Better off in what way? In Tibet the monks used to be able to live how they chose to live. Worship how, who, and what they chose to worship. The people who lived in Tibet lived as the wished. Then the Chinese came in. Now they are not free to live as they wish any more. If it was me no level of "civilization" is worth losing liberty. So in what way exactly is Tibet better?
This Reardon Metal has the potential to be quite dangerous. While its tensile properties are considerable the possibility remains of a fissure forming suddenly and without warning at some point during its life. While we have yet to prove that this is the case, this office recommends that the use of Reardon Metal be prohibited until further studies can be conducted.
Agreed. My point is that Autocad used to cost $400 and it did the trick. Now it costs $4000 and doesn't do anything more, though there are certain interface elements that have been tweeked. If anything the software should get cheaper. So Autocad has lets say $1000 of usable value and $3000 of fsck you you need this product. The I am cheap application has $0 of usable value and $1000 of fsck you sucker.
Architect is a low paying job. A masters degree gets you $35,000. Once you are licensed that can go to $60,000 or so. If you want to make money in the building industry then electrician, plumber, mechanical engineer, structural engineer are all better alternatives. Designers get squat.
Uh . . . the future of application design? How about just an extreme example of the present of application design. Most of the apps I use are priced about 10X what they are worth, especially as they have been out there for well over 10 years. The updated versions do relatively little more than the previous, and get exponentially more expensive.
Autocad, and Photoshop are the two biggest offenders, but I'm sure there are more in the Autocad range ($4000 per seat) for other industries, like FEA for structural analysis, energy modeling, etc.
Yes. Many of them get up at 4 am and practice for 3 hours before going to school and sitting for 7 hours. Then they go back to practice. The ones that I knew (who did not make it past the trials) actually graduated early. I attribute that to the benefit of rigorous exercise on mental acuity. But I'm wondering what your point was.
I said something similar to them, though not so incitefully as I have found that your approach tends to turn people off from what might be a good idea.
1. Pave road with this stuff.
2. Drive diesel cars on roads.
3. Nitrates -> algae blooms in marshes just off road sids.
4. Harvest algae and press to make bio-diesel.
5. Profit.
I have a few mechanic friends who still use the asbestos pads because they work better (according to them, this came up a couple of days ago at the coffee shop). So unless they are completely wrong, there is still asbestos in some brake pads.
Yes, I see that. I guess I was thinking that 8kWh is more than enough for 8 dark hours that I sleep + 4 dark hours that I'm awake. But that's probably just me, and not necessarily typical. And really for me it would just make more sense to be a producer for PNM (my electric co.) and sell my power to them for $.13/kWh and buy power from them for $.09. I think for people off grid is where the storage questions come to mind. But the space limitations tend to be less restrictive in those cases (ie, rural . . . )
As a designer my primary goal from an energy standpoint is to take advantage fully of the sun such that residential clients would need minimal supplemental heating, as well as to minimize the need for cooling (some times this is the hardest part). From here it is fairly easy to minimize energy usage needs due to high efficacy lighting options, better appliance efficiency, and some other good design touches to allow for heat retention or rejection from appliances depending on the season. It is usually much more expensive to build this way, but the savings can usually pay for themselves within 10 years.
For this kind of design and condition there is far less need for storage, which is a huge benefit.
So all we need to do is find a lighter, more economical way to store the energy than big lumps of lead drenched in sulphuric acid.
True. And when put that way it sounds like it should be easy . . . And I think lighter is what makes it more economical, it's just how many years do you take the payback out to . . . (ie, lighter is almost always not cheaper in an off the shelf way)
Perhaps it has poor efficiency. If it uses the sun to get the hydrogen, stores in a lossless format, and then reforms providing enough electricity to meet your demand until it starts over the next day, does it matter what its efficiency is? Only if you are paying for the electricity to split the hydrogen.
I live in the american southwest, even in the summer. I don't need AC (Albuquerque), have a high ceiling house with natural ventillation, good insulation and I close it up in the morning before leaving for work. This summer I have not hooked up the swamp cooler. Last summer I used it for about 6 weeks for 2-3 hours in the evenings. AC is not a necessity if you are willing to take some extra measures.
