The actual figures are here if you spend 30 seconds to look them up. There are three 16-cylinder engines AND three 12-cylinder engines. The fuel consumption is actually 3x1377 + 3x1033 gallons per hour, so a total of 173,520 gallons per day. With a capacity of 6360 passengers, that's 27.3 gallons per passenger per day, or 1.14 gallons per passenger per hour. The cruising speed is 22.6 knots, which is 26.0 mph.
So it works out to 0.0438 gallons per passenger per mile, or 22.8 mpg per passenger. That's a hell of a lot less fuel efficiency than a jetliner or passenger car at capacity, let alone a motorbus. I believe that's the point people are (clumsily) making.
From January 2015-Feb 2016, US carriers alone flew a combined 8,389,595 (passenger) miles with an airborne time of 19,506,911 hours.
Sorry, those numbers don't even come close to making any sense whatever. Not even if you really meant aircraft-miles rather than passenger-miles. Those figures would make the average speed 0.43 mph. Could you have meant 8.3 BILLION miles?
Utter nonsense. The Soviet SA-2 from the 1950s could reach 82,000 feet. The US Nike Ajax from the 1950s could reach 70,000 feet. Even the US mobile short-range Hawk of 1960 could reach 65,000 feet. The ubiquitous SA-6 certainly can reach 37,000 feet, and like the Hawk it is classed as a low-to-medium altitude defense weapon. About the only missiles that can't are MANPADS and short-range last-ditch low-altitude defense weapons like Sea Sparrow.
Hell, even the mainstay British WWII 3.7 inch AA gun could reach 45,000 feet (whether it could actually HIT anything at that altitude except by area saturation combined with good luck, is another matter).
[HGST is] still run as a separate company though, with engineers and design in Japan and manufacturing in Japan and I think Malasia.
I've got some bad news for you. MOFCOM has approved a full integration of the two companies, so (1) the HGST brand will disappear, and (2) all that HGST tradition of reliability is headed sraight down the crapper.
MOFCOM in 2012 at the time of the merger approval "restricted the two companies to a 'hold separate'..., which prevented the companies from combining products and workforce."
For, actually, three years the two companies were forced to act as separate entities. But since late last year, WD has been allowed to integrate "substantial portions" of its business with HGST. R&D and manufacturing will become fully integrated within another one to two years. Separate product lines will no longer be mandated after two years.
It's going to be a repeat of what happened when Seagate swallowed Samsung. All the goodness of the Samsung products evaporated. The failed morass of Seagate's lackadaisical incompetence annihilated it.
No, it will affect you if you choose to ignore the results and buy a *3TB* Seagate drive.
I will resist the impulse to shout "hey, stupid". If you even bothered to glance at the small table in the report, you would see that no Seagate 3 TB at all were covered. But the ST4000DX000 4 TB (5 failures, 9.63% failure rate) and ST4000DM000 4 TB (198 failures, 2.54% failure rate) were.
If everyone realises that wide spread abuse is going on, then why the hell do they allow the practice to continue? I am not generally one who bashes big business and the tech giants, but give me a break. Create a points system for bringing new people in with the right skills and education, and make sure they are paid a similar wage, so that local wages do not reduce rapidly.
What the HELL are you going on about? It's blindingly, stupidly obvious why "they" allow the practice to continue. The USA has become corrupt, top to bottom. The Presidency is corrupt because it categorically refuses to enforce immigration (and other) laws - instead serving its corporate masters. Congress is corrupt because it categorically refuses to produce reasonable legislation in the first place. They serve the same masters. The corruption of the judiciary and the IRS is legendary and old news to everyone.
But the corruption is the manifestation of the failure. It's not the root cause.
The practice continues because everyone with power WANTS it to continue. It's NECESSARY for capitalism to function. The public doesn't necessarily THINK it wants it to continue, but it's actually in their selfish interest too as long as capitalism retains its death-grip. Otherwise the cost of everything would skyrocket and the public would be impoverished because their earnings wouldn't be enough for them to afford anything. The public is caught in a vice, one of whose jaws is pressure on pay/earnings, and the other jaw is pressure on price/expenses. Either jaw would be enough to do them in on its own, opposed by a fixed wall instead of the other jaw, but both jaws are engaged in the screw mechanism of capitalism.
