You did everything professionally, it's the company that is acting immature.
Lets face it, you gave them notice. If you were going to do anything destructive, you'd have done it before you warned them you were leaving. If they don't want you to work out your last two weeks, that's their choice. In my area, if you give the legally required notice, they are required to pay you, but whether or not they want you to work is the company's choice.
My boiler is currently 50 years old (It just had it's 50th birthday a couple months ago) -- If I owned the house, I'd start upgrading now.
However, it's a rental, so I'm not willing to invest in anything that won't have a financial turnaround within 6 months.
Based on current energy prices, gas costs 75% of what electricity does, so unless gas appliances are over 75% efficient, an electrical heater is probably more efficient (since electrical heaters are reported to be 99%+ efficient)
I'll do the research once I buy a place, but until then it's not really worth it.
While you're probably correct about the biggest loss, I doubt my boiler will be any more efficient in this respect.
Both the boiler and the water heater do the same job, heat water.
Also, we have very little insulation between the floor (of the main level) and the ceiling of the basement, so much of the heat that is released in the basement here actually serves to heat the floor (which might not be super efficient, but it's great to not have freezing hardwood floor)
It's probably still not as efficient as the microwave solution, but with electricity already costing more, plus the fact that at least some of the loss can be put to use, I'm not convinced it's worth the installation cost either.
We always have a need for a small amount of warm water to be available (for hand/face washing), but aside from that a short delay before the dishwasher or clothes washer could run wouldn't be a problem.
2) ???
3) Profi^H^H^H^Heak-shifting electricity models
Prices do shift, but over the last few years (which is the only data I have handy (electricity has always been more expensive then gas) on a per GJ basis.
If this changes (even if only for off-peak electricity), that would obviously change the relative economic efficiencies of the different solutions. It's quite possible to put a lot of our water consumption on automated schedules though, setting the dishwasher, clothes washer, etc, to run overnight, as well as rigging up hot water storage for morning showers even if you are using an on-demand system...
Of course if enough people do that, it might reduce the consumption gap between peak and non-peak. Ultimately that's not a bad thing though.
3) Cost of changeover
This is obviously a factor in any type of transition. What makes it tough is that energy costs aren't fixed, so the investment may end up being lost entirely if you spend a ton of money converting to a system which uses a form of energy who's price skyrockets.
I don't need to put the heat back though, I can just make more.
Since my house is always losing heat into the environment, I'm constantly using natural gas to replenish that heat.
Whether I use the natural gas to heat the air in my house to 20C or my water to 60C and use that water to heat the house, the result is still the same, damn near 100% of that heat energy is put to effective use in the house.
I've actually been wondering about this aspect too -- Would any form of active cooling of waste water be worth it?
Again, assuming I live in a cold climate and I'm already paying to heat my house, if I could get 50% of the heat energy out of my waste water and into my house, that would cut my water-heating bill in half, assuming a 100% efficient water heating system.
Any energy consumed by the cooling progress would be released into my house as heat, so it's basically free too (since that heat would be put to productive use, and would reduce the amount of time my furnace remains in operation)
Again, not productive in the summer, but you'd probably want to turn the system off in the summer:)
In our case, it's in the basement, but the basement is reasonably well insulated, so much of the heat goes up rather then out.
That being said, this is the first house I've lived in that doesn't have heat ducts in the basement -- Around here you typically do need to heat the basement somewhat since it can get to -30C outside for an extended period of time.
Another aspect is that I don't get cut off when I move from one room to another. It's a minor thing, but it's worth the investment of a wireless access point once.
That's pretty much the size of it -- When a room is below 20, it gets heat, when it's above 20 it doesn't.
Sure, there is a margin of error in the thermostats, but the heat released by the water heater doesn't make it any worse, even if the boiler doesn't kick in until it's 18C and doesn't cut out until it's 22C at the location of the thermostat for the room in question, the effect of the heat "lost" by the water heater into the house is the same, it still heats the house slightly and instead of reducing the amount of time the boiler runs, it increases the length of time between when the boiler shuts down and when it turns on again.
Either way, the result is that the boiler uses less gas, equal to the amount of energy "lost" by the hot water system.
One consideration though, is the relative economic efficiency, taking into account the energy source.
I'm not sure how things work in your neck of the woods, but according to my bills I'm currently paying:
$0.06/kWh -- electrical $12.18/GJ -- natural gas
Assuming I've done my math right, and I'd appreciate someone checking my work, it's been a long time since I did this crap in school... But according to Google at my current kWh I'm paying $16.67/gigajoule for electrical energy.
