But, if you are going to haul an extra 75lbs of generator and fuel just for the times you might need to charge up, you are going to waste battery power carrying the extra weight.
Most hybrids carry far more, for far less benefit.
Besides, a 50HP gas generator will more than likely be enough to power the electric motor continuously
I have no interest in a 50 HP car, nor do most US buyers. Not useful.
The point is: the generator is there to remove range anxiety. It might run while you cruise on the highway, and maybe you'll break even, but worst case you have to park for a bit while it catches up. But for the short daily commute you have a pure electric car will all the benefits thereof, and you don't have some super-complex trick transmission to break on you. The Tesla drive train e.g. is incredibly simple, and once mature should be incredibly reliable, plus the weight can sit very low for great handling (75 pounds up high won't mess that up).
HP for electrics and gas are totally different. It's not about HP, its about torque. An electric motor has 100% torque the moment it starts spinning. It doesn't need the extra HP that an ICE (internal combustion engine) requires to get the car moving and accelerating. The HP of the generator is simply used to produce the electricity needed to power the vehicle's electric motor, not to turn the wheels directly. The electric motor doesn't care if the power comes from a battery or a generator, it just turns. For comparison, it would take about an 80HP generator to make an electric motor in a Mustang perform like it's 400HP ICE equivalent.
If you use a high enough f-stop, then more of your image is in focus at any given focused point. You could have a movie camera with multiple sensors set at overlapping focal points to have a seamless all in focus shot. You could then use software to imitate the out of focus portions. But, why? A good director already knows the shot they want and what should and should not be in focus. Using such a system would be akin to a singer using a voice box to make them sound in key. With so many crappy movies (and songs) these days, do we really need to make it easier to produce more crap?
Since the short excerpt doesn't mention this I thought to mention: their forums say Illum produces a 4 megapixel image once it's exported in a regular 2D format.
That makes sense because I would assume it is actually taking a bunch of images at various focal lengths and superimposing them, but once you decide what you want, it has to write out a legitimate file. Lenses are lenses and once the light rays hit the film or sensor, other than trying to sharpen an image through extrapolation, it's too late to change focus. Physics simply doesn't allow an out of focus image to somehow become focused.
Since the short excerpt doesn't mention this I thought to mention: their forums say Illum produces a 4 megapixel image once it's exported in a regular 2D format.
That makes sense because I would assume it is actually taking a bunch of images at various focal lengths and superimposing them, but once you decide what you want, it has to write out a legitimate file. Lenses are lenses and once the light rays hit the film or sensor, other than trying to sharpen an image through extrapolation, it's too late to change focus. Physics simply doesn't allow an out of focus image to somehow become focused.
I just got the Gen 1 version of the camera. I like the small package size and the small price. You can use it to just take regular pictures, but you can have a lot of fun composing creative photos that takes advantage of the refocus capability to tell a story in the photo using the foreground and and the background as distinct photo elements. For example, a foreground subject tells one story, but refocus on the background element and the meaning of the story suddenly changes in a surprising way. Fun.
Can't you do this with a regular DSLR and software? Your whole image is focused and then with software blur the parts you don't want to have attention? How is that different than using a special camera and using software to change the focus.
The second comment is about the generator. From the sound of it you want that so you can recharge the battery. However, a small portable generator can run all day on a couple of gallons of fuel. Why not skip the batteries all together and have the output power the electric motor.
It's done with trains today -diesel electrics don't have significant battery capacity(they're starter batteries like in normal cars, just scaled up for the needs of the diesel engines). The problem is that the narrower the range you need on your engine, the more efficiently you can design it. That includes both rotation rate AND power.
Power demand for a car is too variable to be able to really miniaturize the engine much. That's why hybrids save gas - they use the relatively enormous power delivery* batteries are capable to smooth the peaks, enabling the engine to run in it's ideal zone more, saving gas, then regenerative braking saves even more energy by storing stopping power back in the batteries.
When you start shifting to strong EV type operations, you shrink the engine even more into a 'range extender' where you don't need it to provide much power at all, it's just there to convert the extremely good energy storage system gasoline/diesel represents into kwh as efficiently as powerful, even if it's only 40kw** or so. As mentioned, if the batteries are too low, the thing can keep chugging away even while the car is parked. Think about camping - Not only does it top off the batteries overnight, it could also provide enough power to run some electric stuff like lighting or even a TV.
