Yeah, it's not like 7% of the electricity produced is lost before it even reaches your home right?:) http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3 Then you know when your charge cord heats up that is electricity lost. The fan kicks on to keep the battery cooler while charging (heat is electricity lost, fan is not used for the purpose of travel)
I wouldn't be surprised if the number comes out to be around 10-15% loss just to get it to the battery.
Then with those super capcitors, I bet they get a better conversion rate. In the end, that number for conversion will get better by leaps and bounds, as there's lots of room for improvement. I don't think there's that much room for improvement with gasoline cars.
I think we just need more batteries on the road to help drive that innovation.
Bi-Weekly or monthly doesn't make any difference for being cash strapped. You make the adjustment once (which is the hard part) and afterwards it business as usual. Unless if you're someone who sees money in an account and has to spend it just because it's there. If that's the case, then a money management class or instructor may be the most beneficial thing you could spend some money on!
I think he was poking fun at innovation through naming the curve after himself even though it's just an application of the Laffer curve. See the parallels?
When wars ultimately get to robots fighting each other, the most common sense approach to countering that type of engagement is to attack the people controlling them. India is heavily dependent on wireless communications as their land-line infrastructure is very poor. So it would make sense to decentralize their command centers and instead rely on ad-hoc wireless networks to distribute instructions. Then people will be targeting enemy combatants that are literally sitting in their living rooms in the midst of civilians. You can't target communications networks as it's wireless with no central point of attack. I think that will lead to a change in warfare where the term civilian is a moot point. It will be basically changed into a if it moves, kill it mentality.
I'm sure people will argue we're already there, but we still have statistics that represent non-enemy combatant deaths. I'm thinking that no one will bat an eye or even raise the question when those statistics are no longer gathered, as you can't even start to figure out what they mean.
Then we'll have our autonomous robot death machines when we don't have enough people to control the first generation robots:)
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas.
Yes, your point being?....
...
Back on topic though, you're right that we have to draw the line somewhere; I'd rather draw the line at zero...
That was the point. You wanting to draw the line at 0 is what I had extrapolated from the math argument. It'll work just as well as the law did during the wild west days. Only the people with the biggest wallets will win instead of the people with guns.
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas. Everything is math, therefore everything must not be patentable.
Your thoughts are nothing more than a complex orchestration of electrochemical stimuli, akin to a computer. Everything from your dreams to the stars can be expressed using math, as it's a form of communication.
To me, the line is drawn wherever it is most convenient and fair. 1 line can be drawn in front of software and say, software can't be patentable... I'd rather use a different line, and raise the bar at what is considered novel or common sense. There's no reason why 50 different variations of a tripod that can spray water should be patentable just because they change the color or the medium they spray. I tripod is common sense, the click of a button is common sense. Using hearing, sight, touch, taste and smell to interact with anything is common sense.
Yep, Eve Online is a great choice for a hardcore WoW player to go to after they burn out. I kinda played Eve back in 2006, but then recently came back to it again. It's the fact that you don't need to grind and can fly a ship as well as the most experienced players in the game (minus skill) in 6 months without logging more than 10 hours of playing time. You can play it really casually and get just as much enjoyment as you need. I'm down to about 2 hours a session maybe 3 times a month. The equivalent of 3 movies a month.
The only killer of Eve, is that the learning curve is enormous! Just join a teaching corporation, and it makes it a bit easier.
So far I've come into contact with about a dozen people that have "bought" Windows 8. Not a single 1 of them wanted it, but it's forced upon them when buying the computer.
Of the 100 million, I'd like to know the percentage that actually wanted Windows 8. I wouldn't be surprised if that number drops down below 20 million.
Asking where did the money go is like asking why someone has a balance on their credit card. If you have the capability of spending money and you need something, you do it.
The author doesn't seem to be a credible source of information for standards and compliance. Judging form his resume, he seems to just be a web developer by trial through fire. More of a technical writer if anything. http://www.simonstl.com/resume.htm
You only need 1 chamber, a micro-controller, a 9 volt battery, some wiring, and a couple other odds n ends. Probably take an afternoon to construct. But... I like your style of thinking! Find the most difficult way to solve a problem! You could probably work with those Rube Goldberg teams in some way, help them find more complicated ways to light a match.
I take it from your statistic about planes crashing that you admit there is a non-zero chance of a device interfering with the plane in some way.
So let's weight the cost/benefits of using those electronics again.
Use them = non-zero chance of death. Don't use them = nothing
I find it humorous that people argue against the nothing, just so they can get nothing, all for the cost of possible death.
