Back burning plans are put in place, but are not carried out
It's seen as a less important budget item than government assistance for car salesman (wish I was joking) which is why it isn't done as much as it should.
Your problem should be with the journalist making the link instead of the people who wrote it without making the link. Or maybe it shouldn't - fires were in the news so the journalist brought in some material about fires.
Oh, and no you cannot remove brush and grass and 'fuel'
While California has acted as if it's government has been force fed LSD since 1960 it is a global trend that is being observed so your local retarded fire retardation measures are an isolated strawman not relevant to the discussion.
Or the other idea is chemical incorporation of the waste (eg. Synroc) so that it doesn't matter if it gets wet, just so long as it doesn't wash away downstream. That stuff is finally seeing some use now after decades of development hindered by the perception that funding waste disposal implied a waste problem so it was seen as politically expedient to pretend waste doesn't exist instead.
and point out that 4th gen nuclear reactors will consume the waste of previous gen reactors as fuel
Yes they can use some waste material as fuel, in fact some of the most difficult stuff to store. Unfortunately utter idiots have been pretending that they can consume all waste by magic and those utter idiots have set back the cause they are trying to promote. You appear to have fallen victim to such an idiot. So when you "point out" something it's best not to oversimplify it to the point of telling three year olds bedtime stories with magic. It's not "a practical solution to getting rid of current waste" - it's a recycling option that reduces the amount of waste. It's starting out with magic expressed as fact that makes discussions about civilian nuclear power quite juvenile, especially since someone who considers practicalities instead of believing in magic is instantly considered to be an opponent of civilian nuclear power (eg. nuclear waste storage technique researchers and even the people on the Clinton era Thorium project becuase they dared to say it was more safe than current technologies - daring to imply that current reactors were not perfect resulted in a shutdown of the program).
What a convoluted scenario to go waaaay off topic. The two situations are obviously completely different no matter what extra little petty distractions you add to your convoluted scenario. Just what I'd expect from your posting history where you keep going on about how the ruler of the day (eg. King George) is more important than the rule of law (eg. the line pushed by George Washington).
It doesn't entirely save you from failing disk controllers but does warn you that it is going on. I've lost four files that way, all new multi-GB temporary files that were easily recreated or no longer required, but it does happen when you keep failing systems limping along until the replacement arrives.
That's a bit rich after some of your earlier posts about X and Wayland. I suggest you join the wayland mailing list and get some understanding before making such comments.
I disagree. The different approach of ZFS means it should be far better than btrfs when you have many disks, yet it makes almost no sense at all with single disks which is where btrfs makes sense. Different tools for different jobs.
Good points, but I can't see them happening until long after minvans with the same carrying capacity.
That statement tells me you have some bias against trucks and SUVs, that you don't see any value in them
I have a very strong bias against some of them that I believe to be very unfit for the purpose they are supposedly designed for. Large amounts of mass added for purely cosmetic purposes coupled with high centre of mass, dangerously obsolete braking systems and a tendency to rely on other vehicles as their crumple zones is IMHO something that would only be so widespread in a protected market that also spends a lot on advertising and political lobbying. Those "macho" things could be pulled out of a bog by the far more practical little aluminium light truck that the Queen of England was driving in the 1950s - let alone any purpose built vehicle since. Those fake ones I see as the problem since they are adding a lot to pollution in a city without the positive of maybe taking it to drive on a beach in summer some day or even tow something. An ordinary 2WD 1970s station wagon has more chance getting through sand or mud than some of those things.
We could have gotten a minivan
You don't have to justify it because I'm describing a trend where imitation trucks do not fit a use case instead of your own where it makes sense. The monster shopping trolley holding two or three people used for short trips in a very crowed city is one thing. What you are describing is another. If you want to tow something significant a comfortable farm tractor turned into a consumer vehicle with highway speeds is sensible. If it never does that or never even gets dirt on it and would fall apart if you tried then IMHO it's just burning a lot of fuel to be fashionable, and that's a depressingly large section of the US light truck market, so large that it could sustain enormous Humvee things that would fall apart if confronted with a large pothole.
