On a Mac thee is no "walled garden", you mix up iPhons/iPads with Computers.
And what actually do you lose "in the real world" is beyond me.
I'm lucky I have not to cope with computers that "don't work"...
It is pretty dumb that people consider themselves superior because they get computer working "that don't work"... I expect my computer to work and not to change "behaviour" unless I change some settings.
When I change settings, I know how to change them back. On a linux/unix box all settings are in git anyway... no way to do that on Windows.
Well it is pretty pointless to argue with one who has made up his mind and does not listen to facts or arguments.
How much seacoast is there, and how much transmission loss is there getting it to places with no seacoast? The losses are the same as any long distance power transfer, so why do you care? (Hint: you can google how much it is, and the value is astonishing low)
However, multi-junction cells and some of the highest efficiency cells are built on substrates of rare earths. That is wrong. Because they are made from Silicon, too; or Gallium Arsenid. Rare Earths would actually destroy them, facepalm.
Only thin film solar cells use rare earth elements. So does any laptop battery... go figure. "Rare earth" is just a name those elements got 100 years ago, they are not rare.
Actually PV is best built in areas with maximum days of sun and away from obstructions that might interfere with solar coverage. Like parking lots, roofs of buildings etc... aka in cities. So I see we agree. Finally.
Except the waste from the mine would be controlled differently. What waste does a mine have that only mines stones and grinds them to sand to be refined into metals? (*facepalm*)
The amount of energy we produce with biomass is big enough that it is a majour player in the balancing power market. [...] So your idea of a "major player" and mine are somewhat different.
No they are not. You are simply bad in reading or lack some understanding: do you know what "balancing power" is? As said before and made it now bold again: balancing power (or reserve power). In germany biomass is a majour player in balancing power. No idea what biomass plants you have, burning wood is imho not a good idea but waste. Please stop mixing up your retarded energy market with the rest of the worlds.
Will locals or government ALLOW you to build there? The same problem you have with nukes...
A domain controller is not an LDAP server... it is something different. No idea what it actually does.
Obviously if you want a directory service for user management you need LDAP or a similar thing: (*facepalm*). That is a no brainer.
E.g. my latest Win2000 machine stopped booting at some point in time... waited 45 minutes until it gave up to "find its domain controller"... it never had one. I had to google and switch a toggle in the registry to fix it. Guess what? The problem reappeared every few weeks (before that the machine run just fine for 5 years)
Yes, I really asked what a domain controller is. Neither Macs, nor any other computer, unless it is windows, uses/needs them. Obviously... white screens and such... hardware fails regardless if brand, facepalm.
Sorry, Macs don't need any endusers or tech staff to figure out what is wrong and fix it. Your idea how stuff works is bollocks. You configure them once and then they run, just like any ither unix box does. So your idea bout costs is just bollocks, too.
The only stuff I need google for to 'fix' something on my Mac is when an AppleScript does not work as expected.
Fanbois usually don't know much about computers. Hence this term was coined by the/. crowed. It really surprises me that so many Windows users can not accept that *n*x is less hassle. Regardless what you substitute for the stars. Mac or Linux or Solaris users don't have problems a typical Windows user has...
Actually 40% sounds like a relatively low number. Regarding your argument 'they are doing something wrong', obvioulsy that was ocer the course if a year. So it is completely reasonable that over the course of a year 40 of 100 windows users have issues that require tech support. I actually allways have a windows issue when I come into a new company and only have a windows machine, so that can add up to 4 - 10 times a year. No idea why windwos simply does not work... none of the unixes I work with ever had any issues unless I did a mistake myself, which I usually can fix myself.
Of course numbers will hold up, facepalm. Why the funk should a Mac need tech support in the first place? I never had a Mac that magically forgot where the printer is, lost its IP adress, forgot how to connect to the DSL modem, refused to boot and waited 45 minutrs until it gave up to find its 'domain controller' (what is that actually?) Sorry, unless a user needs to configure something, and does not know how to do it: a Mac does not need tech support.
I owned over the years like 15 Macs, the only tech support they got was replacements of harddrives, and in one case a motherboard (to a newer/faster one).
On Mars you can breath perfectly well inside of your suit or in a shelter. In Antarctica you can breath outside of the shelter until you are frozen to death. I don't see a big difference:)
The radiation issue is overrated any way. Where do you think the magnetospere of earth is directing the 'radiation' to? Hm.... ? Can't be so hard to figure:)
Every power plant is suitable for 'base load'. You are mixing up the terms 'base load' and 'dispatchable' power plant. Far over 50% of germanies water plants are flow river plants, always running at 100%, obviously they are 'bae load' plants. The remaining ones are pumped storage: they are not even counted in 'energy production' because they only release energy that was produced otherwise.