Though I question whether such a system(gas tank, fuel mass, engine weight/space) would actually be lighter than 'more batteries' at this point, as Tesla demonstrates.
Hell, I've seen proposals for small generator-trailers that provide electricity while on the move along with more cargo space for those long trips.
*For a short period of time, at least **This is more than enough power to travel at highway speeds for most vehicles.
I had a friend who removed the fuel tank from an old VW super beetle and stuck a small honda generator in the trunk (front of car) to power an electric motor instead of using batteries. That was a few years and he was getting around 85 miles on a 2 gal tank. Granted, a VW is light (although not very aerodynamic), but this was an off the shelf generator, not one tweaked for efficiency.
While I agree that power demands for a vehicle are different than a locomotive, its not to hard to conceive either a smart system to vary the power production or simply tune it to the most efficient spot and waste the excess energy. I think what keeps this idea from moving forward is that one is still burning fossil fuel (as if somehow generating the electricity to charge the batteries doesn't).
not skip the batteries all together and have the output power the electric motor
I want to normally charge from the wall. But more importantly, I don't want to haul around a gas engine that powerful. A 400 HP electric motor coupled with a 50 HP gas generator would be just fine. It doesn't have to recharge in real time, and it doesn't need to weigh 500 pounds.
But, if you are going to haul an extra 75lbs of generator and fuel just for the times you might need to charge up, you are going to waste battery power carrying the extra weight. Besides, a 50HP gas generator will more than likely be enough to power the electric motor continuously, at least for a large compact or small mid size vehicle. Unlike a conventional vehicle an all electric doesn't need all that horsepower simply to get moving (internal combustion vehicles use most of their horsepower accelerating from 0 to 45 mph range and very little for cruising above that)
As for the commercials, isn't the cable company just transmitting what the channel is sending?
Yes, but the commercials you see are a combination of the national commercials and commercials that are overlaid by your cable provider.
Yes and no. The cable provider isn't gapping the show to add commercials. The slots are already there. If there aren't local commercials, primarily for local businesses to advertise on national shows, then another national commercial will be displayed. Basically, network determines there are X minutes of commercials in a show and they are allocated between national and local markets.
I think that's exactly right. The "range" on electric cars is best case (no radio, no climate control, being that dick who won't accelerate on the on-ramp, etc). "Half" is probably a good engineering fudge factor, and a 40 mile practical range doesn't cut it.
I'm pining for a serial plug-in hybrid. Give me an electric car with a pure-electric drive drain, Tesla-style, but stick a super-efficient 50 HP generator under the hood, and give it a small gas tank. Now I'm quite happy with a 40 or even 30 mile practical range. Most days that's good, and the generator can run in the parking lot when it's not.
(You can make amazingly efficient turbine engines if you don't care about weight. Forget the terrible helicopter engines, think industrial power generation: multiple heat exchangers, possibly multiple expansion stages, cool, low-pressure exhaust with no waste. Scaled down to 50 HP I expect it would fit nicely in a car. And if it lets you save 80% of the battery weight it can be a good trade.)
2 comments. First, your point about range is spot on. Just like the hybrids all promised a high mpg, around 50mpg, what most drivers experienced was quite a bit less. It all depended on driving conditions and the like. The same is true for all electrics.
The second comment is about the generator. From the sound of it you want that so you can recharge the battery. However, a small portable generator can run all day on a couple of gallons of fuel. Why not skip the batteries all together and have the output power the electric motor. You could have the generator configured for it's maximum efficiency and you simply allow the needed current to the motor. This is how diesel locomotives run. This also eliminates some complicated gear arrangement, like the Volt where it can be battery powered or mechanically powered). It isn't a zero carbon footprint, but would equate to around 200mpg on the highway or 160mpg for city driving (assuming 2 gallons of fuel providing 8 hours of power).
Where X miles is some unit that has no relationship to the actual amount of driving you do.
Sure, if you're an Australian Cattle Rancher crossing the route from Perth to Adelaide, maybe you care about having range.
