Why is statement of fact considered trolling? This strongly suggests two things. One, the moderator has no idea what they are doing. Two, they know nothing of the history.
The facts are, Obama was awarded before he had done anything. It was widely discussed and even Obama himself made this specific point. Secondly, Yassar is classified as a terrorist. Both statements are factually accurate and extremely well documented.
If you don't know about the subject matter, don't moderate as what you are doing absolutely is trolling.
Unless they completely screwed up in the design of the vehicle, this actually becomes proof those laws need to be addressed - meaning, yes, they are absolutely obsolete.
Which is more likely, when the battery is detected to be low, the engine starts, charges for an extremely short duration, and turns off, thusly ensuring a repeat of this cycle just moments from now - or - the start cycle, when it kicks in worst case, more or less mimics that of the Prius. And given that for the average commuter, the worst case likely never happens given the demographic who is to likely purchase the vehicle in the first place.
In other words, the law is obsolete.
Just because the car can take short trips on the battery alone does not mean that the other potential emissions go away.
Ummm...yes, it does mean exactly that. That's entirely the point of the concept. If this is not the case, it means you should not have bought the car in the first place. Given that most (vast majority, all?) people who purchase such a vehicle do so because it meets their commuting needs. Meaning, it allows them to commute on battery power. Which means, in the vast majority of the time, those emissions never take place - being displaced to a power plant.
but it's expected that if capacity falls below 80% of the original capacity
Do some simply math in your head. Unless they have the margins to up charge battery costs of > 50%, its not likely, if it even does cover loss of capacity (which would typically fall into the wear and tear category). And frankly, I'll be fairly surprised if it does cover loss of capacity at all. And I seriously doubt they have those kinds of margins built into the current generation of battery packs.
The two major electric vehicles (Nissan Leaf/Chevy Volt) launching later this year have much longer warranties on their batteries: 8 years / 100,000 miles.
And that warranties exactly what? Cell/pack failure? Loss of capacity? If loss of capacity, how much loss is required before it kicks in? Is that portion of the warranty transferable?
Just so you understand the line of thinking, carpet makes for a great example. Many carpets come with a lifetime warranty. Doesn't that sound awesome? If its a manufacturer defect, its completely replaced - maybe even for the entire room. Here's the catch. The number one cause of carpet failure is caused by padding failure, which typically occurs in five to ten years. So in almost all cases, carpet failure is never actually covered by warranty and carpet failure is expected within ten, on the outside. And when it is covered, now you have a room, with a visible seam, whos color likely does not match that of the next room. So even replacement is far from satisfactory. Furthermore, sometimes, they'll just replace a patch, which looks ever shittier.
So to bring this back around, lets say you have a couple of cells fail. Now they replace a couple hundred dollars of cells but at best, your battery is still holding, at most, 80% capacity, with 60%-70% being far more realistic. So again, does that warranty really cover what you think it does? Does it cover realistic wear and tear or only the exception. And in either case, how does it protect you when it kicks in?
You have some valid points. Just the same, the Prius is an EV-hybrid which means its resale takes place in the existing ICE market; albeit with some adjustment. It also has much, much smaller battery packs and fully controlled/conditioned duty cycle. Accordingly, comparing the Prius with an actual EV car is not really appropriate or realistic. And, last I checked, the bottom had fallen out (realistical market correction - and continuing to correct) on the Prius resell market because supply was now readily available. Additionally, Priuses are no longer selling for above sticker.
The fact is, no one, including the manufacturers really know how well the batteries are going to hold up. Some battery packs will fair better than others. This is likely even true from lot to lot - just as is the case with all other current battery technologies. The recharge cycles and duty cycles will make huge differences; which is in part why this battery technology is of such great value and interest. One such example is, the LEAF is claimed to get 100 miles per change. Testing indicates 60-80 to be far more realistic. Accordingly, 80% capacity at the end of three years is likely not realistic. Probably means 50%-70% capacity is far more realistic. That means the "100 miles per charge", at the end of three years, is far more likely to be 30-60 miles; with something like 60 miles being a fairly reasonable expectation. In other words, most people are not going to find that capacity the least acceptable. That, in turn, implies a replacement battery pack which the second owner is expected to absorb.
Also, the manufacturer's cost often has little impact on retail cost. Even if lithium sales for $3.00/lbs, that hardly means the core charge is anywhere near the much. After all, the actual recycling costs have considerable impact here - as does hazmat handling and mitigation. And I have no idea what those costs actually are or reflect.
