I don't know about that. I mean, at least, not all at once. What shredded "you" flesh the cute little hamster couldn't ravenously consume right away, he'd stuff into his adorable little cheek pouches for future snackage.
Generate electricity from nuclear
Split water into hydrogen and oxygen (highly inefficient which is why hydrogen is currently refined from fossil fuels)
Burn hydrogen.
No, instead, let's power an electric car with a hydrogen fuel cell. Then, at the end of the fuel cell's life, dispose of the basically harmless components.
As opposed to the following:
Generate electricity from nuclear.
Power car from electricity
Then, at the end of the battery's life (and by battery I mean several hundred pounds of batteries), safely dispose of several hundred pounds of toxic metals.
In both cases, we've changed the source: we're now nuclear. Your argument about using dirty power is offtopic within your own comment. But you do seem to have this consistent hard-on for direct electric vehicles.
And, for whatever reason, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the value of reflecting light back from beneath the cylinders.
And by "you", I mean those in this thread who are ignoring the value of reflected light on the underside of the cylindrical collector. Not "you", Jeanius. I don't think I'm arguing with you, although I responded to your post.
Damn comment threading system making me hassle my own side.
Focusing mirrors have to be actively steered (Sun-tracking). Steering is expensive and more maintenance-intensive than a bunch of tubes just lying there. Ultimately, that's overkill for a "slap it up on the roof" retrofit application.
OTOH, an underlayment of flat mirrors would serve as a nice "second chance" enhancement, getting photons that lucked out and missed the surface of the cylindrical collector the first time past.
If we're not talking about a static installation, I don't think the "cylindrical collector, steering mirror" system has much advantage over "flat steerable collector" system.
Which, by some miracle, don't need to be steered. They are magical half-cylinders which always point at any available light source. And, for whatever reason, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the value of reflecting light back from beneath the cylinders. So, effectively, they looks like self-steering half-cylinders plus the other half cylinder gathering "waste" light.
Don't underestimate the value of "don't need to be steered". Eliminating those moving parts and the associated control automation shaves a huge amount off of installation and maintenance costs. And the lower profile is also pretty useful (wind resistance, aesthetics, clear lines of sight for other things like satellite dishes).
Remember: the intended application of this technology is rooftop static PV systems, a retrofit application. Steerability is not a factor; the panels are going to just lie on the roofing. The cylindrical design means that a portion of their surface is always almost tangential to the incoming sunlight, maximizing conversion there. A flat panel has less local peak efficiency unless it's steered and sun-tracking, which is not the application in question.
Really, this sounds like a good compromise for moderately effective PV generation in rooftop retrofit applications.
And a large scale implementation like this could spur tabletop gaming from a backroom pastime in comics/hobby shops to something more on par with laser tag. Or both if its Shadowrun.
You realize if this works out, we're on the verge of being overrun by LARPers.
"Good grief, you have the worst Chavobacter infection I've ever seen! Worse yet, it's multi-drug resistant! It's already developed massive tolerance to everything on the street!"
Well, if you ask the SecuRom asshats, of course it's about DRM. It's like asking a cop about lockpicking tools.
If you ask a game company like Blizzard, you'll find the "probable cheating tool" angle, like asking a bank manager about lockpicks.
And if you ask a software developer or system admin about the tools, you'll get the equivalent of asking a locksmith about lock picking tools.
So, yeah, it's what you said. And what flovlingslosh said too. They're not mutually exclusive, and neither perspective is more important than the other, let alone worthy of the arrogant frothing-at-the-mouth tone you took.
To appreciate a parody you need to know the original.
Call me sheltered (or, perhaps, "White and Nerdy"), but I totally grooved out on It's All About the Pentiums LOOONG before I heard of Sean Combs.
It's probably more precise to say that Weird Al writes awesome songs that happen to be parodies, and are highly enjoyable on their own, but massively more so if you're in on the joke.
The guy with the incredibly malformed <a href> link.
No, that's not right. Jonathan Coulton has an awesome http, the best on teh tubes. I am JAFI has teh fail http. But meant well.
Seriously (SRSLY), Jonathon Coulton rose to geek prominence with this distribution model. Weird Al doesn't need more prominence, but at least credit him with seeing the wisdom of Coulton's* model.
