Actually no one understands what you are talking about. What has the number to do with your fear of attacks? Why do you think one is going to build just ONE solar plant with just ONE battery? Hu?
This kind of failure happens all the time. The self-test reports its fine, but it still doesn't work. The self-test reports it's fine, but its still not sending events properly. The sensor itself is fine, but the events are getting swallowed somewhere else along the way. You want to say: o the sensor that registers how hard the pedal is pressed down failed? o the oil pressure sensor of the breaking oil failed? o all 2 sensors for the ABS on all 4 wheels failed? o the sensors for electronic lane stabilization failed?... hve to check again how many sensors are involved in breaking...
And/or all data transmissions to the log failed?
Erm, and you really think this happens all the time????
If that would happen once, it would be braking news and all cars of that product line would be called back for inspection.
You are an idiot.
and you really want to bet that the computer log of what happened is infallible? Yes, because the most important part of the log has nothing to do with the brakes at all: acceleration sensors. Facepalm.
I'm sure that you always have both hands at 10 & 2 (even during turns so kudos on that by the way), No I prefer half past 9 and 2:30.
never coast through an intersection, True.
immediately slam on the brakes when the light turns yellow no matter how close you are to the light, Nope, the yellow is an indicator. Red is the stop sign, not yellow.
never have the radio on, True, I listen to CDs:D with "normal loudness"
never talk on the phone, True.
never eat or drink in the car, never have a pet in the car, never bring your kids along, All three true.
or do anything else while driving. Exactly. I don't do anything else while driving.
I'm sure you never speed (not even 1 mile over or coast while going downhill), That happens sometimes.
never turn the radio on above a whisper, never carry on a conversation in person That is bollocks, why do you ask this?
or on the phone, Exactly, I don't phone when driving, chances are my phone is in flight mode.
always stay in the right lane, and so on. Of course. Other people driving on the wrong lande drive me nuts. Why would I join their behaviour?
Well, congratulations because you're the only one No, I'm not. I'm simply german. And regarding a few things I have some personal rules, e.g. my phone in night mode till 11:00 in the morning, with very few exceptions, in flight mode when I drive, and no drink or food in the car. As I have no kids or pets, that part was easy:D
So the only thing distracting me while driving are sexy ladies on the side walks or bicycles, or in cars (less often as you only see the faces)
And driving defensively helps to have more time to watch those sexy ladies...
Because I prefer Closures over Lamdas, and hence program more in Groovy than in Java?
Or because I believe that in Java 1.1 they already could have considered "effectively final" instead of forcing programmers to write final in front of it?
Or because I think if it is "clean code" to write: public int myFunc(final int myArg)
Then public and final should be default? And the line should look like this: int myFunc(int myArg)// note method is public and argument is final
Do you actually still code in Java?
Modern Java code looks like a mess, so horrible, full with "unneccesary" finals, publics, privates, where Groovy simply reverts all that bollocks and "public" is the default.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar, safer than solar, and smaller carbon footprint than solar, today No it is not. The news is full that solar and wind are the cheapest power sources since 3 or 4 years. You must be living under a rock. Nuclear never was cheap. In France and Germany it is the most expensive form of power (because we don't burn oil for electricity).
Blindseer, I don't know why you want to make an idiot out of yourself all the time.
The production of [...], aluminum, [...] are all carbon intensive processes Hint: google how aluminum is made.
Perhaps you should simply get the habit to write one sentence, put it into google, and then decide if you want to rephrase it?
Those solar panels are going to be put in an aluminum frame, on a steel post, anchored to ground with a concrete pad, and then connected to the grid using steel reinforced aluminum wiring. Strange. Never saw solar panels like this. Why does the USA always use the most retarded combination? Just to safe 3 bucks?
Here the aluminium frames holding the solar panels are put on roofs... and if they are outside on hills or what ever, you use aluminium posts. As it makes no sense to connect aluminium with steel, the steel would rot. Wiring is still mostly down with copper and not aluminium...
