Is there enough heat generated by the generators used in wind generators to allow these to further augment their power output? Seems to me that having these on a wind turbine would be excellent as you have a ready source of air to create a large temp. delta.
While it would be nice to ditch the alternator, I still see being able to reduce the size of it by half or a third to be a big win. On long trips the reduced work adds up and for short trips, it's able to keep the batteries charged before the engine is hot enough for these to kick in. This means increased economy in both city and highway. If I recall, the biggest drain on an engine is what, the water pump, the alternator, and the A/C compressor. If you're able to sap enough heat away, might you even be able to reduce the size of the water pump even slightly?
Most regulators in cars can handle 9-16v swings without any problem. It's possible that they'll work well with even lower voltages to allow for clean jumps on a close to dead battery. Remember, most systems have to handle a jump from 9-12 to 14-18 volts jumps during the duty cycle depending on the load on the system which stated it and the size of the alternater when it kicks in. Big SUV alternators can kick up to, what, 18v? Generally speaking, they are already pretty robust. I'm sure they could be further refined/improved as needed.
You forgot one of the most important ones. Microsoft should not be allowed to pre-announce ANY product or service offering unless it it within 30-days of it's pending release. Furthermore, significant fines should be applied for each of every day that they miss their release date (in the millions) so as to ensure that it does'nt just become another builtin product cost.
That's like the Wine developers saying that Wine is not an emulator... You can say that all you want, but you're just denying the obvious truth about Wine.
And what truth is that? That it's an API layer? According to you, Linux is also a POSIX emulator, an OpenGL emulator, and...name-every-API-that-exists-for-Linux-emulato r.
Simply put, you are a moron. I'm so glad to know that you know sooo much more than do real developers, including the developers implementing Wine. Go figure.
Ya, my point being, which IMOHO was rather obvious, Linux is no more a POSIX emulator than Wine is a Windows emulator. Rather, Linux implements a POSIX environment while Wine IMPLEMENTS a Win32 environment. Notice that IMPLEMENTS was used and NOT emulates.
You are correct! WINE is NOT an Emulator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wine is an abstraction layer. It abstracts the native Win32 calls into NATIVE calls. It is NOT emulating Windows. VMWare is an emulator. DOSEMU is an emulator. BOCHES(sp?) is an emulator. All of those truely EMULATE an environment. Wine is an abstraction layer which allows it to make native calls. This is the reason why some things actually run FASTER under Wine than when running on a Win32 platform.
If we were to take your assertion, then Linux is a POSIX emulator. Linux is an OpenGL emulator. Windows is an OpenGL emulator. I could go on, but come on, get real! Wine Is Not an Emulator! Please say it three times SLOWLY! Now, say it again, this time at normal speed. Okay, say it three time fast. Okay, what did we just learn??? Wine Is Not an Emulator. Got it? Good!
Sounds like a pretty sane way to do it. Oh wait, toss it right out. It makes sense. It will never work! Imagine that, something in law that actually makes sense. You should be put in jail for thinking such a thing. YOU'RE CRAZY!! AAHHHHHhhhhh......
Note that it was not government that finally dethroned IBM from its monopoly position, it was the free market
Close. It was the free market in reaction to the restrictions the government placed on IBM which allowed the free market to once again regulate it self. They go hand and hand here. One is cause, the other is effect.
Unfortunately, Microsoft®.NET Passport does not support the Web browsing software you are using. Please use supported browsing software such as Microsoft Internet Explorer version 4.0 or later, or Netscape Navigator versions 4.08-4.82.
If you use Netscape Navigator 6.1: due to possible data security issues, you cannot currently access.NET Passport using Netscape Navigator 6.1. We take security seriously and are working with Netscape to resolve these issues as soon as possible so that.NET Passport can support Netscape Navigator 6.1. Until that time, please use supported browsing software. We apologize for this inconvenience and thank you for your patience.
I got this using Mozilla 0.9.5. I noticed this when using 0.9.4. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that they are trying to covertly sway public opinion that any browser that doesn't come from Microsoft can't be trusted or simply won't work right for many sites. In other words, if you're not MS, you must suck type mentality.
I just connected using Mozilla 0.9.5 without problem. Seems they didn't like the bad press telling everyone that they using their illegal monopoly powers to continue to piss poeple off. They must of changed it back.
