Why ignore the inefficiency of internal combustion? Are you seriously saying that putting effort into more efficient motors is advancing energy storage solutions? That sounds imbecilic to me.
Hardly imbecilic to me. It depends on how you define volumetric energy density. If based on the simple energy release of combustion, then yes the engine is not a factor. If based on the actual energy put to useful purpose (turning wheels), then it is directly proportional to engine/drivetrain efficiency.
It is nothing special from a volumetric energy density (MJ/L) point of view. It's in the same general range as all primarily petroleum based fuels which are liquid at room temperature and atmospheric pressure; more toward the lower end of the range. It is substantially more than liquefied gases and solids such as coal and wood.
Petrodiesel 37.3 MJ/L Crude Oil 37.0 Gasoline 34.2 Gasohol E10 33.2 Jet A 33.0 Biodiesel 33.0 for comparison
Diesel is both cheaper (in normal countries, not the ridiculous US pricing structure) and higher energy density.
I know Bernie Sanders just fine, thank you. He is a statist, just like 90% of the members of congress, and everyone in the white house and supreme court.
have you noticed how simple an autopilot is, compared to self-driving cars? The need for situational awareness for an airplane autopilot is ridiculously low compared to driving.
I'm not so sure about situational awareness. There a lot of things that airplane pilots, auto and human, have to worry about which are much simpler or don't exist for cars. There are 3 translational plus 3 rotational degrees of freedom rather than 1 plus 1. For example, a car pilot has simply no concern whatsoever about pitch, and short of avoiding a rollover due to some outrageously improper maneuver, no concern about roll. There is no worry that the car can enter a three dimensional spin. The car can stop dead at any time, anywhere, without any thought of falling out of the sky. To avoid collisions, in a plane, someone or something has to scan 360 degrees on 3 axes. In a car, someone or something only has to scan 360 degrees on 1 axis. No matter how limited the visibility, the car is not apt to assume an upside down attitude combined with an accelerative vector such that no human or accelerometer can tell the difference from upright level progress.
Sure, there are factors that work the other way. The most significant one is that the car is on a designated roadway. Someone or something has to possess the ability to keep on the correct track as the roadway turns at random; other vehicles make their own decisions leading to their own, perhaps conflicting, maneuvers; lanes start and stop and change width; various maneuvers in various places are explicitly enjoined ("no left turn"; "no right on red") or demanded either all the time ("stop") or from time to time (traffic lights, cops in road directing traffic). Questions arise which need to be answered quickly regarding objects appeaing on the roadway. Is it alive (can it move unexpectedly)? Is it human? Does it represent a hazard to the structure of the car, or is it harmless to me?
Also, air is air, but roadways are subject to various degradations. Lane markers wear toward invisibility, there are potholes, there are foreign objects scattered in the roadway (worst case: "beware falling rocks"), the edge of the roadway can crumble, the whole roadway can wash out or become inundated by flood water.
So yes, there are significant factors making it vastly more difficult to design a system to ensure safe progress on a roadway than in flight. I wouldn't necessarily call it a need for a higher degree of situational awareness. I would call it a profusion of additional factors, many of them requiring very complex sensing and dealing.
So what? Every four years the public votes for an asshole for President. They will use the coins and like it, if that's all they have. Seriously, do you really believe this? The only way you can get dollar coins is if you go to the bank and specifically ask for a roll or two. And you are 100% of the time stuck with the filthy bills in change. Nobody ever has a chance to use them.
Use the crumbs the legal system does afford the poor fumb duck consumer before shrugging and excusing evil and incompetence on the part of capitalist ripoff artists.
I don't use the DHCP and DNS proxy services on the router. Beats me why anybody would. I run them on a BeagleBone which has so far shown five nines reliability, much more power and flexibility, and no vulnerabilities. The cost is about $50 up front and under 3 watts of AC power.
I realize utterly brainless is a necessary qualification for serving in government, but it passes belief how stupid the guys in charge of currency are. Make a HELL OF A LOT more than a few billion dollar coins and simultaneously STOP MAKING NEW GODDAM DOLLAR BILLS. The old bills will rapidly turn to garbage and fade out of circulation. If some bird brains want to horde a few, fine; they won't evaporate in storage; but soon it will be good luck finding a vending machine that will take them, or a clerk dumb enough to accept the nasty, smelly, germ laden suckers.
We live in the 21th century. By now no one should use things like grep, sed or awk anymore [sic]. The developers around systemd make sure that this functionality is soon hidden away from the audience.
As long as you can hit Alt-F2 or whatever the accessor is, and type in "bash", and "/bin" and/or "/usr/bin" are filled with the goodies, nobody is "hiding" anything from you. So far, I have seen no sign that anybody has any intention of even trying to "hide" the machinery.