If that were really the case, then why don't airlines require that the batteries be removed from devices and surrendered to the flight attendant or that the devices be placed into an RF shielded container?
Because they figure you're a grown-up and can follow simple instructions to power them off.
Everything on a plane is heavily regulated with strict testing and installation regulations - if a passenger cell phone could really disrupt the flight, do you really think the FAA would leave it up to the customer to remember to turn it off?
They don't leave it up to you to remember. They actively instruct and watch out for your usage of the devices. More often now they have to watch out for people who blatantly disregard said instructions. For some reason I think you have the idea that disrupting a flight means someone turning on their phone and causing the plane to go into a death spiral, or somehow become a remote controlled plane. Although pretty nifty sounding, the much more simple interruption of communications with the ground is about as far as I need to go with the discussion.
On any given flight there are likely dozens of phones and other devices that have powered themselves on in carryon or checked bags
Do you have any sources for that statistic? I find that statistic to be highly suspect. I'd wager more people try to hide their interactions with their powered on devices than devices turning themselves on through bumping into other objects while stowed away.
- my phone doesn't have a removable battery and has an easily pressed power button, so most of the time I find that it's powered itself on at some point during the flight.
Which phone do you have? And if you are checking it's power state during a flight often enough to see that it has turned itself on, where are you storing it?
Regardless of that, it's about minimizing risk. Turning off electronics are a low hanging fruit for the whole whopping 15 minutes that anyone cares. And regardless of that, unless the pilots and tower peeps come out and say, go ahead, we're all good and trust our equipment to handle whatever piece of Chinese knockoff crap you bought on the street (I'm sure they care about FCC regulations) can throw at us... then I don't see why anyone's position on removing the ban matters.
-I deal with computers... software... various things built by "professionals". No matter where you go, how highly regulated things are, you WILL have absolutely brain-dead, how did you ever get a job here, kind of people working on those projects. So having complete faith that anything works perfectly and can handle all forms of unintended interference is quite laughable. Until we have AI, and the planes are designed/built by robots, we won't come near being able to assert that, and even then we might still have a hard time.
Freedom is a lovely word thrown around, but if everyone had that kind of freedom (to do whatever they want, whenever) then we'd still be in the stone age as we're clubbing people upside the head to satisfy our freedoms.
Let's phrase this in a more dramatic fashion. Let's calculate the chance of one of these devices interfering with the operations of a plane in such a fashion to cause a significant life impacting event on a plane.
Now, let's construct a gun that is loaded with a bullet and when you pull the trigger has the same odds of causing a significant life impacting event. Let's aim it at your head.
Go ahead, pull the trigger. If you lose, your head is blown off. If you win, nothing. Absolutely nothing of any significance changes in your life.
Regardless of how infinitesimally small the chances are of the gun going off, is it worth it?
Now, do you want to argue that you lose 15 minutes of your life sitting on your thumbs? How about that time when you were waiting in McDonald's behind an old guy who didn't know what he wanted? How about the 2 hours you waited in line to renew your driving license? The time you spend sleeping? The time you spent reading this post! I just wasted precious seconds of your time with just this paragraph! You wasted more time boarding the plane than the time you lost while waiting for it to get off the ground. Let's stop the ban on the bum-rush we so desperately want to board the plane as fast as we want! You're infringing my freedoms of boarding! Why should I have to wait for the people that need assistance to board first?
Really? Why are we arguing over something so trivial as turning off a device for 15 minutes until you're in the air? We need instant gratification 100% of the time? Deal with it. I'd rather not even chance my safety over something as stupid as a cellphone or e-reader.
It's not about devices that are broadcasting under normal conditions, or intended conditions. It's about malfunctioning devices. The last thing we need on the news is a blackbox recording of the pilots trying to communicate with the tower about a situation in which another plane is approaching and to take immediate actions to avoid a collision only to be drowned out by static, squeals, or Samuel L Jackson giving his speech about Ezekiel 21 and a slew of gunshots.
I honestly don't give a rip about you trying to get a last "OMG! takeoffz!" text in.
Everyone who clicked on this link needs to now attend a phishing training class, you have all been suckered into clicking on this blatant advertisement!
There's no proof in a certificate. You can buy them if you want. (http://www.buyitcert.com/) If you need a certificate for proof, then you're not even trying.
I have either been a part of or have witnessed the outcomes of maybe 100 different training courses (75/25% split respectively). Each time, I find them almost completely worthless. The course material usually has 1 or 2 good things in it that you learn, and the rest is almost just common sense, or you can figure it out in 30 seconds with a google search.