All of these reasons are why the manufacturers are pushing three year leases on these vehicles. That in turn, goes a long way to validating much of what I'm telling you - as well as providing limited PR protection some three years after the date of sale.
Lastly, you need to keep in mind, because this is a potential game changing technology, the manufacturers are not making large profits on these cars. That almost always means they expect to make at least some of it back on parts. With an electric car, that almost certainly implies batteries and electric motors.
Therefore, I feel the focus ought to be on longer-range and/or faster-charging EVs.
Which means, build a better battery. And that's why everyone is so focused on building better batteries and the infrastructure required to support them.
While I certainly agree with the rest of your post, thermal electric plants still aren't very efficient.
Well, they are still more efficient than everyone having their own ICE. And to be clear, when I said, "transmission", I mean electrical transmission and distribution, not a mechanical transmission. While transmissions have become much more efficient in recent years, they still impose something like 8%-13% frictional loss. Electric motors, when done right, do not require a mechanical transmission.
So in the end, even with older thermal plants, electric vehicles provide for a more efficient form of locomotion. Which is, in fact, why most trains have long turned toward diesel/electric; sans a transmission. Many ships and subs have also followed, but have done so for these and yet additional corner benefits.
Fuel cells are extremely expensive, typically require advanced construction materials and/or methods, and frequently require exotic/rare metals. Made worse, they are typically very maintenance intensive. And in exchange for all that, they are extremely expensive. A high quality fuel cell can often cost well in excess of $100,000 USD.
Despite the fuel cell buzz in alternate energy circles, I've not read a single account which did not have significant technological and/or economical hurdles. That's why you typically don't see fuel cells in use except for fairly exotic projects, such as space travel, military application, and alternative energy research.
That's not to say continued fuel cell research is without merit, but right now, they have a long, long way to go before they can hope to become practical.
While it is true that the energy/weight ratio favors the Li-ion.
But that's part of his point. The energy/weight ratio favors Li-ion, but only at the chemistry level. Pragmatically, in order to maintained battery longevity, the energy/eight ratio of Li-ion is halved. That means the vehicle is carrying 16Kwh of battery but can only effectively use 8Kwh of juice before the battery life and storage capacity is significantly, negatively effected.
So if you carry something like 90-100 cells, plus the huge benefit of an extremely rapid charge, you're way ahead; both in the short and long term.
Which also naturally dissipate if you're not in an enclosed space.
Actually, much less so. Natural deformations causes vapors to collect. That's the real danger. Also, fuel will burn/combust in a much wider air/fuel mixer than will hydrogen. This combination means fuel is far more dangerous than hydrogen - especially hydrogen under pressure.
How do you contain hydrogen in an automobile accident?
It naturally dissipates rapidly. It is, after all, lighter than air - unlike fuel and fuel vapors. Most serious research into the issue indicates hydrogen as a fuel source is actually safer than a gas tank.
You can use a threadpool (and its the most appropriate way of handling it in many situations), however, you're still bound by the size of the pool. Hence your concurrency and throughput is limited by the size of the pools.
Yes and no. That's why, for example, Apache uses thread pools as part of its hybrid strategy. Your pool size should always have some relationship to the hardware on which it runs. So long as you maintain some reasonable relationship, your scalability and level of concurrency largely becomes constrained by the hardware on which you run.
What a well thought out and rational response. The fact you've been moderated, "troll", seems to validate that statement. Seems many low IQ moderators love to censor when either they don't understand the material at all, or simply don't agree. I encourage others to moderate your post up as it wonderfully highlights many of the very real problems (perceived or actualized) with electric cars. Just the same, I do have some nits to mention.
Refuelling your car does not require an enormous infrastructure
Actually it does. Infrastructure and transport, not to mention localized mixing for local emission laws, is actually a very large percentage of petrol costs. You're just so accustomed to seeing it everywhere, you don't notice. Well that, plus the fact that much of it is on the highways and under ground.
slight fire that you can extinguish versus KABOOM
Actually, many battery technologies are less likely to vent vapors which might burn. Of course, you are correct in a fashion that various battery technologies, such as lion, are very likely to bloat/vent/burn/explode after overcharging, rapid discharge exceeding rating, and blunt force trauma. So it is an issue but in different situations.
When everyone parks their car at home at 6pm, it doesn't cause a massive power surge larger than our entire towns take at the moment.
This is clearly hysteria. Largely, the required infrastructure to support such a scenario doesn't even exist. Besides, both cars and chargers are already looking to address this by "smart" chargers and even simple timers. The reality is, just because you plug in at 6pm doesn't mean it starts charging at 6pm. And even if it does start charging, a simple trickle is frequently all that is actually needed. Designers already understand peak vs off-peak loads and costs and are already actively seeking solutions. Some solutions are already available and/or integrated.
