There have been plenty of very wealthy individuals who create foundations Rockefeller, Ford, now Gates and Zuckerberg. They can do a lot of good, arguably more than Ted Turner donating $1B to the UN.
I sure prefer to see it spent this way then surreptitiously funding political activity through tax exempt organizations like George Soros.
The difference is that Ted Turner made his donation from his personal assets. Zuckerberg is having Facebook issue the stock from it's shares on hand. So, in reality, it is Facebook that is making the donation, not Zuckerberg and the donation is being made to Zuckerberg's charity.
Technically he is not donating anything. The public corporation known as Facebook is donating 18 million shares of its stock. Still not a bad deal, but one should give credit where credit is due. In addition, I wonder what the other shareholders in FB feel about the issue of 18 million shares of stock without renumeration as it will water down their EPS and stock value. In short, it's easy to be generous with other people's money.
I'm in favor of neo-Nazi propaganda being legal. I'm not pro-neo-Nazi-propaganda. There are many things I consider immoral that I think should be legal for various reasons.
You only have three choices, you can be in opposed to something, often referred to anti-something. You can be in favor of something, often referred to pro-something and you can be neutral on the subject, thereby being neither pro, nor anti. Those are the only choices. It doesn't matter whether it is a moral issue or not. You could be talking about abortion or NASCAR, you can only be pro, anti, or neutral.
Alternately, you can derive abortion rights from the right not to be a slave. In no other case is an individual legally required to do something arduous and somewhat dangerous for the medical benefit of another. If my brother needs bone marrow, I can refuse to donate mine. I can initially accept, then after his has been killed refuse to donate mine. (Note: I'm claiming this is immoral in general, but AFAIK it's legal.) Pregnancy is arguably more crippling, and definitely more dangerous, than donating marrow.
Except in slavery on is being enslaved by another. In pregnancy, it is biology. It is not the government forcing her to be pregnant or a man forcing her to be pregnant. It is a fact that the woman is pregnant. If you want to take the slavery route, then if a fetus is deemed to be human, what about its rights? Or are you arguing that it is the fetus that is somehow enslaving the woman? Trying to using the trappings of slavery and oppression as the reason for abortion doesn't work. It's probably why in the cases that went to the Supreme Court didn't use them and instead focused on privacy.
Your argument about not compelling somebody to do something dangerous for the medical benefit of another may be valid. But that would be a dangerous argument because a third trimester abortion usually is more dangerous for a woman than a natural delivery and following that argument, shouldn't be allowed. Before arguing that it would be a woman's choice to take on that extra risk, remember that the argument you are proposing is that not allowing the abortion is dangerous so the government should allow it. If it is shown that the abortion is more dangerous, why would the government intervene to permit an even greater risk to the woman?
Nor is a viable fetus necessarily closer to being human than an adult chimp; depends on your point of view. It would be logically consistent to draw a big line between not-yet-born and born, and a lesser line between species. Birth is a very useful marker, being far more easily determined than viability, or the date of conception.
The courts have already determined that killing a fetus during a crime, in many jurisdictions, can get someone charged with murder/manslaughter. So by law, a viable fetus already is considered human with limited rights. A chimp is not. Birth is not a very useful marker, it is a very convenient marker. First, there is already case law regarding harming the fetus during a crime, mentioned previously. Second it is generally accepted in the medical community that a six month fetus is viable and is no longer considered that extraordinary measures are needed but instead standard treatment. (That doesn't mean it still isn't risky, just that it is commonplace enough that there are standard procedures and treatments that lead to good prognosis for the premature child). Third, conception, although I am not arguing that, is just as useful a marker as birth. Both are arbitrary objective events.
The problem with either of them is that the whole issue, especially for the courts, is a subjective one. The courts never said that a fetus wasn't a human being (they never said it was, either). No, they sidestepped the whole issue by framing the discussion as a privacy issue. Most constitutional lawyers conclude that if the courts had or do determine at some point between conception and bi
Then explain Inde, the Apache people's name for themselves before U.S. westward expansion.
While that may be true, it was Columbus who referred to the indigenous people of the Americas as Indians, erroneously thinking he had made it to the Indian Ocean. Even after people realized it was an error, the name stuck (which is why we also have the Carribean called the West Indies). Columbus, never met an Apache, so it is unlikely that Indie or whatever word they had for themselves factored in. If they were using this term prior to the end of the 15th century, then it is coincidence. If use of that term came later, then it is likely they adopted it from early encounters with various European groups.
You gonna replace an entire stage of musicians with a keyboard & samplers controlled by a sequencer ? Not at any show I'm going to. Not even on an album I would buy. Example # 1, great band from the Portland, OR area I videoed earlier this year. Plays mainly Jamaican inspired instrumental tunes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4VdqsE1iE4.