And that has noting to do with my question: what does the retard mean with "leading climate scientists"? There are no leaders amoung them, they are all scientists, thats it. And none of them is an "energy production expert", or they would work in the energy sector. So his stupid "the guardian" link is bollocks, don't even need to click on it to know that.
You give advice not to add sugar in coffee? And then you write nonsense like this: (I'd not worry about the added sugar in stuff like ketchup, unless you find yourself eating large quantities of it, but do keep an eye on food labels and eliminate anything that has way more sugar than you'd expect.) ???
Are you somehow retarded? How much sugar does a normal person put into coffee? And how much sugar is contained in Ketchup? Sugar in coffee is much much less than sugar in Ketchup.
Drink something that tastes better than coffee. or better coffee; you won't need to sweeten it so much. Some sweeten only certain styles, e.g. super strong espresso. And there is nothing wrong with that. The amount of sugar is so low, you wont notice it on your daily intake of calories.
If you have weight problems I suggest to count what you eat over the day and make a rough estimate how many calories that are. E.g. if you eat a burger then the bread has most calories, followed by the french fires. And french fries are poison for people who want to lose weight or stay stable, especially combined with Ketchup. They are the worst food imaginable for one who wants to lose weight.
it's going to start eating your muscles That is nonsense. As long as you eat... what ever it is, nothing will attack your muscles. To "eat" muscles you need to be _starving_ minimum 3 weeks, and after that time mainly only dead cells are "eaten", to really "consume" your muscles yo need to starve much longer-
And any fat you exercise away goes out in sweat or urine. It is actually quite difficult to exercise fat away. E.g. the first 45 minutes of exercise (if it is hard enough) is completely covered by the sugar reserves in your liver. And if you drink/eat the wrong thing directly after exercise, you just put the fat back into the storage.
insulin release is purely a chemical reaction to blood sugar levels not to what you taste That is wrong. The body learns as little child that the blood sugar level will increase shortly after he tasted something sweet. Actually a no brainer: all conditionings and trainings of our body work like that. And, for real sugar or starch that is broken down by spit, that already goes partly into the blood stream in your mouth anyway.
The only real difference is the lack of these zero calorie fizzy drinks. Anecdotal yes, but seriously worth considering. Actually known since ages. The taste of sweetness already increases the insulin level. So the less sweet you eat, the lower the insulin level (before actual sugar hits the blood), and the less fat is transported into the fat cells but burned or metabolized.
Diets like 5:2 uses the 2 days of not eating to cleanse the blood from extra sugar - which are consumed the days of not eating alot. That is nonsense, basically your whole post is nonsense. Insulin removes the sugar from the blood. You would simply die if you have to much sugar in your blood (for various reasons). Sugar is stored in the liever. About 45 minutes of energy under exercise is stored in the liver. The blood is only used for transport, not for storage. Sugar is as fast as possible converted into fat and stored in cells or as said above stored in the liver.
Atkinsons diet uses the fact that protein rich food contains less energy to get people to eat the same amount but consume less energy. That is nonsense. He uses the fact that low carb and low insulin levels prevent transport of fat into the fat cells.
Can't be so hard to actually read a book about the body works instead of believing and spreading such nonsense.
The "autoleveling" capacity of your body is greatly exaggerated. Eat to much: you get fat. Plain and simple.
However you can influence it by looking at your insulin level, e.g. don't eat stuff that is converted super fast into sugar (or is sugar) and combine it with fat.
High sugar levels in blood lead to high insulin levels. High insulin levels lead to quick transportation of fat into the fat cells (and conversion of sugar into fat).
This is why low carb "diets" are so en vogue.
But before you get all excited: steak with salad still makes you fat if you dumb your typical amount of ketchup on it (check what is in ketchup... up to 30% sugar), not to mention "american dressing" on salad... rofl.
Aspatame influences the sugar and fat transfer from the digesting track to the blood and has an influence on insulin levels (insulin is already set free when you taste the right sweetness in your mouth) and hence amplifies transfer of fat and sugar into the fat cells.