However, for Natural Gas, I'm paying less, so even if the overall heating system is less energy efficient (due to heat lost in the exhaust process), it's still more economically efficient.
Yes this is a selfish way to look at it, but depending on the source of your electricity, it may or may not be ecologically sound.
Prerequisite: I live in an area of the planet where I am heating, rather then cooling my house the majority of the year. None of this applies to anyone with an air conditioner turned on right now.
I currently heat both my house and my hot water with natural gas. Any heat that my hot water system (tank, pipes, etc inclusive) releases into the environment isn't really lost -- The "environment" into which the heat is being released is also known as my house.
The only "lost" heat is that which is carried by water out the drain and into the city's waste system.
Every bit of heat that is lost due to the inefficiency of storing the water is an equal amount of heat gained by my house, and the result is that my furnace uses that much less energy to keep my house at a comfortable 20C.
Now in my current house I'm actually using a boiler rather then a furnace. Assuming both my boiler and my hot water tank are equally efficient (which is likely fair, since both appliances do the same job, they heat water), and since they use the same energy source and hence neither is more economical, I don't think I'm losing anything by using a hot water tank rather then an on-demand method, am I?
If the patent isn't valid until you've done it, or while you're in the process of doing it, then if you can't get VC, you lose the patent.
That's a problem if VC and banking groups got together, started refusing everything then taking the ideas for themselves once the inventor abandons the idea.
The delay wasn't obviousness, just the technology to deploy the large number of cellphones in use today. The analog systems deployed in North America couldn't even pretend to handle today's load.
That's not a "potential" loss, that's a real, quantifiable loss, because a law-abiding citizen would have paid first.
You misspelled "might have" -- I download a ton of stuff that I wouldn't buy.
I also pay my dues on every blank CDR I buy. Every time I slipstream a new servicepack into my Windows CD, the recording industry gets a cut. Every time a new build of my firewall comes out, the recording industry gets a cut.
But here's the kicker -- When I create my own creative product, the recording industry gets a cut of that too.
So no, I don't feel guilty about using my legal right to download music. The recording industry bribed some politicians for the CD levy, they got it, and in exchange my conscience is clear.
I've seen older buildings with a server room that happens to not have it's own thermostat.
With forced air you can usually block it. With radiator-style heating, if the water needs to pass through the server room to an adjacent office, you can't block or disable the heating in any way.
Probably, although if you have heat being pumped into the server room (from a furnace), it might be worth the effort to not spend too much time cooling the hot air being pumped into the room.
(Again, I'm thinking extremely low budget, where blocking the heat isn't feasible)
Actually it's not bad at all in terms of cost -- Slightly more then when you're running on the grid, but as long as you have the UPS capability to handle the switchover gracefully, it's not a big deal.
Assuming you're buying in bulk (Meaning you need large storage capacity too) you can get the price to within a few percentage of buying electricity. The additional cost of running on generator power when needed will be offset by the fact that you don't need cooling. When the grid is up and running, you'll be pocketing that money.
If nothing else you could probably heat the building housing your staff, maybe run a small call center out of the same building as the datacenter.
Sure it matters -- The bubble still needs to insulate and the AC still needs to dissipate, both of which are greatly affected by the heat difference inside and outside the bubble.
Better yet, hash the readable text once and the entire document in the second hash.
This will completely avoid cases where extra data can be used to tweak the hash.
However, you'll still have to watch for "readable" but invisible text, white-on-white text, or black-on-white text which happens to be superimposed over a black image (which could help dodge a simple "ignore 'invisible' text" routine)
Wait a second though. If A licences something to B (licensee), and B gives a copy to C in violation of the license, C hasn't done anything wrong.
In order for "A" to do anything, they'd have to prove that a transaction took place between "B" and "C" that violates the license. "A" cannot simply say "'C' magically got this knowledge, it must be 'B's fault"
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft isn't preventing interoperability.
There is a difference between actively preventing interoperability, and not providing interoperability.
In this case, Microsoft is simply refusing to publish API information to make interoperability easier, but they don't appear to be trying to prevent interoperability with the competition.
Slashdot Mirror
It's stupid though -- You're not going to wait until your last two weeks (And after having given notice) to pull whatever you're going to pull.
You did everything professionally, it's the company that is acting immature.