Your sarcastic "no one should use things like grep, sed or awk" isn't even that far of the mark in all seriousness. All it needs is the modification to "most users most of the time should not need to use things like grep, sed or awk" - without taking them away, of course.
There. I got through a comment without taking a jab at Systemd. Rest assured, I will take it on when the context justifies it, but that is not the case here.
What does that have anything to do whether SATA is slower than TB? Ultimately the speed of the transfer of data is dependent on the protocol used. SATA is slower than TB.
Come now. That isn't true. The speed of the transfer is the lower of the speed of the data source (disk drive) and the speed of the link. All I did was point that out, and you put your foot in it. SATA2/3 is plenty fast enough to allow just about any hard disk drive to transfer at the max speed it can produce data, for example. You run that data through TB and it isn't going to run the least little bit faster. OK?
Then I pointed out that SATA is not "internal only" and you put your foot in it again with a completely extraneous objection.
AC is an ignorant child, but it's worth pointing out the truth of it for other readers.
Dash is Posix 1003.2 compliant. It minimally extends the Bourne shell, the brilliant honorary patriarch of all shells. Regarding it as contributing to fragmentation amounts to clinical insanity, or pure ignorance. On the other hand you could make a case that Bash does so contribute with all its extensions achieved through much bloat, but I DON'T make that case.
If you cannot write an at least Posix clean shell script, if not Bourne shell clean, you are worthless as anything more than a pushbutton admin.
The one criticism of Bash that I do have is that you cannot optionally set it to flag all extension use as a warning or error. As a result we have a world full of scripts with a shebang line of/bin/sh, which cannot run properly unless/bin/sh is a symlink to Bash. The least service a script writer can do to the user is either (1) make the shebang line/usr/bin/env bash, or (2) with the shebang line/bin/sh, make sure and test that the script is Posix clean.
Only matters if it is slower than the sum of contained storage units attached to a given SATA port, which it is NOT for up to four 7200 rpm disk drives or any two of the fastest disk drives you can get, attached to a single port. And for some purposes where only one drive is being accessed at a time, it does not give up any speed at all for up to a large number of drives.
Don't be disingenuous. The Gnome developers have eagerly riddled Gnome3 with dependencies on Systemd. It is a prerequisite. Why do you think Gmome3 is dead to anyone with any common sense at all?
I don't see giving up on openness, but yes, it represents a cavalier kiss-off to BSD. Developer privilege. And it is user privilege to turn one's back on this.
Can someone please step up and write a sane rc.d based init system so we can consign Systemd to the trashcan of history.
Seriously? BSD has had such a system forever. Linux used to have a "sane" init scripts system (admittedly for some subjective definition of "sane") until very recently. Debian's system used clean Bourne shell compatible scripts. This meant/bin/sh could be a symlink to/bin/dash. Dash is a very lightweight shell without all the Bash overhead. It is about 1/10 the size of Bash. Bash is an excellent interactive shell, and a very valuable scripting shell, but Dash is excellent to have where you don't need a vast profusion of features but you are interested in performance.
Here we learn that most of the performance benefit seen in Ubuntu 6.10 was due, not to Upstart, but simply by switching from Bash to Dash in the init scripts.
Redhat decided it was "too hard" to make their init scripts Bourne shell clean. They all reference/bin/sh in the shebang line, but they lie. They rely on Bash features. As a result, rather than do what Debian showed could readily be done, Redhat established and has adopted Systemd as the Only Supported Init System.
Now that Debian is caving in to systemd, it seems safe to say we can forget the fantasy of Systemd being relegated to any kind of "trashcan". Quite the contrary, as far as linux is concerned, it is the init script system that will be trashcanned.
There are honest pros and cons for the move. The pros are pretty compelling (and I say that as a holdout from the beginning). Linux is in many ways about monolithic solutions. This is just one of those ways.
For those who have doubts, not just about Systemd but about other monolithic consolidations and discarding many time tested and good working systems, there is still a refuge: BSD. That may change, but for now BSD is not jumping on all this stuff (quoting the AC near the top: Wayland, Gnome3, Pulseaudio, Systemd, Journald, "Alienating [subsuming] Udev"). BSD is still all about the Unix Philosophy, as expressed by Mike Gancarz.
It is really an embarrassment of riches that BOTH Linux and BSD are prospering as freely available systems.
And he could argue that you are selfishly trying to make everyone take a step over a precipice; a step that is absolutely not necessary. Perhaps if you could explain why Wayland finds it necessary to discard features users have found so helpful, then we could think about evaluating the rest of the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly imbecilic to me. It depends on how you define volumetric energy density. If based on the simple energy release of combustion, then yes the engine is not a factor. If based on the actual energy put to useful purpose (turning wheels), then it is directly proportional to engine/drivetrain efficiency.
