You've described a lot of my set up, I have a 6x3.5 metre office space I use and a few lessons to share if I can build on what you've said a bit.
1. A - Capacitance around the cable in the form of damp earth will reduce bandwidth, consider using some of the white packing foam on the bottom of the trench or even around the PVC.
3. Avoid running mains power cabling in parallel or within about a metre of your ethernet.
A. power from the ceiling - data and signal from the floor as if there is flooding you do not want to be exposed to mains voltage.
B. As long as the data is dry it will be ok, consider running additional conduit up the wall 30cm or so to prevent water ingress into the data conduit underground.
4. Acoustic tiles in the corners of the rooms will reduce a lot of reverberation.
6. If you are pouring concrete consider running a set of copper tubes through it so you can use it as a heat sink for water cooling. Cool using two separate loops to the machines. Quiet cooling! My machine room is separate from my office.
9. Great time to run speaker cables as well, it's robust - just keep it away from mains. Mains and ethernet will have an effect on any audio signal cable you route so shield that and ground the shield.
10. If you are going to add a subwoofer consider building it into the wall. Transmission lines with a Q folded at quarter or even half the resonant frequency of the driver don't have to be pretty and can save a lot of space. You can build the subwoofer amp into the wall as well just reinforce the wall cavity (when you fold the line) so it doesn't vibrate.
I get things done quicker leaving the distractions of my home and going to a dedicated work environment.
This is a sign of poor self discipline.
It is not.
Then we disagree. Focus is to be able to tune out distractions which requires self discipline.
Self-discipline is on a completely orthogonal axis from distractions at home. At home, you might have small kids running around, or a blaring tv to try to ignore, or flatmates making noise, or the people in the apartment nextdoor might be fucking loudly. No amount of self-discipline can fix this.
Those situations are not much different from what you would have in the office, with the exception of the fucking - lol, however when a colleague comes to my desk stands there and injects a question or statement directly at me this is no longer a distraction, it is an interruption - which is what I seek to avoid.
True these things happen when you are at home. I tend to let them wash over me and go with the flow if I can however I have a dedicated office at home so people leave me be. In your context it would be difficult but not impossible however I would probably stop if I had a 2 year old screaming or distracting me until they were distracted by something else. I didn't say self discipline was easy, especially if the people around you don't give a shit. In that case it becomes planning.
You can't ignore people at work because you just come across as a rude jerk. At home, if you are working, you have that choice.
Also, even if you're home alone, it just might not feel right doing work at home.
The trap here is in the other direction, that you get so sucked into working that you forget why you are working. Not good for your mental health.
My favorite and most productive location are the local library and coffee shops, in 3-to-6 hour chunks of time. I get tons done there when I'm unable to focus at home.
Interesting, not a place I've tried to work, though I tend to use them to interact with colleagues. I tend to prefer ergonomic environments and my home office is optimal for me - which is why I try to use it and I don't get that at a cafe. If that works for you though, you should use it.
In a sense, a mix of work from home and office time is embracing the value of diversity. Both environments offer advantages and disadvantages. Using only one environment exclusively denies you the advantages of the other.
I think you have summed this up elegantly.
I understand that some people are lazy and that they don't want to work, however the flip side is with people who love what they do their motivation is moderated by their physical capacity and if you are exhausted from commuting *all* the time their productivity will be affected.
I find that people who mow the lawn as soon as is feasible after sunrise are typically among the first to bitch about the slightest moderate rise in noise level after 9pm. They think everyone's lives should be on their schedule. And of course it's bullshit.
Indeed. They start their blowers up at 6am when the noise regs say 730 am is the earliest work should start. They are quite happy with their double standard.
For me if it's morning I try to hit it about 8-9 am or 5-7pm as it is way too hot to do lawn mowing in the middle of the day. In terms of telecommuting, lawn mowing is when I consider some of the toughest problem before I shower and then get stuck into it.
Weird thing is I kind of enjoy the mowing, I find it kind of relaxing and a good time to "unthink" - so to speak. I must say that I am impressed with your robot though - very cool indeed!!!