No, you are going to, and they already have, replaced an entire stage of musicians with pre-recorded soundtracks from digital sources that were created with computers and midi files (no need even for the synthesizer keyboard). For decades, "shows" have used pre-recorded music,even at concerts. The difference was that in the past, real musicians playing real instruments created those recordings. Today, with computers and samplers, producers can save the cost of the musicians because the computer can play the score.
Your argument, as phrased, is a little bit reminiscent of Bill Clinton asking the court what is the definition of sex.
A radio, plays music, but it is not an instrument, same with a computer. A computer may be an instrument, if it is actually being "played" to produce the music, but if it is just playing a pre-recorded piece, that is no different than a radio, even if that piece is a pre-recorded MIDI file.
Computers are great for composing music, but it is rare to actually see/hear one being played as the instrument. You might see them paired with an actual instrument like a MIDI keyboard or some other MIDI instrument, but in those scenarios, the computer is not the instrument, it is merely connected to the instrument.
As many a vocalist has shown, instruments are not needed for a performance. You do need some sort of device to play the recorded music, however. In the past, instruments were used to create the recording. Now, they aren't needed even for that.
Is a digital sampler not an instrument? No? Your probably the same type of person who complained when people started playing music on synth keyboards. Music adapts to tech but you are probably only going to like what you liked when you were in your adolescents. Sorry. Also go downtown sometime. There are plenty of bands doing live music with like, you know, guitars and stuff.
A sampler is not an instrument, it is nothing more than a sound bank. A keyboard, electric or acoustic would be an instrument. However, I think what the question is really about is skipping even the keyboard and just having the music scored on a computer, assigned the proper midi channels and a computer plays the piece using the appropriate instrument from the samples. As such, other than the instruments used to record the original samples from (which may have been years ago), there are no instruments involved in the production of the music.
this is classic disruptive technology stuff, people...us "old-timers" debate the nonsense while a whole generation of kids are sitting alone in their bedrooms creating awesome music and art with these tools.
ANYTHING THAT MAKES SOUND HAS THE ABILITY TO BE A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT. its beyond asinine to debate this.
what the OP is *really* talking about are the sequencers like Ableton or ProTools. the ability to drag n drop notes and samples in a timeline is where the real supposed-threat is at. that's what allowing new-gen musicians to roll-their-own studios and sounds. personally, i think its awesome and liberating.
the markets will decide what people want to spend their hard-earned money on.
i mean, transpose this discussion back 40 years ago with a bunch a mainframe and mini nerds arguing about how these "toy" personal computers would never be able to do this or that nerdy thing...meanwhile I as a 13-year old kid was riding my bike to the Radio Shack and sitting in the window display to program on the Trash-80.
and look at us now.
It is disruptive, but not in the normal sense. Currently most digital musicians have a traditional musical experience, having played traditional instruments, etc. Kids grew up wanting emulate the people they actually saw playing the instruments. If the trend continues, without the role models, who will future kids look to for their inspiration to get into music. Without future kids pursuing music, where will music come from in the future?
With the emphasis on getting a job, today's public schools have all but eliminated the arts from their curriculum. Where will future generation learn music from, in order to be able to write it and perform it digitally? What will be the final outcome of this (the disruptive technology result)? Most likely, a bunch of mediocre techno-crap. Of course, by then, future generations will not know or remember what it is that they are missing out on and will embrace it.
I can install cabinets and shelves made by IKEA and it will be functional, but it won't be the same quality as a custom work created by a craftsman. Likewise for digital sampling versus real musicians. IKEA is made for the mass market. It's quick and cheap. Likewise for digital sampling. Then again, for both, you get what you pay for.
Instead of "Can digital music replace most instrumental musicians?", the more appropriate question is "Should digital music Replace most instrumental musicians?"
Whether they should have been bailed out, people can argue until hell freezes over. However, since they were bailed out, it was totally up to the government when they sold their stock. They set an arbitrary date to divest themselves of the GM stock by the end of the year. They could have held the stock longer until it recovered their cost. As such, the loss is becuase of the government's action, not GM's.
Maybe they (the government) should have purchased bonds, but they didn't. They (the government) made a decision to purchase stock and they made a decision to sell it below what they paid. Why should GM be faulted for that?
A lot of the hybrids in the US are non-plugin type, which mystifies me... except for the fact that their battery packs are so pitifully small that they only run a couple of miles on pure electricity - keeps the battery packs small, light and cheap, while still selling the hybrid concept to a premium paying market segment.
I have a Honda 2000 inverter generator, it runs all day on about a gallon, until you load it down, then it consumes fuel more quickly (unlike a traditional 3600RPM generator that uses a whole lot of fuel even with no load). The thing is, most people loading generators aren't anywhere near peak output 90+% of the time they are using them. Put that into an automotive application, and the 2KW output won't be enough to overcome wind resistance at 70mph - and it will be sucking down fuel as fast as it can.