My point: you seem to believe that these unexplained events mean the theory is wrong. I disagree.
Except that is not what I said and certainly not what I think. You seem to assume that it's unexplained because it doesn't mesh with existing theory. The events that I outlined HAD BEEN explained only it didn't mesh with ACCEPTED theory. Furthermore, there are several other events which support that conclusion (didn't you read anything?). As most people, you decided that fault is with the observer and ignore the facts rather than acknowledge the theory which has now been proved to be, in whole or some part, invalid. Period.
The fact that an Iceman survived or a ceolecanth survived does not mean our theory is wrong. It jsut means that anything is statistically possible!
Except that the dating meshed with accepted periods in which man was said to NOT exist and when dinos roamed the earth. Furthermore, there is also LOTS of cases where early man existed at the same time neanderthal(sp?) existed. This places them in parallel evolution and not as a decendant. That too screws up the whole theory. But it's ignored because there isn't another theory to replace it. If you really look at it from an unbiased view, AND check into it, you'll find that there is pretty much ZERO proof that supports the current theory of human evolution, in whole, however, there is TONS of proof that shows it to be invalid. This is NOT saying that evolution is invalid, rather, only the evolution of humans.
Now then, in the event that you care to actually offer proof the human evolutionary theory is valid, I'm happy to have you point me at something, even vague references as I have done. I of course state this knowing that it is very doubtful you'll have anything here.
Don't you think it's odd that there is evidence that shows the current theory to be invalid and little to none that supports it, yet, it's considered valid? Seems like someone's been smoking lots of funny smell'n stuff to me. The real crime here is that people refuse to go back and look at the facts and question if these assumptions are valid. That's really all that is being asked. As is, you like most, refuse to do so and continue to make poor science worse.
I suspect you have a beef with evolution, maybe you are even a creationist (gasp!) since you brought up evolution as your example when the thread was about cosmology.
The defense of the ignorant. Had you actually read everything that I posted, you'd clearly see that is not the case. It's called being open minded (gasp!). Something that science requires and gets little of these days. At this point in time, can you tell me what the whole point of this series of postings were about? Doubtful. You're too intent on proving me wrong rather that talking about good science (gasp -- who'd want that??). To recap, the thread started off because, at it's core, to accept the story, you have to question LOTS of basic assumptions which can NOT be proofed. Because of this, I cited several examples of where basic assumptions often need to be questioned because, in many cases, these assuptions are found to be wrong (in whole or part). When we fail to do this, it makes for bad science. Period. You provided a wonderful example of just how bad, bad science can be. Like you, many of the "scientist" that do this research is human and fear anything that might be right if it's at the cost of an existing theory (gasp...people might actually learn something...gasp). This has nothing to do with creationist or evolutionist. Anyone with a brain can clearly see this is a fundimental science issue. I offered zero proof that anything that I said had anything to do with creationism. But, arrogantly you jumped on that wagon. As such, you clearly feel a threat from good science existing. What's so bad about questioning the validity of theories when new evidence is found? Isn't that what good science is supposed to do? Not according to you. Shame on you!
That's really up to the courts. Basically the idea is that if MS can prove the market can compete and that the clause no longer has it's desired effect on that market, then it should be lifted.
You would never want to place an arbitrary time frame on it. Rather, they should be forced to prove to the courts that the market has healed significantly enough to justify a specific clause should be lifted. That way, if it takes 20 years or 5 years, the market can be allowed to progress and function as it should as soon as can. This is more or less what IBM's been having to do. And rightly so!
Cough, cough. It depends. This by far is not an accurate statement without lots of qualifiers. To make it so, you'd need to quantify many of your project's environmental conditions. I'm assuming all of your projects are 100% readonly.
Because it does the job.
The same way MS Access "does the job", only, the Jet database is more advanced. Simply put, if you wouldn't use a Jet Database for your project, MySQL should not be used either. I'm serious. Any project you start and need to select a database, ask your self if you'd use a JetDB here. If the answer is, "no", then walk right on past MySQL too.
Becasue it is popular and well supported by the community. Because it is "out there", people see others using mysql and end up using the same.
That's true. I think if you look around, you'll find, to a slightly lesser degree, PostgreSQL is "out there" and being used by real live people too. There are books for it too and the community is pretty strong.
I for one like MySQL. I dont need subqueries for a simple website, and I sure as hell don't need transactions for it.