Grandma who never drives outside of town? What is she worrying about?
Miles per charge is a real concern. If you commute 30 miles each way (60 miles round trip) an 84 mpc (mile per charge) range means you don't get to go much anywhere else that day, at least not if you want a margin for error.
Well, when MS was presented with a closed, proprietary format, their solution was to reverse engineer it and admitting what a burden that was and how it hindered interoperability. Maybe they should re-evaluate their position on the Microsoft Office formats.
That only explains why cable costs more. It doesn't explain why cable costs more and yet still has as much ads as content.
Also, for most people, the ISP bill is a sunk cost. They would still pay it even if Netflix didn't exist, and therefore it should not be included in the total cost of Netflix (again, for most people, there will be exceptions).
It doesn't matter if the ISP is a sunk cost or not, it is still a cost of receiving netflix. As for the commercials, isn't the cable company just transmitting what the channel is sending? As such, the fault should be for the networks, not the cable company. OTOH, they might as well broadcast 60 minutes an hour of commercials if all they offer are those crappy reality shows.
What netflix and hula plus and some others are doing is providing an on-demand content service. That's something that people have been trying to get cable companies to do for decades. The technology has been there for years, they just kept the old business model and now others have stepped up to fill the void. If I were a network, I'd take it to the next level and go direct to subscribers via the internet. There's probably no more than 10 channels I regularly watch, even though my cable overs ten times that many. I'd gladly pay a a few dollars a month to each of them (even with commercials) for the privileged of watching their content.
The really curious part is the fact that Netflix is so much cheaper than cable *in spite of not having commercials*. The fact that you pay for cable TV only to be bombarded with commercials is a slap in the face that most people are too willing to accept.
Netflix doesn't have infrastructure costs like cable or satellite. However, you do need to have internet access to get netflix, so the true cost isn't the $7.99 bot $7.99 plus the cost of your internet service. Most likely, it is still cheaper than cable, but again, there is the infrastructure cost.
Although the article seems to have mixed up morals and ethics (internal vs external code), ultimately it should be the company's management that determines the answers to these questions, not the individual programmer. One way or another, the questions and others like them need to be answered. If management abdicates that responsibility, the lawyers will end up making the decisions. So the real questions is "Who do you want to decide these issues, the company or the courts?"
Because of metal shielding and short wires, basic electronics 101 stuff here.
The EMP power required to take out a modern car's Ignition system and ECM would be so high that you would DIE from the radiation. Cars also are the single most noisy power environment so the ECM is already hardened from the 2000 mini EMPs per minute that are being created under the hood of the car as it drives down the road.
I have directly experienced an EMP that is 90,000 times greater than anything the SUN can create, it's called a direct lightning strike. several electronic systems were blown out like TV sets that were connected to an ANTENNA. but the car in the garage that was the closest to the EMP was just fine. Same with the motorcycle and the other car in the driveway. How close was the EMP? 8 feet from the garage, it split the tree in 1/2 and burned a track down the center of it.
But that is first hand experience, if you have any kind of electronics education you will also know that even a Nuclear bomb generated EMP will only affect systems that are interconnected by miles of wire. so yes, all the power grids will go down as well as all the telecommunications systems that are still wire based. There is a lot of bullshit floating around the internet about the EMP and how it is a super uber technology killer. it's not. and even if there was a chance of a really big one, it's trivial to protect equipment from them.
I don't think that is correct. I have seen first hand where a police cruiser sent an electric charge to an automobile and it shut down the auto. My understanding was that it travels the wires and fries the on board computer. Quebec got hit with an EMP from a solar flare a few years ago and it definitely played havoc with the power grid much more than a lightning strike and it was a pretty small one, if I recall.
High. You can't compare the virus in 2001 with the vulnerability today. First, most sites were patched immediately. So it is likely existing staff that was paid their regular wages did the work. But accountants have a funny way of assigning costs. Even if no extra pay or workers were required, if it took 4 hours to fix it, they will assign 4 hours of labor plus overhead to it. So, while it is possible that the number, based on assigning costs could reach 500M, it would also mean that all the affected companies saved $500M on their other projects, so it was a wash. Now granted, some firms may have had to hire consultants and additional help, but that would mean that it won't be a complete wash. Overall, though, it is hard to see a large financial impact on any of this, unless, there was gross mismanagement of IT resources.