I know that since over 25 years, so I guess the science is 30 years old or older...
Nuclear power has nearly half the carbon output per energy produced than solar photovoltaic power. And when both are supported/maintained/fueled via non carbon producing ways, they both have zero. So what was your point? That right now we have so much energy produced via fossile fuels that we use such energy to refuel a nuclear plant and melt silicon to make solar panels? Get a life man...
2) Disposing of old batteries and outdated solar panels is an environmental disaster just waiting to explode. Wrong, they are both easily recycled. These things contain some of the most toxic chemicals known to mankind. Wrong.
that has insolation similar to Alaska Actually Alaska has a significant (2 times?) higher insolation. But obviously only in summer and not in winter, but over the course of a year it is much much higher than in Germany. Interesting, isn't it? I mean: it does not sound plausible but it is the case. I guess you find some maps to verify it... a guy here (Rei?) once linked one, but I did not book mark it.
Actually, the biggest problem is that the capacity factor in the winter months is closer to 15%, so you need 6x the battery capacity to cover the winter loads And how would you load those batteries if the CF of the solar array is so low? You look at the problem from the wrong edge:D Solar CF is not related to the amount of batteries you need (if you need them at all) but to the amount of energy you produce over the day with solar panels.
That only makes sense on a Stammtisch (german word, google it;D )
You lose over 60% of the energy if you convert electricity to heat, and later back to electricity.
So that would only make sense on rare cases. However, if you use/need the heat later for heating, instead of gas, it still might be a viable option in some cases. E.g. swimming pools or buildings.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually no one understands what you are talking about.
What has the number to do with your fear of attacks?
Why do you think one is going to build just ONE solar plant with just ONE battery?
Hu?
This kind of failure happens all the time. The self-test reports its fine, but it still doesn't work. The self-test reports it's fine, but its still not sending events properly. The sensor itself is fine, but the events are getting swallowed somewhere else along the way. ... hve to check again how many sensors are involved in breaking ...
You want to say:
o the sensor that registers how hard the pedal is pressed down failed?
o the oil pressure sensor of the breaking oil failed?
o all 2 sensors for the ABS on all 4 wheels failed?
o the sensors for electronic lane stabilization failed?
And/or all data transmissions to the log failed?
Erm, and you really think this happens all the time????
If that would happen once, it would be braking news and all cars of that product line would be called back for inspection.
You are an idiot.
and you really want to bet that the computer log of what happened is infallible?
Yes, because the most important part of the log has nothing to do with the brakes at all: acceleration sensors. Facepalm.
I'm sure that you always have both hands at 10 & 2 (even during turns so kudos on that by the way),
No I prefer half past 9 and 2:30.
never coast through an intersection,
True.
immediately slam on the brakes when the light turns yellow no matter how close you are to the light,
Nope, the yellow is an indicator. Red is the stop sign, not yellow.
never have the radio on, :D with "normal loudness"
True, I listen to CDs
never talk on the phone,
True.
never eat or drink in the car, never have a pet in the car, never bring your kids along,
All three true.
or do anything else while driving.
Exactly. I don't do anything else while driving.
I'm sure you never speed (not even 1 mile over or coast while going downhill),
That happens sometimes.
never turn the radio on above a whisper, never carry on a conversation in person
That is bollocks, why do you ask this?
or on the phone,
Exactly, I don't phone when driving, chances are my phone is in flight mode.
always stay in the right lane, and so on.
Of course. Other people driving on the wrong lande drive me nuts. Why would I join their behaviour?
Well, congratulations because you're the only one :D
No, I'm not. I'm simply german. And regarding a few things I have some personal rules, e.g. my phone in night mode till 11:00 in the morning, with very few exceptions, in flight mode when I drive, and no drink or food in the car. As I have no kids or pets, that part was easy
So the only thing distracting me while driving are sexy ladies on the side walks or bicycles, or in cars (less often as you only see the faces)
And driving defensively helps to have more time to watch those sexy ladies ...