Conservation is great, and you agree because you switched to CFL. When LEDs are ready (soon, but perhaps a while before the price comes down) you might switch again. Greater efficiency (at the appliance end as well as in generation and distribution) is the best form of conservation, in some ways it is the low hanging fruit that pays off regardless of the means of generation. And it belongs as a piece of the energy strategy folio.
And where the hell do you get off cooking your food? Elitist pig.;)
True. But, the assiociated machinery for a vehicle powered by ICE is much larger volume than that for an electric motor vehicle. So in the end the useful space in the vehicle ends up being the same, but the other slices in the pie chart are different.
Archer your post is a troll . . . or perhaps flamebait. I don't know how it got insightful, unless the mod thought it was inciteful. No one suggested that biking is right for everyone all the time. No one suggested that you personally are an a*s h0le for not biking to work every day. In your position perhaps not many people would have the opportunity. That point is completely aside from the point the GP made. you can bike a lot further then you think Simply trying to encourage people to consider that biking may be something they could do from time to time.
My bud raced with Lance, and they trained a lot in the rockies, in Europe, in the Cascades, and a bit on the east coast ranges. I'm sure there was a bit of training done in Texas, but it's too flat for the mountain training where you need to do 3000 to 6000 feet of climb daily. But Lance would not have had trouble with your commute;)
Just the the studded tires. I ride up frozen stream beds on them for good winter fun. I don't think they come in 28 though, so you'll need a cross or other style that allows 35 or so.
I have seen the case law, and studied some precedent setting cases that have upheld what I said. The easments that allow surveyors etc. on private land don't necessarily allow for pictures, but for anyone else permission must be explicitly granted. This has been the case for a long time in the US. I'll let you do your own research into the matter if you're interested, the cases I have looked into were in regards to architectural photos and photos of sculpture in Seattle.
I question your reading comprehension . . . or my writing perhaps. But I did not say Private Drive = No Trespassing. I said that in order to take pictures on private property you need explicit permission. Granting implicit access to the land does not in turn grand photo rights. The Private Drive sign is all that is required to identify the land as private and thus turn on the "can't take pictures here without explicit permission".
The owner would actually have to confront the "trespasser" and tell them they are not welcome on the private property
This is a completely different issue. These people are not going after Google for trespassing. If I have no walls or fences on my property I cannot reasonably or legally expect people not to traverse across it. But, as long as I mark the private land then it prevents someone from standing on that private land and taking pictures. They can stand just off the private land and take all the pictures they want. But unless I grant them explicit permission, they cannot stand on my land and take the pictures. They can stand on my land and not take pictures, and if I shake my fist and demand that they leave, and they don't leave, well that begins to expose them to trespass.
So if your objection is that the sign is not enough to expose anyone on their land to trespassing charges then we agree, and I have not suggested otherwise. The sign is merely the device which sets the "on private property" bit, which in turn sets the "can't take pictures without permission" bit. Just by granting implicit access to your private property you do not thereby explicitly grant the right to photograph. That is what the law says. So you never have to say "don't take any pictures", you just have to not say "okay, go ahead and take pictures." Now given the fact that Google took the pictures down, I don't believe that there is any kind of civil damages that they can get.
I think we are arguing different points. I am saying that the sign is not an effort to keep public off the property (which would be tresspass). I am arguing that acess is granted. Access does not mean that they are then allowed to photograph. Photography requires explicit permission if done from the private property. This is not granted implicitly by allowing public access and the law is very clear on this. As to the last point, I think that is their best angle, but the law is still clear. You don't have to pursue all violators (like you do with copyright or patents and such) in order to maintain some kind of right. The law exists regardless. It's like if you own a 7-11 and only go after one shoplifter. Can that shoplifter argue that since you dont pursue any other shoplifters that you have essentially opted out of that law and anyone is free to shoplift? Maybe they would try.
My clothes are an expression of not wanting to be arrested for public nudity. Maybe your clothes are an expression of how you wish to be perceived. I agree that we live in a society that judges based on appearance. I am pointing out that when this causes the "authorities" to treat you differently that it is an erosion of our freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Better off in what way? In Tibet the monks used to be able to live how they chose to live. Worship how, who, and what they chose to worship. The people who lived in Tibet lived as the wished. Then the Chinese came in. Now they are not free to live as they wish any more. If it was me no level of "civilization" is worth losing liberty. So in what way exactly is Tibet better?