I agree on the Honda generator. My point was that current off the shelf technology could provide a hybrid in the form of gasoline electric (or even diesel). While it probably wouldn't get the 200mpg I mused about, 50mpg or greater is certainly doable. Add in regenerative braking (or dynamic brakes as the railroad calls them) and a small battery pack, you could even get by with running from pure battery for short distances like current hybrids.
The limit on most hybrids is the Li-ion battery back which can only supply about 10KWh. There are portable generators that can do that quite easily. Most have around an 8G tank and will run 10-12 hours. That would equate to approximately 62MPG at an average speed of 50mph. Now, instead of using a generic generator, one was designed for a vehicle, that could probably be improved. Likewise, you might be able to get by with a lower KWh, maybe 8 or 9. Another nice feature would be to auto shutoff/on the engine when stopped, that would further extend the range and mpg, particularly in the city.
The downside to this approach is that it isn't new. It's actually close to 100 years old being used by the railroads and military since the 1920s.
Well, my observation was the (manufacturer self-reported) fuel consumption of a Lexus SUV hybrid, as it was being driven by the owner.
It was getting significantly improved in-town fuel economy, presumably from regenerative braking. Highway was roughly equivalent to a non-hybrid, maybe a little worse. I'd hate to be held to these numbers, but I remember something like 32mpg in town and more like 22 highway. Not stellar for an econobox, but respectable for something hauling 6 people plus gear.
There's also the "nanny factor" where the hybrids put all these gee-whiz numbers up on the dashboard showing you how efficient you are/aren't being - while their guzzler cousins hide all that and let you revel in the guilty pleasure of wide open throttle V-8 acceleration.
Hybrids have their place, but you can't measure the fuel efficiency of the engine based on the total miles driven per tank of gas. In reality you can't even measure the mpg that way because while you are running on battery miles per gallon is meaningless. What they are reporting is the equivalent miles per gallon. When they had mopeds that you could pedal or use a gas engine, nobody would let you get by saying you got 500 mpg because you pedaled most of the time. No, a hybrid is very efficient when run on battery power (recharging from the grid is more efficient than gasoline power), but the actual motor is not very efficient when it is used to power the car, which is why city mpg numbers for a hybrid are better than highway - because the battery is used in the city.
I always wondered why we have the hybrids we do in the first place. Honda makes a portable generator that will run 8 hours on a couple of gallons of gas. If that were used to provide the power for the electric motors in the vehicle, it would seem that you could get upto 200mpg (avg 50 miles per hour for 8 hours on 2 gallons). This is basically how diesel electric locomotives operate and is very fuel efficient.
Hybrids really clean up on city driving efficiency.... not sure about TCO with those battery packs needing replacement every 5 years, but from one tank fill to the next, they're great.
The fuel efficiency of a hybrid is no better than most other gasoline engines. What makes the tank of gas last longer is that you are running off battery power. As for cost/benefit, most studies have shown that it costs more to purchase and operate a hybrid than the equivalent non-hybrid. However, based on a pollution benefit, a hybrid is definitely less polluting to operate than a gas vehicle, although some studies that look at the total carbon footprint including manufacturing and reclamation, they are about equal.
Very little is put to a 'vote of the people'. The US is not a Democracy - it is a Representative Republic. This is by function and Constitution. As such, you vote directly on very few percentages of local issues.
Which is why the original post of using the ballot box as a solution is really a non-solution.
You are free to choose: that's what the ballot box is for.
Capitalistic "freedom of choice" is weighted by the size of your wallet.
Really, and when was the incadescent ban put to a vote of the people? No, the ballot box is only effective on things that those in power (or the people who control them) want it to be effective for.
You live in a democratic republic, dipshit. You should have learned that in school. We don't get to vote directly on national issues, only on those who (corporate American has chose to) represent us.
That is correct, which is why the ballot box doesn't work on issues unless the implication is to vote out a politician based on one issue. Of course, maybe you support that politician on another issue. Then there is the likelihood that you didn't vote for the politician in the first place. And let's not forget executive orders which bypass the whole legislative process.
So, you may call me a dipshit if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the original poster's intent of simply solving the light bulb ban through the ballot box.
Hmmm, The one I have guarantees listed output to -15C, and "works" to below -40. And I've seen references that efficiency increases past -15 becuase they can't ice up if the air is that cold.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have an electric heating coil. Most still do because when it is that cold out, it cycle the compressor continuosly which causes it to where out prematurely. So, yes, it can possibly work at those cold temperatures, but it shortens the compressor life. Since at those cold temperatures, it's really no more efficient than resistence heating, most heat pumps switch over to it, thus saving the compressor.