I always get confused when I hear people say this. If this is truely the case then you'd almost always better off NOT using any type of relational database at all. There's no point. Subqueries are faster, help ensure the validity of the result sets that you work with (dataset could change between the two queries you issue trying to work around this issue on MySQL). And, if you don't need transactions, locking, ref. integ. and your are only updating a single row in a single table or reading a single row from a single table, why are you using a relational database to begin with? It's much too slow compared to your options here.
What you're forgetting is that in many web-based applications, the data *doesn't matter* (not more than nightly backups will take care of, anyway). MySQL is perfect for a whole range of web-related work, and these new additions will make it even more useful.
Except that you are forgetting that multiple recently published scores indicate that MySQL really stinks for this type of work too unless it's ALL read only access. Once you start throwing writes into the mix, MySQL falls far behind. On top of that, MySQL also has concurrent access load issues too. This means it's not going to scale very well when lots of connections are asking for lots of differing types of data from lots of different tables. Yes, it's VERY fast for one or two people (or even a small handful) doing read only access, however, use it in an environment where there are even some writes in a highly loaded system, PstgreSQL is going to beat it, not just with a stick but a full blown Loui Slugger. Once you get into the world of having a large number of writes, MySQL becomes an utter joke as PostgreSQL has lots of optimizations to take advantage of this while MySQL just rolls into a ball and cries. Of course, I've also read lots stating the PostgreSQL's query optimizer is much more advanced, so once you start doing non-trivial queries, PostgreSQL is going to win again. This will be come significantly important once (if) MySQL starts supporting sub-queries.
The point being, MySQL really isn't a great DB system after all. It may get there one day but the number of situations that it truely works well in and MySQL can address are actually very limited and nitche areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there enough heat generated by the generators used in wind generators to allow these to further augment their power output? Seems to me that having these on a wind turbine would be excellent as you have a ready source of air to create a large temp. delta.
While it would be nice to ditch the alternator, I still see being able to reduce the size of it by half or a third to be a big win. On long trips the reduced work adds up and for short trips, it's able to keep the batteries charged before the engine is hot enough for these to kick in. This means increased economy in both city and highway. If I recall, the biggest drain on an engine is what, the water pump, the alternator, and the A/C compressor. If you're able to sap enough heat away, might you even be able to reduce the size of the water pump even slightly?
Most regulators in cars can handle 9-16v swings without any problem. It's possible that they'll work well with even lower voltages to allow for clean jumps on a close to dead battery. Remember, most systems have to handle a jump from 9-12 to 14-18 volts jumps during the duty cycle depending on the load on the system which stated it and the size of the alternater when it kicks in. Big SUV alternators can kick up to, what, 18v? Generally speaking, they are already pretty robust. I'm sure they could be further refined/improved as needed.
I agree...mod this one up. ACE is awesome. It works well. It's stable. Has tons of documentation. Books are available. ACE!
Hehehhe. Pathetic.
You forgot one of the most important ones. Microsoft should not be allowed to pre-announce ANY product or service offering unless it it within 30-days of it's pending release. Furthermore, significant fines should be applied for each of every day that they miss their release date (in the millions) so as to ensure that it does'nt just become another builtin product cost.
Doesn't this mean that he could now sue for violation of his constitutional rights?
That's like the Wine developers saying that Wine is not an emulator... You can say that all you want, but you're just denying the obvious truth about Wine.
o r.
And what truth is that? That it's an API layer? According to you, Linux is also a POSIX emulator, an OpenGL emulator, and...name-every-API-that-exists-for-Linux-emulat
Simply put, you are a moron. I'm so glad to know that you know sooo much more than do real developers, including the developers implementing Wine. Go figure.
Because you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. It's called (W)ine (I)s (N)ot an (E)mulator; WINE.
Ya, my point being, which IMOHO was rather obvious, Linux is no more a POSIX emulator than Wine is a Windows emulator. Rather, Linux implements a POSIX environment while Wine IMPLEMENTS a Win32 environment. Notice that IMPLEMENTS was used and NOT emulates.
You are correct! WINE is NOT an Emulator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wine is an abstraction layer. It abstracts the native Win32 calls into NATIVE calls. It is NOT emulating Windows. VMWare is an emulator. DOSEMU is an emulator. BOCHES(sp?) is an emulator. All of those truely EMULATE an environment. Wine is an abstraction layer which allows it to make native calls. This is the reason why some things actually run FASTER under Wine than when running on a Win32 platform.