Why would the computer circuits in trucks be exempted from an EMP? As for only having a problem for a month, you've obviously never had to deal with a natural disaster.
I like the statement that, in the worst case scenario, 500,000 people would die in the first half hour.
That amazes me. I would think that even in 2014, it would take a couple of hours before people went into a terminal heart rhythm because they couldn't log on to Facebook. Maybe I'm just old and slow...
From the actual report being reported on, almost all commercial airlines are computer controlled an an EMP would kill those computers and the flight controls. Anybody in the air wouldn't be for long.
Mod this AC up. WTF/.?????? Some article about devastating effects of EMP and an easy preventative measure (that I wanted to read about). But the links are to foxnews.com and watchdog.org!!!! There is no content!
Would people stop using/. and start using soylentnews.org, please!?!? I can't take this anymore!
The watchdog.org site has links to the actual paper referenced (the link in the text called estimated).
but the SSD will wipe the floor with the HDD. That's why you install one smallish SSD for OS and APPS, and a big HDD for data and such
That is all true, but that is not what the original poster stated. His premise was that SSDs are faster (which they are) and no more per MB than an HDD (which they aren't).
A 480GB Crucial M500 is slightly cheaper per GB than a 4TB spinning drive right now. I think the 960GB SSD is as well.
That comparison is meaningless because a 4TB is at a premium price. If you think you need 500GB, use should compare a 500GB HDD with an SSD (480GB being close enough). I can get a 500GB 7200RPM SATA drive for about $50. A Crucial M500 is about $120. The SSD is 140% more costly or 2.4 times the price per GB.
Slashdot Mirror
But, if you are going to haul an extra 75lbs of generator and fuel just for the times you might need to charge up, you are going to waste battery power carrying the extra weight.
Most hybrids carry far more, for far less benefit.
Besides, a 50HP gas generator will more than likely be enough to power the electric motor continuously
I have no interest in a 50 HP car, nor do most US buyers. Not useful.
The point is: the generator is there to remove range anxiety. It might run while you cruise on the highway, and maybe you'll break even, but worst case you have to park for a bit while it catches up. But for the short daily commute you have a pure electric car will all the benefits thereof, and you don't have some super-complex trick transmission to break on you. The Tesla drive train e.g. is incredibly simple, and once mature should be incredibly reliable, plus the weight can sit very low for great handling (75 pounds up high won't mess that up).
HP for electrics and gas are totally different. It's not about HP, its about torque. An electric motor has 100% torque the moment it starts spinning. It doesn't need the extra HP that an ICE (internal combustion engine) requires to get the car moving and accelerating. The HP of the generator is simply used to produce the electricity needed to power the vehicle's electric motor, not to turn the wheels directly. The electric motor doesn't care if the power comes from a battery or a generator, it just turns. For comparison, it would take about an 80HP generator to make an electric motor in a Mustang perform like it's 400HP ICE equivalent.
If you use a high enough f-stop, then more of your image is in focus at any given focused point. You could have a movie camera with multiple sensors set at overlapping focal points to have a seamless all in focus shot. You could then use software to imitate the out of focus portions. But, why? A good director already knows the shot they want and what should and should not be in focus. Using such a system would be akin to a singer using a voice box to make them sound in key. With so many crappy movies (and songs) these days, do we really need to make it easier to produce more crap?
Since the short excerpt doesn't mention this I thought to mention: their forums say Illum produces a 4 megapixel image once it's exported in a regular 2D format.
That makes sense because I would assume it is actually taking a bunch of images at various focal lengths and superimposing them, but once you decide what you want, it has to write out a legitimate file. Lenses are lenses and once the light rays hit the film or sensor, other than trying to sharpen an image through extrapolation, it's too late to change focus. Physics simply doesn't allow an out of focus image to somehow become focused.
Since the short excerpt doesn't mention this I thought to mention: their forums say Illum produces a 4 megapixel image once it's exported in a regular 2D format.