And the amount of light bulbs need to reproduce the heat from a single furnace would have a great deal more energy wasted as light, unless you want to get a tan and possibly damage furniture over their lifetime.
Watts are watts. If an electric furnace, you can calculate the wattage used and then divide by the number of 100 watt light bulbs. Light bulbs make very good heaters (ever look at an incubator). 15 100W bulbs will put off the same heat as a portable heater. So, if you leave two lights on in each room of your house, you are adding as much heat to the over all house as space heater. Probably not a very efficient way to heat, but then neither are space heaters.
The purpose of the envelope is to keep people from touching the halogen lamp envelope. Those things run very hot. Even the slightest brush of fingertips to it would cause blistering, so it gets an extra outer envelope too.
While that's true, the envelope keeps the oils from your skin off of the lamp. With the skin oil or any other contanament, the lamp won't heat evenly and will break.
When is the last time you looked at the most efficient pumps? It sounds like it has been a while. Heating coils were used to prevent icing, not to cause heating directly. at -40 outside, it's too cold for icing, so the unit will be able to generate heat without needing a resistance heater. I don't know if it will make it to 70, but the specs show a 60+ degree rise well within spec. And, from my experience, the spec is conservative, at least for the new ones.
The heating coils were there to keep the heat pump from continuosly cycling in cold temperatures, which would prematurely where out the compressor. A 60 degree rise in temperature from -40 means your house will be 20F. That's pretty damn cold.
They currently run around 1-2 grand and weigh 1-4 tons. That and the accompanying modifications to the house, the slab and so forth you need to install, plus maintenance. Probably not so good for rural.
My old fashioned 5 year old heat pump cost 6 grand. You mean, I could have paid 1/3th the price and had three times the efficiency? Something isn't right about your numbers.
Besides, you can just connect a big resistor in series with a halogen bulb. This lowers the color temperature to that of a regular incandescent and probably makes the bulb last longer. As a side effect it makes the efficiency even worse than that of an incandescent bulb.
While EU kindabanned regular light bulbs, the "specialty" ones are still available. That includes rugged and longer life bulbs, both of which have efficiency rating of "G", while the normal light bulbs had a rating of "E". A 60W long-life light bulb produces about as much light as a 40W regular. OTOH, the color temperature is even lower, so I like them. Both are also labeled "not for room lighting",
If they ever decide to ban the long-life bulbs as well, I will buy a lot of them. I still have mu stash of ~100 regular bulbs.
The reason is that I like the light they produce. A point source of continuous spectrum light with a low color temperature. I do not care about the efficiency - after all, my computers use ~1kW and my Bitcoin miners use ~600W, I really do not care about the 40W or 60W that goes to a light bulb.
A better approach and one that used to be done with incandescents to make them last longer and use less power is to use a diode. With a diode, only 1/2 the electricity is getting to the bulb. Even though only 1/2 the cycles are getting to the bulb, because the filament hasn't cooled between cycles, light output is only slightly diminished. They used to make these little button diodes that you would put on the base of the bulb before screwing them into the socket.
All that said, I doubt it would work with halogens and definitely won't with CFLs
If you have found a method to make a furnace, any source 95% efficient, you would be a very rich person.
The best modern furnaces are 98% efficient. Look it up.
I looked it up, too, and like the AC, you are wrong. the AFUE rating is not a measure of the true efficiency, but instead a measure economic efficiency of the furnace.
Think of the AFUE as MPG with cars. It is a useful piece of information, but hardly a good measure of the efficiency of the engine. A race car is supposedly the most efficient automobile, squeezing every btu of energy per pound of fuel. Yet, it gets crappy mileage when compared to a Honda. OTOH, a Honda engine is efficient for a passenger vehicle and the MPG rating reflects that. There is true efficiency and economic efficiency. MPG and AFUE ratings only measure economic efficiency.
You voted for Bush. Bush Signed it. What is the problem?
I didn't vote for Bush either, but whether I did or not wouldn't change the fact that the ballot box would be totally worthless for something like this.
AFUE (annual fuel utilization efficiency) is not the same as actual efficiency. It is used by the energy star program to compare heaters. All new heaters must have a minimum of 78%.
The purpose of the AFUE is to tell you that for ever dollar you spend on the energy source $0.97 is being used for heating and $0.03 is wasted (using a 97 AFUE). It takes into account the energy source NG being cheaper than LP which is cheaper than electric. A cheaper fuel source leads to a higher AFUE, but doesn't mean it's necessarily more efficient, just cheaper to operate. If the furnace were truly 97% efficient, you could run the flue pipe right along a wood stud without worry as it would be cool to the touch with all of the heat going out the heat exchanger into the house.