Capitalism is INHERENTLY broken by design. It appeals to the basest self-aggrandizing motivations and encourages them without control. You can't keep capitalism and dig out of this hole. Socialism at least TRIES to serve the interests of the public. If it fails, it's because those in charge aren't smart enough, or they don't care enough. Socialism is a significant step up the evolutionary scale from the jungle of capitalism, but I don't claim it's the answer either. I happen to think that distributism provides the answer, PROVIDED you can figure out how to accomplish the distribution, and you can implement it.
Capitalism -> the means of production are owned and controlled by a few. Flaw: grossly unfair distribution of wealth. Socialism -> the means of production are owned and controlled in common by society, but no one has their own. Flaw: motivation lacking. Distributism -> the means of production are distributed; owned and controlled individually and in ad hoc groups by everyone.
$995-$2461 for a Piper J3 Cub in 1938 to 1947 was one thing. The median income in 1940 was $956, so it was a big chunk of change. But still, that was only a little more than a single year of gross income, and taxes were pretty damn low[*] for people earning the median at that time.
[What follows for 2012 is about as close to the present day as I could find information for] But $398,100 for a Cessna 182T in 2012 is another thing entirely. The median income in 2012 is $33,276. That is 12 FRIGGIN YEARS OF GROSS INCOME, and god knows, maybe around 20 years of net income.
The base price for a 2016 BMW M3, hideously overpriced as it is, is $63,500. "If you can buy" a $63,500 car, and that's a damn big if, that HARDLY means you can therefore buy and maintain a $398,100 airplane.
[*] The Federal income marginal tax rate in 1940 for anyone (single or married) earning $0-$4000 was 4%. I'm not sure what the personal exemption was. I do know it was $3000 at the outset in 1913.
He was arrested in Spain for running a business in Costa Rica. How exactly does the US have even the slightest jurisdiction to prosecute him?
Because Spain has no aircraft carriers.
Re: Spain: so when was the last time the USA used an aircraft carrier against anyone besides defenseless brown or yellow people? So what is Spain's ACTUAL excuse for knuckling under?
I strongly suspect there isn't enough power in the form of sunlight falling on a surface the size of a 747's wings to achieve the objective
Master of the understatement. At high noon, there is only a peak on the order of 1/100 of the required power impinging on the wings in the form of sunlight - in the DAYTIME. And zero power after the sun sets. The idea of solar powered jetliners is no more than fantasy for the feeble-minded.
A quick calculation shows that a 747 holds around 183,000 kg of fuel, so 3ha of open-pond algae could supply enough fuel for one tank each year.
I doubt your 3 ha figure, but let's run with it just for fun.
And how many hectares of algae ponds would it take to supply one tank of fuel several times a day for each of thousands of 747-equivalents? Several MILLION hectares? That's several tens of billions of square metres, or several tens of thousands of square km. How about the colossal energy input you would need to synthesize the biofuel from all that algae? You don't know just shovel algae muck into fuel tanks, you know. And what about the gigantic amount of hydrogen you have to add as well? Where will you get that? Algae can provide the C for your hydrocarbon, but you still need the H.
The big motor in a turbine uses rare-earth magnets.
Duh. It's not a motor. It's a generator. And yes, it typically uses neodymium permanent magnets, but it certainly doesn't have to. Just as the AC induction motors used in Tesla cars do not have any permanent magnets, you can make generators which do not have permanent magnets. Alternators in cars do not have permanent magnets. Electric hydropower generators do not have permanent magnets.
Clearly he doesn't. He was probably brainwashed by this drivel. He got it wrong, anyway. The claim is that the INITIAL CONSTRUCTION of a dammed hydropower site converts a large bunch of trees into methane, not CO2. Not that the continuing operation of them has the any greenhouse effect whatsoever.
The hatchet job does not appear to take into account the effect that plant life in the dammed water has in terms of CO2, compared to the trees and vegetation that once stood there. What do they think happens to the carbon in trees and vegetation on dry land as they constantly die and rot?
Hydropower is not clean energy. Hydropower plant operation produces large amounts of Co2 per kilowatt hour.
You need a citation for that, because on its face that is an astoundingly stupid claim. And don't even think of dredging up this weak-ass story, which is void of any evidence, and actually seems to be conjuring up a fairy tale of methane release, not CO2.
Also, the loaded terms "clean" and "dirty" referring to CO2 are manipulative and ignorant. CO2 is not "dirt". It is a colorless, odorless gas, food for plant life.
It's not the $50. It's what this portends in terms of a breakdown of the whole rotten, corrupt system. It's like the point made by Yevgraf in recollecting the time he found Doctor Zhivago pilfering firewood for subsistence by tearing down pieces of a fence.