As much as older IT folks don't want to admit it, they don't learn as quickly as they did when they were younger
That doesn't matter so much because things are changing at such a glacial speed. It may as well be 1999 for the small amount of 64 bit, multithreaded stuff that uses network capability well which is out there. If you defrosted a Sun sparc user from back then and put them on a Win8 machine they would be disappointed.
Remind them of your strengths, experience, what you can continue to contribute
From being on the receiving end of such begging it just makes you feel even less respect for the person doing the begging. If people are not aware of those things before a big mistake they are unlikely to want to hear about them afterwards.
My point is there are several reasons why manufacturers would put a low priority on an SUV type vehicle and why consumers looking for an SUV wouldn't want an electric one. If someone wants a fashion statement of a fake offroad vehicle it's too needlessly heavy to perform as an electric vehicle and if someone wants a real offroad vehicle electric is a poor choice for range away from the grid. So I don't see your electric small truck happening while I saw a minivan with a pile of batteries as far back as 1986 (hybrid for use in a mine - petrol above ground and electric underground).
my point is that is nice in principle, but not true in reality
I did write "unless idiots are using them as shopping trolleys in congested cities" - so L.A. with it's temperature inversion problems, crowded New York etc. More spread out cities - not so much. Two tons of metal to go to the shops is a waste if it never goes anywhere else.
but that is a separate conversation from the EV vs. gas one
I very strongly disagree. The pollution issue is what drove the move in California to encourage electric vehicles and still remains the driving force behind government policies worldwide on electric vehicles.
My new SUV
I've been trying to phrase things so that it should be clear that you should not be taking this personally or see it as any form of criticism of yourself, just some of a class of vehicles that are fashion accessories far less suitable offroad than even a cheap and nasty little Suzuki from the 1980s, let alone local vehicles good enough to export such as Jeeps.
All tasks that electric would do very well
With such heavy bodies of the like non-protected car industries gave up on in the 1970s they would perform very badly in comparison to something built along the lines of a commercial vehicle. If it's for towing, even worse since that shortens the range even more.
So to sum up I don't think we should discount the idea of electric vehicles just because they fit very poorly into one niche. I suspect they'll fit into the urban niche well enough that soon we'll be seeing fleets of electric taxis, although for that to happen they'll probably have to be 20% cheaper than whatever the dinosaurs of Detroit are trying to push on people.
The market has a 20% penalty on sensible vehicles that come from somewhere else, which has helped result in big heavy fake offroad vehicles used as shopping trolleys because they would fall apart if taken on a dirt road on a weekend. It should worry you guys that even the Japanese make better offroad vehicles than many (but not all) US models. Real offroad vehicles are a bad niche for electric due to range issues that are offset in fueled vehicles by putting some jerry cans in the back. Fake offroad vehicles are a fashion statement (the other reason for popularity) and too needlessly heavy to be considered as an electric car.
I suspect it would actually help more to get my 12 mpg truck off gas
Until you want to get some distance away from the grid.
The offroad vehicle I was driving in the 1990s (Suzuki Seirra - may have a different name where you are) would be almost trivial to convert into an electric car due to low weight and plenty of space under the hood, but range issues and the fashion driven desire for something big mean that people want a Land Cruiser luxury edition or whatever the US equivalent is instead of a little electric offroad tractor with a passenger compartment, or even a bigger bare bones version. They want to be surrounded by tons of crap low strength steel mostly there for ornamental purposes. Move that with batteries and you won't get far.
I used "alien/s" above because in the book it wasn't even clear after a century+ of research whether the scientists were dealing with one alien creature or many.
Personally I think the cloud is missing the point in general and is an artifact of limits to computer networks. Bandwidth bottlenecks and NAT make point to point access difficult and encourage storage on other people's servers with better connectivity. More fibre and IPv6 should blow the cloud away. If you have good connectivity you do not need any of these middlemen taking a cut. So I think the cloud is missing the point of a well connected internet but it's what we have to put up with in a lot of cases until we can improve things enough to not need "cloud services".
I'm hugging a new server to get 10Gb/s. That cloud salesman can think up any insults he likes but he's not selling anything remotely like what I want to buy.
Ah, the silent majority argument which normally only pollutes political discussions. It falls down when you consider that it should also apply to spinning storage. As for the additional numerology on a flawed premise - it's depressing to watch.