*Yeah, Coulton didn't invent or pioneer this. He just made it visible, at least within the 'net community. Most "music consumers" have never heard of him, so obviously his inroads into RIAA's territory are minor. Maybe this will be Weird Al's place in the evolution of media sales and distribution.
Have you ever seen a MCC squall line? Coherent bands of severe weather and linked thunderstorms can easily span distances of 300 miles.
That's like saying a thunderstorm in New York City killed someone in Washington DC
Your example, set on the Atlantic seaboard, tells me you have no familiarity with continental severe weather. Yes, the same storm system someone experiences in place "X" can kill someone at about the same time in place "Y" 200-300 miles away. Predominately, in a north or south direction. (That's the typical alignment of squall lines). And, interestingly enough, the map you were so kind to provide shows that Barstow and Mammoth Lakes are at a distance and relative bearing that fit pretty well with mesoscale storm phenomena.
You appear to trust Apple's intentions. Many do not. Those who don't trust Apple hear:
Absence of evidence after thoroughly exhausting all reasonable* search methods for said evidence is most definitely giving up too soon.
*for all appropriately self-serving minimalistic levels of "reasonable"
I point this out not to cast aspersions at Apple (though I have been known to do so), but that remind everyone that lacking positive concrete evidence, a negative finding is entirely subject to interpretation of Apple's intentions.
Saying "We didn't find anything" without explicitly saying how hard you tried could be either (a) honest (based on an thorough but unstated search), (b) dishonest (based on not searching at all, and expecting everyone to assume you searched), or (c) buying time (based on not enough time to do a meaningful search yet).
Although in that last case, I'd hope Apple PR would at least say "We haven't found any evidence of a problem yet." But that's not how PR works. You try to bury the possibility of a problem. You certainly don't phrase the possibility of a problem like it was an impending certainty (which is kinda how the word "yet" works). I guess Apple should say "We haven't found any evidence of this problem, but we are still looking." or "We haven't found any evidence of this problem, after an exhaustive search."
I wish we had the specific wording of Apple's response. Without that, we're left with speculation driven by our trust level of Apple.
Well being a priest almost always sucks, and that's double if you're a healer because being a healer is pretty thankless as well.
Oh, I don't know; before my priest went deep shadow he was a basic heal-bitch and got lots of thanks. Stuff like, "Thanks for not healing me, n00b. Now rez me."
It warmed the cockles of his undead heart. That's why I now prefer dealing damage rather than healing it.
Amusingly though, I could often spot the people who had used bots to level by their performance in instances; they just didn't use their class abilities like someone who'd had (literally) days of their life to learn the ins and outs of their class.
And that's the in-game social cost of botting or buying a power-leveled character: you're useless to anyone but yourself. People who put some faith in your basic gameplay skill, and have some minor expectation that you at least know how to play your class, will be bitterly disappointed. You will get your party wiped, repeatedly, because you don't know the myriad tricks and traps awaiting you, because your bot didn't care. Hilarity will ensue. You will get kicked from parties, blacklisted, and be reduced to an overgeared incompetent bullying low-level player characters. Because you could not be troubled to "l2pyc n00b".
But to prove my point, electromigration happens, and IS an issue within ANY time span.
You point is valid. On-point, even. But what makes Nvidia's alleged misdeeds significant is that electromigration, along with other factors, makes the interconnects in the 8xxx series GPUs fail in an unreasonably-short time span. Without elaborate external mitigation strategies*, within warranty.
And that's the other factor in the significance in this story: Nvidia is alleged** to have made a point of downplaying, denying, avoiding, and misleading all participants about the significance of their substrate and solder choices in the 8xxx series. An example? Blaming a laptop manufacturer for designing laptops with ineffective GPU cooling--shifting the blame for GPU failure to poor system-level heat management. In point of fact, the manufacturer in question (HP) appears to have followed Nvidia design guidance, but that doesn't seem to have deterred Nvidia PR.
Executive summary: it appears (facts yet to be confirmed, wait for outcome of the class action suit) that Nvidia made poor materials choices in the 8xxx series, leading to premature parts failure in consumer use, leading to high warranty rates, leading to furious PR spin, leading to class action lawsuit.