It is nothing special from a volumetric energy density (MJ/L) point of view. It's in the same general range as all primarily petroleum based fuels which are liquid at room temperature and atmospheric pressure; more toward the lower end of the range. It is substantially more than liquefied gases and solids such as coal and wood.
Petrodiesel 37.3 MJ/L
Crude Oil 37.0
Gasoline 34.2
Gasohol E10 33.2
Jet A 33.0
Biodiesel 33.0 for comparison
Diesel is both cheaper (in normal countries, not the ridiculous US pricing structure) and higher energy density.
First, 80 grand is $40/hr.
Second, the fully burdened COST of employing someone at a salary of $40/hr is at least $80/hr. THAT is the COST of the labor.
I know Bernie Sanders just fine, thank you. He is a statist, just like 90% of the members of congress, and everyone in the white house and supreme court.
I'm not so sure about situational awareness. There a lot of things that airplane pilots, auto and human, have to worry about which are much simpler or don't exist for cars. There are 3 translational plus 3 rotational degrees of freedom rather than 1 plus 1. For example, a car pilot has simply no concern whatsoever about pitch, and short of avoiding a rollover due to some outrageously improper maneuver, no concern about roll. There is no worry that the car can enter a three dimensional spin. The car can stop dead at any time, anywhere, without any thought of falling out of the sky. To avoid collisions, in a plane, someone or something has to scan 360 degrees on 3 axes. In a car, someone or something only has to scan 360 degrees on 1 axis. No matter how limited the visibility, the car is not apt to assume an upside down attitude combined with an accelerative vector such that no human or accelerometer can tell the difference from upright level progress.
Sure, there are factors that work the other way. The most significant one is that the car is on a designated roadway. Someone or something has to possess the ability to keep on the correct track as the roadway turns at random; other vehicles make their own decisions leading to their own, perhaps conflicting, maneuvers; lanes start and stop and change width; various maneuvers in various places are explicitly enjoined ("no left turn"; "no right on red") or demanded either all the time ("stop") or from time to time (traffic lights, cops in road directing traffic). Questions arise which need to be answered quickly regarding objects appeaing on the roadway. Is it alive (can it move unexpectedly)? Is it human? Does it represent a hazard to the structure of the car, or is it harmless to me?
Also, air is air, but roadways are subject to various degradations. Lane markers wear toward invisibility, there are potholes, there are foreign objects scattered in the roadway (worst case: "beware falling rocks"), the edge of the roadway can crumble, the whole roadway can wash out or become inundated by flood water.
So yes, there are significant factors making it vastly more difficult to design a system to ensure safe progress on a roadway than in flight. I wouldn't necessarily call it a need for a higher degree of situational awareness. I would call it a profusion of additional factors, many of them requiring very complex sensing and dealing.
So what? Every four years the public votes for an asshole for President. They will use the coins and like it, if that's all they have. Seriously, do you really believe this? The only way you can get dollar coins is if you go to the bank and specifically ask for a roll or two. And you are 100% of the time stuck with the filthy bills in change. Nobody ever has a chance to use them.
Small claims court. Learn it, live it, love it. This shit fails the merchantability and fitness implied warranty.
Use the crumbs the legal system does afford the poor fumb duck consumer before shrugging and excusing evil and incompetence on the part of capitalist ripoff artists.
I don't use the DHCP and DNS proxy services on the router. Beats me why anybody would. I run them on a BeagleBone which has so far shown five nines reliability, much more power and flexibility, and no vulnerabilities. The cost is about $50 up front and under 3 watts of AC power.
Network Interface Card cards? Are those like Automated Teller Machine machines and Personal Identification Number numbers?
Sigh. In ones and twos? I thought not. Complete red herring.
I realize utterly brainless is a necessary qualification for serving in government, but it passes belief how stupid the guys in charge of currency are. Make a HELL OF A LOT more than a few billion dollar coins and simultaneously STOP MAKING NEW GODDAM DOLLAR BILLS. The old bills will rapidly turn to garbage and fade out of circulation. If some bird brains want to horde a few, fine; they won't evaporate in storage; but soon it will be good luck finding a vending machine that will take them, or a clerk dumb enough to accept the nasty, smelly, germ laden suckers.
This is not rocket science.
Bingo.
As long as you can hit Alt-F2 or whatever the accessor is, and type in "bash", and "/bin" and/or "/usr/bin" are filled with the goodies, nobody is "hiding" anything from you. So far, I have seen no sign that anybody has any intention of even trying to "hide" the machinery.
Your sarcastic "no one should use things like grep, sed or awk" isn't even that far of the mark in all seriousness. All it needs is the modification to "most users most of the time should not need to use things like grep, sed or awk" - without taking them away, of course.
There. I got through a comment without taking a jab at Systemd. Rest assured, I will take it on when the context justifies it, but that is not the case here.