Electricity supply is reliable enough in many places to make it difficult to justify a generator for anything that is not utterly critical (which is a lot less than most people think).
Other larger companies had jet turbines on standbye.
That's bullshit hype unless they are a huge data centre and selling that as a MAJOR feature - tiny little jet engines from the 1950s can pump out 20MW which is the sort of thing used to cold start a power station - coal conveyers, crushers and all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's seen as a less important budget item than government assistance for car salesman (wish I was joking) which is why it isn't done as much as it should.
Your problem should be with the journalist making the link instead of the people who wrote it without making the link. Or maybe it shouldn't - fires were in the news so the journalist brought in some material about fires.
That's why it's in the news. Don't mistake a journalist grabbing something already available on a topic for something cooked up in a week.
While California has acted as if it's government has been force fed LSD since 1960 it is a global trend that is being observed so your local retarded fire retardation measures are an isolated strawman not relevant to the discussion.
There's plenty of potential work of that type out there but not the will to fund it.
Spot on. There are plenty of mine sites one flood away from making the fish downstream unfit for human consumption for years.
Or the other idea is chemical incorporation of the waste (eg. Synroc) so that it doesn't matter if it gets wet, just so long as it doesn't wash away downstream. That stuff is finally seeing some use now after decades of development hindered by the perception that funding waste disposal implied a waste problem so it was seen as politically expedient to pretend waste doesn't exist instead.
Yes they can use some waste material as fuel, in fact some of the most difficult stuff to store. Unfortunately utter idiots have been pretending that they can consume all waste by magic and those utter idiots have set back the cause they are trying to promote. You appear to have fallen victim to such an idiot.
So when you "point out" something it's best not to oversimplify it to the point of telling three year olds bedtime stories with magic. It's not "a practical solution to getting rid of current waste" - it's a recycling option that reduces the amount of waste. It's starting out with magic expressed as fact that makes discussions about civilian nuclear power quite juvenile, especially since someone who considers practicalities instead of believing in magic is instantly considered to be an opponent of civilian nuclear power (eg. nuclear waste storage technique researchers and even the people on the Clinton era Thorium project becuase they dared to say it was more safe than current technologies - daring to imply that current reactors were not perfect resulted in a shutdown of the program).
Do you really think someone with that much experience would be wasted on what MS consider a niche product with a captive market?
What a convoluted scenario to go waaaay off topic. The two situations are obviously completely different no matter what extra little petty distractions you add to your convoluted scenario. Just what I'd expect from your posting history where you keep going on about how the ruler of the day (eg. King George) is more important than the rule of law (eg. the line pushed by George Washington).
Being seen to be worth being eaten by a larger fish is not a sign of failure in technology companies.
It doesn't entirely save you from failing disk controllers but does warn you that it is going on. I've lost four files that way, all new multi-GB temporary files that were easily recreated or no longer required, but it does happen when you keep failing systems limping along until the replacement arrives.
That's a bit rich after some of your earlier posts about X and Wayland. I suggest you join the wayland mailing list and get some understanding before making such comments.
I disagree. The different approach of ZFS means it should be far better than btrfs when you have many disks, yet it makes almost no sense at all with single disks which is where btrfs makes sense.
Different tools for different jobs.
Different aims.
I have a very strong bias against some of them that I believe to be very unfit for the purpose they are supposedly designed for. Large amounts of mass added for purely cosmetic purposes coupled with high centre of mass, dangerously obsolete braking systems and a tendency to rely on other vehicles as their crumple zones is IMHO something that would only be so widespread in a protected market that also spends a lot on advertising and political lobbying. Those "macho" things could be pulled out of a bog by the far more practical little aluminium light truck that the Queen of England was driving in the 1950s - let alone any purpose built vehicle since. Those fake ones I see as the problem since they are adding a lot to pollution in a city without the positive of maybe taking it to drive on a beach in summer some day or even tow something. An ordinary 2WD 1970s station wagon has more chance getting through sand or mud than some of those things.