Lets face it, you gave them notice. If you were going to do anything destructive, you'd have done it before you warned them you were leaving. If they don't want you to work out your last two weeks, that's their choice. In my area, if you give the legally required notice, they are required to pay you, but whether or not they want you to work is the company's choice.
My boiler is currently 50 years old (It just had it's 50th birthday a couple months ago) -- If I owned the house, I'd start upgrading now.
However, it's a rental, so I'm not willing to invest in anything that won't have a financial turnaround within 6 months.
Based on current energy prices, gas costs 75% of what electricity does, so unless gas appliances are over 75% efficient, an electrical heater is probably more efficient (since electrical heaters are reported to be 99%+ efficient)
I'll do the research once I buy a place, but until then it's not really worth it.
While you're probably correct about the biggest loss, I doubt my boiler will be any more efficient in this respect.
Both the boiler and the water heater do the same job, heat water.
Also, we have very little insulation between the floor (of the main level) and the ceiling of the basement, so much of the heat that is released in the basement here actually serves to heat the floor (which might not be super efficient, but it's great to not have freezing hardwood floor)
It's probably still not as efficient as the microwave solution, but with electricity already costing more, plus the fact that at least some of the loss can be put to use, I'm not convinced it's worth the installation cost either.
1) On-demand vs. supply tank
We always have a need for a small amount of warm water to be available (for hand/face washing), but aside from that a short delay before the dishwasher or clothes washer could run wouldn't be a problem.
2) ???
3) Profi^H^H^H^Heak-shifting electricity models
Prices do shift, but over the last few years (which is the only data I have handy (electricity has always been more expensive then gas) on a per GJ basis.
If this changes (even if only for off-peak electricity), that would obviously change the relative economic efficiencies of the different solutions. It's quite possible to put a lot of our water consumption on automated schedules though, setting the dishwasher, clothes washer, etc, to run overnight, as well as rigging up hot water storage for morning showers even if you are using an on-demand system...
Of course if enough people do that, it might reduce the consumption gap between peak and non-peak. Ultimately that's not a bad thing though.
3) Cost of changeover
This is obviously a factor in any type of transition. What makes it tough is that energy costs aren't fixed, so the investment may end up being lost entirely if you spend a ton of money converting to a system which uses a form of energy who's price skyrockets.
I don't need to put the heat back though, I can just make more.
Since my house is always losing heat into the environment, I'm constantly using natural gas to replenish that heat.
Whether I use the natural gas to heat the air in my house to 20C or my water to 60C and use that water to heat the house, the result is still the same, damn near 100% of that heat energy is put to effective use in the house.
I've actually been wondering about this aspect too -- Would any form of active cooling of waste water be worth it?
:)
Again, assuming I live in a cold climate and I'm already paying to heat my house, if I could get 50% of the heat energy out of my waste water and into my house, that would cut my water-heating bill in half, assuming a 100% efficient water heating system.
Any energy consumed by the cooling progress would be released into my house as heat, so it's basically free too (since that heat would be put to productive use, and would reduce the amount of time my furnace remains in operation)
Again, not productive in the summer, but you'd probably want to turn the system off in the summer
In our case, it's in the basement, but the basement is reasonably well insulated, so much of the heat goes up rather then out.
That being said, this is the first house I've lived in that doesn't have heat ducts in the basement -- Around here you typically do need to heat the basement somewhat since it can get to -30C outside for an extended period of time.
Another aspect is that I don't get cut off when I move from one room to another. It's a minor thing, but it's worth the investment of a wireless access point once.
That's pretty much the size of it -- When a room is below 20, it gets heat, when it's above 20 it doesn't.
Sure, there is a margin of error in the thermostats, but the heat released by the water heater doesn't make it any worse, even if the boiler doesn't kick in until it's 18C and doesn't cut out until it's 22C at the location of the thermostat for the room in question, the effect of the heat "lost" by the water heater into the house is the same, it still heats the house slightly and instead of reducing the amount of time the boiler runs, it increases the length of time between when the boiler shuts down and when it turns on again.
Either way, the result is that the boiler uses less gas, equal to the amount of energy "lost" by the hot water system.
One consideration though, is the relative economic efficiency, taking into account the energy source.
I'm not sure how things work in your neck of the woods, but according to my bills I'm currently paying:
$0.06/kWh -- electrical
$12.18/GJ -- natural gas
Assuming I've done my math right, and I'd appreciate someone checking my work, it's been a long time since I did this crap in school... But according to Google at my current kWh I'm paying $16.67/gigajoule for electrical energy.