In this day n age, if you can't find an answer that fast through a web search, then the problem you're trying to solve is of a proprietary nature. Most everything I'm working on has a primary goal of removing that proprietary piece out of the equation.
The training courses I find useful, and should be required by all software developers are those which I got "certification" for at a place called the University/College. You know... Algorithms and Data Structures, Operating Systems, Computer Architecture/Networks/Security.
I see no difference between Version control or commenting things out from a regression identification standpoint. The code isn't written correctly to do what you want. Having commented code everywhere just clutters things up and my CDO (it's just like ocd, but in alphabetical order just the way it should be) kicks in.
So yeah, version control. There's a reason for it.
If I can violate your patent simply by writing C code, it should not be patentable.
You're forgetting that all of that software can be simply written in C code. The difference is timing. Knowing today to write code that does ray tracing is quite different than writing that code 30 years ago. All code becomes "obvious" after it has been released and used, it's just before then that it's not obvious.
So no, whether or not you can write code to do the same thing should not be a criteria for whether something is patentable. Either software patents are allowed, or not, no in between.
So maybe around.03 nuclear submarine reactors per 5 cubic meters of protection.
I think the reason why this isn't the best option is because the technology hasn't been tested in space, and its durability is questionable to some extent. People don't like leaving things to chance. I figure you always have a chance to get smacked up on the side by a 16k m/s golf ball sized rock. Sometimes you just have bad luck, but you gotta gamble at some point.
Started submitting random people's handles/email addresses and gotten other innocent people banned in the process? Seems like a great way to show that this kind of punishment can be abused and used to harm others as well...
I can see it now... Blizzard picks up the phone and tries to explain to someone why they were banned. It's because you're on the sex offenders list and we don't want you using our service to solicit underage children. With the response.. Dude, I'm only 12 years old, how can I be on the sex offender's list?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's not like 7% of the electricity produced is lost before it even reaches your home right? :) http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3
Then you know when your charge cord heats up that is electricity lost. The fan kicks on to keep the battery cooler while charging (heat is electricity lost, fan is not used for the purpose of travel)
I wouldn't be surprised if the number comes out to be around 10-15% loss just to get it to the battery.
Then you have the conversion rate of the battery which is probably around 50% of the electricity in making the car move. http://evbatterymonitoring.com/WebHelp/Section_3.htm
I think I saw something that had graphene cables able to conduct electricity with a better loss rate.
http://conversations.nokia.com/2013/02/07/hero-material-10-fascinating-facts-about-graphene/
Then with those super capcitors, I bet they get a better conversion rate.
In the end, that number for conversion will get better by leaps and bounds, as there's lots of room for improvement.
I don't think there's that much room for improvement with gasoline cars.
I think we just need more batteries on the road to help drive that innovation.
Bi-Weekly or monthly doesn't make any difference for being cash strapped. You make the adjustment once (which is the hard part) and afterwards it business as usual. Unless if you're someone who sees money in an account and has to spend it just because it's there. If that's the case, then a money management class or instructor may be the most beneficial thing you could spend some money on!
I think he was poking fun at innovation through naming the curve after himself even though it's just an application of the Laffer curve. See the parallels?
When wars ultimately get to robots fighting each other, the most common sense approach to countering that type of engagement is to attack the people controlling them.
India is heavily dependent on wireless communications as their land-line infrastructure is very poor. So it would make sense to decentralize their command centers and instead rely on ad-hoc wireless networks to distribute instructions. Then people will be targeting enemy combatants that are literally sitting in their living rooms in the midst of civilians. You can't target communications networks as it's wireless with no central point of attack. I think that will lead to a change in warfare where the term civilian is a moot point. It will be basically changed into a if it moves, kill it mentality.
I'm sure people will argue we're already there, but we still have statistics that represent non-enemy combatant deaths. I'm thinking that no one will bat an eye or even raise the question when those statistics are no longer gathered, as you can't even start to figure out what they mean.
Then we'll have our autonomous robot death machines when we don't have enough people to control the first generation robots :)
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas.
Yes, your point being? ....
Back on topic though, you're right that we have to draw the line somewhere; I'd rather draw the line at zero...
That was the point. You wanting to draw the line at 0 is what I had extrapolated from the math argument. It'll work just as well as the law did during the wild west days. Only the people with the biggest wallets will win instead of the people with guns.
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas.
Everything is math, therefore everything must not be patentable.
Your thoughts are nothing more than a complex orchestration of electrochemical stimuli, akin to a computer. Everything from your dreams to the stars can be expressed using math, as it's a form of communication.