This Reardon Metal has the potential to be quite dangerous. While its tensile properties are considerable the possibility remains of a fissure forming suddenly and without warning at some point during its life. While we have yet to prove that this is the case, this office recommends that the use of Reardon Metal be prohibited until further studies can be conducted.
Perhaps you would like to borrow my cloak of indifference?
True is that. And by the way I think yours is the best sig on slashdot, I've enjoyed it and quoted it often :)
Agreed. My point is that Autocad used to cost $400 and it did the trick. Now it costs $4000 and doesn't do anything more, though there are certain interface elements that have been tweeked. If anything the software should get cheaper. So Autocad has lets say $1000 of usable value and $3000 of fsck you you need this product. The I am cheap application has $0 of usable value and $1000 of fsck you sucker.
Architect is a low paying job. A masters degree gets you $35,000. Once you are licensed that can go to $60,000 or so. If you want to make money in the building industry then electrician, plumber, mechanical engineer, structural engineer are all better alternatives. Designers get squat.
Uh . . . the future of application design? How about just an extreme example of the present of application design. Most of the apps I use are priced about 10X what they are worth, especially as they have been out there for well over 10 years. The updated versions do relatively little more than the previous, and get exponentially more expensive.
Autocad, and Photoshop are the two biggest offenders, but I'm sure there are more in the Autocad range ($4000 per seat) for other industries, like FEA for structural analysis, energy modeling, etc.
Genius. Now, the question really is where do you go to get these knowledgeable bullets?
Yes. Many of them get up at 4 am and practice for 3 hours before going to school and sitting for 7 hours. Then they go back to practice. The ones that I knew (who did not make it past the trials) actually graduated early. I attribute that to the benefit of rigorous exercise on mental acuity. But I'm wondering what your point was.
I said something similar to them, though not so incitefully as I have found that your approach tends to turn people off from what might be a good idea.
1. Pave road with this stuff.
2. Drive diesel cars on roads.
3. Nitrates -> algae blooms in marshes just off road sids.
4. Harvest algae and press to make bio-diesel.
5. Profit.
I have a few mechanic friends who still use the asbestos pads because they work better (according to them, this came up a couple of days ago at the coffee shop). So unless they are completely wrong, there is still asbestos in some brake pads.
Yes, I see that. I guess I was thinking that 8kWh is more than enough for 8 dark hours that I sleep + 4 dark hours that I'm awake. But that's probably just me, and not necessarily typical. And really for me it would just make more sense to be a producer for PNM (my electric co.) and sell my power to them for $.13/kWh and buy power from them for $.09. I think for people off grid is where the storage questions come to mind. But the space limitations tend to be less restrictive in those cases (ie, rural . . . )
As a designer my primary goal from an energy standpoint is to take advantage fully of the sun such that residential clients would need minimal supplemental heating, as well as to minimize the need for cooling (some times this is the hardest part). From here it is fairly easy to minimize energy usage needs due to high efficacy lighting options, better appliance efficiency, and some other good design touches to allow for heat retention or rejection from appliances depending on the season. It is usually much more expensive to build this way, but the savings can usually pay for themselves within 10 years.
For this kind of design and condition there is far less need for storage, which is a huge benefit.
So all we need to do is find a lighter, more economical way to store the energy than big lumps of lead drenched in sulphuric acid.
True. And when put that way it sounds like it should be easy . . . And I think lighter is what makes it more economical, it's just how many years do you take the payback out to . . . (ie, lighter is almost always not cheaper in an off the shelf way)
Perhaps it has poor efficiency. If it uses the sun to get the hydrogen, stores in a lossless format, and then reforms providing enough electricity to meet your demand until it starts over the next day, does it matter what its efficiency is? Only if you are paying for the electricity to split the hydrogen.
I live in the american southwest, even in the summer. I don't need AC (Albuquerque), have a high ceiling house with natural ventillation, good insulation and I close it up in the morning before leaving for work. This summer I have not hooked up the swamp cooler. Last summer I used it for about 6 weeks for 2-3 hours in the evenings. AC is not a necessity if you are willing to take some extra measures.