However, for Natural Gas, I'm paying less, so even if the overall heating system is less energy efficient (due to heat lost in the exhaust process), it's still more economically efficient.
Yes this is a selfish way to look at it, but depending on the source of your electricity, it may or may not be ecologically sound.
Okay, stupid question time.
Prerequisite: I live in an area of the planet where I am heating, rather then cooling my house the majority of the year. None of this applies to anyone with an air conditioner turned on right now.
I currently heat both my house and my hot water with natural gas. Any heat that my hot water system (tank, pipes, etc inclusive) releases into the environment isn't really lost -- The "environment" into which the heat is being released is also known as my house.
The only "lost" heat is that which is carried by water out the drain and into the city's waste system.
Every bit of heat that is lost due to the inefficiency of storing the water is an equal amount of heat gained by my house, and the result is that my furnace uses that much less energy to keep my house at a comfortable 20C.
Now in my current house I'm actually using a boiler rather then a furnace. Assuming both my boiler and my hot water tank are equally efficient (which is likely fair, since both appliances do the same job, they heat water), and since they use the same energy source and hence neither is more economical, I don't think I'm losing anything by using a hot water tank rather then an on-demand method, am I?
If by less then 3 years, you mean over five years, then you're closer.
If the patent isn't valid until you've done it, or while you're in the process of doing it, then if you can't get VC, you lose the patent.
That's a problem if VC and banking groups got together, started refusing everything then taking the ideas for themselves once the inventor abandons the idea.
Rather then hold on to the patent, wait for somebody else to spend another 10 million and then litigate them out of existance?
The delay wasn't obviousness, just the technology to deploy the large number of cellphones in use today. The analog systems deployed in North America couldn't even pretend to handle today's load.
That's not a "potential" loss, that's a real, quantifiable loss, because a law-abiding citizen would have paid first.
You misspelled "might have" -- I download a ton of stuff that I wouldn't buy.
I also pay my dues on every blank CDR I buy. Every time I slipstream a new servicepack into my Windows CD, the recording industry gets a cut. Every time a new build of my firewall comes out, the recording industry gets a cut.
But here's the kicker -- When I create my own creative product, the recording industry gets a cut of that too.
So no, I don't feel guilty about using my legal right to download music. The recording industry bribed some politicians for the CD levy, they got it, and in exchange my conscience is clear.
No. Theft of services would again be depriving you of something valuable, in the case of services it's essentially your time that I'm stealing.
When I copy music, the original copy is still there, which legally is not theft.
I've seen older buildings with a server room that happens to not have it's own thermostat.
With forced air you can usually block it. With radiator-style heating, if the water needs to pass through the server room to an adjacent office, you can't block or disable the heating in any way.
Probably, although if you have heat being pumped into the server room (from a furnace), it might be worth the effort to not spend too much time cooling the hot air being pumped into the room.
(Again, I'm thinking extremely low budget, where blocking the heat isn't feasible)
Actually it's not bad at all in terms of cost -- Slightly more then when you're running on the grid, but as long as you have the UPS capability to handle the switchover gracefully, it's not a big deal.
Assuming you're buying in bulk (Meaning you need large storage capacity too) you can get the price to within a few percentage of buying electricity. The additional cost of running on generator power when needed will be offset by the fact that you don't need cooling. When the grid is up and running, you'll be pocketing that money.
If nothing else you could probably heat the building housing your staff, maybe run a small call center out of the same building as the datacenter.
Sure it matters -- The bubble still needs to insulate and the AC still needs to dissipate, both of which are greatly affected by the heat difference inside and outside the bubble.
Better yet, hash the readable text once and the entire document in the second hash.
This will completely avoid cases where extra data can be used to tweak the hash.
However, you'll still have to watch for "readable" but invisible text, white-on-white text, or black-on-white text which happens to be superimposed over a black image (which could help dodge a simple "ignore 'invisible' text" routine)
Wait a second though. If A licences something to B (licensee), and B gives a copy to C in violation of the license, C hasn't done anything wrong.
In order for "A" to do anything, they'd have to prove that a transaction took place between "B" and "C" that violates the license. "A" cannot simply say "'C' magically got this knowledge, it must be 'B's fault"
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft isn't preventing interoperability.
There is a difference between actively preventing interoperability, and not providing interoperability.
In this case, Microsoft is simply refusing to publish API information to make interoperability easier, but they don't appear to be trying to prevent interoperability with the competition.