*An example: HP laptop BIOS changes to "fix this heat problem" which force cooling fans on all the time:
The BIOS updates the fan control algorithm of the system, and turns the fan on at low volume while your notebook PC is operational.
So the fan runs all the time, and your battery runs down faster than it should, but at least that may buy a few months until the laptop's out of warranty, at which GPU failure isn't the manufacturer's problem.
**I hate using lawyer-speak, especially since I ain't one, but this whole debate is entering the realm of the courts, so I think everyone involved needs to be clear what they know versus what they've read or heard. Everything I've cited is in the latter category. There's your ObDisclaimer.
Anyone know if this opt-out is cookie-based? If so, it's useless for non-browser DNS lookups. And annoying for multiple-browser situations. (Sometimes I feel like running FF, sometimes I feel like Opera. Sometimes, I get a wild hare and feel like running Konqueror. If opt-out is a cookie, I'd have to opt out three times. And when I flush cookies, I'll have to opt out again. And it still won't help for DNS-based non-web session authentication, such as SMTP inbound verification of HELO addresses.)
Yup, not the same AT&T that exists today. Which is good, because we're not talking about the AT&T of today:
Quoting from great-grandfather post, the original subject of this discussion:
Actually I wasn't referring to the government spying. I was referring to AT&T making a fraudulent claim against me because one of their clerks screwed up when I returned a cable modem 9 years ago. They tried to charge me ridiculous fees saying I never returned my cable modem. I produced a receipt and they still didn't remove the claim.
OK, that's 9 years ago. Which would be in the timeframe of AT&T Cable. Which did exist at the time. So the story is credible.
(Here's the part where you cover up for your poor reading comprehension skills by mumbling something about holding a grudge against AT&T when the cable division doesn't even exist any more.)
"isn't true" as in "all cool people use macs, all pc users are losers" isn't true? Agreed. But not my point.
Isn't true that the two characters in the Apple ads are, in subtext, playing the perceived roles of the stereotypical users of the two systems, as well as (in pretext) playing personifications of the computers themselves? You can deny it, but it's still true: up front the ad is saying that Macintosh is liberating, cool, and competent and that PCs are clunky, temperamental, and losing; and, by extension, their user communities are the same.
I'm not saying that it's a fact, only that the advertisement is trying to say it. And many consumers will believe it.
You're overlooking a critical point: The "I'm a Mac" marketing campaign is implicitly playing on identification. In a consumer society, we are what we buy. "Clothes make the man", "What does your car say about you", etc.
(See also SUVs in the context of psychological compensating behaviors.)
Yeah, you bet, the actors in the Apple commercials are saying that they're walking-talking personifications of the respective systems. But, undeniably, they also typify the stereotypes of the respective user communities, and therefore they are an extension of the time-honored "all the cool people use Macs, all PC users are incompetent dullards" marketing spin.
This is the angle Microsoft's campaign is playing against. Their ad is asking the viewer "Aren't you offended that Apple is calling you a colorless incompetent tool? You should be, because look at the variety of cool interesting people who use PCs! You're a member of the cool set, not that mock-turtleneck phoney!"
This is simply stating we have a large market share, which everyone already knows, or doesn't care
The Microsoft ad is saying that they have a diverse market share. Again, attempting to counter Apple's elitist spin. (Yeah, a large market share, too; that's an appeal to belonging. That is very powerful in herd animals like Consumers.)
I'm not a PC or a Mac or a Linux I'm a person who sometimes uses a computer, and runs programs on the computer, It runs an operating system - If I am aware of the operating system at all it is because it has got in my way
Car Analogy : I got in my car and drove to work - which make of car was it : I don't know, and don't care, it got me here anyway....
Congratulations on your immunity to marketing psychology. You are in such a trivially-small minority compared to the Consumer Herd that you don't even register. Advertisers aren't talking to you. They will score big if their wiles work on a small percentage of the remaining 99.999% of money-spending mass of humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
Another good question is "You are walking along in a desert. You see a turtle. You flip it over on its back. Why did you do that?"
I don't know about that. I mean, at least, not all at once. What shredded "you" flesh the cute little hamster couldn't ravenously consume right away, he'd stuff into his adorable little cheek pouches for future snackage.