That makes sense because I would assume it is actually taking a bunch of images at various focal lengths and superimposing them, but once you decide what you want, it has to write out a legitimate file. Lenses are lenses and once the light rays hit the film or sensor, other than trying to sharpen an image through extrapolation, it's too late to change focus. Physics simply doesn't allow an out of focus image to somehow become focused.
I just got the Gen 1 version of the camera. I like the small package size and the small price. You can use it to just take regular pictures, but you can have a lot of fun composing creative photos that takes advantage of the refocus capability to tell a story in the photo using the foreground and and the background as distinct photo elements. For example, a foreground subject tells one story, but refocus on the background element and the meaning of the story suddenly changes in a surprising way. Fun.
Can't you do this with a regular DSLR and software? Your whole image is focused and then with software blur the parts you don't want to have attention? How is that different than using a special camera and using software to change the focus.
The second comment is about the generator. From the sound of it you want that so you can recharge the battery. However, a small portable generator can run all day on a couple of gallons of fuel. Why not skip the batteries all together and have the output power the electric motor.
It's done with trains today -diesel electrics don't have significant battery capacity(they're starter batteries like in normal cars, just scaled up for the needs of the diesel engines). The problem is that the narrower the range you need on your engine, the more efficiently you can design it. That includes both rotation rate AND power.
Power demand for a car is too variable to be able to really miniaturize the engine much. That's why hybrids save gas - they use the relatively enormous power delivery* batteries are capable to smooth the peaks, enabling the engine to run in it's ideal zone more, saving gas, then regenerative braking saves even more energy by storing stopping power back in the batteries.
When you start shifting to strong EV type operations, you shrink the engine even more into a 'range extender' where you don't need it to provide much power at all, it's just there to convert the extremely good energy storage system gasoline/diesel represents into kwh as efficiently as powerful, even if it's only 40kw** or so. As mentioned, if the batteries are too low, the thing can keep chugging away even while the car is parked. Think about camping - Not only does it top off the batteries overnight, it could also provide enough power to run some electric stuff like lighting or even a TV.
Though I question whether such a system(gas tank, fuel mass, engine weight/space) would actually be lighter than 'more batteries' at this point, as Tesla demonstrates.
Hell, I've seen proposals for small generator-trailers that provide electricity while on the move along with more cargo space for those long trips.
*For a short period of time, at least
**This is more than enough power to travel at highway speeds for most vehicles.
I had a friend who removed the fuel tank from an old VW super beetle and stuck a small honda generator in the trunk (front of car) to power an electric motor instead of using batteries. That was a few years and he was getting around 85 miles on a 2 gal tank. Granted, a VW is light (although not very aerodynamic), but this was an off the shelf generator, not one tweaked for efficiency.
While I agree that power demands for a vehicle are different than a locomotive, its not to hard to conceive either a smart system to vary the power production or simply tune it to the most efficient spot and waste the excess energy. I think what keeps this idea from moving forward is that one is still burning fossil fuel (as if somehow generating the electricity to charge the batteries doesn't).
not skip the batteries all together and have the output power the electric motor
I want to normally charge from the wall. But more importantly, I don't want to haul around a gas engine that powerful. A 400 HP electric motor coupled with a 50 HP gas generator would be just fine. It doesn't have to recharge in real time, and it doesn't need to weigh 500 pounds.
But, if you are going to haul an extra 75lbs of generator and fuel just for the times you might need to charge up, you are going to waste battery power carrying the extra weight. Besides, a 50HP gas generator will more than likely be enough to power the electric motor continuously, at least for a large compact or small mid size vehicle. Unlike a conventional vehicle an all electric doesn't need all that horsepower simply to get moving (internal combustion vehicles use most of their horsepower accelerating from 0 to 45 mph range and very little for cruising above that)
Maybe they should re-evaluate their position on the Microsoft Office formats.
But, but... the Microsoft Office formats are open and documented!
Hey, do you still want that bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale?
As for the commercials, isn't the cable company just transmitting what the channel is sending?
Yes, but the commercials you see are a combination of the national commercials and commercials that are overlaid by your cable provider.
Yes and no. The cable provider isn't gapping the show to add commercials. The slots are already there. If there aren't local commercials, primarily for local businesses to advertise on national shows, then another national commercial will be displayed. Basically, network determines there are X minutes of commercials in a show and they are allocated between national and local markets.