You mean like this in zsh under linux or BSD?
[fnj@roc]~% echo $(((18*(567/23))+67))
499
[fnj@roc]~% echo $(((18*(567/23.0))+67))
510.73913043478257
[fnj@roc]~% printf "%.2f\n" $(((18*(567/23.0))+67))
510.74
[fnj@roc]~%
Note the facility of choosing integer versus floating point evaluation, and setting the precision.
P.S. - I admit I was humbled trying to do this in bash without resorting to bc.
Were you trying to say you weren't sure why this is on /. ?
What do you mean "we", kemosabe?
Come now. That isn't true. The speed of the transfer is the lower of the speed of the data source (disk drive) and the speed of the link. All I did was point that out, and you put your foot in it. SATA2/3 is plenty fast enough to allow just about any hard disk drive to transfer at the max speed it can produce data, for example. You run that data through TB and it isn't going to run the least little bit faster. OK?
Then I pointed out that SATA is not "internal only" and you put your foot in it again with a completely extraneous objection.
Give it up.
AC is an ignorant child, but it's worth pointing out the truth of it for other readers.
Dash is Posix 1003.2 compliant. It minimally extends the Bourne shell, the brilliant honorary patriarch of all shells. Regarding it as contributing to fragmentation amounts to clinical insanity, or pure ignorance. On the other hand you could make a case that Bash does so contribute with all its extensions achieved through much bloat, but I DON'T make that case.
If you cannot write an at least Posix clean shell script, if not Bourne shell clean, you are worthless as anything more than a pushbutton admin.
The one criticism of Bash that I do have is that you cannot optionally set it to flag all extension use as a warning or error. As a result we have a world full of scripts with a shebang line of /bin/sh, which cannot run properly unless /bin/sh is a symlink to Bash. The least service a script writer can do to the user is either (1) make the shebang line /usr/bin/env bash, or (2) with the shebang line /bin/sh, make sure and test that the script is Posix clean.
Only matters if it is slower than the sum of contained storage units attached to a given SATA port, which it is NOT for up to four 7200 rpm disk drives or any two of the fastest disk drives you can get, attached to a single port. And for some purposes where only one drive is being accessed at a time, it does not give up any speed at all for up to a large number of drives.
Never heard of eSATA?
Don't be disingenuous. The Gnome developers have eagerly riddled Gnome3 with dependencies on Systemd. It is a prerequisite. Why do you think Gmome3 is dead to anyone with any common sense at all?
I don't see giving up on openness, but yes, it represents a cavalier kiss-off to BSD. Developer privilege. And it is user privilege to turn one's back on this.
Seriously? BSD has had such a system forever. Linux used to have a "sane" init scripts system (admittedly for some subjective definition of "sane") until very recently. Debian's system used clean Bourne shell compatible scripts. This meant /bin/sh could be a symlink to /bin/dash. Dash is a very lightweight shell without all the Bash overhead. It is about 1/10 the size of Bash. Bash is an excellent interactive shell, and a very valuable scripting shell, but Dash is excellent to have where you don't need a vast profusion of features but you are interested in performance.
Here we learn that most of the performance benefit seen in Ubuntu 6.10 was due, not to Upstart, but simply by switching from Bash to Dash in the init scripts.
Redhat decided it was "too hard" to make their init scripts Bourne shell clean. They all reference /bin/sh in the shebang line, but they lie. They rely on Bash features. As a result, rather than do what Debian showed could readily be done, Redhat established and has adopted Systemd as the Only Supported Init System.
Now that Debian is caving in to systemd, it seems safe to say we can forget the fantasy of Systemd being relegated to any kind of "trashcan". Quite the contrary, as far as linux is concerned, it is the init script system that will be trashcanned.
There are honest pros and cons for the move. The pros are pretty compelling (and I say that as a holdout from the beginning). Linux is in many ways about monolithic solutions. This is just one of those ways.
For those who have doubts, not just about Systemd but about other monolithic consolidations and discarding many time tested and good working systems, there is still a refuge: BSD. That may change, but for now BSD is not jumping on all this stuff (quoting the AC near the top: Wayland, Gnome3, Pulseaudio, Systemd, Journald, "Alienating [subsuming] Udev"). BSD is still all about the Unix Philosophy, as expressed by Mike Gancarz.
It is really an embarrassment of riches that BOTH Linux and BSD are prospering as freely available systems.
What I see is the derangement is all on the side of the tear-everything-down crowd. It is the ugly, immature side of open source.
What is this, Spinrad's The Iron Dream?
And he could argue that you are selfishly trying to make everyone take a step over a precipice; a step that is absolutely not necessary. Perhaps if you could explain why Wayland finds it necessary to discard features users have found so helpful, then we could think about evaluating the rest of the issue.