To me, the line is drawn wherever it is most convenient and fair. 1 line can be drawn in front of software and say, software can't be patentable... I'd rather use a different line, and raise the bar at what is considered novel or common sense. There's no reason why 50 different variations of a tripod that can spray water should be patentable just because they change the color or the medium they spray. I tripod is common sense, the click of a button is common sense. Using hearing, sight, touch, taste and smell to interact with anything is common sense.
Yep, Eve Online is a great choice for a hardcore WoW player to go to after they burn out. I kinda played Eve back in 2006, but then recently came back to it again. It's the fact that you don't need to grind and can fly a ship as well as the most experienced players in the game (minus skill) in 6 months without logging more than 10 hours of playing time.
You can play it really casually and get just as much enjoyment as you need. I'm down to about 2 hours a session maybe 3 times a month. The equivalent of 3 movies a month.
The only killer of Eve, is that the learning curve is enormous! Just join a teaching corporation, and it makes it a bit easier.
So far I've come into contact with about a dozen people that have "bought" Windows 8. Not a single 1 of them wanted it, but it's forced upon them when buying the computer.
Of the 100 million, I'd like to know the percentage that actually wanted Windows 8. I wouldn't be surprised if that number drops down below 20 million.
Asking where did the money go is like asking why someone has a balance on their credit card. If you have the capability of spending money and you need something, you do it.
Citations needed
I dunno, I found a device that pretty easily/cheaply rips the content from the tv screen.
I just point my phone at the tv and hit record.
In the old days I used a vhs recorder.
The author doesn't seem to be a credible source of information for standards and compliance. Judging form his resume, he seems to just be a web developer by trial through fire. More of a technical writer if anything.
http://www.simonstl.com/resume.htm
You only need 1 chamber, a micro-controller, a 9 volt battery, some wiring, and a couple other odds n ends. Probably take an afternoon to construct.
But... I like your style of thinking! Find the most difficult way to solve a problem! You could probably work with those Rube Goldberg teams in some way, help them find more complicated ways to light a match.
I take it from your statistic about planes crashing that you admit there is a non-zero chance of a device interfering with the plane in some way.
So let's weight the cost/benefits of using those electronics again.
Use them = non-zero chance of death.
Don't use them = nothing
I find it humorous that people argue against the nothing, just so they can get nothing, all for the cost of possible death.
Sounds like a reasonable trade to me...
If that were really the case, then why don't airlines require that the batteries be removed from devices and surrendered to the flight attendant or that the devices be placed into an RF shielded container?
Because they figure you're a grown-up and can follow simple instructions to power them off.
Everything on a plane is heavily regulated with strict testing and installation regulations - if a passenger cell phone could really disrupt the flight, do you really think the FAA would leave it up to the customer to remember to turn it off?
They don't leave it up to you to remember. They actively instruct and watch out for your usage of the devices. More often now they have to watch out for people who blatantly disregard said instructions.
For some reason I think you have the idea that disrupting a flight means someone turning on their phone and causing the plane to go into a death spiral, or somehow become a remote controlled plane. Although pretty nifty sounding, the much more simple interruption of communications with the ground is about as far as I need to go with the discussion.
On any given flight there are likely dozens of phones and other devices that have powered themselves on in carryon or checked bags
Do you have any sources for that statistic? I find that statistic to be highly suspect. I'd wager more people try to hide their interactions with their powered on devices than devices turning themselves on through bumping into other objects while stowed away.
- my phone doesn't have a removable battery and has an easily pressed power button, so most of the time I find that it's powered itself on at some point during the flight.
Which phone do you have? And if you are checking it's power state during a flight often enough to see that it has turned itself on, where are you storing it?
Regardless of that, it's about minimizing risk. Turning off electronics are a low hanging fruit for the whole whopping 15 minutes that anyone cares.
And regardless of that, unless the pilots and tower peeps come out and say, go ahead, we're all good and trust our equipment to handle whatever piece of Chinese knockoff crap you bought on the street (I'm sure they care about FCC regulations) can throw at us... then I don't see why anyone's position on removing the ban matters.
-I deal with computers... software... various things built by "professionals". No matter where you go, how highly regulated things are, you WILL have absolutely brain-dead, how did you ever get a job here, kind of people working on those projects. So having complete faith that anything works perfectly and can handle all forms of unintended interference is quite laughable. Until we have AI, and the planes are designed/built by robots, we won't come near being able to assert that, and even then we might still have a hard time.