I think that's exactly right. The "range" on electric cars is best case (no radio, no climate control, being that dick who won't accelerate on the on-ramp, etc). "Half" is probably a good engineering fudge factor, and a 40 mile practical range doesn't cut it.
I'm pining for a serial plug-in hybrid. Give me an electric car with a pure-electric drive drain, Tesla-style, but stick a super-efficient 50 HP generator under the hood, and give it a small gas tank. Now I'm quite happy with a 40 or even 30 mile practical range. Most days that's good, and the generator can run in the parking lot when it's not.
(You can make amazingly efficient turbine engines if you don't care about weight. Forget the terrible helicopter engines, think industrial power generation: multiple heat exchangers, possibly multiple expansion stages, cool, low-pressure exhaust with no waste. Scaled down to 50 HP I expect it would fit nicely in a car. And if it lets you save 80% of the battery weight it can be a good trade.)
2 comments. First, your point about range is spot on. Just like the hybrids all promised a high mpg, around 50mpg, what most drivers experienced was quite a bit less. It all depended on driving conditions and the like. The same is true for all electrics.
The second comment is about the generator. From the sound of it you want that so you can recharge the battery. However, a small portable generator can run all day on a couple of gallons of fuel. Why not skip the batteries all together and have the output power the electric motor. You could have the generator configured for it's maximum efficiency and you simply allow the needed current to the motor. This is how diesel locomotives run. This also eliminates some complicated gear arrangement, like the Volt where it can be battery powered or mechanically powered). It isn't a zero carbon footprint, but would equate to around 200mpg on the highway or 160mpg for city driving (assuming 2 gallons of fuel providing 8 hours of power).
Where X miles is some unit that has no relationship to the actual amount of driving you do.
Sure, if you're an Australian Cattle Rancher crossing the route from Perth to Adelaide, maybe you care about having range.
Grandma who never drives outside of town? What is she worrying about?
Miles per charge is a real concern. If you commute 30 miles each way (60 miles round trip) an 84 mpc (mile per charge) range means you don't get to go much anywhere else that day, at least not if you want a margin for error.
Well, when MS was presented with a closed, proprietary format, their solution was to reverse engineer it and admitting what a burden that was and how it hindered interoperability. Maybe they should re-evaluate their position on the Microsoft Office formats.
That only explains why cable costs more. It doesn't explain why cable costs more and yet still has as much ads as content.
Also, for most people, the ISP bill is a sunk cost. They would still pay it even if Netflix didn't exist, and therefore it should not be included in the total cost of Netflix (again, for most people, there will be exceptions).
It doesn't matter if the ISP is a sunk cost or not, it is still a cost of receiving netflix. As for the commercials, isn't the cable company just transmitting what the channel is sending? As such, the fault should be for the networks, not the cable company. OTOH, they might as well broadcast 60 minutes an hour of commercials if all they offer are those crappy reality shows.
What netflix and hula plus and some others are doing is providing an on-demand content service. That's something that people have been trying to get cable companies to do for decades. The technology has been there for years, they just kept the old business model and now others have stepped up to fill the void. If I were a network, I'd take it to the next level and go direct to subscribers via the internet. There's probably no more than 10 channels I regularly watch, even though my cable overs ten times that many. I'd gladly pay a a few dollars a month to each of them (even with commercials) for the privileged of watching their content.
The really curious part is the fact that Netflix is so much cheaper than cable *in spite of not having commercials*. The fact that you pay for cable TV only to be bombarded with commercials is a slap in the face that most people are too willing to accept.
Netflix doesn't have infrastructure costs like cable or satellite. However, you do need to have internet access to get netflix, so the true cost isn't the $7.99 bot $7.99 plus the cost of your internet service. Most likely, it is still cheaper than cable, but again, there is the infrastructure cost.
Although the article seems to have mixed up morals and ethics (internal vs external code), ultimately it should be the company's management that determines the answers to these questions, not the individual programmer. One way or another, the questions and others like them need to be answered. If management abdicates that responsibility, the lawyers will end up making the decisions. So the real questions is "Who do you want to decide these issues, the company or the courts?"
