Several studies show that we can increase our hydro output by 50-75%
Right, but those studies are idealized cases. They assume instant (or very short-term) build-out. On a more realistic timeline, I'd expect new hydro to make up for lost hydro capacity. Hydro capacity goes down over time due to silting. Enviromental groups also have been pushing for burst releases and fish runs, which also degrade capacity. Hydro takes forever to get regulatory approval - probably on par with nuclear after all of the environmental impact studies are done - and yes, this even counts rebuilding old dams, since many of them are no longer needed for any reason other than recreation. Some are old mill dams, some obsolete flood control, some were put in just to create waterfront property or for a fishing club. Come replacement time, environmental groups are going to fight to have all of these dams removed, not replaced with a hydro power facility. This will all add time and expense, and I don't think we'll increase our hydro power at a fast enough rate to put a huge dent in the supply equation.
It's not metric, it's metric (Joules) divided by 3600s/h. How can BTU be outdated if it is still in widespread use? It's not as convenient as working in metric, but it's hardly "outdated". It's the amount of energy that it takes to heat a gallon of water 1 degree, so it's intuitive. For most purposes, you can just assume a BTU is the same as a kJ. It's 6% off, but usually who cares?
Hoover Dam is only 2 GW, so I don't think we ever had 10-12 GW. You need some environmental disaster like Three Gorges to get that kind of power.
The new hydro that you are talking about MIGHT make up for silting and water releases for environmental reasons, but I think we've already hit "peak hydro" in the US.
Strawman. No one would use BTU/h for a power calculation on a wire. You'd use Watts. More likely you'd spec it with current - Amps.
If Joules appeared on your electric bill they'd use the, um, METRIC system and put a kilo or mega prefix in front of it, just like when you used KW instead of saying $0.00010 per W/h.
And let's talk conversion factors... you are arbitrarily taking a Joule and multiplying by 60. Why not Watt-Days? Watt-Weeks? Watt-moonphases? Once you deviate from SI, who the hell cares?
I did read it, and chose to ignore it. They are counting ALL energy, including biomass. So if you raise a field of corn with petrochemicals and then burn the resulting ethanol in a car, that's renewable! LOL.
So now you present a third argument. We have the "standards" folks screaming. We have the "leave us imperial folks alone" comments. And now we have "the standards suck, so let's use the most approachable" argument. LOL, there is no way a slashdot submitter can win!:)
Watt-hours is at least as much a bastardization as BTUs. It's actually worse, because it wasn't a standard prior to Joules. BTU at least has the seniority aspect going for it. Watt-hours just looks good on an electric bill.
Newegg is awesome for us build-it-yourself geeks, but it isn't where most people get their PCs.
Dell has very few XP options, HP sells exactly zero at Best Buy. And once you have a computer with Win7 on it, it's a rare bird that upgrades to XP. Even my company doesn't wipe 7 off new PCs anymore.
Also remember that most PCs sold are laptops... laptops often suck when you load an older OS on them.
People claim to love pets. Dogs, in particular, seem to have co-evolved (or been selected... semantics) with humans to "press our buttons". Just about any other living creature comes into the average American house, it gets stomped, poisoned, or trapped.
So I guess it depends on how you define "love". I have no doubt that AI will progress to "dog" in my lifetime. It may or may not get to "human".
Really? Even if they have failed thus far, that does not mean that they will always fail.
No but it's a pretty bad track record. Currently they are synonyms in informal speech. It may very well happen that a successful large communist community is established, at which point the informal definition will have to change. That's the beauty (and frustration) of language - it constantly changes to fit the new conditions. It's frustrating because it makes digging through historical records difficult, as you need to be familiar with the contemporary usage of a word. Oh well, that's why we have historians!
And, considering that communism can mean different things in different contexts, as you said, I think it is rather foolish for someone to imply that all types of communism advocate this type of government and treat communism as some sort of "evil" (as some people seem to do).
But that didn't happen in this case - he was specifically referring to the Chinese brand of "communism". He wasn't painting it in a good or bad light - just pointing out that the Chinese are willing to relax their supposed ideology for a business opportunity. You could see this as a good thing (if you are pragmatic) or a hypocritical thing (if you are idealistic), or a complex issue that is difficult to describe in black and white terms:)
Communism can mean different things in different contexts. All attempts at implementing communism at the state level thus far have resulted in some sort of oppressive dictatorship or oligarchy. It's hard to fault people for using the term communism to describe this kind of government in informal speech.