You don't have to justify it because I'm describing a trend where imitation trucks do not fit a use case instead of your own where it makes sense. The monster shopping trolley holding two or three people used for short trips in a very crowed city is one thing. What you are describing is another. If you want to tow something significant a comfortable farm tractor turned into a consumer vehicle with highway speeds is sensible. If it never does that or never even gets dirt on it and would fall apart if you tried then IMHO it's just burning a lot of fuel to be fashionable, and that's a depressingly large section of the US light truck market, so large that it could sustain enormous Humvee things that would fall apart if confronted with a large pothole.
That doesn't matter so much because things are changing at such a glacial speed. It may as well be 1999 for the small amount of 64 bit, multithreaded stuff that uses network capability well which is out there. If you defrosted a Sun sparc user from back then and put them on a Win8 machine they would be disappointed.
From being on the receiving end of such begging it just makes you feel even less respect for the person doing the begging. If people are not aware of those things before a big mistake they are unlikely to want to hear about them afterwards.
My point is there are several reasons why manufacturers would put a low priority on an SUV type vehicle and why consumers looking for an SUV wouldn't want an electric one. If someone wants a fashion statement of a fake offroad vehicle it's too needlessly heavy to perform as an electric vehicle and if someone wants a real offroad vehicle electric is a poor choice for range away from the grid. So I don't see your electric small truck happening while I saw a minivan with a pile of batteries as far back as 1986 (hybrid for use in a mine - petrol above ground and electric underground).
I did write "unless idiots are using them as shopping trolleys in congested cities" - so L.A. with it's temperature inversion problems, crowded New York etc. More spread out cities - not so much. Two tons of metal to go to the shops is a waste if it never goes anywhere else.
I very strongly disagree. The pollution issue is what drove the move in California to encourage electric vehicles and still remains the driving force behind government policies worldwide on electric vehicles.
I've been trying to phrase things so that it should be clear that you should not be taking this personally or see it as any form of criticism of yourself, just some of a class of vehicles that are fashion accessories far less suitable offroad than even a cheap and nasty little Suzuki from the 1980s, let alone local vehicles good enough to export such as Jeeps.
With such heavy bodies of the like non-protected car industries gave up on in the 1970s they would perform very badly in comparison to something built along the lines of a commercial vehicle. If it's for towing, even worse since that shortens the range even more.
So to sum up I don't think we should discount the idea of electric vehicles just because they fit very poorly into one niche. I suspect they'll fit into the urban niche well enough that soon we'll be seeing fleets of electric taxis, although for that to happen they'll probably have to be 20% cheaper than whatever the dinosaurs of Detroit are trying to push on people.
Good example.
Until you want to get some distance away from the grid.
The offroad vehicle I was driving in the 1990s (Suzuki Seirra - may have a different name where you are) would be almost trivial to convert into an electric car due to low weight and plenty of space under the hood, but range issues and the fashion driven desire for something big mean that people want a Land Cruiser luxury edition or whatever the US equivalent is instead of a little electric offroad tractor with a passenger compartment, or even a bigger bare bones version. They want to be surrounded by tons of crap low strength steel mostly there for ornamental purposes. Move that with batteries and you won't get far.
I used "alien/s" above because in the book it wasn't even clear after a century+ of research whether the scientists were dealing with one alien creature or many.
Personally I think the cloud is missing the point in general and is an artifact of limits to computer networks. Bandwidth bottlenecks and NAT make point to point access difficult and encourage storage on other people's servers with better connectivity. More fibre and IPv6 should blow the cloud away. If you have good connectivity you do not need any of these middlemen taking a cut.
So I think the cloud is missing the point of a well connected internet but it's what we have to put up with in a lot of cases until we can improve things enough to not need "cloud services".
I'm hugging a new server to get 10Gb/s. That cloud salesman can think up any insults he likes but he's not selling anything remotely like what I want to buy.
Ah, the silent majority argument which normally only pollutes political discussions. It falls down when you consider that it should also apply to spinning storage.
As for the additional numerology on a flawed premise - it's depressing to watch.
That's bullshit hype unless they are a huge data centre and selling that as a MAJOR feature - tiny little jet engines from the 1950s can pump out 20MW which is the sort of thing used to cold start a power station - coal conveyers, crushers and all.