Heat pumps are noisy (unless installed underground), require installation, and don't work so well in very cold climates (where the efficiency plummets). I'm not so sure about very cold climates underground though.
Well, you should try a 40w (200w equivaent) CFL, but make sure it's at least 4000K for the colour temperature. I don't know why everyone doesn't use this colour temperature - it's far better than the dingy yellow/orange we're accustomed to.
Your second option is to get a halogen floodlight. Mine is at 1KW and it's brilliant. I aim it up at the ceiling and get a reasonably bright living room. You won't ever want to go back to 20w CFL after that! Colour temp is not perfect though, so I'm thinking of switching to a more expensive HID floodlight, but at least it's 'incandescent'/black body style light.
Why, it disappears into the 74th dimension where the ether's infinite free energy resides. You should go there some day - it's neat not being bound by the laws of thermo-whatsit.
Well, from my point of view, banks don't deserve the customer if they can't trust them with their OWN financial transactions (probably for lawsuit reasons or something equally pathetic, shudder). It's completely idiotic. I know exactly where this guy's coming from, and it's a pig to not only have do this every x months, but to merge the numerous documents into one (for example, to allow for a year's report for tax reasons). I'm with Natwest now in the UK, and they do it fine. Barclay's didn't afair.
Well that's daft because I can't see much difference in real value whether you have 5000 karma points or 5,000,000 'points' unless you know of a way to convert that to cash.
Yes, but far more convenient still would be to get an x-ray type device to simply scan all the items in the trolley to do everything at once. I can't believe they didn't try to go for that approach instead of the current item-by-item approach.
Mind, if internet shopping becomes the norm in the future even that will be redundant I guess.
Think about it. If supermarkets could suddenly produce food for 1/10th the price, you bet you'd see savings in one way or another. Likewise even a 5% saving, and eventually you'll see that saving, unless there's a cartel or monopoly. That's what the market is for, competition and all that.
The ELO rating system isn't just used for chess, but many other competitive games (including video games). Therefore, this new 'improvement' may not apply to other games so well, if they've only used chess win/loss data. Sometimes, the simplest formulas are the best/most general.
Even within the ELO system, tweaks can be made, though FIDE still uses the original system for whatever reasons.
Originality is good and everything, but there's still quite a bit of room to improve the good old 2D SHMUP imo. A freeware game I downloaded just 2 days ago has a bit of UN Squadron, or R-type about it, but still feels fresh, and gets a lot of things right:
I get the whole "getting hardware that you're never going to use" thing. But you're still overlooking factors.
Firstly how do you even know that it's much more expensive for the extra hardware? For all we know it's better off overall for them to unify two chip designs into one. It reduces complication and therefore cost.
I'm also not convinced about your idea that they "must assume that no one will want the upgrade". For all we know, they may break even, or gain/lose a little if no one upgrades, and all the profit lies in the upgrade. These things are hardly black and white.
Please use paragraphs in future btw - just makes stuff easier to read without backtracking a line to see where I've read up to.
And once again I see no mention of lag or latency behind everyday controls, one of the real factors which affect a user's perception of speed and responsiveness. The kind which gets them to say, "It feels faster, but I don't know how". I'm talking about switching between tabs, closing tabs, clicking the browser's back or forward button, and general UI navigation. You want hundredths of a second or less for these kind of actions.
The power laser has to have some way of knowing that the target device can 'see' it. If it's a one way process, I'm not sure how that be achieved at all.
You say it's a bad idea, but it's ideal for tiny devices which may require only a small surface area to receive energy. At the least, one may have multiple points of energy absorption so that we can use say 10 weaker lasers to power the device instead of one super-powerful one.
Hi again, sorry to repost to your post, but this quote from that document I posted hits your point exactly:
"But surely, if 60 million people all do a little, it'll add up to a lot?" No. This "if-everyone" multiplying machine is just a way of making something small sound big. The "if-everyone" multiplying machine churns out inspirational statements of the form "if everyone did X, then it would provide enough energy/water/gas to do Y," where Y sounds impressive. Is it surprising that Y sounds big? Of course not. We got Y by multiplying X by the number of people involved - 60 million or so! Here's an example from the Conservative Party's otherwise straight-talking Blueprint for a Green Economy: "The mobile phone charger averages around . . . 1W consumption, but if every one of the country's 25 million mobile phones chargers were left plugged in and switched on they would consume enough electricity (219GWh) to power 66 000 homes for one year." 66 000? Wow, what a lot of homes! Switch off the chargers! 66 000 sounds a lot, but the sensible thing to compare it with is the total number of homes that we're imagining would participate in this feat of conservation, namely 25 million homes. 66 000 is just one quarter of one percent of 25 million. So while the statement quoted above is true, I think a calmer way to put it is: If you leave your mobile phone charger plugged in, it uses one quarter of one percent of your home's electricity. And if everyone does it? If everyone leaves their mobile phone charger plugged in, those chargers will use one quarter of one percent of their homes' electricity. The "if-everyone" multiplying machine is a bad thing because it deflects people's attention towards 25million minnows instead of 25million sharks. The mantra "Little changes can make a big difference" is bunkum, when applied to climate change and power.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think you can't be smarter than him in some ways, and him smarter than you in most ways? Doesn't need to be so clear cut.
Well let's ban standard heat convectors as well, which also operate at the same efficiency.
As someone else replied, that would be true of a standard heat convector or indeed anything else, so I'm at a loss as to why you've been rated 4 here.
Heat pumps are noisy (unless installed underground), require installation, and don't work so well in very cold climates (where the efficiency plummets). I'm not so sure about very cold climates underground though.