Why?
Because I prefer Closures over Lamdas, and hence program more in Groovy than in Java?
Or because I believe that in Java 1.1 they already could have considered "effectively final" instead of forcing programmers to write final in front of it?
Or because I think if it is "clean code" to write:
public int myFunc(final int myArg)
Then public and final should be default? And the line should look like this: // note method is public and argument is final
int myFunc(int myArg)
Do you actually still code in Java?
Modern Java code looks like a mess, so horrible, full with "unneccesary" finals, publics, privates, where Groovy simply reverts all that bollocks and "public" is the default.
The Mac itself made no sound, except for the motor driving the disk out.
The "virus sounds" where dozens if not hundreds of variations, some "stolen" from computer games.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar, safer than solar, and smaller carbon footprint than solar, today
No it is not.
The news is full that solar and wind are the cheapest power sources since 3 or 4 years.
You must be living under a rock. Nuclear never was cheap. In France and Germany it is the most expensive form of power (because we don't burn oil for electricity).
Blindseer, I don't know why you want to make an idiot out of yourself all the time.
The production of [...], aluminum, [...] are all carbon intensive processes
Hint: google how aluminum is made.
Perhaps you should simply get the habit to write one sentence, put it into google, and then decide if you want to rephrase it?
Those solar panels are going to be put in an aluminum frame, on a steel post, anchored to ground with a concrete pad, and then connected to the grid using steel reinforced aluminum wiring.
Strange. Never saw solar panels like this. Why does the USA always use the most retarded combination? Just to safe 3 bucks?
Here the aluminium frames holding the solar panels are put on roofs ... and if they are outside on hills or what ever, you use aluminium posts. As it makes no sense to connect aluminium with steel, the steel would rot. Wiring is still mostly down with copper and not aluminium ...
No, I don#t believe.
I know.
And that has noting to do with my question: what does the retard mean with "leading climate scientists"? There are no leaders amoung them, they are all scientists, thats it. And none of them is an "energy production expert", or they would work in the energy sector. So his stupid "the guardian" link is bollocks, don't even need to click on it to know that.
You give advice not to add sugar in coffee?
And then you write nonsense like this: (I'd not worry about the added sugar in stuff like ketchup, unless you find
yourself eating large quantities of it, but do keep an eye on food labels
and eliminate anything that has way more sugar than you'd expect.)
???
Are you somehow retarded? How much sugar does a normal person put into coffee? And how much sugar is contained in Ketchup?
Sugar in coffee is much much less than sugar in Ketchup.
Drink something that tastes better than coffee. or better coffee; you won't need
to sweeten it so much.
Some sweeten only certain styles, e.g. super strong espresso.
And there is nothing wrong with that. The amount of sugar is so low, you wont notice it on your daily intake of calories.
If you have weight problems I suggest to count what you eat over the day and make a rough estimate how many calories that are. E.g. if you eat a burger then the bread has most calories, followed by the french fires. And french fries are poison for people who want to lose weight or stay stable, especially combined with Ketchup. They are the worst food imaginable for one who wants to lose weight.
it's going to start eating your muscles ... what ever it is, nothing will attack your muscles.
That is nonsense.
As long as you eat
To "eat" muscles you need to be _starving_ minimum 3 weeks, and after that time mainly only dead cells are "eaten", to really "consume" your muscles yo need to starve much longer-
And any fat you exercise away goes out in sweat or urine.
It is actually quite difficult to exercise fat away. E.g. the first 45 minutes of exercise (if it is hard enough) is completely covered by the sugar reserves in your liver.
And if you drink/eat the wrong thing directly after exercise, you just put the fat back into the storage.
I guess you misread something.
Probably some factories produce brown sugar that way, but that would be pretty retarded.
Brown sugar is basically what you get if you don't refine it.
And crystal sugar is a complete different thing.
insulin release is purely a chemical reaction to blood sugar levels not to what you taste
That is wrong.
