Whoa. What a strange experience. I started a reply to your post that went, "By Jove! You are right! Now where will I get airfare to New Zealand?", but before I could click "Submit" I was transported to this room full of monitors with this guy staring me in the face. He said, "I am the Architect. I created the Matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant." He went on like this for some time until I gave him the finger and walked out the door. Strangely, I was back at my desk, my cursor hovering over "submit."
Yertle the Turtle? Granted, my knowledge of Seuss has been waning since the first grade, but I don't remember the good Dr. at any of our underground resistance meetings.
Ah, but was the war machine built to combat the Russians not used in Iraq? The fact is that some eggheads at some university were positing what might be and it made it to/. A few moments of thought show the pragmatic problems with the scenario:
- A 'cracked' router would have to be able to run arbitrary code; this requires firmware to be flashed.
- The compromised router must then be able to act as a client AND be within range of another AP to spread Winfluenza OR
- A vulnerable host (Windows) would have to be within range of another AP
- The compromised router or host would then have to use the dictionary attack. How much storage is on a router again?
- Such an attack would undoubtedly break the usefulness of the router causing the end user to unplug/replug, repeat, return to Best Buy
You see what I am driving at. And by driving, I mean in a hummer across the Arabian desert (man, I love the closure of analogy re-use).
Here, here! As much as Apple implies it is not like Microsoft, they certainly seem to borrow plenty from the latter's play book. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If you choose to believe me, then you are about to read an opinion from someone who is truly undecided on the issue of anthropomorphic climate change. I have studied both sides of the argument whenever I can (which is too rare, I'll admit), and I am still undecided. Here are some of the reasons why:
- There are more scientists on the "global warming is true" side, but there are legitimate scientists on the "global warming is false" side too
- For every piece of of good scientific evidence discussed, there are a hundred ad hominem or political attacks
- Making predictions is hard, especially about the future (oblig. Yogi Berra quote)
- Autodidacts such as myself are better swayed by good, reasoned argument than by credentials
- When discussing change versus the status quo in energy production and usage, we are talking about tremendous amounts of money, and hence power. It is nearly impossible in such an environment to have a reasonable discussion without the influence of those with an agenda.
...there's an implicit (or explicit) accusation that the scientists have ulterior motives. I, personally, doubt very much that real scientists have ulterior motives. However, non-scientists seem to be less bulletproof. For example, it is very hard for me to take Al Gore seriously because he is the chairman of a company that stands to make a killing if laws are changed to reduce carbon emissions.
Those researchers are being called not only fools, but liars, and I think the latter accusation stings harder. I agree. Scientists take their reputations very seriously; however, I believe scientists on either side of the argument have been accused unfairly. The "true" group is accused of cowing to political and peer pressures. Those in the "false" group are called oil company shills.
Many people who talk about climate change are also willing to believe because of their ideology, not because they've run the numbers. I couldn't agree more, and I think this is a fair criticism of either side.
I would assume transmission is AC at high voltage, but you are correct that the chart doesn't distinguish between loss due to type. I would be very curious to see a source on your second sentence. As I understand it, AC won out over DC (which Edison championed) for the very reason that DC loses so much voltage (and power for that matter) over long distance.
Indeed. I would love to see the "loss" portion broken down by transmission vs generation vs distribution. Generation, supposedly, doesn't lose much in very large plants. That would leave distribution, which I assume means local substations and transformers on power poles.
As chance would have it, I came across this very informative chart from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I am astounded at the amount of loss (transmission being a major factor).
I don't know if we... can afford the space...
I always chuckle a little on this one. I think it often comes down to perspective. I have lived in rural areas most of my life, so the question of space is almost laughable to me; however, I do recognize that the large majority of people live in urban or suburban places, so the question of space is very real to most.
As for the net yield, I have little doubt it would eventually produce more power than was required to build it. I would like to see such a beast have multiple uses. It is a greenhouse, after all. I would expect a great deal of crops could be grown within if there were a water source nearby.
wind or solar power can't be base sources of energy; they can't produce energy 24/7
I am investigating bringing electricity to a rural part of the county in which I live, and we did find one solar technology that produces electricity around the clock. This is a solar thermal system, not photovoltaic. The drawbacks we encountered, if you are interested, are:
- it hasn't yet been built on a large scale
- the giant tower in the middle would be an eyesore, and
- we need around 30 MW, not 200 MW generating capacity
wind or solar power can't be base sources of energy; they can't produce energy 24/7
I am investigating bringing electricity to a rural part of the county in which I live, and we did find one solar technology that produces electricity around the clock. This is a solar thermal system, not photovoltaic. The drawbacks we encountered, if you are interested, are:
- it hasn't yet been built on a large scale
- the giant tower in the middle would be an eyesore, and
- we need around 30 MW, not 200 MW generating capacity
Electricity! Heavens, no. Windows PCs are powered by bluster, Macs by ego, *BSD systems by antisocial energy, and Linux boxen by the collective goodwill of those yearning to breath free. (Excuse me. My bias is showing.)
Slashdot Mirror
I bought my wife an iAudio mp3 player from Cowon for the very reason that it plays ogg files. It works beautifully.