If you want to go long-distance,
Actually, this is exactly why hybrid solutions have appeal. Beyond that, other car designers have small, optional trailers or "back packs" for the vehicle which dramatically extends range. Typically they are generators which allow you to keep your batteries charged using existing infrastructure for long distance trips. Solutions exists. They are not really ideal and of course, add additional cost. Just the same, the long-distance "woes" are certainly addressable.
Others are also exploring alternate solutions such as exchangeable electrolytic solution. Meaning, just as now, stations would maintain large vats of "fuel". Only in this case, the fuel is an electrolytic solution rather than petrol. To refuel, you attach two hoses. One to empty your discharged solution and the other to fill up with a fully charged solution. Again, not really ideal but people are clearly exploring possibilities.
And in the end, grid-surge means higher peak-demand
Actually, most research seems to indicate lower peak demand and much, much higher off-peak demand whereby base load power is frequently wasted.
All we've done is move the oil-burning into a power station and lost at least 10% of the electricity in storage/transmission.
"All"? That's actually a very big deal. Electric motors, even after the 10%-20% transmission loss is still dramatically more efficient that are internal combustion engines. Not to mention, power plants also gain efficiency from scale. Not to mention this allows for cleaner air and centralized pollution mitigation. We all have roughly $1000 added to each vehicle in an effort to simply make the exhaust less toxic; which completely ignores making it "clean." For JUST US car manufacturers, that's roughly $3.6 billion dollars wasted annually.
That sort of second-hand market will not exist for DECADES in the electric car market
Oh, the Peace and Economics prizes are often indications of whim,
Nice understatement.
Let's see, off the top of my head we have a man who has done nothing and a known terrorist - both receiving the peace prize. At this point the suggestion the peace prize serves more of a bribe than a reward has obtained far more credibility. Stating its given on a "whim" just seems to fall, way, way, way, way short of reality.;)
A couple years back when we tested this (around 3-4 years back I think), we could at most sustain 6k - 7k connections per box using standard IO (this was not HTTP / web traffic). The issues we ran into were spawing new native threads on the box (ran out of handles on linux) as well as running out of memory.
Anyone who wants scalability NEVER uses a 1:1 thread model. This is why Apache specifically uses a hybrid model to avoid such insanity. A 1:1 model is a recipe for strong contention which is completely contrary to the notion of scalability and actively defeats hardware scalability by adding additional cores/CPUs.
The fact that you run out of handles on linux means the box was not properly configured.
The memory issue is easily fixed by either adding more memory or using a sane connection model.
one off video clips that can out of context contradict
Actually, The Daily Show has two basic deliveries. They have the obvious joke whereby they do occasionally do what you claim. But when they do this, its always obvious its a joke for a joke's sake. But by far, they use a one off and/or readily repeated video clip, absolutely within context, to make their joke, which is by far why they tend to be so funny - because its true. The base of much of their humor is the fact that their humor is not only true but highlights blatant hypocrisy. Whereby, they then go for the dick joke.
If you believe the former form of humor is the rule rather than the exception, its really says far less about The Daily Show and more about the fact that you're not as nearly informed about the news as you believe yourself to be.
Additionally, they have started providing UNEDITED interviews and cited material so its absolutely clear their clips are factually within context. The reason they started doing this is because several "news organizations" who hypocritically lied, claiming The Daily Show frequently uses non-contextual clips, exactly as you asserted. In turn, The Daily Show had a nice segment showing all of the clips and proving their jokes were in fact, completely within context. They've then continued to provide clips to allow people to easily research for themselves that their "trusted new source", is in fact, frequently full of shit, and lying to them on an almost daily basis.
I hope you'll understand that contrary to your assertion, The Daily Show, as sad a fact as this is, actually is a very reputable source for news and full disclosure.
Actually, they do occasionally break stories (or at least one of the first to disclose) and do occasionally send reporters into the field. Though such situations is by far the exception rather than the rule. For example, The Daily Show had a reporter in Iran before the Iranian election fraud and uprising.
Of course, by your definition, almost none of the popular news agencies actually qualify as a "new agency"; even if you don't realize. You also seem to forget that most news is now news for entertainment rather than actual news. News is now considered for rating. Which is more or less what The Daily Show is all about; entertaining news. Add to the fact that The Daily Show actually has more credibility and a long history of accurately reporting and/or disclosing, there are very new other "news agencies" which are not at least one rung below that of The Daily Show. Which is not to say there are not some well known exceptions.