Well, you should try a 40w (200w equivaent) CFL, but make sure it's at least 4000K for the colour temperature. I don't know why everyone doesn't use this colour temperature - it's far better than the dingy yellow/orange we're accustomed to.
Your second option is to get a halogen floodlight. Mine is at 1KW and it's brilliant. I aim it up at the ceiling and get a reasonably bright living room. You won't ever want to go back to 20w CFL after that! Colour temp is not perfect though, so I'm thinking of switching to a more expensive HID floodlight, but at least it's 'incandescent'/black body style light.
Why, it disappears into the 74th dimension where the ether's infinite free energy resides. You should go there some day - it's neat not being bound by the laws of thermo-whatsit.
Well, from my point of view, banks don't deserve the customer if they can't trust them with their OWN financial transactions (probably for lawsuit reasons or something equally pathetic, shudder). It's completely idiotic. I know exactly where this guy's coming from, and it's a pig to not only have do this every x months, but to merge the numerous documents into one (for example, to allow for a year's report for tax reasons). I'm with Natwest now in the UK, and they do it fine. Barclay's didn't afair.
Well that's daft because I can't see much difference in real value whether you have 5000 karma points or 5,000,000 'points' unless you know of a way to convert that to cash.
Yes, but far more convenient still would be to get an x-ray type device to simply scan all the items in the trolley to do everything at once. I can't believe they didn't try to go for that approach instead of the current item-by-item approach.
Mind, if internet shopping becomes the norm in the future even that will be redundant I guess.
Think about it. If supermarkets could suddenly produce food for 1/10th the price, you bet you'd see savings in one way or another. Likewise even a 5% saving, and eventually you'll see that saving, unless there's a cartel or monopoly. That's what the market is for, competition and all that.
I think that's the key. If people weren't offended by such language, then it would become boring to swear.
Ironically then, the potential 'solution' to the 'problem' is for people not be offended.
The ELO rating system isn't just used for chess, but many other competitive games (including video games). Therefore, this new 'improvement' may not apply to other games so well, if they've only used chess win/loss data. Sometimes, the simplest formulas are the best/most general.
Even within the ELO system, tweaks can be made, though FIDE still uses the original system for whatever reasons.
Originality is good and everything, but there's still quite a bit of room to improve the good old 2D SHMUP imo. A freeware game I downloaded just 2 days ago has a bit of UN Squadron, or R-type about it, but still feels fresh, and gets a lot of things right:
http://www.locomalito.com/juegos_hydorah.php
I get the whole "getting hardware that you're never going to use" thing. But you're still overlooking factors.
Firstly how do you even know that it's much more expensive for the extra hardware? For all we know it's better off overall for them to unify two chip designs into one. It reduces complication and therefore cost.
I'm also not convinced about your idea that they "must assume that no one will want the upgrade". For all we know, they may break even, or gain/lose a little if no one upgrades, and all the profit lies in the upgrade. These things are hardly black and white.
Please use paragraphs in future btw - just makes stuff easier to read without backtracking a line to see where I've read up to.
You're not just paying for the hardware, but the time and effort that went into researching, designing and testing it.
What are the main advantages and disadvantages between phase-change memory and memristors?
And once again I see no mention of lag or latency behind everyday controls, one of the real factors which affect a user's perception of speed and responsiveness. The kind which gets them to say, "It feels faster, but I don't know how". I'm talking about switching between tabs, closing tabs, clicking the browser's back or forward button, and general UI navigation. You want hundredths of a second or less for these kind of actions.
I'm just asking if quantum processors could benefit those tasks. I'm not assuming anything.
Isn't playing with semantics a fun game?
How about raytracing or particle physics?
You are obviously educated evil.
Go back to your non-4 corner world and leave those who have the understanding and enlightenment of Timecube to appreciate it.
The power laser has to have some way of knowing that the target device can 'see' it. If it's a one way process, I'm not sure how that be achieved at all.
You say it's a bad idea, but it's ideal for tiny devices which may require only a small surface area to receive energy. At the least, one may have multiple points of energy absorption so that we can use say 10 weaker lasers to power the device instead of one super-powerful one.
Exactly. I'd say that was more important.
Why did they bother to use weak encryption? Is it not trivial to make longer formulas etc. ?
Hi again, sorry to repost to your post, but this quote from that document I posted hits your point exactly:
"But surely, if 60 million people all do a little, it'll add up to a lot?"
No. This "if-everyone" multiplying machine is just a way of making something
small sound big. The "if-everyone" multiplying machine churns out
inspirational statements of the form "if everyone did X, then it would provide
enough energy/water/gas to do Y," where Y sounds impressive. Is
it surprising that Y sounds big? Of course not. We got Y by multiplying
X by the number of people involved - 60 million or so! Here's an example
from the Conservative Party's otherwise straight-talking Blueprint for a
Green Economy:
"The mobile phone charger averages around . . . 1W consumption,
but if every one of the country's 25 million mobile phones
chargers were left plugged in and switched on they would consume
enough electricity (219GWh) to power 66 000 homes for
one year."
66 000? Wow, what a lot of homes! Switch off the chargers! 66 000 sounds a
lot, but the sensible thing to compare it with is the total number of homes
that we're imagining would participate in this feat of conservation, namely
25 million homes. 66 000 is just one quarter of one percent of 25 million. So
while the statement quoted above is true, I think a calmer way to put it is:
If you leave your mobile phone charger plugged in, it uses one
quarter of one percent of your home's electricity.
And if everyone does it?
If everyone leaves their mobile phone charger plugged in, those
chargers will use one quarter of one percent of their homes'
electricity.
The "if-everyone" multiplying machine is a bad thing because it deflects
people's attention towards 25million minnows instead of 25million sharks.
The mantra "Little changes can make a big difference" is bunkum, when applied
to climate change and power.