I've never worked in a dev house that doesn't have some kind of music blasting. Usually electronic, sometimes rock or indie - depends what the boss is into usually.
Damn. Does any other dev besides me actually require silence to be able to work?
Both. Sometimes I blast music to activate the idea factory then silence when I get focused, I don't want to disturb others. What I really need is to *not* be interrupted when I am in the zone because it is a fragile mental state to acquire.
In the office I interact, at home I smash it, easily twice as productive in terms of achieving goals I have identified. It becomes a good balance because commuting takes productive energy.
These are the kind of life/work balances we should expect the 21st century to deliver.
In 2014, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that nuclear power has the lowest lifecycle emissions of any electric generating technology, except for wind energy.
The IPCC accepted data on this subject from Vattenfall, a company with heavy investments in Nuclear power.
We can wait for wind, solar, and battery technology to get cheaper but that does nothing for the carbon we'd be producing while we wait.
Every kilowatt generated by wind stops coal from producing almost twice that in thermal power. So yes, it does have an impact on reducing carbon as soon as it is implemented.
Reducing energy use, by personal choice or by imposing it on others with taxation, is a reduction of our standard of living.
Why? Technology has already adapted and it became viable to have LED lighting hit the market. This is an assumption that precludes adaptation by the market to fill a market niche.
This is not a political issue here, it's a question about if you have an open or closed mindset. Innovation happens all the time. Living standards will just change, and the idea of what a higher living standard is will change.
Nuclear power is both inexpensive and has a carbon footprint even lower than wind and solar.
Nuclear is extremely carbon intensive in the mining phase to extract the ore using traditional mining methods, if you are not pumping mega litres of sulfuric acid to do in-situ extraction (and destroying water tables in the process). 500tons of ore for 1 kilo of uranium, ~150 tons of uranium for the core of one reactor, 1/3 refuel every 18 months or so IIRC. It's roughly one third of the energy the reactor will produce over its lifetime.
Nuclear is extremely carbon intensive in the enrichment process as CFC114 is much more potent than methane as a greenhouse gas. IIRC, thousands of times more potent. You can't *not* enrich the fuel either.
Nuclear is extremely carbon intensive in the decommissioning and demolition phase, an energetic cost yet to be realized by the industry, because traditional methods of demolition cannot be used.
On the other hand the way wind scales is probably the biggest thing it has in it's favour, because existing sites can be retrofitted with upgraded technology, which lowers the energetic cost of maintain wind capacity.
We've been giving all kinds of money to the wind and solar industry for decades, through taxation and subsidies, in the hope it would be cheaper than coal someday. How much longer do we have to do this before it meets the definition of insanity?
Why not in parity with the Price-Anderson act, which has been extended repeatedly since the dawn of time for the nuclear industry which needs government assistance to cover its insurance liabilities. Or, why don't we just repeal the act and see how long the nuclear industry can remain?
One of Roosevelt's core 'New Deal' Act the PUCHA was repealed to benefit the nuclear industry with little fanfare from the press. Only for it to be subverted by the coal and oil industry who use proposals to build nuclear plants so they can get tax breaks for not building them. This is corporate welfare on a scale that makes social welfare looks like a kids pocket money. PUCHA was put in place to prevent a re-occurrence of the US depression from utilities doing *exactly* what they are doing now to raid the taxpayers wallets.
Thanks for asking. I think the biggest problem with this that there has been no forensic investigation of the facts, evidence and conclusions drawn from them. In any case how this happened is irrelevant compared to the laws put in place to justify the surveillance state we have now. It's our reality, I accept that, but it doesn't mean I don't like to playfully tease out the dogmatic skeptics who are too mentally anemic to challenge their own assumptions for a few lolz.
My phone worked fine on Japanese bullet trains, do we have any information on tower hand off at high speeds
First, in the air a cell phone is relatively equidistant from *all* cell towers in range. This is substantially different from a cell phone call placed on the ground where the signal strength to your closest tower may be 10's of dB higher the the very next one. From the air, your cell phone signal would present as the same fractions of a dB at *all* cell phone towers in range.