If we were to take your assertion, then Linux is a POSIX emulator. Linux is an OpenGL emulator. Windows is an OpenGL emulator. I could go on, but come on, get real! Wine Is Not an Emulator! Please say it three times SLOWLY! Now, say it again, this time at normal speed. Okay, say it three time fast. Okay, what did we just learn??? Wine Is Not an Emulator. Got it? Good!
I'm so glad we all run Linux solely because it's such a good POSIX emulator.
Gesshh...
I thought the shuttle had three and the ground and one which was contacted in case on of the three on the shuttle gets voted out????
Sounds like a pretty sane way to do it. Oh wait, toss it right out. It makes sense. It will never work! Imagine that, something in law that actually makes sense. You should be put in jail for thinking such a thing. YOU'RE CRAZY!! AAHHHHHhhhhh......
;)
Note that it was not government that finally dethroned IBM from its monopoly position, it was the free market
Close. It was the free market in reaction to the restrictions the government placed on IBM which allowed the free market to once again regulate it self. They go hand and hand here. One is cause, the other is effect.
Browser Not Supported
.NET Passport does not support the Web browsing software you are using. Please use supported browsing software such as Microsoft Internet Explorer version 4.0 or later, or Netscape Navigator versions 4.08-4.82.
.NET Passport using Netscape Navigator 6.1. We take security seriously and are working with Netscape to resolve these issues as soon as possible so that .NET Passport can support Netscape Navigator 6.1. Until that time, please use supported browsing software. We apologize for this inconvenience and thank you for your patience.
Unfortunately, Microsoft®
If you use Netscape Navigator 6.1: due to possible data security issues, you cannot currently access
I got this using Mozilla 0.9.5. I noticed this when using 0.9.4. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that they are trying to covertly sway public opinion that any browser that doesn't come from Microsoft can't be trusted or simply won't work right for many sites. In other words, if you're not MS, you must suck type mentality.
Opps...I should note that I'm running Mozilla on Linux which someone said was being allowed to connect. So, please ignore my pointless posting.
I just connected using Mozilla 0.9.5 without problem. Seems they didn't like the bad press telling everyone that they using their illegal monopoly powers to continue to piss poeple off. They must of changed it back.
My point: you seem to believe that these unexplained events mean the theory is wrong. I disagree.
Except that is not what I said and certainly not what I think. You seem to assume that it's unexplained because it doesn't mesh with existing theory. The events that I outlined HAD BEEN explained only it didn't mesh with ACCEPTED theory. Furthermore, there are several other events which support that conclusion (didn't you read anything?). As most people, you decided that fault is with the observer and ignore the facts rather than acknowledge the theory which has now been proved to be, in whole or some part, invalid. Period.
The fact that an Iceman survived or a ceolecanth survived does not mean our theory is wrong. It jsut means that anything is statistically possible!
Except that the dating meshed with accepted periods in which man was said to NOT exist and when dinos roamed the earth. Furthermore, there is also LOTS of cases where early man existed at the same time neanderthal(sp?) existed. This places them in parallel evolution and not as a decendant. That too screws up the whole theory. But it's ignored because there isn't another theory to replace it. If you really look at it from an unbiased view, AND check into it, you'll find that there is pretty much ZERO proof that supports the current theory of human evolution, in whole, however, there is TONS of proof that shows it to be invalid. This is NOT saying that evolution is invalid, rather, only the evolution of humans.
Now then, in the event that you care to actually offer proof the human evolutionary theory is valid, I'm happy to have you point me at something, even vague references as I have done. I of course state this knowing that it is very doubtful you'll have anything here.
Don't you think it's odd that there is evidence that shows the current theory to be invalid and little to none that supports it, yet, it's considered valid? Seems like someone's been smoking lots of funny smell'n stuff to me. The real crime here is that people refuse to go back and look at the facts and question if these assumptions are valid. That's really all that is being asked. As is, you like most, refuse to do so and continue to make poor science worse.
I suspect you have a beef with evolution, maybe you are even a creationist (gasp!) since you brought up evolution as your example when the thread was about cosmology.