Freedom is a lovely word thrown around, but if everyone had that kind of freedom (to do whatever they want, whenever) then we'd still be in the stone age as we're clubbing people upside the head to satisfy our freedoms.
Let's phrase this in a more dramatic fashion. Let's calculate the chance of one of these devices interfering with the operations of a plane in such a fashion to cause a significant life impacting event on a plane.
Now, let's construct a gun that is loaded with a bullet and when you pull the trigger has the same odds of causing a significant life impacting event. Let's aim it at your head.
Go ahead, pull the trigger. If you lose, your head is blown off. If you win, nothing. Absolutely nothing of any significance changes in your life.
Regardless of how infinitesimally small the chances are of the gun going off, is it worth it?
Now, do you want to argue that you lose 15 minutes of your life sitting on your thumbs? How about that time when you were waiting in McDonald's behind an old guy who didn't know what he wanted? How about the 2 hours you waited in line to renew your driving license? The time you spend sleeping? The time you spent reading this post! I just wasted precious seconds of your time with just this paragraph! You wasted more time boarding the plane than the time you lost while waiting for it to get off the ground. Let's stop the ban on the bum-rush we so desperately want to board the plane as fast as we want! You're infringing my freedoms of boarding! Why should I have to wait for the people that need assistance to board first?
Prove that they don't cause a problem. Start by following the link I posted.
Oh, you can't? You know where to shove your reply then.
Really? Why are we arguing over something so trivial as turning off a device for 15 minutes until you're in the air? We need instant gratification 100% of the time? Deal with it.
I'd rather not even chance my safety over something as stupid as a cellphone or e-reader.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/may/22/thisweekssciencequestions
It's not about devices that are broadcasting under normal conditions, or intended conditions. It's about malfunctioning devices. The last thing we need on the news is a blackbox recording of the pilots trying to communicate with the tower about a situation in which another plane is approaching and to take immediate actions to avoid a collision only to be drowned out by static, squeals, or Samuel L Jackson giving his speech about Ezekiel 21 and a slew of gunshots.
I honestly don't give a rip about you trying to get a last "OMG! takeoffz!" text in.
Everyone who clicked on this link needs to now attend a phishing training class, you have all been suckered into clicking on this blatant advertisement!
There's no proof in a certificate. You can buy them if you want. (http://www.buyitcert.com/)
If you need a certificate for proof, then you're not even trying.
I have either been a part of or have witnessed the outcomes of maybe 100 different training courses (75/25% split respectively). Each time, I find them almost completely worthless. The course material usually has 1 or 2 good things in it that you learn, and the rest is almost just common sense, or you can figure it out in 30 seconds with a google search.
In this day n age, if you can't find an answer that fast through a web search, then the problem you're trying to solve is of a proprietary nature. Most everything I'm working on has a primary goal of removing that proprietary piece out of the equation.
The training courses I find useful, and should be required by all software developers are those which I got "certification" for at a place called the University/College.
You know... Algorithms and Data Structures, Operating Systems, Computer Architecture/Networks/Security.
Git help branch
I see no difference between Version control or commenting things out from a regression identification standpoint. The code isn't written correctly to do what you want.
Having commented code everywhere just clutters things up and my CDO (it's just like ocd, but in alphabetical order just the way it should be) kicks in.
So yeah, version control. There's a reason for it.
If I can violate your patent simply by writing C code, it should not be patentable.
You're forgetting that all of that software can be simply written in C code. The difference is timing. Knowing today to write code that does ray tracing is quite different than writing that code 30 years ago. All code becomes "obvious" after it has been released and used, it's just before then that it's not obvious.
So no, whether or not you can write code to do the same thing should not be a criteria for whether something is patentable. Either software patents are allowed, or not, no in between.
Yep
6 kw requirement
http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/MagShield.html
200 mw from a nuclear powered submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion
So maybe around .03 nuclear submarine reactors per 5 cubic meters of protection.
I think the reason why this isn't the best option is because the technology hasn't been tested in space, and its durability is questionable to some extent. People don't like leaving things to chance. I figure you always have a chance to get smacked up on the side by a 16k m/s golf ball sized rock. Sometimes you just have bad luck, but you gotta gamble at some point.
Started submitting random people's handles/email addresses and gotten other innocent people banned in the process? Seems like a great way to show that this kind of punishment can be abused and used to harm others as well...
I can see it now... Blizzard picks up the phone and tries to explain to someone why they were banned. It's because you're on the sex offenders list and we don't want you using our service to solicit underage children. With the response.. Dude, I'm only 12 years old, how can I be on the sex offender's list?