For example let's look at what you propose.
Generate electricity from nuclear
Split water into hydrogen and oxygen (highly inefficient which is why hydrogen is currently refined from fossil fuels)
Burn hydrogen.
No, instead, let's power an electric car with a hydrogen fuel cell. Then, at the end of the fuel cell's life, dispose of the basically harmless components.
As opposed to the following:
Generate electricity from nuclear.
Power car from electricity
Then, at the end of the battery's life (and by battery I mean several hundred pounds of batteries), safely dispose of several hundred pounds of toxic metals.
In both cases, we've changed the source: we're now nuclear. Your argument about using dirty power is offtopic within your own comment. But you do seem to have this consistent hard-on for direct electric vehicles.
And, for whatever reason, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the value of reflecting light back from beneath the cylinders.
And by "you", I mean those in this thread who are ignoring the value of reflected light on the underside of the cylindrical collector. Not "you", Jeanius. I don't think I'm arguing with you, although I responded to your post.
Damn comment threading system making me hassle my own side.
Focusing mirrors have to be actively steered (Sun-tracking). Steering is expensive and more maintenance-intensive than a bunch of tubes just lying there. Ultimately, that's overkill for a "slap it up on the roof" retrofit application.
OTOH, an underlayment of flat mirrors would serve as a nice "second chance" enhancement, getting photons that lucked out and missed the surface of the cylindrical collector the first time past.
If we're not talking about a static installation, I don't think the "cylindrical collector, steering mirror" system has much advantage over "flat steerable collector" system.
Which, by some miracle, don't need to be steered. They are magical half-cylinders which always point at any available light source. And, for whatever reason, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the value of reflecting light back from beneath the cylinders. So, effectively, they looks like self-steering half-cylinders plus the other half cylinder gathering "waste" light.
Don't underestimate the value of "don't need to be steered". Eliminating those moving parts and the associated control automation shaves a huge amount off of installation and maintenance costs. And the lower profile is also pretty useful (wind resistance, aesthetics, clear lines of sight for other things like satellite dishes).
Remember: the intended application of this technology is rooftop static PV systems, a retrofit application. Steerability is not a factor; the panels are going to just lie on the roofing. The cylindrical design means that a portion of their surface is always almost tangential to the incoming sunlight, maximizing conversion there. A flat panel has less local peak efficiency unless it's steered and sun-tracking, which is not the application in question.
Really, this sounds like a good compromise for moderately effective PV generation in rooftop retrofit applications.
Maybe he can run a lemonade stand.
Well, right now, he's running... like the fugitive scum that he is.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/cyber/echouafni_s.htm
And a large scale implementation like this could spur tabletop gaming from a backroom pastime in comics/hobby shops to something more on par with laser tag. Or both if its Shadowrun.
You realize if this works out, we're on the verge of being overrun by LARPers.
RUN! FLEE!
Overheard at the doctor's office:
"Good grief, you have the worst Chavobacter infection I've ever seen! Worse yet, it's multi-drug resistant! It's already developed massive tolerance to everything on the street!"
Well, if you ask the SecuRom asshats, of course it's about DRM. It's like asking a cop about lockpicking tools.
If you ask a game company like Blizzard, you'll find the "probable cheating tool" angle, like asking a bank manager about lockpicks.
And if you ask a software developer or system admin about the tools, you'll get the equivalent of asking a locksmith about lock picking tools.
So, yeah, it's what you said. And what flovlingslosh said too. They're not mutually exclusive, and neither perspective is more important than the other, let alone worthy of the arrogant frothing-at-the-mouth tone you took.
To appreciate a parody you need to know the original.
Call me sheltered (or, perhaps, "White and Nerdy"), but I totally grooved out on It's All About the Pentiums LOOONG before I heard of Sean Combs.
It's probably more precise to say that Weird Al writes awesome songs that happen to be parodies, and are highly enjoyable on their own, but massively more so if you're in on the joke.
The guy with the incredibly malformed <a href> link.
No, that's not right. Jonathan Coulton has an awesome http, the best on teh tubes. I am JAFI has teh fail http. But meant well.