Second, you need cell hand off data of 2/3G network that was in use in 2001. Even on the ground, at 500 knots (roughly 800kph) a handover from one tower would be occurring as it was handing over to another. It is difficult to expect such a connection to be maintained with the network technology available in 2001.
Third, tests of those networks revealed all cell connections to be dropped above 3000 metres thus difficult to expect such a connection to be maintained without the assistance of the aircraft and that technology was only introduced in 2004.
Fourth, the range of the 3watt of transceiver power a cell phone has to transmit to connect to a tower is no more than the distance to the horizon on the ground, which is about 5km's, which is similar to a 3watt CB radio. With aircraft cruising altitude of 11km there is simply not enough energy in the transmitter to get to the ground even if you ignore the fact that an aircraft is a faraday cage AND their are two layers of aluminium between the transmitter and the ground.
Fifth, US patent US 7965684 B2: Method and system of handoff for cellular networks only allows 2 channels and a handset would not be able to calculate the round trip delay to the next cell tower if they are all, or even mostly, equidistant. Therefore no hard or soft handover would occur, resulting in a dropped connection.
The commission implies those calls were made from air phones which is in conflict with the witnesses who say they received cell phone calls.
If you accept the official version then we aren't talking about cell phones at all. If you accept the witness statements, then you have to ask why the official report implies otherwise and if the characteristics of the network would allow cell phone calls at the time, speed and altitude the air traffic controllers reported these aircraft to be when the calls were made. I don't think that is unreasonable to ask those questions.
It's the implications of the answer that skeptics don't want to deal with so it is understandable why they cannot accept the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a lot of amp hours in that battery - thanks.
That's fantastic. Do you think it is feasible to charge it with a solar setup?
If I had mod points...
You've described a lot of my set up, I have a 6x3.5 metre office space I use and a few lessons to share if I can build on what you've said a bit.
A. power from the ceiling - data and signal from the floor as if there is flooding you do not want to be exposed to mains voltage.
B. As long as the data is dry it will be ok, consider running additional conduit up the wall 30cm or so to prevent water ingress into the data conduit underground.
I get things done quicker leaving the distractions of my home and going to a dedicated work environment.
This is a sign of poor self discipline.
It is not.
Then we disagree. Focus is to be able to tune out distractions which requires self discipline.
Self-discipline is on a completely orthogonal axis from distractions at home. At home, you might have small kids running around, or a blaring tv to try to ignore, or flatmates making noise, or the people in the apartment nextdoor might be fucking loudly. No amount of self-discipline can fix this.
Those situations are not much different from what you would have in the office, with the exception of the fucking - lol, however when a colleague comes to my desk stands there and injects a question or statement directly at me this is no longer a distraction, it is an interruption - which is what I seek to avoid.
True these things happen when you are at home. I tend to let them wash over me and go with the flow if I can however I have a dedicated office at home so people leave me be. In your context it would be difficult but not impossible however I would probably stop if I had a 2 year old screaming or distracting me until they were distracted by something else. I didn't say self discipline was easy, especially if the people around you don't give a shit. In that case it becomes planning.
You can't ignore people at work because you just come across as a rude jerk. At home, if you are working, you have that choice.
Also, even if you're home alone, it just might not feel right doing work at home.
The trap here is in the other direction, that you get so sucked into working that you forget why you are working. Not good for your mental health.
My favorite and most productive location are the local library and coffee shops, in 3-to-6 hour chunks of time. I get tons done there when I'm unable to focus at home.
Interesting, not a place I've tried to work, though I tend to use them to interact with colleagues. I tend to prefer ergonomic environments and my home office is optimal for me - which is why I try to use it and I don't get that at a cafe. If that works for you though, you should use it.
In a sense, a mix of work from home and office time is embracing the value of diversity. Both environments offer advantages and disadvantages. Using only one environment exclusively denies you the advantages of the other.
I think you have summed this up elegantly.
I understand that some people are lazy and that they don't want to work, however the flip side is with people who love what they do their motivation is moderated by their physical capacity and if you are exhausted from commuting *all* the time their productivity will be affected.