Slashdot Mirror
There have been plenty of very wealthy individuals who create foundations Rockefeller, Ford, now Gates and Zuckerberg. They can do a lot of good, arguably more than Ted Turner donating $1B to the UN.
I sure prefer to see it spent this way then surreptitiously funding political activity through tax exempt organizations like George Soros.
The difference is that Ted Turner made his donation from his personal assets. Zuckerberg is having Facebook issue the stock from it's shares on hand. So, in reality, it is Facebook that is making the donation, not Zuckerberg and the donation is being made to Zuckerberg's charity.
Technically he is not donating anything. The public corporation known as Facebook is donating 18 million shares of its stock. Still not a bad deal, but one should give credit where credit is due. In addition, I wonder what the other shareholders in FB feel about the issue of 18 million shares of stock without renumeration as it will water down their EPS and stock value. In short, it's easy to be generous with other people's money.
I'm in favor of neo-Nazi propaganda being legal. I'm not pro-neo-Nazi-propaganda. There are many things I consider immoral that I think should be legal for various reasons.
You only have three choices, you can be in opposed to something, often referred to anti-something. You can be in favor of something, often referred to pro-something and you can be neutral on the subject, thereby being neither pro, nor anti. Those are the only choices. It doesn't matter whether it is a moral issue or not. You could be talking about abortion or NASCAR, you can only be pro, anti, or neutral.
Alternately, you can derive abortion rights from the right not to be a slave. In no other case is an individual legally required to do something arduous and somewhat dangerous for the medical benefit of another. If my brother needs bone marrow, I can refuse to donate mine. I can initially accept, then after his has been killed refuse to donate mine. (Note: I'm claiming this is immoral in general, but AFAIK it's legal.) Pregnancy is arguably more crippling, and definitely more dangerous, than donating marrow.
Except in slavery on is being enslaved by another. In pregnancy, it is biology. It is not the government forcing her to be pregnant or a man forcing her to be pregnant. It is a fact that the woman is pregnant. If you want to take the slavery route, then if a fetus is deemed to be human, what about its rights? Or are you arguing that it is the fetus that is somehow enslaving the woman? Trying to using the trappings of slavery and oppression as the reason for abortion doesn't work. It's probably why in the cases that went to the Supreme Court didn't use them and instead focused on privacy.
Your argument about not compelling somebody to do something dangerous for the medical benefit of another may be valid. But that would be a dangerous argument because a third trimester abortion usually is more dangerous for a woman than a natural delivery and following that argument, shouldn't be allowed. Before arguing that it would be a woman's choice to take on that extra risk, remember that the argument you are proposing is that not allowing the abortion is dangerous so the government should allow it. If it is shown that the abortion is more dangerous, why would the government intervene to permit an even greater risk to the woman?
Nor is a viable fetus necessarily closer to being human than an adult chimp; depends on your point of view. It would be logically consistent to draw a big line between not-yet-born and born, and a lesser line between species. Birth is a very useful marker, being far more easily determined than viability, or the date of conception.
The courts have already determined that killing a fetus during a crime, in many jurisdictions, can get someone charged with murder/manslaughter. So by law, a viable fetus already is considered human with limited rights. A chimp is not. Birth is not a very useful marker, it is a very convenient marker. First, there is already case law regarding harming the fetus during a crime, mentioned previously. Second it is generally accepted in the medical community that a six month fetus is viable and is no longer considered that extraordinary measures are needed but instead standard treatment. (That doesn't mean it still isn't risky, just that it is commonplace enough that there are standard procedures and treatments that lead to good prognosis for the premature child). Third, conception, although I am not arguing that, is just as useful a marker as birth. Both are arbitrary objective events.
The problem with either of them is that the whole issue, especially for the courts, is a subjective one. The courts never said that a fetus wasn't a human being (they never said it was, either). No, they sidestepped the whole issue by framing the discussion as a privacy issue. Most constitutional lawyers conclude that if the courts had or do determine at some point between conception and bi
Not really any such thing as an "Indian"
Then explain Inde, the Apache people's name for themselves before U.S. westward expansion.
While that may be true, it was Columbus who referred to the indigenous people of the Americas as Indians, erroneously thinking he had made it to the Indian Ocean. Even after people realized it was an error, the name stuck (which is why we also have the Carribean called the West Indies). Columbus, never met an Apache, so it is unlikely that Indie or whatever word they had for themselves factored in. If they were using this term prior to the end of the 15th century, then it is coincidence. If use of that term came later, then it is likely they adopted it from early encounters with various European groups.
You gonna replace an entire stage of musicians with a keyboard & samplers controlled by a sequencer ? Not at any show I'm going to. Not even on an album I would buy. Example # 1, great band from the Portland, OR area I videoed earlier this year. Plays mainly Jamaican inspired instrumental tunes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4VdqsE1iE4 .