The defense of the ignorant. Had you actually read everything that I posted, you'd clearly see that is not the case. It's called being open minded (gasp!). Something that science requires and gets little of these days. At this point in time, can you tell me what the whole point of this series of postings were about? Doubtful. You're too intent on proving me wrong rather that talking about good science (gasp -- who'd want that??). To recap, the thread started off because, at it's core, to accept the story, you have to question LOTS of basic assumptions which can NOT be proofed. Because of this, I cited several examples of where basic assumptions often need to be questioned because, in many cases, these assuptions are found to be wrong (in whole or part). When we fail to do this, it makes for bad science. Period. You provided a wonderful example of just how bad, bad science can be. Like you, many of the "scientist" that do this research is human and fear anything that might be right if it's at the cost of an existing theory (gasp...people might actually learn something...gasp). This has nothing to do with creationist or evolutionist. Anyone with a brain can clearly see this is a fundimental science issue. I offered zero proof that anything that I said had anything to do with creationism. But, arrogantly you jumped on that wagon. As such, you clearly feel a threat from good science existing. What's so bad about questioning the validity of theories when new evidence is found? Isn't that what good science is supposed to do? Not according to you. Shame on you!
That's really up to the courts. Basically the idea is that if MS can prove the market can compete and that the clause no longer has it's desired effect on that market, then it should be lifted.
You would never want to place an arbitrary time frame on it. Rather, they should be forced to prove to the courts that the market has healed significantly enough to justify a specific clause should be lifted. That way, if it takes 20 years or 5 years, the market can be allowed to progress and function as it should as soon as can. This is more or less what IBM's been having to do. And rightly so!
Because it is fast.
Cough, cough. It depends. This by far is not an accurate statement without lots of qualifiers. To make it so, you'd need to quantify many of your project's environmental conditions. I'm assuming all of your projects are 100% readonly.
Because it does the job.
The same way MS Access "does the job", only, the Jet database is more advanced. Simply put, if you wouldn't use a Jet Database for your project, MySQL should not be used either. I'm serious. Any project you start and need to select a database, ask your self if you'd use a JetDB here. If the answer is, "no", then walk right on past MySQL too.
Becasue it is popular and well supported by the community. Because it is "out there", people see others using mysql and end up using the same.
That's true. I think if you look around, you'll find, to a slightly lesser degree, PostgreSQL is "out there" and being used by real live people too. There are books for it too and the community is pretty strong.
I for one like MySQL. I dont need subqueries for a simple website, and I sure as hell don't need transactions for it.
I always get confused when I hear people say this. If this is truely the case then you'd almost always better off NOT using any type of relational database at all. There's no point. Subqueries are faster, help ensure the validity of the result sets that you work with (dataset could change between the two queries you issue trying to work around this issue on MySQL). And, if you don't need transactions, locking, ref. integ. and your are only updating a single row in a single table or reading a single row from a single table, why are you using a relational database to begin with? It's much too slow compared to your options here.
What you're forgetting is that in many web-based applications, the data *doesn't matter* (not more than nightly backups will take care of, anyway). MySQL is perfect for a whole range of web-related work, and these new additions will make it even more useful.
Except that you are forgetting that multiple recently published scores indicate that MySQL really stinks for this type of work too unless it's ALL read only access. Once you start throwing writes into the mix, MySQL falls far behind. On top of that, MySQL also has concurrent access load issues too. This means it's not going to scale very well when lots of connections are asking for lots of differing types of data from lots of different tables. Yes, it's VERY fast for one or two people (or even a small handful) doing read only access, however, use it in an environment where there are even some writes in a highly loaded system, PstgreSQL is going to beat it, not just with a stick but a full blown Loui Slugger. Once you get into the world of having a large number of writes, MySQL becomes an utter joke as PostgreSQL has lots of optimizations to take advantage of this while MySQL just rolls into a ball and cries. Of course, I've also read lots stating the PostgreSQL's query optimizer is much more advanced, so once you start doing non-trivial queries, PostgreSQL is going to win again. This will be come significantly important once (if) MySQL starts supporting sub-queries.
The point being, MySQL really isn't a great DB system after all. It may get there one day but the number of situations that it truely works well in and MySQL can address are actually very limited and nitche areas.
No. Houston. Sorry.
And don't forget that it uses two lasers to determine and correct for the amount of barrel warpage and heat expansion to fire more accurately.