As an interesting aside, somewhere around 70+% of 18-25 who get news daily, get their daily news from The Daily Show. To be clear, that's not the same as 70+% of all 18-25.
Its in no ones best interest to destabilize the region. Furthermore, its dramatically better for US and Western interests to do so by proxy even if it was their intent. Even worse, a destabilized region makes it that much harder to politically address countries like Iran and Syria.
Even if you want to buy into the US imperialism conspiracy view, imperialism almost always brings stability, which is also contrary to your assertion.
The primary targets were US air bases, naval yards, American planes, and American ships; with US Carrier's being deemed the highest priority. The ONLY way you can factually look at it is, "American soil." Period. Its true, civilian, non-military targets were also attacked, but American soil was the primary target and received the vast majority of damage.
Its so nice to actually see someone other than myself on Slashdot who has any clue whatsoever as to what lead up to the war in Iraq.
+5 Informative
Usually informative posts such as yours leads to significant negative moderation and massive ignorant, verbal lynching by the general population here. So kudos on the positive moderation!
The US entered WWII as a direct result of American soil being attacked. It was pretty clear that fighting back was a matter of national security. In that context it would be easy to make the case that a leaker of battlefield secrets was treasonous.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. The US had been notified multiple times of an impending attack months before the attack at Perl Harbor actually took place. Furthermore, a week before the attack, the US was notified of the location of an immediately impending attack. The day of the attack, several more messages that an attack was both impending and taking place were never delivered. As such, no effective defense was able to be mustered. Add to this the very suspicious and atypical ship deployments on the day of the attack, everything about it stinks to high heaven. Nothing more than, "Oppps...they were lost in channels", were ever offered as a viable explanation.
Combine all of the magical message loss plus our atypical ship deployments with the fact that the President desperately wanted the US involved in the war in Europe, when the majority did not, with continued ploys of much the same on the our enemies throughout the war means its extremely unlikely (sucker's bet) that the US' involvement was not purposely empowered and manipulated. Many credible historians believe this line of thinking has a lot of credibility. This isn't some crazy conspiracy bullshit.
By 1943, support for the war had all but evaporated. By 1944, it was extremely difficult to maintain the war effort as it was financially extremely difficult; and it was only by high profile celebrity and industry war bond drives the war was able to continue. Had the population known that massive civilian deaths had been permitted to guard the fact German and Japanese codes had been broken, all support would have dwindled and dried up.
The reality is, wikileaks should exclusively be used to spotlight malfeasance, not national security disclosure which endangers soldiers, national security, and the lives of all involved. Whoever disclosed the information absolutely is a traitor and should be treated as such if and when they are caught. Had such an ignorant stunt been pulled during WWII, the allies absolutely would have lost the war and the entire face of the world would be different than it is today. While not the world, the future face of the Middle East literally hangs in the balance.
If only that were the case. Drivers, at least on Linux, basically have kernel-level access to the system, which makes them part of the trusted base. That does not combine well with not being able to inspect, much less modify the working of the driver. It could be full of (intentional or unintentional) security holes and other bugs you might never know. And even if you knew, you wouldn't be allowed to fix them. I am sure there are known cases of such security holes. And haven't Windows users been saying for a number of years now that the major cause of crashes on their OS is faulty drivers?
Except you completely misunderstand and misrepresent the situation.
In Linux, the "driver" part you mention is NOT the OpenGL stack. The driver is literally, just that. It provides for direct hardware access and memory management tailored for its workload; unlike the Windows situation which contained that plus the entire video driver. Worse, especially in ATI's case, there was no clear line of delineation which is one of the reasons ATI drivers used to be so crappy.
Whereas on Linux, the video driver is actually loaded by X, in user space, and is absolutely NOT in the kernel. The video driver then communicates with the hardware using the hardware interface which is created by the kernel module. Thus the complexity and chance of catastrophic bugs crashing the entire system is several orders of magnitude worse. Interestingly enough, its more or less the direction Microsoft has gone in recent years. In other words, Linux/NVIDIA figured it out and everyone else followed.
by modern standards the graphics engine is quite dated.
Such a comment suggests its been a very, very long time since you last serious looked at X-Plane.
Look at YouTube and you can find lots of comparison videos. In most videos you can't tell MSFS from X-Plane. In some comparisons, X-Plane looks way better. In others, MSFS looks better. Regardless, "dated" is woefully wrong. Especially when you consider that X-Plane and MSFS are widely regarded as the most visually realistic FS available.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is statement of fact considered trolling? This strongly suggests two things. One, the moderator has no idea what they are doing. Two, they know nothing of the history.