Conservation is great, and you agree because you switched to CFL. When LEDs are ready (soon, but perhaps a while before the price comes down) you might switch again. Greater efficiency (at the appliance end as well as in generation and distribution) is the best form of conservation, in some ways it is the low hanging fruit that pays off regardless of the means of generation. And it belongs as a piece of the energy strategy folio.
;)
And where the hell do you get off cooking your food? Elitist pig.
True. But, the assiociated machinery for a vehicle powered by ICE is much larger volume than that for an electric motor vehicle. So in the end the useful space in the vehicle ends up being the same, but the other slices in the pie chart are different.
Archer your post is a troll . . . or perhaps flamebait. I don't know how it got insightful, unless the mod thought it was inciteful. No one suggested that biking is right for everyone all the time. No one suggested that you personally are an a*s h0le for not biking to work every day. In your position perhaps not many people would have the opportunity. That point is completely aside from the point the GP made.
;)
you can bike a lot further then you think
Simply trying to encourage people to consider that biking may be something they could do from time to time.
My bud raced with Lance, and they trained a lot in the rockies, in Europe, in the Cascades, and a bit on the east coast ranges. I'm sure there was a bit of training done in Texas, but it's too flat for the mountain training where you need to do 3000 to 6000 feet of climb daily. But Lance would not have had trouble with your commute
Just the the studded tires. I ride up frozen stream beds on them for good winter fun. I don't think they come in 28 though, so you'll need a cross or other style that allows 35 or so.
I have seen the case law, and studied some precedent setting cases that have upheld what I said. The easments that allow surveyors etc. on private land don't necessarily allow for pictures, but for anyone else permission must be explicitly granted. This has been the case for a long time in the US. I'll let you do your own research into the matter if you're interested, the cases I have looked into were in regards to architectural photos and photos of sculpture in Seattle.
I question your reading comprehension . . . or my writing perhaps. But I did not say Private Drive = No Trespassing. I said that in order to take pictures on private property you need explicit permission. Granting implicit access to the land does not in turn grand photo rights. The Private Drive sign is all that is required to identify the land as private and thus turn on the "can't take pictures here without explicit permission".
On this site I'll take "almost" any day :)
The owner would actually have to confront the "trespasser" and tell them they are not welcome on the private property
This is a completely different issue. These people are not going after Google for trespassing. If I have no walls or fences on my property I cannot reasonably or legally expect people not to traverse across it. But, as long as I mark the private land then it prevents someone from standing on that private land and taking pictures. They can stand just off the private land and take all the pictures they want. But unless I grant them explicit permission, they cannot stand on my land and take the pictures. They can stand on my land and not take pictures, and if I shake my fist and demand that they leave, and they don't leave, well that begins to expose them to trespass.
So if your objection is that the sign is not enough to expose anyone on their land to trespassing charges then we agree, and I have not suggested otherwise. The sign is merely the device which sets the "on private property" bit, which in turn sets the "can't take pictures without permission" bit. Just by granting implicit access to your private property you do not thereby explicitly grant the right to photograph. That is what the law says. So you never have to say "don't take any pictures", you just have to not say "okay, go ahead and take pictures." Now given the fact that Google took the pictures down, I don't believe that there is any kind of civil damages that they can get.
I think we are arguing different points. I am saying that the sign is not an effort to keep public off the property (which would be tresspass). I am arguing that acess is granted. Access does not mean that they are then allowed to photograph. Photography requires explicit permission if done from the private property. This is not granted implicitly by allowing public access and the law is very clear on this. As to the last point, I think that is their best angle, but the law is still clear. You don't have to pursue all violators (like you do with copyright or patents and such) in order to maintain some kind of right. The law exists regardless. It's like if you own a 7-11 and only go after one shoplifter. Can that shoplifter argue that since you dont pursue any other shoplifters that you have essentially opted out of that law and anyone is free to shoplift? Maybe they would try.
My clothes are an expression of not wanting to be arrested for public nudity. Maybe your clothes are an expression of how you wish to be perceived. I agree that we live in a society that judges based on appearance. I am pointing out that when this causes the "authorities" to treat you differently that it is an erosion of our freedom.
I think liberty got lost in there somewhere . . .