No, you are going to, and they already have, replaced an entire stage of musicians with pre-recorded soundtracks from digital sources that were created with computers and midi files (no need even for the synthesizer keyboard). For decades, "shows" have used pre-recorded music,even at concerts. The difference was that in the past, real musicians playing real instruments created those recordings. Today, with computers and samplers, producers can save the cost of the musicians because the computer can play the score.
Your argument, as phrased, is a little bit reminiscent of Bill Clinton asking the court what is the definition of sex.
A radio, plays music, but it is not an instrument, same with a computer. A computer may be an instrument, if it is actually being "played" to produce the music, but if it is just playing a pre-recorded piece, that is no different than a radio, even if that piece is a pre-recorded MIDI file.
Computers are great for composing music, but it is rare to actually see/hear one being played as the instrument. You might see them paired with an actual instrument like a MIDI keyboard or some other MIDI instrument, but in those scenarios, the computer is not the instrument, it is merely connected to the instrument.
As many a vocalist has shown, instruments are not needed for a performance. You do need some sort of device to play the recorded music, however. In the past, instruments were used to create the recording. Now, they aren't needed even for that.
Is a digital sampler not an instrument? No? Your probably the same type of person who complained when people started playing music on synth keyboards. Music adapts to tech but you are probably only going to like what you liked when you were in your adolescents. Sorry. Also go downtown sometime. There are plenty of bands doing live music with like, you know, guitars and stuff.
A sampler is not an instrument, it is nothing more than a sound bank. A keyboard, electric or acoustic would be an instrument. However, I think what the question is really about is skipping even the keyboard and just having the music scored on a computer, assigned the proper midi channels and a computer plays the piece using the appropriate instrument from the samples. As such, other than the instruments used to record the original samples from (which may have been years ago), there are no instruments involved in the production of the music.
this is classic disruptive technology stuff, people...us "old-timers" debate the nonsense while a whole generation of kids are sitting alone in their bedrooms creating awesome music and art with these tools.
ANYTHING THAT MAKES SOUND HAS THE ABILITY TO BE A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT. its beyond asinine to debate this.
what the OP is *really* talking about are the sequencers like Ableton or ProTools. the ability to drag n drop notes and samples in a timeline is where the real supposed-threat is at. that's what allowing new-gen musicians to roll-their-own studios and sounds. personally, i think its awesome and liberating.
the markets will decide what people want to spend their hard-earned money on.
i mean, transpose this discussion back 40 years ago with a bunch a mainframe and mini nerds arguing about how these "toy" personal computers would never be able to do this or that nerdy thing...meanwhile I as a 13-year old kid was riding my bike to the Radio Shack and sitting in the window display to program on the Trash-80.
and look at us now.
It is disruptive, but not in the normal sense. Currently most digital musicians have a traditional musical experience, having played traditional instruments, etc. Kids grew up wanting emulate the people they actually saw playing the instruments. If the trend continues, without the role models, who will future kids look to for their inspiration to get into music. Without future kids pursuing music, where will music come from in the future?
With the emphasis on getting a job, today's public schools have all but eliminated the arts from their curriculum. Where will future generation learn music from, in order to be able to write it and perform it digitally? What will be the final outcome of this (the disruptive technology result)? Most likely, a bunch of mediocre techno-crap. Of course, by then, future generations will not know or remember what it is that they are missing out on and will embrace it.
I can install cabinets and shelves made by IKEA and it will be functional, but it won't be the same quality as a custom work created by a craftsman. Likewise for digital sampling versus real musicians. IKEA is made for the mass market. It's quick and cheap. Likewise for digital sampling. Then again, for both, you get what you pay for.
Instead of "Can digital music replace most instrumental musicians?", the more appropriate question is "Should digital music Replace most instrumental musicians?"
Whether they should have been bailed out, people can argue until hell freezes over. However, since they were bailed out, it was totally up to the government when they sold their stock. They set an arbitrary date to divest themselves of the GM stock by the end of the year. They could have held the stock longer until it recovered their cost. As such, the loss is becuase of the government's action, not GM's.
Maybe they (the government) should have purchased bonds, but they didn't. They (the government) made a decision to purchase stock and they made a decision to sell it below what they paid. Why should GM be faulted for that?
A lot of the hybrids in the US are non-plugin type, which mystifies me... except for the fact that their battery packs are so pitifully small that they only run a couple of miles on pure electricity - keeps the battery packs small, light and cheap, while still selling the hybrid concept to a premium paying market segment.
I have a Honda 2000 inverter generator, it runs all day on about a gallon, until you load it down, then it consumes fuel more quickly (unlike a traditional 3600RPM generator that uses a whole lot of fuel even with no load). The thing is, most people loading generators aren't anywhere near peak output 90+% of the time they are using them. Put that into an automotive application, and the 2KW output won't be enough to overcome wind resistance at 70mph - and it will be sucking down fuel as fast as it can.