The facts are, Obama was awarded before he had done anything. It was widely discussed and even Obama himself made this specific point. Secondly, Yassar is classified as a terrorist. Both statements are factually accurate and extremely well documented.
If you don't know about the subject matter, don't moderate as what you are doing absolutely is trolling.
Unless they completely screwed up in the design of the vehicle, this actually becomes proof those laws need to be addressed - meaning, yes, they are absolutely obsolete.
Which is more likely, when the battery is detected to be low, the engine starts, charges for an extremely short duration, and turns off, thusly ensuring a repeat of this cycle just moments from now - or - the start cycle, when it kicks in worst case, more or less mimics that of the Prius. And given that for the average commuter, the worst case likely never happens given the demographic who is to likely purchase the vehicle in the first place.
In other words, the law is obsolete.
Just because the car can take short trips on the battery alone does not mean that the other potential emissions go away.
Ummm...yes, it does mean exactly that. That's entirely the point of the concept. If this is not the case, it means you should not have bought the car in the first place. Given that most (vast majority, all?) people who purchase such a vehicle do so because it meets their commuting needs. Meaning, it allows them to commute on battery power. Which means, in the vast majority of the time, those emissions never take place - being displaced to a power plant.
but it's expected that if capacity falls below 80% of the original capacity
Do some simply math in your head. Unless they have the margins to up charge battery costs of > 50%, its not likely, if it even does cover loss of capacity (which would typically fall into the wear and tear category). And frankly, I'll be fairly surprised if it does cover loss of capacity at all. And I seriously doubt they have those kinds of margins built into the current generation of battery packs.
Very informative. Thank you.
The two major electric vehicles (Nissan Leaf/Chevy Volt) launching later this year have much longer warranties on their batteries: 8 years / 100,000 miles.
And that warranties exactly what? Cell/pack failure? Loss of capacity? If loss of capacity, how much loss is required before it kicks in? Is that portion of the warranty transferable?
Just so you understand the line of thinking, carpet makes for a great example. Many carpets come with a lifetime warranty. Doesn't that sound awesome? If its a manufacturer defect, its completely replaced - maybe even for the entire room. Here's the catch. The number one cause of carpet failure is caused by padding failure, which typically occurs in five to ten years. So in almost all cases, carpet failure is never actually covered by warranty and carpet failure is expected within ten, on the outside. And when it is covered, now you have a room, with a visible seam, whos color likely does not match that of the next room. So even replacement is far from satisfactory. Furthermore, sometimes, they'll just replace a patch, which looks ever shittier.
So to bring this back around, lets say you have a couple of cells fail. Now they replace a couple hundred dollars of cells but at best, your battery is still holding, at most, 80% capacity, with 60%-70% being far more realistic. So again, does that warranty really cover what you think it does? Does it cover realistic wear and tear or only the exception. And in either case, how does it protect you when it kicks in?
Zingggg.... bata-bing!
You have some valid points. Just the same, the Prius is an EV-hybrid which means its resale takes place in the existing ICE market; albeit with some adjustment. It also has much, much smaller battery packs and fully controlled/conditioned duty cycle. Accordingly, comparing the Prius with an actual EV car is not really appropriate or realistic. And, last I checked, the bottom had fallen out (realistical market correction - and continuing to correct) on the Prius resell market because supply was now readily available. Additionally, Priuses are no longer selling for above sticker.
The fact is, no one, including the manufacturers really know how well the batteries are going to hold up. Some battery packs will fair better than others. This is likely even true from lot to lot - just as is the case with all other current battery technologies. The recharge cycles and duty cycles will make huge differences; which is in part why this battery technology is of such great value and interest. One such example is, the LEAF is claimed to get 100 miles per change. Testing indicates 60-80 to be far more realistic. Accordingly, 80% capacity at the end of three years is likely not realistic. Probably means 50%-70% capacity is far more realistic. That means the "100 miles per charge", at the end of three years, is far more likely to be 30-60 miles; with something like 60 miles being a fairly reasonable expectation. In other words, most people are not going to find that capacity the least acceptable. That, in turn, implies a replacement battery pack which the second owner is expected to absorb.
Also, the manufacturer's cost often has little impact on retail cost. Even if lithium sales for $3.00/lbs, that hardly means the core charge is anywhere near the much. After all, the actual recycling costs have considerable impact here - as does hazmat handling and mitigation. And I have no idea what those costs actually are or reflect.
All of these reasons are why the manufacturers are pushing three year leases on these vehicles. That in turn, goes a long way to validating much of what I'm telling you - as well as providing limited PR protection some three years after the date of sale.