I find that people who mow the lawn as soon as is feasible after sunrise are typically among the first to bitch about the slightest moderate rise in noise level after 9pm. They think everyone's lives should be on their schedule. And of course it's bullshit.
Indeed. They start their blowers up at 6am when the noise regs say 730 am is the earliest work should start. They are quite happy with their double standard.
For me if it's morning I try to hit it about 8-9 am or 5-7pm as it is way too hot to do lawn mowing in the middle of the day. In terms of telecommuting, lawn mowing is when I consider some of the toughest problem before I shower and then get stuck into it.
Cool! Is it quiet?
Weird thing is I kind of enjoy the mowing, I find it kind of relaxing and a good time to "unthink" - so to speak. I must say that I am impressed with your robot though - very cool indeed!!!
Oh man, I wish my team would mellow out more. Instead I get the drama.
Maybe you need to let them work from home more often.
require more energy than it takes to commute to work.
Even if it requires the same energy the net benefit is still to the environment.
When you take the commuters of the road it also means it takes the pressure off people who are forced to commute.
I get things done quicker leaving the distractions of my home and going to a dedicated work environment.
This is a sign of poor self discipline.
I also prefer in person collaboration, problems get resolved much quicker.
That is what office days are for, interaction and collaboration. Work from home is concentration and deliberation.
Of course, it helps that my job is only a 5 min drive away, I like the people there, and there's plenty of free food/drinks.
Same here, but I still work from home because I need the extra productivity working from home so I can get everything done.
I've never worked in a dev house that doesn't have some kind of music blasting. Usually electronic, sometimes rock or indie - depends what the boss is into usually.
Damn. Does any other dev besides me actually require silence to be able to work?
Both. Sometimes I blast music to activate the idea factory then silence when I get focused, I don't want to disturb others. What I really need is to *not* be interrupted when I am in the zone because it is a fragile mental state to acquire.
In the office I interact, at home I smash it, easily twice as productive in terms of achieving goals I have identified. It becomes a good balance because commuting takes productive energy.
These are the kind of life/work balances we should expect the 21st century to deliver.
He would usually start mowing his lawn by 8am, so I was happy when Marissa cancelled telecommuting.
Maybe he gets it out of the way first and then get to work, whats the problem? Was he drinking beers on the porch for the rest of the day?
What I would honestly like to know is how much energy a windmill takes out of the air.
Probably much less than the heat a coal plant puts into it.
Confirmed
In 2014, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that nuclear power has the lowest lifecycle emissions of any electric generating technology, except for wind energy.
The IPCC accepted data on this subject from Vattenfall, a company with heavy investments in Nuclear power.
The Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory released its analysis of life-cycle emissions in 2012 and concluded the following about nuclear:
Thank you. I appreciate you sending information instead of hyperbole, I'll check that out.
Every kilowatt generated by wind stops coal from producing almost twice that in thermal power. So yes, it does have an impact on reducing carbon as soon as it is implemented.
Why? Technology has already adapted and it became viable to have LED lighting hit the market. This is an assumption that precludes adaptation by the market to fill a market niche.
This is not a political issue here, it's a question about if you have an open or closed mindset. Innovation happens all the time. Living standards will just change, and the idea of what a higher living standard is will change.
Nuclear is extremely carbon intensive in the mining phase to extract the ore using traditional mining methods, if you are not pumping mega litres of sulfuric acid to do in-situ extraction (and destroying water tables in the process). 500tons of ore for 1 kilo of uranium, ~150 tons of uranium for the core of one reactor, 1/3 refuel every 18 months or so IIRC. It's roughly one third of the energy the reactor will produce over its lifetime.
Nuclear is extremely carbon intensive in the enrichment process as CFC114 is much more potent than methane as a greenhouse gas. IIRC, thousands of times more potent. You can't *not* enrich the fuel either.
Nuclear is extremely carbon intensive in the decommissioning and demolition phase, an energetic cost yet to be realized by the industry, because traditional methods of demolition cannot be used.
On the other hand the way wind scales is probably the biggest thing it has in it's favour, because existing sites can be retrofitted with upgraded technology, which lowers the energetic cost of maintain wind capacity.