Pumped storage has an efficiency of roughly 81% not 75.... Over 90% efficiency in pumping uphill, and depending on turbine type 90% - 95% efficiency in converting the water comming downhill into electricity.
Sorry, you should read bit more instead of spreading myths.
The rest of the post is bollocks as you keep using the term 'base load' wrong...
Sorry, basically everything you write is wrong: Wind farms are now mainly build at sea. They don't have land issues anway as the farmers happily farm on the fields where the wind farms are. Solar, if it is photovoltaic, is best build in cities anywa, where you again have no land issues. Thermic solar is another thing, though. Solar panels don't need rare earthes. Wind generators use them, but would work also without them. The environmental arguments are moot. Rare earthes are extracted right out of rock or sand and usually mined in deserts. There are no real concerns. Your claim China is worth than USA, is wrong. China is building up strong regulations, since years. However they suffer from the lack of those during the recent years. A rare earth mine in the USA would look exactly like one in China. A big pit in a huge rock or desert. Burning Biomass is not problematic because of green house gas issues, You are an idiot. If it is rotting it produces CO2 and CH4, a far stronger green house gas than CO2. Bottom line it is climat neutral if you burn it, as it wiuld rott otherwise anyway. Or more prcisely, because of avoiding the release of CH4 into the atmosphere it is even an advantage. The amount of energy we produce with biomass is big enough that it is a majour player in the balancing power market. Biomass: the shit of pigs and cows... perhaps you had a different idea what biomass is... it is actually not burned but converted into natural gas and then burned. Even if you don't believe it: 70% of europes land mass is neither used for housing, roads nor farming. There is plenty of space to build what ever plant you want. And in the USA, it is even more land available.
The CF of a plant depends on hwo the plant is run. Not on its fuel.
For a new nuclear plant to have 90% CF the surrounding coal plants (or what ever) have to cut their CF.
E.g. in France where 75% of the power comes from nuclear plants, with a base load factor of about 60%, all nuclear plants have either to adapt load over the day from 60% to 95% (or something)... hence their CF is only ~70% or a few of them run at > 90% and the rest significantly below 60%.
You can only feed as much power into the grid as the grid is consuming. If 100% of your power would be from nuclear plants... all plants had a CF of perhaps 55% or 60%... due to changing demand over the course of a day.
at the UK average rate of US$0.22/kWh, the expected power generated over 40 years would be worth $222 billion. That rate is dropping rapidly as renewables are replacing nuclear plants... in ten years no one in europe will be able to run a nuclear plant profitable.
However the steam coming out of the cooling towers should never have been in contact with radioactive material. And: plenty of coal plants have cooling towers, too.
A melt down has nothing to do with what fissionable material you fission.
It's past time to start using nuclear physics to cleanly and safely power the globe. Can be done with wind and solar and biomass and water as well... much simpler and on lots of small scale installations instead of a few big bang ones.
Think about it, we reached the South Pole over 100 years ago and even so we still don't have Antarctians permanently living there. Because there is no point in permanently living there. 3 months total night, 2 x 3 months twilight, 3 months total day time. How would you build something self sustaining there? And: why?
Also remember that if China and India start consuming at the rate that the median American does, global warming and climate change will go through the roof.
That is bollocks. Consume is not causing climate change. CO2 does. It is easy to produce more consumables with out using more energy. It is also easy to produce more energy without producing CO2.
Just because you still use the wrong form of energy production and a strange way of consuming (in the US) it does not mean that the rest of the world, especially the developing one, is evolving similar. China and India both are heavily investing into renewables btw. And no one there is trying to copy idiotic american lifestyles.
Slashdot Mirror
On a Mac thee is no "walled garden", you mix up iPhons/iPads with Computers.
And what actually do you lose "in the real world" is beyond me.
I'm lucky I have not to cope with computers that "don't work" ...
It is pretty dumb that people consider themselves superior because they get computer working "that don't work" ... I expect my computer to work and not to change "behaviour" unless I change some settings.
When I change settings, I know how to change them back. On a linux/unix box all settings are in git anyway ... no way to do that on Windows.
So good luck with your ignorance.
Wrong ... get a dictionary or lexicon and read what base load is ... can't be so hard.
The word "base" actually implies all of it.
There are no SSDs with PCIe interface.