Lastly, you need to keep in mind, because this is a potential game changing technology, the manufacturers are not making large profits on these cars. That almost always means they expect to make at least some of it back on parts. With an electric car, that almost certainly implies batteries and electric motors.
Therefore, I feel the focus ought to be on longer-range and/or faster-charging EVs.
Which means, build a better battery. And that's why everyone is so focused on building better batteries and the infrastructure required to support them.
While I certainly agree with the rest of your post, thermal electric plants still aren't very efficient.
Well, they are still more efficient than everyone having their own ICE. And to be clear, when I said, "transmission", I mean electrical transmission and distribution, not a mechanical transmission. While transmissions have become much more efficient in recent years, they still impose something like 8%-13% frictional loss. Electric motors, when done right, do not require a mechanical transmission.
So in the end, even with older thermal plants, electric vehicles provide for a more efficient form of locomotion. Which is, in fact, why most trains have long turned toward diesel/electric; sans a transmission. Many ships and subs have also followed, but have done so for these and yet additional corner benefits.
Fuel cells are extremely expensive, typically require advanced construction materials and/or methods, and frequently require exotic/rare metals. Made worse, they are typically very maintenance intensive. And in exchange for all that, they are extremely expensive. A high quality fuel cell can often cost well in excess of $100,000 USD.
Despite the fuel cell buzz in alternate energy circles, I've not read a single account which did not have significant technological and/or economical hurdles. That's why you typically don't see fuel cells in use except for fairly exotic projects, such as space travel, military application, and alternative energy research.
That's not to say continued fuel cell research is without merit, but right now, they have a long, long way to go before they can hope to become practical.
While it is true that the energy/weight ratio favors the Li-ion.
But that's part of his point. The energy/weight ratio favors Li-ion, but only at the chemistry level. Pragmatically, in order to maintained battery longevity, the energy/eight ratio of Li-ion is halved. That means the vehicle is carrying 16Kwh of battery but can only effectively use 8Kwh of juice before the battery life and storage capacity is significantly, negatively effected.
So if you carry something like 90-100 cells, plus the huge benefit of an extremely rapid charge, you're way ahead; both in the short and long term.
Which also naturally dissipate if you're not in an enclosed space.
Actually, much less so. Natural deformations causes vapors to collect. That's the real danger. Also, fuel will burn/combust in a much wider air/fuel mixer than will hydrogen. This combination means fuel is far more dangerous than hydrogen - especially hydrogen under pressure.
How do you contain hydrogen in an automobile accident?
It naturally dissipates rapidly. It is, after all, lighter than air - unlike fuel and fuel vapors. Most serious research into the issue indicates hydrogen as a fuel source is actually safer than a gas tank.
You can use a threadpool (and its the most appropriate way of handling it in many situations), however, you're still bound by the size of the pool. Hence your concurrency and throughput is limited by the size of the pools.
Yes and no. That's why, for example, Apache uses thread pools as part of its hybrid strategy. Your pool size should always have some relationship to the hardware on which it runs. So long as you maintain some reasonable relationship, your scalability and level of concurrency largely becomes constrained by the hardware on which you run.
What a well thought out and rational response. The fact you've been moderated, "troll", seems to validate that statement. Seems many low IQ moderators love to censor when either they don't understand the material at all, or simply don't agree. I encourage others to moderate your post up as it wonderfully highlights many of the very real problems (perceived or actualized) with electric cars. Just the same, I do have some nits to mention.
Refuelling your car does not require an enormous infrastructure
Actually it does. Infrastructure and transport, not to mention localized mixing for local emission laws, is actually a very large percentage of petrol costs. You're just so accustomed to seeing it everywhere, you don't notice. Well that, plus the fact that much of it is on the highways and under ground.
slight fire that you can extinguish versus KABOOM
Actually, many battery technologies are less likely to vent vapors which might burn. Of course, you are correct in a fashion that various battery technologies, such as lion, are very likely to bloat/vent/burn/explode after overcharging, rapid discharge exceeding rating, and blunt force trauma. So it is an issue but in different situations.
When everyone parks their car at home at 6pm, it doesn't cause a massive power surge larger than our entire towns take at the moment.
This is clearly hysteria. Largely, the required infrastructure to support such a scenario doesn't even exist. Besides, both cars and chargers are already looking to address this by "smart" chargers and even simple timers. The reality is, just because you plug in at 6pm doesn't mean it starts charging at 6pm. And even if it does start charging, a simple trickle is frequently all that is actually needed. Designers already understand peak vs off-peak loads and costs and are already actively seeking solutions. Some solutions are already available and/or integrated.