Whoa. What a strange experience. I started a reply to your post that went, "By Jove! You are right! Now where will I get airfare to New Zealand?", but before I could click "Submit" I was transported to this room full of monitors with this guy staring me in the face. He said, "I am the Architect. I created the Matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant." He went on like this for some time until I gave him the finger and walked out the door. Strangely, I was back at my desk, my cursor hovering over "submit."
The moderators will have exhausted their points by the time they get to your post, but here's an unofficial 'insightful.' Well said.
Indeed. Now if we could convince everyone to stop using Windows...
To screw with their minds, obviously.
I propose that we, the /. community, establish a vacation fund for New Zealand physicists.
Yertle the Turtle? Granted, my knowledge of Seuss has been waning since the first grade, but I don't remember the good Dr. at any of our underground resistance meetings.
Ah, but was the war machine built to combat the Russians not used in Iraq? The fact is that some eggheads at some university were positing what might be and it made it to /. A few moments of thought show the pragmatic problems with the scenario:
- A 'cracked' router would have to be able to run arbitrary code; this requires firmware to be flashed.
- The compromised router must then be able to act as a client AND be within range of another AP to spread Winfluenza OR
- A vulnerable host (Windows) would have to be within range of another AP
- The compromised router or host would then have to use the dictionary attack. How much storage is on a router again?
- Such an attack would undoubtedly break the usefulness of the router causing the end user to unplug/replug, repeat, return to Best Buy
You see what I am driving at. And by driving, I mean in a hummer across the Arabian desert (man, I love the closure of analogy re-use).
Holy crap! Maybe we should deal with existing security problems before we start with the imaginary ones.
Vigilantism
Here, here! As much as Apple implies it is not like Microsoft, they certainly seem to borrow plenty from the latter's play book. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
- There are more scientists on the "global warming is true" side, but there are legitimate scientists on the "global warming is false" side too
- For every piece of of good scientific evidence discussed, there are a hundred ad hominem or political attacks
- Making predictions is hard, especially about the future (oblig. Yogi Berra quote)
- Autodidacts such as myself are better swayed by good, reasoned argument than by credentials
- When discussing change versus the status quo in energy production and usage, we are talking about tremendous amounts of money, and hence power. It is nearly impossible in such an environment to have a reasonable discussion without the influence of those with an agenda.
...there's an implicit (or explicit) accusation that the scientists have ulterior motives. I, personally, doubt very much that real scientists have ulterior motives. However, non-scientists seem to be less bulletproof. For example, it is very hard for me to take Al Gore seriously because he is the chairman of a company that stands to make a killing if laws are changed to reduce carbon emissions.Those researchers are being called not only fools, but liars, and I think the latter accusation stings harder. I agree. Scientists take their reputations very seriously; however, I believe scientists on either side of the argument have been accused unfairly. The "true" group is accused of cowing to political and peer pressures. Those in the "false" group are called oil company shills.
Many people who talk about climate change are also willing to believe because of their ideology, not because they've run the numbers. I couldn't agree more, and I think this is a fair criticism of either side.
Now THAT is a cool idea! That's got me thinking about hydrogen pipelines...
I would assume transmission is AC at high voltage, but you are correct that the chart doesn't distinguish between loss due to type. I would be very curious to see a source on your second sentence. As I understand it, AC won out over DC (which Edison championed) for the very reason that DC loses so much voltage (and power for that matter) over long distance.
Indeed. I would love to see the "loss" portion broken down by transmission vs generation vs distribution. Generation, supposedly, doesn't lose much in very large plants. That would leave distribution, which I assume means local substations and transformers on power poles.
As chance would have it, I came across this very informative chart from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I am astounded at the amount of loss (transmission being a major factor).
I always chuckle a little on this one. I think it often comes down to perspective. I have lived in rural areas most of my life, so the question of space is almost laughable to me; however, I do recognize that the large majority of people live in urban or suburban places, so the question of space is very real to most.
As for the net yield, I have little doubt it would eventually produce more power than was required to build it. I would like to see such a beast have multiple uses. It is a greenhouse, after all. I would expect a great deal of crops could be grown within if there were a water source nearby.
I am investigating bringing electricity to a rural part of the county in which I live, and we did find one solar technology that produces electricity around the clock. This is a solar thermal system, not photovoltaic. The drawbacks we encountered, if you are interested, are:
- it hasn't yet been built on a large scale
- the giant tower in the middle would be an eyesore, and
- we need around 30 MW, not 200 MW generating capacity
I am investigating bringing electricity to a rural part of the county in which I live, and we did find one solar technology that produces electricity around the clock. This is a solar thermal system, not photovoltaic. The drawbacks we encountered, if you are interested, are:
- it hasn't yet been built on a large scale
- the giant tower in the middle would be an eyesore, and
- we need around 30 MW, not 200 MW generating capacity
Electricity! Heavens, no. Windows PCs are powered by bluster, Macs by ego, *BSD systems by antisocial energy, and Linux boxen by the collective goodwill of those yearning to breath free. (Excuse me. My bias is showing.)
It's a metaphor, you insensitive clod! (Similes use "like" or "as".) It did stink, though.
There are some seriously angry people with mod points today. I expect this one will get "-1: Flamebait"
Top 10 most duped articles.
[grumbles to self] "Damn computer science majors. Messes up my 'insensitive clod' joke..." [trails off into incoherence]