I've been home-working for 2 years now, and for most of the last year have been living somewhere far more interesting than my normal home (and about 5000 miles away). It's not often you get the opportunity to do this, so if living in another part of the world is something you've always wanted to do, why not combine the two?
What happens here if you get into a paper, scissors, rock situation? This is perfectly possible, yet the algorithm for determining a winner doesn't seem to allow for this possibility. Presumably you just end up in an infinite loop, while the participants end up getting progressively sucked dry with every round.
Having said that, this would really mean they are all losers as their immune system failed to anticipate this threat and failed to save the participant as a result.
Actually photosynthesis tops out at 25% efficiency.
11% using the sun's spectrum.
It all depends on where you want to measure the efficiency.
Can you provide a link for that 25% figure? If my 1% figure is too simplistic or just plain wrong I'd like to know about it - it was years ago I read it.
One thing that is worth remembering is that plants have an energy conversion efficiency of about 1%, if I remember correctly. So although 12% may seem low it is still a lot better than nature achieves. This is worth bearing in mind when you see fields of oil seed rape or other energy crops being grown - it would be far more efficient to cover the land area with photovoltaics. You could even grow sheep in the gaps between the panels.
For the slow readers among us.....I think you can summarise it as "Whatever the mainstream press tells you is the solution is probably totally unrealistic, and most likely based on some vested interests".
But seriously, this is an excellent read. Full of technical facts and details about a whole range of things that consume energy, with order-of-magnitude calculations about how much each could be improved through technological progress.
In Latin America I have often heard the box you plug the mouse, keyboard and monitor into referred to as the "CPU".
Now having a hard drive inside your CPU, that would be cool:-)
Having had a similar experience I'm very tempted to report the suppliers of these products to Trading Standards (UK) as it is a clear case of mis-representing the product being sold. It's perfectly possibly to make an accurate comparison by using lumens, I can think of only one reason why suppliers don't do this - because they wish to misrepresent the product. Having said that, some suppliers do quote lumens in some cases, but it needs to be consistent.
It's worse than that - they want you to think that all filesharing of music/video is illegal, which isn't true either. The trouble is, the music and video content that doesn't come from them and is perfectly legal to share is in fact produced by their competitors. So in stopping you sharing 'their' content, they also have an incentive to stop you sharing anybody else's content. Sharing of linux distros or software is really an irrelevance here, what they're really doing is trying to stop Joe Public's mindshare from drifting away from them and their offerings.
Slashdot Mirror
I never knew the original Titanic didn't have internet access. I thought it was supposed to be a luxury ship!
I've been home-working for 2 years now, and for most of the last year have been living somewhere far more interesting than my normal home (and about 5000 miles away). It's not often you get the opportunity to do this, so if living in another part of the world is something you've always wanted to do, why not combine the two?
What happens here if you get into a paper, scissors, rock situation? This is perfectly possible, yet the algorithm for determining a winner doesn't seem to allow for this possibility. Presumably you just end up in an infinite loop, while the participants end up getting progressively sucked dry with every round. Having said that, this would really mean they are all losers as their immune system failed to anticipate this threat and failed to save the participant as a result.
the 'cheaper' part will magically disappear through the use of patent fee's.
I find it usually disappears as a result of the misuse of apostrophe's.
Actually photosynthesis tops out at 25% efficiency. 11% using the sun's spectrum.
It all depends on where you want to measure the efficiency.
Can you provide a link for that 25% figure? If my 1% figure is too simplistic or just plain wrong I'd like to know about it - it was years ago I read it.
One thing that is worth remembering is that plants have an energy conversion efficiency of about 1%, if I remember correctly. So although 12% may seem low it is still a lot better than nature achieves. This is worth bearing in mind when you see fields of oil seed rape or other energy crops being grown - it would be far more efficient to cover the land area with photovoltaics. You could even grow sheep in the gaps between the panels.
What would you have whined about had you lived two centuries ago before English had standardised spelling?
There, fixed that for you.
The idiots won't be reclining into your knees on Ryanair - the seats are non-reclinable, as a cost cutting measure.
I'd always wondered where the term "bald as a coot" came from.
I never deal in perventages, it just seems...well, a bit percerted.
No, they're wearing their tin-foil jumpsuit instead.
All 383 pages of it?
For the slow readers among us.....I think you can summarise it as "Whatever the mainstream press tells you is the solution is probably totally unrealistic, and most likely based on some vested interests". But seriously, this is an excellent read. Full of technical facts and details about a whole range of things that consume energy, with order-of-magnitude calculations about how much each could be improved through technological progress.
(with credit to Calvin and Hobbes).
So they should tell you to shut your eyes before the nuclear bomb goes off, I presume.
There's a Geneva Convention specifically designed to cause blindness? Whatever will the Swiss think of next?
In Latin America I have often heard the box you plug the mouse, keyboard and monitor into referred to as the "CPU". Now having a hard drive inside your CPU, that would be cool :-)
Or maybe just ensure they don't carry CD cases on top of their head...
.....and your data source for this claim is where exactly???
Having had a similar experience I'm very tempted to report the suppliers of these products to Trading Standards (UK) as it is a clear case of mis-representing the product being sold. It's perfectly possibly to make an accurate comparison by using lumens, I can think of only one reason why suppliers don't do this - because they wish to misrepresent the product. Having said that, some suppliers do quote lumens in some cases, but it needs to be consistent.
You're not supposed to RTFA, idiot!
It's worse than that - they want you to think that all filesharing of music/video is illegal, which isn't true either. The trouble is, the music and video content that doesn't come from them and is perfectly legal to share is in fact produced by their competitors. So in stopping you sharing 'their' content, they also have an incentive to stop you sharing anybody else's content. Sharing of linux distros or software is really an irrelevance here, what they're really doing is trying to stop Joe Public's mindshare from drifting away from them and their offerings.
If you look like a creepy psychopath when you're not smiling, it'll work just fine.
So the UK passports are using unhappy chips, which are unable to store the digital fingerprint of a face that is smiling?
Just remember to keep your cheesy grin all the time you're at the airport, and you'll be perfectly OK.
Yes they do- they're known as Vista users.