I agree on the Honda generator. My point was that current off the shelf technology could provide a hybrid in the form of gasoline electric (or even diesel). While it probably wouldn't get the 200mpg I mused about, 50mpg or greater is certainly doable. Add in regenerative braking (or dynamic brakes as the railroad calls them) and a small battery pack, you could even get by with running from pure battery for short distances like current hybrids.
The limit on most hybrids is the Li-ion battery back which can only supply about 10KWh. There are portable generators that can do that quite easily. Most have around an 8G tank and will run 10-12 hours. That would equate to approximately 62MPG at an average speed of 50mph. Now, instead of using a generic generator, one was designed for a vehicle, that could probably be improved. Likewise, you might be able to get by with a lower KWh, maybe 8 or 9. Another nice feature would be to auto shutoff/on the engine when stopped, that would further extend the range and mpg, particularly in the city.
The downside to this approach is that it isn't new. It's actually close to 100 years old being used by the railroads and military since the 1920s.
Well, my observation was the (manufacturer self-reported) fuel consumption of a Lexus SUV hybrid, as it was being driven by the owner.
It was getting significantly improved in-town fuel economy, presumably from regenerative braking. Highway was roughly equivalent to a non-hybrid, maybe a little worse. I'd hate to be held to these numbers, but I remember something like 32mpg in town and more like 22 highway. Not stellar for an econobox, but respectable for something hauling 6 people plus gear.
There's also the "nanny factor" where the hybrids put all these gee-whiz numbers up on the dashboard showing you how efficient you are/aren't being - while their guzzler cousins hide all that and let you revel in the guilty pleasure of wide open throttle V-8 acceleration.
Hybrids have their place, but you can't measure the fuel efficiency of the engine based on the total miles driven per tank of gas. In reality you can't even measure the mpg that way because while you are running on battery miles per gallon is meaningless. What they are reporting is the equivalent miles per gallon. When they had mopeds that you could pedal or use a gas engine, nobody would let you get by saying you got 500 mpg because you pedaled most of the time. No, a hybrid is very efficient when run on battery power (recharging from the grid is more efficient than gasoline power), but the actual motor is not very efficient when it is used to power the car, which is why city mpg numbers for a hybrid are better than highway - because the battery is used in the city.
I always wondered why we have the hybrids we do in the first place. Honda makes a portable generator that will run 8 hours on a couple of gallons of gas. If that were used to provide the power for the electric motors in the vehicle, it would seem that you could get upto 200mpg (avg 50 miles per hour for 8 hours on 2 gallons). This is basically how diesel electric locomotives operate and is very fuel efficient.
Hybrids really clean up on city driving efficiency.... not sure about TCO with those battery packs needing replacement every 5 years, but from one tank fill to the next, they're great.
The fuel efficiency of a hybrid is no better than most other gasoline engines. What makes the tank of gas last longer is that you are running off battery power. As for cost/benefit, most studies have shown that it costs more to purchase and operate a hybrid than the equivalent non-hybrid. However, based on a pollution benefit, a hybrid is definitely less polluting to operate than a gas vehicle, although some studies that look at the total carbon footprint including manufacturing and reclamation, they are about equal.
Very little is put to a 'vote of the people'. The US is not a Democracy - it is a Representative Republic. This is by function and Constitution.
As such, you vote directly on very few percentages of local issues.
Which is why the original post of using the ballot box as a solution is really a non-solution.
You are free to choose: that's what the ballot box is for.
Capitalistic "freedom of choice" is weighted by the size of your wallet.
Really, and when was the incadescent ban put to a vote of the people? No, the ballot box is only effective on things that those in power (or the people who control them) want it to be effective for.
You live in a democratic republic, dipshit. You should have learned that in school. We don't get to vote directly on national issues, only on those who (corporate American has chose to) represent us.
That is correct, which is why the ballot box doesn't work on issues unless the implication is to vote out a politician based on one issue. Of course, maybe you support that politician on another issue. Then there is the likelihood that you didn't vote for the politician in the first place. And let's not forget executive orders which bypass the whole legislative process.
So, you may call me a dipshit if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the original poster's intent of simply solving the light bulb ban through the ballot box.
Hmmm, The one I have guarantees listed output to -15C, and "works" to below -40. And I've seen references that efficiency increases past -15 becuase they can't ice up if the air is that cold.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have an electric heating coil. Most still do because when it is that cold out, it cycle the compressor continuosly which causes it to where out prematurely. So, yes, it can possibly work at those cold temperatures, but it shortens the compressor life. Since at those cold temperatures, it's really no more efficient than resistence heating, most heat pumps switch over to it, thus saving the compressor.