Seriously (SRSLY), Jonathon Coulton rose to geek prominence with this distribution model. Weird Al doesn't need more prominence, but at least credit him with seeing the wisdom of Coulton's* model.
*Yeah, Coulton didn't invent or pioneer this. He just made it visible, at least within the 'net community. Most "music consumers" have never heard of him, so obviously his inroads into RIAA's territory are minor. Maybe this will be Weird Al's place in the evolution of media sales and distribution.
Signed,
idontgno
Yet Another Code Monkey
Hah! 1989. My first Usenet post. In comp.os.cpm.
Damn, I'm old.
No, I'm not gonna link it. What's the point of using a 'nym in /. if I link it to a Usenet post under my real name?
Im Inyo National Forest crashin an burnin. kthxbye
Have you ever seen a MCC squall line? Coherent bands of severe weather and linked thunderstorms can easily span distances of 300 miles.
That's like saying a thunderstorm in New York City killed someone in Washington DC
Your example, set on the Atlantic seaboard, tells me you have no familiarity with continental severe weather. Yes, the same storm system someone experiences in place "X" can kill someone at about the same time in place "Y" 200-300 miles away. Predominately, in a north or south direction. (That's the typical alignment of squall lines). And, interestingly enough, the map you were so kind to provide shows that Barstow and Mammoth Lakes are at a distance and relative bearing that fit pretty well with mesoscale storm phenomena.
Sounds pretty feasible to me.
You appear to trust Apple's intentions. Many do not. Those who don't trust Apple hear:
I point this out not to cast aspersions at Apple (though I have been known to do so), but that remind everyone that lacking positive concrete evidence, a negative finding is entirely subject to interpretation of Apple's intentions.
Saying "We didn't find anything" without explicitly saying how hard you tried could be either (a) honest (based on an thorough but unstated search), (b) dishonest (based on not searching at all, and expecting everyone to assume you searched), or (c) buying time (based on not enough time to do a meaningful search yet).
Although in that last case, I'd hope Apple PR would at least say "We haven't found any evidence of a problem yet." But that's not how PR works. You try to bury the possibility of a problem. You certainly don't phrase the possibility of a problem like it was an impending certainty (which is kinda how the word "yet" works). I guess Apple should say "We haven't found any evidence of this problem, but we are still looking." or "We haven't found any evidence of this problem, after an exhaustive search."
I wish we had the specific wording of Apple's response. Without that, we're left with speculation driven by our trust level of Apple.
Well being a priest almost always sucks, and that's double if you're a healer because being a healer is pretty thankless as well.
Oh, I don't know; before my priest went deep shadow he was a basic heal-bitch and got lots of thanks. Stuff like, "Thanks for not healing me, n00b. Now rez me."
It warmed the cockles of his undead heart. That's why I now prefer dealing damage rather than healing it.
Amusingly though, I could often spot the people who had used bots to level by their performance in instances; they just didn't use their class abilities like someone who'd had (literally) days of their life to learn the ins and outs of their class.
And that's the in-game social cost of botting or buying a power-leveled character: you're useless to anyone but yourself. People who put some faith in your basic gameplay skill, and have some minor expectation that you at least know how to play your class, will be bitterly disappointed. You will get your party wiped, repeatedly, because you don't know the myriad tricks and traps awaiting you, because your bot didn't care. Hilarity will ensue. You will get kicked from parties, blacklisted, and be reduced to an overgeared incompetent bullying low-level player characters. Because you could not be troubled to "l2pyc n00b".
Pay no attention; this whole thread has degenerated into the Barrens general chat channel.
All we need is a rousing round of Chuck Norris facts to make it complete.
The same reason wallhacking worked in FPSs: Game logic offloads opaque-object obscuration to graphics drivers and hardware.
That said, was there a 3-d online poker game which would be susceptible to wallhacking? Sounds pretty hypothetical to me.
But to prove my point, electromigration happens, and IS an issue within ANY time span.
You point is valid. On-point, even. But what makes Nvidia's alleged misdeeds significant is that electromigration, along with other factors, makes the interconnects in the 8xxx series GPUs fail in an unreasonably-short time span. Without elaborate external mitigation strategies*, within warranty.