I don't know how or where this "grow or die" idea began, but it's just plain wrong. You can't have infinite growth within a finite market.
I believe the answer you are looking for is greed.
I always wonder why metal shielding stops working when people start talking about EMP.
It's like they turn off their brain.
Because there are metal encased components and there are metal shielded components, the two are not the same.
Because of metal shielding and short wires, basic electronics 101 stuff here.
The EMP power required to take out a modern car's Ignition system and ECM would be so high that you would DIE from the radiation. Cars also are the single most noisy power environment so the ECM is already hardened from the 2000 mini EMPs per minute that are being created under the hood of the car as it drives down the road.
I have directly experienced an EMP that is 90,000 times greater than anything the SUN can create, it's called a direct lightning strike. several electronic systems were blown out like TV sets that were connected to an ANTENNA. but the car in the garage that was the closest to the EMP was just fine. Same with the motorcycle and the other car in the driveway. How close was the EMP? 8 feet from the garage, it split the tree in 1/2 and burned a track down the center of it.
But that is first hand experience, if you have any kind of electronics education you will also know that even a Nuclear bomb generated EMP will only affect systems that are interconnected by miles of wire. so yes, all the power grids will go down as well as all the telecommunications systems that are still wire based. There is a lot of bullshit floating around the internet about the EMP and how it is a super uber technology killer. it's not. and even if there was a chance of a really big one, it's trivial to protect equipment from them.
I don't think that is correct. I have seen first hand where a police cruiser sent an electric charge to an automobile and it shut down the auto. My understanding was that it travels the wires and fries the on board computer. Quebec got hit with an EMP from a solar flare a few years ago and it definitely played havoc with the power grid much more than a lightning strike and it was a pretty small one, if I recall.
High. You can't compare the virus in 2001 with the vulnerability today. First, most sites were patched immediately. So it is likely existing staff that was paid their regular wages did the work. But accountants have a funny way of assigning costs. Even if no extra pay or workers were required, if it took 4 hours to fix it, they will assign 4 hours of labor plus overhead to it. So, while it is possible that the number, based on assigning costs could reach 500M, it would also mean that all the affected companies saved $500M on their other projects, so it was a wash. Now granted, some firms may have had to hire consultants and additional help, but that would mean that it won't be a complete wash. Overall, though, it is hard to see a large financial impact on any of this, unless, there was gross mismanagement of IT resources.
Why would the computer circuits in trucks be exempted from an EMP? As for only having a problem for a month, you've obviously never had to deal with a natural disaster.
I like the statement that, in the worst case scenario, 500,000 people would die in the first half hour.
That amazes me. I would think that even in 2014, it would take a couple of hours before people went into a terminal heart rhythm because they couldn't log on to Facebook. Maybe I'm just old and slow...
From the actual report being reported on, almost all commercial airlines are computer controlled an an EMP would kill those computers and the flight controls. Anybody in the air wouldn't be for long.
Yup. Link is to Fox News, and TFA is extremely void of actual infomation.
You need to click through Fox to Watchdog Radio and their story has links to the various info being reported on in the actual story text.
Mod this AC up. WTF /.?????? Some article about devastating effects of EMP and an easy preventative measure (that I wanted to read about). But the links are to foxnews.com and watchdog.org!!!! There is no content!
Would people stop using /. and start using soylentnews.org, please!?!? I can't take this anymore!
The watchdog.org site has links to the actual paper referenced (the link in the text called estimated).
but the SSD will wipe the floor with the HDD. That's why you install one smallish SSD for OS and APPS, and a big HDD for data and such
That is all true, but that is not what the original poster stated. His premise was that SSDs are faster (which they are) and no more per MB than an HDD (which they aren't).
A 480GB Crucial M500 is slightly cheaper per GB than a 4TB spinning drive right now. I think the 960GB SSD is as well.
That comparison is meaningless because a 4TB is at a premium price. If you think you need 500GB, use should compare a 500GB HDD with an SSD (480GB being close enough). I can get a 500GB 7200RPM SATA drive for about $50. A Crucial M500 is about $120. The SSD is 140% more costly or 2.4 times the price per GB.