That would not make any sense.
My Macs most certainly all have a standard SATA interface :D as it clearly shown in "About this Mac" > "System Report ..."
A PCIe slot is about the size of your edge of your palm, in length and thickness.
Well it is pretty pointless to argue with one who has made up his mind and does not listen to facts or arguments.
How much seacoast is there, and how much transmission loss is there getting it to places with no seacoast?
The losses are the same as any long distance power transfer, so why do you care? (Hint: you can google how much it is, and the value is astonishing low)
However, multi-junction cells and some of the highest efficiency cells are built on substrates of rare earths. That is wrong. Because they are made from Silicon, too; or Gallium Arsenid. Rare Earths would actually destroy them, facepalm.
Only thin film solar cells use rare earth elements. So does any laptop battery ... go figure. "Rare earth" is just a name those elements got 100 years ago, they are not rare.
Actually PV is best built in areas with maximum days of sun and away from obstructions that might interfere with solar coverage. ... aka in cities. So I see we agree. Finally.
Like parking lots, roofs of buildings etc
Except the waste from the mine would be controlled differently. What waste does a mine have that only mines stones and grinds them to sand to be refined into metals? (*facepalm*)
The amount of energy we produce with biomass is big enough that it is a majour player in the balancing power market.
[...]
So your idea of a "major player" and mine are somewhat different.
No they are not. You are simply bad in reading or lack some understanding: do you know what "balancing power" is?
As said before and made it now bold again: balancing power (or reserve power). In germany biomass is a majour player in balancing power. No idea what biomass plants you have, burning wood is imho not a good idea but waste.
Please stop mixing up your retarded energy market with the rest of the worlds.
Will locals or government ALLOW you to build there? ...
The same problem you have with nukes
A domain controller is not an LDAP server ... it is something different.
No idea what it actually does.
Obviously if you want a directory service for user management you need LDAP or a similar thing: (*facepalm*). That is a no brainer.
E.g. my latest Win2000 machine stopped booting at some point in time ... waited 45 minutes until it gave up to "find its domain controller" ... it never had one. I had to google and switch a toggle in the registry to fix it. Guess what? The problem reappeared every few weeks (before that the machine run just fine for 5 years)
Yes, I really asked what a domain controller is. ... white screens and such ... hardware fails regardless if brand, facepalm.
Neither Macs, nor any other computer, unless it is windows, uses/needs them.
Obviously
Sorry,
Macs don't need any endusers or tech staff to figure out what is wrong and fix it.
Your idea how stuff works is bollocks.
You configure them once and then they run, just like any ither unix box does.
So your idea bout costs is just bollocks, too.
The only stuff I need google for to 'fix' something on my Mac is when an AppleScript does not work as expected.
So you want to imply smar users use a Mac? .... I'm so glad you put me into the smart bracket :)
Puh
Fanbois usually don't know much about computers. /. crowed. ...
Hence this term was coined by the
It really surprises me that so many Windows users can not accept that *n*x is less hassle. Regardless what you substitute for the stars.
Mac or Linux or Solaris users don't have problems a typical Windows user has
Actually 40% sounds like a relatively low number. ... none of the unixes I work with ever had any issues unless I did a mistake myself, which I usually can fix myself.
Regarding your argument 'they are doing something wrong', obvioulsy that was ocer the course if a year. So it is completely reasonable that over the course of a year 40 of 100 windows users have issues that require tech support.
I actually allways have a windows issue when I come into a new company and only have a windows machine, so that can add up to 4 - 10 times a year.
No idea why windwos simply does not work
I suggest to go to an apple.com web site and check their offers.
All your claimes what they 'have not' are wrong.
PCIe is a connection/connector standard.
Not a storage technology.
Isn't it a complete waste of mental and emotional energy to hate something that leaves you completely alone?
Of course numbers will hold up, facepalm.
Why the funk should a Mac need tech support in the first place?
I never had a Mac that magically forgot where the printer is, lost its IP adress, forgot how to connect to the DSL modem, refused to boot and waited 45 minutrs until it gave up to find its 'domain controller' (what is that actually?)
Sorry, unless a user needs to configure something, and does not know how to do it: a Mac does not need tech support.
I owned over the years like 15 Macs, the only tech support they got was replacements of harddrives, and in one case a motherboard (to a newer/faster one).
On Mars you can breath perfectly well inside of your suit or in a shelter. :)
In Antarctica you can breath outside of the shelter until you are frozen to death.