And the amount of light bulbs need to reproduce the heat from a single furnace would have a great deal more energy wasted as light, unless you want to get a tan and possibly damage furniture over their lifetime.
Watts are watts. If an electric furnace, you can calculate the wattage used and then divide by the number of 100 watt light bulbs. Light bulbs make very good heaters (ever look at an incubator). 15 100W bulbs will put off the same heat as a portable heater. So, if you leave two lights on in each room of your house, you are adding as much heat to the over all house as space heater. Probably not a very efficient way to heat, but then neither are space heaters.
The purpose of the envelope is to keep people from touching the halogen lamp envelope. Those things run very hot. Even the slightest brush of fingertips to it would cause blistering, so it gets an extra outer envelope too.
While that's true, the envelope keeps the oils from your skin off of the lamp. With the skin oil or any other contanament, the lamp won't heat evenly and will break.
When is the last time you looked at the most efficient pumps? It sounds like it has been a while. Heating coils were used to prevent icing, not to cause heating directly. at -40 outside, it's too cold for icing, so the unit will be able to generate heat without needing a resistance heater. I don't know if it will make it to 70, but the specs show a 60+ degree rise well within spec. And, from my experience, the spec is conservative, at least for the new ones.
The heating coils were there to keep the heat pump from continuosly cycling in cold temperatures, which would prematurely where out the compressor. A 60 degree rise in temperature from -40 means your house will be 20F. That's pretty damn cold.
They currently run around 1-2 grand and weigh 1-4 tons. That and the accompanying modifications to the house, the slab and so forth you need to install, plus maintenance. Probably not so good for rural.
My old fashioned 5 year old heat pump cost 6 grand. You mean, I could have paid 1/3th the price and had three times the efficiency? Something isn't right about your numbers.
Besides, you can just connect a big resistor in series with a halogen bulb. This lowers the color temperature to that of a regular incandescent and probably makes the bulb last longer. As a side effect it makes the efficiency even worse than that of an incandescent bulb.
While EU kindabanned regular light bulbs, the "specialty" ones are still available. That includes rugged and longer life bulbs, both of which have efficiency rating of "G", while the normal light bulbs had a rating of "E". A 60W long-life light bulb produces about as much light as a 40W regular. OTOH, the color temperature is even lower, so I like them. Both are also labeled "not for room lighting",
If they ever decide to ban the long-life bulbs as well, I will buy a lot of them. I still have mu stash of ~100 regular bulbs.
The reason is that I like the light they produce. A point source of continuous spectrum light with a low color temperature. I do not care about the efficiency - after all, my computers use ~1kW and my Bitcoin miners use ~600W, I really do not care about the 40W or 60W that goes to a light bulb.
A better approach and one that used to be done with incandescents to make them last longer and use less power is to use a diode. With a diode, only 1/2 the electricity is getting to the bulb. Even though only 1/2 the cycles are getting to the bulb, because the filament hasn't cooled between cycles, light output is only slightly diminished. They used to make these little button diodes that you would put on the base of the bulb before screwing them into the socket.
All that said, I doubt it would work with halogens and definitely won't with CFLs
If you have found a method to make a furnace, any source 95% efficient, you would be a very rich person.
The best modern furnaces are 98% efficient. Look it up.
I looked it up, too, and like the AC, you are wrong. the AFUE rating is not a measure of the true efficiency, but instead a measure economic efficiency of the furnace.
Think of the AFUE as MPG with cars. It is a useful piece of information, but hardly a good measure of the efficiency of the engine. A race car is supposedly the most efficient automobile, squeezing every btu of energy per pound of fuel. Yet, it gets crappy mileage when compared to a Honda. OTOH, a Honda engine is efficient for a passenger vehicle and the MPG rating reflects that. There is true efficiency and economic efficiency. MPG and AFUE ratings only measure economic efficiency.
You voted for Bush. Bush Signed it. What is the problem?
I didn't vote for Bush either, but whether I did or not wouldn't change the fact that the ballot box would be totally worthless for something like this.
Modern natural gas furnaces reach 97% efficiency.
AFUE (annual fuel utilization efficiency) is not the same as actual efficiency. It is used by the energy star program to compare heaters. All new heaters must have a minimum of 78%.
The purpose of the AFUE is to tell you that for ever dollar you spend on the energy source $0.97 is being used for heating and $0.03 is wasted (using a 97 AFUE). It takes into account the energy source NG being cheaper than LP which is cheaper than electric. A cheaper fuel source leads to a higher AFUE, but doesn't mean it's necessarily more efficient, just cheaper to operate. If the furnace were truly 97% efficient, you could run the flue pipe right along a wood stud without worry as it would be cool to the touch with all of the heat going out the heat exchanger into the house.