"I told myself it was beneath my dignity to arrest a man for pilfering firewood. But nothing ordered by the party is beneath the dignity of any man, and the party was right: One man desperate for a bit of fuel is pathetic. Five million people desperate for fuel will destroy a city."
If open resistance and rebellion breaks out against the system, it will be an explosive flashpoint followed by hell on earth. This is about keeping the lid tamped down and kicking the can further down the road. No one sucking off the tit of the system, and that is an awful lot of us, wants to be around for that. Everyone knows it's coming. We all know the system can't be sustained; not without a lot of fundamental change. We're afraid to face the music. We don't want to bite the bullet because we know our teeth will shatter if we do.
Were the Russian people ultimately better served by dragging out the dissolution of the system for 75 years, rather than straightening things out right in the beginning after the October Revolution? Who knows. I just know there was one hell of a lot of human tragedy in the interrim.
However aluminium is one of the best conductors, isn't it rank three or so?
Yes; exactly so.[*] It is also highly ductile, and not brittle at all. As implied by the "sometimes" qualifier, aluminum is seldom referred to as a metalloid, but the fact that it is sometimes so categorized emphasizes that the definition of metalloid is pretty vague. Anyway, it's a side issue but it was brought up.
All that was really necessary for for OP was to modify "mining of the base metals" to "mining and refinement/processing of the constituent raw materials", as his point is in no way changed thereby.
[*] Aluminum is the fourth most conductive metallic element, after silver (#1), copper (#2), and gold (#3). However, carbon in the form of graphene is a better conductor than any of them.
If you want to be astounded, calcium at metal #5(!) is a lot closer to aluminum than it is to #6 (tungsten).
Judging from this story, at least one did [need a reason to drive stupidly fast]
Reality check. Whether or not snapchat bore any responsibility[*] for contributing to the tendency to reckless endangerment, the recklessly dangerous driver is completely at fault. Her shitty judgment and lack of impulse control is the one NECESSARY link in the chain of events. Driving with reckless endangerment is ALREADY against the law.
[*] My opinion is, none whatever, but that is beside the point.
How do you tell the difference between the driver's phone and a passenger's phone? These is little issue with passengers using phones.
Kind of like, just because there was an open container of alcohol in the vehicle, how do we know the DRIVER was partaking? Objections like yours (and mine) do not change anyone's mind because their mind is made up. Authoritarian tools with "go ahead, tread all over me" written on their back will just continue to spout their rote drivel: "well, that proves my point - in both cases the driver MIGHT be fucking up, so screw proof; assume he IS fucking up".
Slashdot Mirror
The actual figures are here if you spend 30 seconds to look them up. There are three 16-cylinder engines AND three 12-cylinder engines. The fuel consumption is actually 3x1377 + 3x1033 gallons per hour, so a total of 173,520 gallons per day. With a capacity of 6360 passengers, that's 27.3 gallons per passenger per day, or 1.14 gallons per passenger per hour. The cruising speed is 22.6 knots, which is 26.0 mph.
So it works out to 0.0438 gallons per passenger per mile, or 22.8 mpg per passenger. That's a hell of a lot less fuel efficiency than a jetliner or passenger car at capacity, let alone a motorbus. I believe that's the point people are (clumsily) making.
Sorry, those numbers don't even come close to making any sense whatever. Not even if you really meant aircraft-miles rather than passenger-miles. Those figures would make the average speed 0.43 mph. Could you have meant 8.3 BILLION miles?
Utter nonsense. The Soviet SA-2 from the 1950s could reach 82,000 feet. The US Nike Ajax from the 1950s could reach 70,000 feet. Even the US mobile short-range Hawk of 1960 could reach 65,000 feet. The ubiquitous SA-6 certainly can reach 37,000 feet, and like the Hawk it is classed as a low-to-medium altitude defense weapon. About the only missiles that can't are MANPADS and short-range last-ditch low-altitude defense weapons like Sea Sparrow.
Hell, even the mainstay British WWII 3.7 inch AA gun could reach 45,000 feet (whether it could actually HIT anything at that altitude except by area saturation combined with good luck, is another matter).
If you believe THAT half-witted explanation, you will fall for anything.
I've got some bad news for you. MOFCOM has approved a full integration of the two companies, so (1) the HGST brand will disappear, and (2) all that HGST tradition of reliability is headed sraight down the crapper.
MOFCOM in 2012 at the time of the merger approval "restricted the two companies to a 'hold separate' ..., which prevented the companies from combining products and workforce."