I don't see a big difference
The radiation issue is overrated any way. Where do you think the magnetospere of earth is directing the 'radiation' to? Hm .... ? Can't be so hard to figure :)
Every power plant is suitable for 'base load'.
You are mixing up the terms 'base load' and 'dispatchable' power plant.
Far over 50% of germanies water plants are flow river plants, always running at 100%, obviously they are 'bae load' plants.
The remaining ones are pumped storage: they are not even counted in 'energy production' because they only release energy that was produced otherwise.
Pumped storage has an efficiency of roughly 81% not 75 .... Over 90% efficiency in pumping uphill, and depending on turbine type 90% - 95% efficiency in converting the water comming downhill into electricity.
Sorry, you should read bit more instead of spreading myths.
The rest of the post is bollocks as you keep using the term 'base load' wrong ...
Sorry, basically everything you write is wrong: ... perhaps you had a different idea what biomass is ... it is actually not burned but converted into natural gas and then burned.
Wind farms are now mainly build at sea. They don't have land issues anway as the farmers happily farm on the fields where the wind farms are.
Solar, if it is photovoltaic, is best build in cities anywa, where you again have no land issues. Thermic solar is another thing, though.
Solar panels don't need rare earthes.
Wind generators use them, but would work also without them.
The environmental arguments are moot. Rare earthes are extracted right out of rock or sand and usually mined in deserts. There are no real concerns. Your claim China is worth than USA, is wrong. China is building up strong regulations, since years. However they suffer from the lack of those during the recent years.
A rare earth mine in the USA would look exactly like one in China. A big pit in a huge rock or desert.
Burning Biomass is not problematic because of green house gas issues, You are an idiot. If it is rotting it produces CO2 and CH4, a far stronger green house gas than CO2. Bottom line it is climat neutral if you burn it, as it wiuld rott otherwise anyway. Or more prcisely, because of avoiding the release of CH4 into the atmosphere it is even an advantage.
The amount of energy we produce with biomass is big enough that it is a majour player in the balancing power market.
Biomass: the shit of pigs and cows
Even if you don't believe it: 70% of europes land mass is neither used for housing, roads nor farming. There is plenty of space to build what ever plant you want.
And in the USA, it is even more land available.
The CF of a plant depends on hwo the plant is run. Not on its fuel.
For a new nuclear plant to have 90% CF the surrounding coal plants (or what ever) have to cut their CF.
E.g. in France where 75% of the power comes from nuclear plants, with a base load factor of about 60%, all nuclear plants have either to adapt load over the day from 60% to 95% (or something) ... hence their CF is only ~70% or a few of them run at > 90% and the rest significantly below 60%.
You can only feed as much power into the grid as the grid is consuming. If 100% of your power would be from nuclear plants ... all plants had a CF of perhaps 55% or 60% ... due to changing demand over the course of a day.
at the UK average rate of US$0.22/kWh, the expected power generated over 40 years would be worth $222 billion. ... in ten years no one in europe will be able to run a nuclear plant profitable.
That rate is dropping rapidly as renewables are replacing nuclear plants
No. On mars you can live easier than in the (Ant-) Arctics.
The only "drawback" is the distance.
However the steam coming out of the cooling towers should never have been in contact with radioactive material. And: plenty of coal plants have cooling towers, too.
I would start to learn what base load and base line is ... (*facepalm*)
It does not mean what you think it means.
A melt down has nothing to do with what fissionable material you fission.
It's past time to start using nuclear physics to cleanly and safely power the globe. ... much simpler and on lots of small scale installations instead of a few big bang ones.
Can be done with wind and solar and biomass and water as well
Think about it, we reached the South Pole over 100 years ago and even so we still don't have Antarctians permanently living there.
Because there is no point in permanently living there. 3 months total night, 2 x 3 months twilight, 3 months total day time. How would you build something self sustaining there? And: why?
Also remember that if China and India start consuming at the rate that the median American does, global warming and climate change will go through the roof.
That is bollocks. Consume is not causing climate change. CO2 does.
It is easy to produce more consumables with out using more energy.
It is also easy to produce more energy without producing CO2.
Just because you still use the wrong form of energy production and a strange way of consuming (in the US) it does not mean that the rest of the world, especially the developing one, is evolving similar. China and India both are heavily investing into renewables btw. And no one there is trying to copy idiotic american lifestyles.
Pretty sure you are wrong as most of my friends work for companies that make video and audio software for Macs, e.g. plug ins for CuBase ...
Serious audio on a PC is still close to impossible, windows not made for that.