If you want to go long-distance,
Actually, this is exactly why hybrid solutions have appeal. Beyond that, other car designers have small, optional trailers or "back packs" for the vehicle which dramatically extends range. Typically they are generators which allow you to keep your batteries charged using existing infrastructure for long distance trips. Solutions exists. They are not really ideal and of course, add additional cost. Just the same, the long-distance "woes" are certainly addressable.
Others are also exploring alternate solutions such as exchangeable electrolytic solution. Meaning, just as now, stations would maintain large vats of "fuel". Only in this case, the fuel is an electrolytic solution rather than petrol. To refuel, you attach two hoses. One to empty your discharged solution and the other to fill up with a fully charged solution. Again, not really ideal but people are clearly exploring possibilities.
And in the end, grid-surge means higher peak-demand
Actually, most research seems to indicate lower peak demand and much, much higher off-peak demand whereby base load power is frequently wasted.
All we've done is move the oil-burning into a power station and lost at least 10% of the electricity in storage/transmission.
"All"? That's actually a very big deal. Electric motors, even after the 10%-20% transmission loss is still dramatically more efficient that are internal combustion engines. Not to mention, power plants also gain efficiency from scale. Not to mention this allows for cleaner air and centralized pollution mitigation. We all have roughly $1000 added to each vehicle in an effort to simply make the exhaust less toxic; which completely ignores making it "clean." For JUST US car manufacturers, that's roughly $3.6 billion dollars wasted annually.
That sort of second-hand market will not exist for DECADES in the electric car market
This is an exce
Oh, the Peace and Economics prizes are often indications of whim,
Nice understatement.
Let's see, off the top of my head we have a man who has done nothing and a known terrorist - both receiving the peace prize. At this point the suggestion the peace prize serves more of a bribe than a reward has obtained far more credibility. Stating its given on a "whim" just seems to fall, way, way, way, way short of reality. ;)
A couple years back when we tested this (around 3-4 years back I think), we could at most sustain 6k - 7k connections per box using standard IO (this was not HTTP / web traffic). The issues we ran into were spawing new native threads on the box (ran out of handles on linux) as well as running out of memory.
Anyone who wants scalability NEVER uses a 1:1 thread model. This is why Apache specifically uses a hybrid model to avoid such insanity. A 1:1 model is a recipe for strong contention which is completely contrary to the notion of scalability and actively defeats hardware scalability by adding additional cores/CPUs.
The fact that you run out of handles on linux means the box was not properly configured.
The memory issue is easily fixed by either adding more memory or using a sane connection model.
one off video clips that can out of context contradict
Actually, The Daily Show has two basic deliveries. They have the obvious joke whereby they do occasionally do what you claim. But when they do this, its always obvious its a joke for a joke's sake. But by far, they use a one off and/or readily repeated video clip, absolutely within context, to make their joke, which is by far why they tend to be so funny - because its true. The base of much of their humor is the fact that their humor is not only true but highlights blatant hypocrisy. Whereby, they then go for the dick joke.
If you believe the former form of humor is the rule rather than the exception, its really says far less about The Daily Show and more about the fact that you're not as nearly informed about the news as you believe yourself to be.
Additionally, they have started providing UNEDITED interviews and cited material so its absolutely clear their clips are factually within context. The reason they started doing this is because several "news organizations" who hypocritically lied, claiming The Daily Show frequently uses non-contextual clips, exactly as you asserted. In turn, The Daily Show had a nice segment showing all of the clips and proving their jokes were in fact, completely within context. They've then continued to provide clips to allow people to easily research for themselves that their "trusted new source", is in fact, frequently full of shit, and lying to them on an almost daily basis.
I hope you'll understand that contrary to your assertion, The Daily Show, as sad a fact as this is, actually is a very reputable source for news and full disclosure.
Actually, they do occasionally break stories (or at least one of the first to disclose) and do occasionally send reporters into the field. Though such situations is by far the exception rather than the rule. For example, The Daily Show had a reporter in Iran before the Iranian election fraud and uprising.
Of course, by your definition, almost none of the popular news agencies actually qualify as a "new agency"; even if you don't realize. You also seem to forget that most news is now news for entertainment rather than actual news. News is now considered for rating. Which is more or less what The Daily Show is all about; entertaining news. Add to the fact that The Daily Show actually has more credibility and a long history of accurately reporting and/or disclosing, there are very new other "news agencies" which are not at least one rung below that of The Daily Show. Which is not to say there are not some well known exceptions.