I really don't care if Last.fm knows my music listening habits, just as I don't care if the grocery store knows my buying habits when I use the store card. I put photos on Flickr with the express intent of sharing them, so obviously that's not a privacy concern. When job hunting, I send out dozens or even hundreds of resumes to total strangers - so really, what do I care that LinkedIn has the same info?
Everyone has a different level of comfort with privacy. I used to live in Manhattan, where you could see into hundreds of un-curtained apartments, and hundreds of apartments with the curtains drawn. Clearly people have different preferences. The people with the curtains open aren't "selling their souls", they just like the light and view enough to risk giving a bored stranger some jollies.
allowing you to post those stupid party pics that people seem enamored with only to people that were there, or who would appreciate them, without having to worry about your parents or potential employers seeing them.
LOL, that's certainly one use. But I could see this as useful to all sorts of people who currently avoid Facebook. A teacher could have a circle of students - even one for each class - that might be more convenient for all parties than traditional "office hours". A psychologist could have a circle of patients from a support group. Parents could keep a circle of the other parents from their kid's school, where you'd like to stay in touch but don't want them as friends on Facebook.
If enough people actually use it, it might be marginally more useful than the Facebook model - which does have the ability to corral your friends into categories, but it is definitely a bolt-on feature.
it's not like facebook is holding a master copy of my data and not like there are any competitors to facebook right now
There are other social networks... LinkedIn, MySpace, Classmates, Flickr, Last.fm, Twitter, Tumblr, etc.
If there was a service where I could keep all of my data up-to-date in a single place and then update the other sites periodically, that might appeal to me. Especially if it were done in a nice way. Facebook is a good "general" site, but Flickr is better for photos and Last.fm is better for music and MySpace is better for flipping out your browser with crappy Javascript. My point is that if there were a "general" site like Facebook that could act like a central repository feeding (and receiving from) the specialty sites, that might be something worth using.
Slashdot Mirror
Several studies show that we can increase our hydro output by 50-75%
Right, but those studies are idealized cases. They assume instant (or very short-term) build-out. On a more realistic timeline, I'd expect new hydro to make up for lost hydro capacity. Hydro capacity goes down over time due to silting. Enviromental groups also have been pushing for burst releases and fish runs, which also degrade capacity. Hydro takes forever to get regulatory approval - probably on par with nuclear after all of the environmental impact studies are done - and yes, this even counts rebuilding old dams, since many of them are no longer needed for any reason other than recreation. Some are old mill dams, some obsolete flood control, some were put in just to create waterfront property or for a fishing club. Come replacement time, environmental groups are going to fight to have all of these dams removed, not replaced with a hydro power facility. This will all add time and expense, and I don't think we'll increase our hydro power at a fast enough rate to put a huge dent in the supply equation.
It's not metric, it's metric (Joules) divided by 3600s/h. How can BTU be outdated if it is still in widespread use? It's not as convenient as working in metric, but it's hardly "outdated". It's the amount of energy that it takes to heat a gallon of water 1 degree, so it's intuitive. For most purposes, you can just assume a BTU is the same as a kJ. It's 6% off, but usually who cares?
Hoover Dam is only 2 GW, so I don't think we ever had 10-12 GW. You need some environmental disaster like Three Gorges to get that kind of power.
The new hydro that you are talking about MIGHT make up for silting and water releases for environmental reasons, but I think we've already hit "peak hydro" in the US.
How much power can your wire handle?
Strawman. No one would use BTU/h for a power calculation on a wire. You'd use Watts. More likely you'd spec it with current - Amps.
If Joules appeared on your electric bill they'd use the, um, METRIC system and put a kilo or mega prefix in front of it, just like when you used KW instead of saying $0.00010 per W/h.
And let's talk conversion factors... you are arbitrarily taking a Joule and multiplying by 60. Why not Watt-Days? Watt-Weeks? Watt-moonphases? Once you deviate from SI, who the hell cares?
I can't even buy metric paper.
Here in the backwaters down south in the US, I can get A4 paper at Staples... I know this because I did it by accident :)
Actually, if you read the table in TFA,
I did read it, and chose to ignore it. They are counting ALL energy, including biomass. So if you raise a field of corn with petrochemicals and then burn the resulting ethanol in a car, that's renewable! LOL.
So now you present a third argument. We have the "standards" folks screaming. We have the "leave us imperial folks alone" comments. And now we have "the standards suck, so let's use the most approachable" argument. LOL, there is no way a slashdot submitter can win! :)
We can basically say renewable energy fsckin works, now ?
Problem is we ran out of rivers to dam, and that's where most of this is coming from.
Watt-hours is at least as much a bastardization as BTUs. It's actually worse, because it wasn't a standard prior to Joules. BTU at least has the seniority aspect going for it. Watt-hours just looks good on an electric bill.