The body learns as little child that the blood sugar level will increase shortly after he tasted something sweet.
Actually a no brainer: all conditionings and trainings of our body work like that.
And, for real sugar or starch that is broken down by spit, that already goes partly into the blood stream in your mouth anyway.
The only real difference is the lack of these zero calorie fizzy drinks. Anecdotal yes, but seriously worth considering.
Actually known since ages.
The taste of sweetness already increases the insulin level.
So the less sweet you eat, the lower the insulin level (before actual sugar hits the blood), and the less fat is transported into the fat cells but burned or metabolized.
Diets like 5:2 uses the 2 days of not eating to cleanse the blood from extra sugar - which are consumed the days of not eating alot.
That is nonsense, basically your whole post is nonsense.
Insulin removes the sugar from the blood. You would simply die if you have to much sugar in your blood (for various reasons).
Sugar is stored in the liever. About 45 minutes of energy under exercise is stored in the liver. The blood is only used for transport, not for storage.
Sugar is as fast as possible converted into fat and stored in cells or as said above stored in the liver.
Atkinsons diet uses the fact that protein rich food contains less energy to get people to eat the same amount but consume less energy.
That is nonsense.
He uses the fact that low carb and low insulin levels prevent transport of fat into the fat cells.
Can't be so hard to actually read a book about the body works instead of believing and spreading such nonsense.
The "autoleveling" capacity of your body is greatly exaggerated.
Eat to much: you get fat. Plain and simple.
However you can influence it by looking at your insulin level, e.g. don't eat stuff that is converted super fast into sugar (or is sugar) and combine it with fat.
High sugar levels in blood lead to high insulin levels. High insulin levels lead to quick transportation of fat into the fat cells (and conversion of sugar into fat).
This is why low carb "diets" are so en vogue.
But before you get all excited: steak with salad still makes you fat if you dumb your typical amount of ketchup on it (check what is in ketchup ... up to 30% sugar), not to mention "american dressing" on salad ... rofl.
Aspatame influences the sugar and fat transfer from the digesting track to the blood and has an influence on insulin levels (insulin is already set free when you taste the right sweetness in your mouth) and hence amplifies transfer of fat and sugar into the fat cells.
I know that since over 25 years, so I guess the science is 30 years old or older ...
Nuclear power has nearly half the carbon output per energy produced than solar photovoltaic power. ...
And when both are supported/maintained/fueled via non carbon producing ways, they both have zero.
So what was your point?
That right now we have so much energy produced via fossile fuels that we use such energy to refuel a nuclear plant and melt silicon to make solar panels?
Get a life man
2) Disposing of old batteries and outdated solar panels is an environmental disaster just waiting to explode.
Wrong, they are both easily recycled.
These things contain some of the most toxic chemicals known to mankind.
Wrong.
that has insolation similar to Alaska ... a guy here (Rei?) once linked one, but I did not book mark it.
Actually Alaska has a significant (2 times?) higher insolation.
But obviously only in summer and not in winter, but over the course of a year it is much much higher than in Germany. Interesting, isn't it? I mean: it does not sound plausible but it is the case. I guess you find some maps to verify it
And you are not afraid about the already existing pumped storage plants, nuclear plants etc. ??? ...
Get a life man
Actually, the biggest problem is that the capacity factor in the winter months is closer to 15%, so you need 6x the battery capacity to cover the winter loads :D Solar CF is not related to the amount of batteries you need (if you need them at all) but to the amount of energy you produce over the day with solar panels.
And how would you load those batteries if the CF of the solar array is so low?
You look at the problem from the wrong edge
That only makes sense on a Stammtisch (german word, google it ;D )
You lose over 60% of the energy if you convert electricity to heat, and later back to electricity.
So that would only make sense on rare cases. However, if you use/need the heat later for heating, instead of gas, it still might be a viable option in some cases. E.g. swimming pools or buildings.
And common sense would tell you: such a claim would be bullocks.
I did not know that there are climate scientists that are leader of something.