For, actually, three years the two companies were forced to act as separate entities. But since late last year, WD has been allowed to integrate "substantial portions" of its business with HGST. R&D and manufacturing will become fully integrated within another one to two years. Separate product lines will no longer be mandated after two years.
It's going to be a repeat of what happened when Seagate swallowed Samsung. All the goodness of the Samsung products evaporated. The failed morass of Seagate's lackadaisical incompetence annihilated it.
I will resist the impulse to shout "hey, stupid". If you even bothered to glance at the small table in the report, you would see that no Seagate 3 TB at all were covered. But the ST4000DX000 4 TB (5 failures, 9.63% failure rate) and ST4000DM000 4 TB (198 failures, 2.54% failure rate) were.
You messed it up. It goes like this: if binary digits are bits, ternary digits must be tits. Twiddling tits. That's what he'll be doing.
What the HELL are you going on about? It's blindingly, stupidly obvious why "they" allow the practice to continue. The USA has become corrupt, top to bottom. The Presidency is corrupt because it categorically refuses to enforce immigration (and other) laws - instead serving its corporate masters. Congress is corrupt because it categorically refuses to produce reasonable legislation in the first place. They serve the same masters. The corruption of the judiciary and the IRS is legendary and old news to everyone.
But the corruption is the manifestation of the failure. It's not the root cause.
The practice continues because everyone with power WANTS it to continue. It's NECESSARY for capitalism to function. The public doesn't necessarily THINK it wants it to continue, but it's actually in their selfish interest too as long as capitalism retains its death-grip. Otherwise the cost of everything would skyrocket and the public would be impoverished because their earnings wouldn't be enough for them to afford anything. The public is caught in a vice, one of whose jaws is pressure on pay/earnings, and the other jaw is pressure on price/expenses. Either jaw would be enough to do them in on its own, opposed by a fixed wall instead of the other jaw, but both jaws are engaged in the screw mechanism of capitalism.
Capitalism is INHERENTLY broken by design. It appeals to the basest self-aggrandizing motivations and encourages them without control. You can't keep capitalism and dig out of this hole. Socialism at least TRIES to serve the interests of the public. If it fails, it's because those in charge aren't smart enough, or they don't care enough. Socialism is a significant step up the evolutionary scale from the jungle of capitalism, but I don't claim it's the answer either. I happen to think that distributism provides the answer, PROVIDED you can figure out how to accomplish the distribution, and you can implement it.
Capitalism -> the means of production are owned and controlled by a few. Flaw: grossly unfair distribution of wealth.
Socialism -> the means of production are owned and controlled in common by society, but no one has their own. Flaw: motivation lacking.
Distributism -> the means of production are distributed; owned and controlled individually and in ad hoc groups by everyone.
$995-$2461 for a Piper J3 Cub in 1938 to 1947 was one thing. The median income in 1940 was $956, so it was a big chunk of change. But still, that was only a little more than a single year of gross income, and taxes were pretty damn low[*] for people earning the median at that time.
[What follows for 2012 is about as close to the present day as I could find information for]
But $398,100 for a Cessna 182T in 2012 is another thing entirely. The median income in 2012 is $33,276. That is 12 FRIGGIN YEARS OF GROSS INCOME, and god knows, maybe around 20 years of net income.
The base price for a 2016 BMW M3, hideously overpriced as it is, is $63,500. "If you can buy" a $63,500 car, and that's a damn big if, that HARDLY means you can therefore buy and maintain a $398,100 airplane.
[*] The Federal income marginal tax rate in 1940 for anyone (single or married) earning $0-$4000 was 4%. I'm not sure what the personal exemption was. I do know it was $3000 at the outset in 1913.
So why, pray tell, is the motor controller not simply made reversible? This isn't rocket science.
Why in god's name does an electric car need/have a GEAR SELECTOR? This makes absolutely no sense whatever.
75 millibits, huh? You sure about that? That's less than 1/10 of one bit.
Re: Spain: so when was the last time the USA used an aircraft carrier against anyone besides defenseless brown or yellow people? So what is Spain's ACTUAL excuse for knuckling under?
Bullshit. Did you say that because it sounds nice or clever to you? BY DEFINITION there can be no causation without correlation.
Master of the understatement. At high noon, there is only a peak on the order of 1/100 of the required power impinging on the wings in the form of sunlight - in the DAYTIME. And zero power after the sun sets. The idea of solar powered jetliners is no more than fantasy for the feeble-minded.
