmission methods will change much in the next 50 years). These (at least the former) must come first, BEFORE mass adoption of EVs if the goal is to reduce carbon footprint.
EVs probably do use some petroleum based products for lubrication. The plastics used to save weight for those inefficient, heavy batteries are probably petroleum based as well. There are other options, like bio plastics, but use of these depends on cost and engineering considerations (are they durable enough?). when it's time to dispose of those batteries, you've got quite a toxic mess on your hands. These things are not as green as you'd first think. could these issues be mitigated in the future? maybe, but right now that's how it is.
As for my reasoning skills, they are sufficient to discuss this topic at the level being discussed. Your language makes you out to be the one worshiping political altars, not mine.
ok lets use coal instead. someone here said it was 40% of the electric grid in the US. how does that change any of the points I made? even if coal is more efficient per unit of carbon (or whatever!) burned (I doubt it, but hey), it is still less efficient to pump all that resultant energy over great distances using electricity than it is to truck petroleum for use 'on site' in vehicles. There's a reason people don't use electricity for long term high energy tasks like home heating or even cooking. even projects like the hadron collider that require ridiculously large amounts of electricity operate relatively close to power sources in countries with a strong nuclear grid.. why? because it's cheaper and greener too.
assuming I'm 'lying' just because you disagree is fallacious. take your own advice. this makes me think it is you who has the emotional/political bandwagon to defend.. I assure you I do not. yes, my conversion explanation was simplified.. it was not intended to deceive. if you want to get into the physics and math of it, go ahead, since you infer a superior knowledge of it than I do.. ad hominems do not help do this. simply stating "an increase in EVs will reduce petroleum used" proves nothing either. this makes you sound like you're repeating propaganda.
agreed, that's a cost, but transmitting energy via electricity is not very efficient energy wise.
put 5 gallons of gas into the empty tank of your car.. drive until empty (or nearly so). calculate the mpg. try to make the driving habits of your trip something that can be reasonably duplicated with an electric. borrow an electric car and rent a gasoline generator that can charge it in its most efficient mode. drive until you run out of gas.. compare the stats.. I guarantee you will go farther, faster per unit of fuel on the conventional ICE than you will on the electric. while both the fuels and electrical characteristics of the grid are different then this simplistic setup, the point holds. this is why electrics only make sense in electricity abundant markets that are not based on burning carbon of some sort..which we do not have atm.
I understand this, but my issue is the order.. first new energy, then new cars, at least for the changeover to electric. let's make sure we have an ample supply of cheap electricity that can overcome our (compared to energy densities of transported/stored petroleum) limited storage and transmission technologies before switching the heaviest of our energy loads onto the grid.