As an interesting aside, somewhere around 70+% of 18-25 who get news daily, get their daily news from The Daily Show. To be clear, that's not the same as 70+% of all 18-25.
That's crazy.
Its in no ones best interest to destabilize the region. Furthermore, its dramatically better for US and Western interests to do so by proxy even if it was their intent. Even worse, a destabilized region makes it that much harder to politically address countries like Iran and Syria.
Even if you want to buy into the US imperialism conspiracy view, imperialism almost always brings stability, which is also contrary to your assertion.
American soil?
Yes. Duh! American soil.
The primary targets were US air bases, naval yards, American planes, and American ships; with US Carrier's being deemed the highest priority. The ONLY way you can factually look at it is, "American soil." Period. Its true, civilian, non-military targets were also attacked, but American soil was the primary target and received the vast majority of damage.
Its so nice to actually see someone other than myself on Slashdot who has any clue whatsoever as to what lead up to the war in Iraq.
+5 Informative
Usually informative posts such as yours leads to significant negative moderation and massive ignorant, verbal lynching by the general population here. So kudos on the positive moderation!
The US entered WWII as a direct result of American soil being attacked. It was pretty clear that fighting back was a matter of national security. In that context it would be easy to make the case that a leaker of battlefield secrets was treasonous.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. The US had been notified multiple times of an impending attack months before the attack at Perl Harbor actually took place. Furthermore, a week before the attack, the US was notified of the location of an immediately impending attack. The day of the attack, several more messages that an attack was both impending and taking place were never delivered. As such, no effective defense was able to be mustered. Add to this the very suspicious and atypical ship deployments on the day of the attack, everything about it stinks to high heaven. Nothing more than, "Oppps...they were lost in channels", were ever offered as a viable explanation.
Combine all of the magical message loss plus our atypical ship deployments with the fact that the President desperately wanted the US involved in the war in Europe, when the majority did not, with continued ploys of much the same on the our enemies throughout the war means its extremely unlikely (sucker's bet) that the US' involvement was not purposely empowered and manipulated. Many credible historians believe this line of thinking has a lot of credibility. This isn't some crazy conspiracy bullshit.
By 1943, support for the war had all but evaporated. By 1944, it was extremely difficult to maintain the war effort as it was financially extremely difficult; and it was only by high profile celebrity and industry war bond drives the war was able to continue. Had the population known that massive civilian deaths had been permitted to guard the fact German and Japanese codes had been broken, all support would have dwindled and dried up.
The reality is, wikileaks should exclusively be used to spotlight malfeasance, not national security disclosure which endangers soldiers, national security, and the lives of all involved. Whoever disclosed the information absolutely is a traitor and should be treated as such if and when they are caught. Had such an ignorant stunt been pulled during WWII, the allies absolutely would have lost the war and the entire face of the world would be different than it is today. While not the world, the future face of the Middle East literally hangs in the balance.
If only that were the case. Drivers, at least on Linux, basically have kernel-level access to the system, which makes them part of the trusted base. That does not combine well with not being able to inspect, much less modify the working of the driver. It could be full of (intentional or unintentional) security holes and other bugs you might never know. And even if you knew, you wouldn't be allowed to fix them. I am sure there are known cases of such security holes. And haven't Windows users been saying for a number of years now that the major cause of crashes on their OS is faulty drivers?
Except you completely misunderstand and misrepresent the situation.
In Linux, the "driver" part you mention is NOT the OpenGL stack. The driver is literally, just that. It provides for direct hardware access and memory management tailored for its workload; unlike the Windows situation which contained that plus the entire video driver. Worse, especially in ATI's case, there was no clear line of delineation which is one of the reasons ATI drivers used to be so crappy.
Whereas on Linux, the video driver is actually loaded by X, in user space, and is absolutely NOT in the kernel. The video driver then communicates with the hardware using the hardware interface which is created by the kernel module. Thus the complexity and chance of catastrophic bugs crashing the entire system is several orders of magnitude worse. Interestingly enough, its more or less the direction Microsoft has gone in recent years. In other words, Linux/NVIDIA figured it out and everyone else followed.
by modern standards the graphics engine is quite dated.
Such a comment suggests its been a very, very long time since you last serious looked at X-Plane.
Look at YouTube and you can find lots of comparison videos. In most videos you can't tell MSFS from X-Plane. In some comparisons, X-Plane looks way better. In others, MSFS looks better. Regardless, "dated" is woefully wrong. Especially when you consider that X-Plane and MSFS are widely regarded as the most visually realistic FS available.