And that's the other factor in the significance in this story: Nvidia is alleged** to have made a point of downplaying, denying, avoiding, and misleading all participants about the significance of their substrate and solder choices in the 8xxx series. An example? Blaming a laptop manufacturer for designing laptops with ineffective GPU cooling--shifting the blame for GPU failure to poor system-level heat management. In point of fact, the manufacturer in question (HP) appears to have followed Nvidia design guidance, but that doesn't seem to have deterred Nvidia PR.
Executive summary: it appears (facts yet to be confirmed, wait for outcome of the class action suit) that Nvidia made poor materials choices in the 8xxx series, leading to premature parts failure in consumer use, leading to high warranty rates, leading to furious PR spin, leading to class action lawsuit.
*An example: HP laptop BIOS changes to "fix this heat problem" which force cooling fans on all the time:
So the fan runs all the time, and your battery runs down faster than it should, but at least that may buy a few months until the laptop's out of warranty, at which GPU failure isn't the manufacturer's problem.
**I hate using lawyer-speak, especially since I ain't one, but this whole debate is entering the realm of the courts, so I think everyone involved needs to be clear what they know versus what they've read or heard. Everything I've cited is in the latter category. There's your ObDisclaimer.
Anyone know if this opt-out is cookie-based? If so, it's useless for non-browser DNS lookups. And annoying for multiple-browser situations. (Sometimes I feel like running FF, sometimes I feel like Opera. Sometimes, I get a wild hare and feel like running Konqueror. If opt-out is a cookie, I'd have to opt out three times. And when I flush cookies, I'll have to opt out again. And it still won't help for DNS-based non-web session authentication, such as SMTP inbound verification of HELO addresses.)
Yup, not the same AT&T that exists today. Which is good, because we're not talking about the AT&T of today:
Quoting from great-grandfather post, the original subject of this discussion:
OK, that's 9 years ago. Which would be in the timeframe of AT&T Cable. Which did exist at the time. So the story is credible.
(Here's the part where you cover up for your poor reading comprehension skills by mumbling something about holding a grudge against AT&T when the cable division doesn't even exist any more.)
Yes, you are.
"isn't true" as in "all cool people use macs, all pc users are losers" isn't true? Agreed. But not my point.
Isn't true that the two characters in the Apple ads are, in subtext, playing the perceived roles of the stereotypical users of the two systems, as well as (in pretext) playing personifications of the computers themselves? You can deny it, but it's still true: up front the ad is saying that Macintosh is liberating, cool, and competent and that PCs are clunky, temperamental, and losing; and, by extension, their user communities are the same.
I'm not saying that it's a fact, only that the advertisement is trying to say it. And many consumers will believe it.
You're overlooking a critical point: The "I'm a Mac" marketing campaign is implicitly playing on identification. In a consumer society, we are what we buy. "Clothes make the man", "What does your car say about you", etc.
(See also SUVs in the context of psychological compensating behaviors.)
Yeah, you bet, the actors in the Apple commercials are saying that they're walking-talking personifications of the respective systems. But, undeniably, they also typify the stereotypes of the respective user communities, and therefore they are an extension of the time-honored "all the cool people use Macs, all PC users are incompetent dullards" marketing spin.
This is the angle Microsoft's campaign is playing against. Their ad is asking the viewer "Aren't you offended that Apple is calling you a colorless incompetent tool? You should be, because look at the variety of cool interesting people who use PCs! You're a member of the cool set, not that mock-turtleneck phoney!"
This is simply stating we have a large market share, which everyone already knows, or doesn't care
The Microsoft ad is saying that they have a diverse market share. Again, attempting to counter Apple's elitist spin. (Yeah, a large market share, too; that's an appeal to belonging. That is very powerful in herd animals like Consumers.)
I'm not a PC or a Mac or a Linux I'm a person who sometimes uses a computer, and runs programs on the computer, It runs an operating system - If I am aware of the operating system at all it is because it has got in my way
Car Analogy : I got in my car and drove to work - which make of car was it : I don't know, and don't care, it got me here anyway....
Congratulations on your immunity to marketing psychology. You are in such a trivially-small minority compared to the Consumer Herd that you don't even register. Advertisers aren't talking to you. They will score big if their wiles work on a small percentage of the remaining 99.999% of money-spending mass of humanity.