We are DEVO!
It rather depends on your goals, doesn't it?
Ah, I thought you were pointing it out as a place to get XP. That is, responding to his first paragraph rather than his second.
Newegg is awesome for us build-it-yourself geeks, but it isn't where most people get their PCs.
Dell has very few XP options, HP sells exactly zero at Best Buy. And once you have a computer with Win7 on it, it's a rare bird that upgrades to XP. Even my company doesn't wipe 7 off new PCs anymore.
Also remember that most PCs sold are laptops... laptops often suck when you load an older OS on them.
People claim to love pets. Dogs, in particular, seem to have co-evolved (or been selected... semantics) with humans to "press our buttons". Just about any other living creature comes into the average American house, it gets stomped, poisoned, or trapped.
So I guess it depends on how you define "love". I have no doubt that AI will progress to "dog" in my lifetime. It may or may not get to "human".
Really? Even if they have failed thus far, that does not mean that they will always fail.
No but it's a pretty bad track record. Currently they are synonyms in informal speech. It may very well happen that a successful large communist community is established, at which point the informal definition will have to change. That's the beauty (and frustration) of language - it constantly changes to fit the new conditions. It's frustrating because it makes digging through historical records difficult, as you need to be familiar with the contemporary usage of a word. Oh well, that's why we have historians!
And, considering that communism can mean different things in different contexts, as you said, I think it is rather foolish for someone to imply that all types of communism advocate this type of government and treat communism as some sort of "evil" (as some people seem to do).
But that didn't happen in this case - he was specifically referring to the Chinese brand of "communism". He wasn't painting it in a good or bad light - just pointing out that the Chinese are willing to relax their supposed ideology for a business opportunity. You could see this as a good thing (if you are pragmatic) or a hypocritical thing (if you are idealistic), or a complex issue that is difficult to describe in black and white terms :)
On the other hand, the Bahamas - which are fairly democratic - only allow gambling for non-citizens.
Same reason: to bring in business - in this case tourism. Not all of the locals agree, but it doesn't necessarily mean oppression.
Communism can mean different things in different contexts. All attempts at implementing communism at the state level thus far have resulted in some sort of oppressive dictatorship or oligarchy. It's hard to fault people for using the term communism to describe this kind of government in informal speech.
I know sarcasm is tough to convey on the internet, but COME ON! :)
Yeah, jack of all trades, master of none :)
a place to sell your soul?
I really don't care if Last.fm knows my music listening habits, just as I don't care if the grocery store knows my buying habits when I use the store card. I put photos on Flickr with the express intent of sharing them, so obviously that's not a privacy concern. When job hunting, I send out dozens or even hundreds of resumes to total strangers - so really, what do I care that LinkedIn has the same info?
Everyone has a different level of comfort with privacy. I used to live in Manhattan, where you could see into hundreds of un-curtained apartments, and hundreds of apartments with the curtains drawn. Clearly people have different preferences. The people with the curtains open aren't "selling their souls", they just like the light and view enough to risk giving a bored stranger some jollies.
What exactly is missing?
I still can't get a zip file with their entire web search database.
allowing you to post those stupid party pics that people seem enamored with only to people that were there, or who would appreciate them, without having to worry about your parents or potential employers seeing them.
LOL, that's certainly one use. But I could see this as useful to all sorts of people who currently avoid Facebook. A teacher could have a circle of students - even one for each class - that might be more convenient for all parties than traditional "office hours". A psychologist could have a circle of patients from a support group. Parents could keep a circle of the other parents from their kid's school, where you'd like to stay in touch but don't want them as friends on Facebook.
If enough people actually use it, it might be marginally more useful than the Facebook model - which does have the ability to corral your friends into categories, but it is definitely a bolt-on feature.
it's not like facebook is holding a master copy of my data and not like there are any competitors to facebook right now
There are other social networks... LinkedIn, MySpace, Classmates, Flickr, Last.fm, Twitter, Tumblr, etc.
If there was a service where I could keep all of my data up-to-date in a single place and then update the other sites periodically, that might appeal to me. Especially if it were done in a nice way. Facebook is a good "general" site, but Flickr is better for photos and Last.fm is better for music and MySpace is better for flipping out your browser with crappy Javascript. My point is that if there were a "general" site like Facebook that could act like a central repository feeding (and receiving from) the specialty sites, that might be something worth using.
And your comment was insightful? Did I become smarter after reading it?
I may be adding to the noise, but at least I'm not berating someone else for doing the same.
By the way, if you still think he's being rhetorical, read his other comment in this thread.