Why not in parity with the Price-Anderson act, which has been extended repeatedly since the dawn of time for the nuclear industry which needs government assistance to cover its insurance liabilities. Or, why don't we just repeal the act and see how long the nuclear industry can remain?
One of Roosevelt's core 'New Deal' Act the PUCHA was repealed to benefit the nuclear industry with little fanfare from the press. Only for it to be subverted by the coal and oil industry who use proposals to build nuclear plants so they can get tax breaks for not building them. This is corporate welfare on a scale that makes social welfare looks like a kids pocket money. PUCHA was put in place to prevent a re-occurrence of the US depression from utilities doing *exactly* what they are doing now to raid the taxpayers wallets.
You can read it here in the 2005 US energy policy act SEC 600-635, and at the end of the document for the repeal of PUCHA.
me thinks you assume too much.
We have already unlocked runaway processes.
Holy shit dude, kill -9 it before it does some real damage.
Or replaced all of your .mp4s with Adam Sandler movies and reported you to the MPAA....
See, if that was a virus it would just be funny. Not because of Adam Sandler though.
Dammit thank you! I've been trying to remember the name of this for months! All I could remember was they were a garbage crew.
1) my boss 2) my mother-in-law I see this as win-win-win situation.
Ahhhh, so this is Step 3., before Profit!
Who is going to save me from this dangerous hack?
Rege Dit.
Unless your nightly backup process replaced the backups of all your files with the encrypted versions.
What if it replaced all you files with an mp3 of "Careless whisper" then reported you to the RIAA?
But since they don't, take their money anyway and tell them you couldn't recover their files. Only then are they ready to do backups.
It must be the lefties fault.
that isn't from the idiot fringe?
Thanks for asking. I think the biggest problem with this that there has been no forensic investigation of the facts, evidence and conclusions drawn from them. In any case how this happened is irrelevant compared to the laws put in place to justify the surveillance state we have now. It's our reality, I accept that, but it doesn't mean I don't like to playfully tease out the dogmatic skeptics who are too mentally anemic to challenge their own assumptions for a few lolz.
My phone worked fine on Japanese bullet trains, do we have any information on tower hand off at high speeds
First, in the air a cell phone is relatively equidistant from *all* cell towers in range. This is substantially different from a cell phone call placed on the ground where the signal strength to your closest tower may be 10's of dB higher the the very next one. From the air, your cell phone signal would present as the same fractions of a dB at *all* cell phone towers in range.
Second, you need cell hand off data of 2/3G network that was in use in 2001. Even on the ground, at 500 knots (roughly 800kph) a handover from one tower would be occurring as it was handing over to another. It is difficult to expect such a connection to be maintained with the network technology available in 2001.
Third, tests of those networks revealed all cell connections to be dropped above 3000 metres thus difficult to expect such a connection to be maintained without the assistance of the aircraft and that technology was only introduced in 2004.
Fourth, the range of the 3watt of transceiver power a cell phone has to transmit to connect to a tower is no more than the distance to the horizon on the ground, which is about 5km's, which is similar to a 3watt CB radio. With aircraft cruising altitude of 11km there is simply not enough energy in the transmitter to get to the ground even if you ignore the fact that an aircraft is a faraday cage AND their are two layers of aluminium between the transmitter and the ground.
Fifth, US patent US 7965684 B2: Method and system of handoff for cellular networks only allows 2 channels and a handset would not be able to calculate the round trip delay to the next cell tower if they are all, or even mostly, equidistant. Therefore no hard or soft handover would occur, resulting in a dropped connection.
The commission implies those calls were made from air phones which is in conflict with the witnesses who say they received cell phone calls.
If you accept the official version then we aren't talking about cell phones at all. If you accept the witness statements, then you have to ask why the official report implies otherwise and if the characteristics of the network would allow cell phone calls at the time, speed and altitude the air traffic controllers reported these aircraft to be when the calls were made. I don't think that is unreasonable to ask those questions.
It's the implications of the answer that skeptics don't want to deal with so it is understandable why they cannot accept the facts.