I doubt your 3 ha figure, but let's run with it just for fun.
And how many hectares of algae ponds would it take to supply one tank of fuel several times a day for each of thousands of 747-equivalents? Several MILLION hectares? That's several tens of billions of square metres, or several tens of thousands of square km. How about the colossal energy input you would need to synthesize the biofuel from all that algae? You don't know just shovel algae muck into fuel tanks, you know. And what about the gigantic amount of hydrogen you have to add as well? Where will you get that? Algae can provide the C for your hydrocarbon, but you still need the H.
Duh. It's not a motor. It's a generator. And yes, it typically uses neodymium permanent magnets, but it certainly doesn't have to. Just as the AC induction motors used in Tesla cars do not have any permanent magnets, you can make generators which do not have permanent magnets. Alternators in cars do not have permanent magnets. Electric hydropower generators do not have permanent magnets.
Clearly he doesn't. He was probably brainwashed by this drivel. He got it wrong, anyway. The claim is that the INITIAL CONSTRUCTION of a dammed hydropower site converts a large bunch of trees into methane, not CO2. Not that the continuing operation of them has the any greenhouse effect whatsoever.
The hatchet job does not appear to take into account the effect that plant life in the dammed water has in terms of CO2, compared to the trees and vegetation that once stood there. What do they think happens to the carbon in trees and vegetation on dry land as they constantly die and rot?
You need a citation for that, because on its face that is an astoundingly stupid claim. And don't even think of dredging up this weak-ass story, which is void of any evidence, and actually seems to be conjuring up a fairy tale of methane release, not CO2.
Also, the loaded terms "clean" and "dirty" referring to CO2 are manipulative and ignorant. CO2 is not "dirt". It is a colorless, odorless gas, food for plant life.
It's not the $50. It's what this portends in terms of a breakdown of the whole rotten, corrupt system. It's like the point made by Yevgraf in recollecting the time he found Doctor Zhivago pilfering firewood for subsistence by tearing down pieces of a fence.
"I told myself it was beneath my dignity to arrest a man for pilfering firewood. But nothing ordered by the party is beneath the dignity of any man, and the party was right: One man desperate for a bit of fuel is pathetic. Five million people desperate for fuel will destroy a city."
If open resistance and rebellion breaks out against the system, it will be an explosive flashpoint followed by hell on earth. This is about keeping the lid tamped down and kicking the can further down the road. No one sucking off the tit of the system, and that is an awful lot of us, wants to be around for that. Everyone knows it's coming. We all know the system can't be sustained; not without a lot of fundamental change. We're afraid to face the music. We don't want to bite the bullet because we know our teeth will shatter if we do.
Were the Russian people ultimately better served by dragging out the dissolution of the system for 75 years, rather than straightening things out right in the beginning after the October Revolution? Who knows. I just know there was one hell of a lot of human tragedy in the interrim.
Yes; exactly so.[*] It is also highly ductile, and not brittle at all. As implied by the "sometimes" qualifier, aluminum is seldom referred to as a metalloid, but the fact that it is sometimes so categorized emphasizes that the definition of metalloid is pretty vague. Anyway, it's a side issue but it was brought up.
All that was really necessary for for OP was to modify "mining of the base metals" to "mining and refinement/processing of the constituent raw materials", as his point is in no way changed thereby.
[*] Aluminum is the fourth most conductive metallic element, after silver (#1), copper (#2), and gold (#3). However, carbon in the form of graphene is a better conductor than any of them.
If you want to be astounded, calcium at metal #5(!) is a lot closer to aluminum than it is to #6 (tungsten).
IMHO, assholish police-state laws are all in the same category. Anyway, the reasoning is very much related.
Error. Illogic detected. Maximization of personal gain is not stupidity.
Reality check. Whether or not snapchat bore any responsibility[*] for contributing to the tendency to reckless endangerment, the recklessly dangerous driver is completely at fault. Her shitty judgment and lack of impulse control is the one NECESSARY link in the chain of events. Driving with reckless endangerment is ALREADY against the law.
[*] My opinion is, none whatever, but that is beside the point.
Kind of like, just because there was an open container of alcohol in the vehicle, how do we know the DRIVER was partaking? Objections like yours (and mine) do not change anyone's mind because their mind is made up. Authoritarian tools with "go ahead, tread all over me" written on their back will just continue to spout their rote drivel: "well, that proves my point - in both cases the driver MIGHT be fucking up, so screw proof; assume he IS fucking up".