There's a 42 meter European scope that should be complete by 2016, 8" ~=0.2m, telescope diameter is linearly related to distance of detection of a given brightness object, so 12 or 13 million km, so that's effective warning for a 30m asteroid for purposes of orderly evacuation, but not for a space mission.
Destruction goes roughly as the cube of the asteroid diameter while brightness rises as the square, so there's an overall inverse relationship between our ability to detect (using a given size of telescope) and the danger posed. In other words odds are we won't see the big one until it's too late.
Also, it's a big sky. If it comes from a weird direction we very likely won't see it at all. It'll also have a bigger relative velocity and thus much more destructive power (E=m*v^2.)
Telescopes are cheap, though. The risks are existential - the human race could be wiped out. But even on an individual accounting, leaving aside the risk to the human race, if there's a 1 in 10^8 risk of a KT-like event per year that would kill 10^9.8 people, then that's 6800 deaths per year over the long haul. If a life is worth a million bucks to save, then we should be spending at least 6.8 billion a year on asteroid detection and response - actually much more than that counting the danger from the much more numerous smaller asteroids.
Could we please try this system out on the primary-care lawyers first?
We could call it "Socialized Law" - nah, that's bad marketing... hmm how about "National Justice" or even "Free American Rights" or maybe "Just Governance".
Your IQ only matters to the extent that you actually use it.
I have a couple of doctors in my family with IQs likely above IQ 150 / (s.d.15) but the routine of practicing the same kind of medicine for decades seems to have made it difficult for them apply their higher intelligence to their jobs, or even many aspects of their lives. I have seen the same phenomenon in ultra-high IQ societies, too - a nuclear physicist becoming a born-again Christian, for example.
It doesn't matter how smart you are unless you are constantly applying that to questioning what you think you know and how you know it. There is a tendency to become certain, to absorb the beliefs of the people around you and even to believe your credentials make your opinions correct. This sort of magical thinking effectively counteracts intelligence, and in few places is this more evident than in the medical profession.
Whoosh. The point of the sig was not to bash Bush (worthy cause though that is), it was ironic humor since Bush for once is telling the literal truth - he does know how it feels since he had to give up his job due to constitutional term limits and thus has to move out of the White House and find a new place to live. The humor is he has a family fortune, personal fortune, at least two other houses, whopping big pension and plenty of opportunities to make $100,000 a pop for speaking engagements and other forms of delayed bribery. Bush was speaking the truth, but he meant it humorously.
In other news, you have a new entry on your freak list. (It's so I can avoid reading the dumber posts.)
The standard cell power rating is peak power in 1kW/m^2 sunlight pointing directly at the sun. In the highest-sunlight areas such as the Mojave you'll get about 6kWh/m^2 of gross sunlight power per day averaged over a year, or 6 hours of noon-equivalent sunlight per day, so if you have a 1kW rated panel in the Mojave you'll get about 6 kWh average per day. In more normal locations it'll be more like 4kWh/day, in bad regions maybe 2.5kWh/day.
So that's 2,190kWh per year per kW rated output in ideal location, 1450kWh/year in an normal area.
This comment had some good info on lease deals, which make solar pay immediately even with much more expensive cost per watt than $1.
This commenthad detailed calculations on the effective cost per kWh counting all parts and expenses and came up with something under 10 cents per kWh
Looks good, but you should do a NPV calculation for the value of the electricity. OTOH, the price of electricity will likely go up in real terms, so I think the interest rate for the NPV calculation should be the long term borrowing rate minus the expected rate of electricity price increases, which will be close to a wash, at least within the margin of error.
Yes, it's all about bad metrics. Bad metrics are the root of all evil. Taylorism, six-sigma, ISO x000, outsourcing, call-center idiocy, TPS reports accounting manipulation, stock analyst BS, structured finance, gaussian risk assumptions, macro-economic stats, bond ratings,.... on and on.
Never try to fix the bad metrics, though. You won't win. They are bad because it butters somebody's bread. Don't try to explain why you can't add minutes, percentages, stock prices, checklist tick-counts and fluid ounces together and get a meaningful number, (no, not even if your team leader can make a chart of it in Excel and embed it in a Powerpoint slide for the morning huddle. No, hiring consultants, taking the standard deviation and setting stretch goals won't help, either).
No, don't try to explain. Manipulate the system shamelessly and cynically while trying to hedge against the coming collapse - at least you know the options will be cheaper than they ought to be because of the bad metrics.
I agree, but the cap gains tax should only be on real profits over $500 per year taken as income and not reinvested. Now you pay on purely nominal gains caused by inflation, fill out onerous paperwork over tiny amounts of savings account interest, usually can't deduct all investment losses from profits, and usually take a tax penalty for rebalancing your portfolio. Investment companies don't have most of these burdens, but individuals do. Getting around the ridiculous rules is a big part of why the market is dominated by mutual funds, hedge funds, IRA money-jailers and other parasites.
Also, capital gains shouldn't be taxed if the underlying capital is intellectual property. Ireland got that right; it really paid off for them. (I know this is Slashdot, but individual authors and inventors would be more viable if their product weren't taxed out of existence.)
100k is a little stiff, but why shouldn't they be forced to pay to keep their high titles and status? those CxOs at Volt do nothing that requires any more skill than some of the people three levels down. They do not earn what they are paid. No one's forcing them to take the high-status title. They got the rewards when things were good. When the economy gets tough, sales are down, then they should bear the risks. If they're such hot shit, they can go look for another job. They may find that executive hiring is even slower than usual, though. Just because they have some class sense of entitlement, doesn't mean they can't be replaced with somebody better for 75% less.
If they were loyal to the business, they wouldn't need a giant salary, especially in this economy, and if they were loyal to their employees they wouldn't pass on 100% of the customer's spending cut when Volt's margins are so much higher than the rest of the industry. But they aren't loyal, they aren't good - they're opportunists, amoral swindlers, psychopaths out only for number one. That's all you're going to get when the money and the power and the status all go together, winner take all. Pay the top people less and you'll actually have a chance of getting people who have some sense of responsibility to others.
The 10% pay cut now is at least a better outcome for the temp than the 100% cut he'd take later if his job is outsourced to India.
The workers aren't getting anything in exchange for the cut in their pay, least of all a commitment from Volt or MS that their job will exist a moment longer than is most profitable for their employers.
I think the best response by the workers would be to counteroffer a 10% reduction in hours at the same hourly rate, while looking for both a new job and a class-action attorney to handle the breach of contract case.
No, it is a legal term of art. Insofar as an opinion is dissenting it is by definition not a majority opinion. (An opinion can be dissenting in part and concurring in part.) Wikipedia: "A dissenting opinion in a legal case is an opinion of one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment."
You might have a point if we were talking English, but this is black-letter Legalese.
I think a great percentage of the American people are against torture, but the brainwashing of the corporate-owned media and the effective corporate control of the government prevents any collective action by the people. Amorality is rampant in the electorate but nearly universal among candidates for office, so there is effectively not much choice. We're in the position of voting for the lizard with the best campaign and trying to make sure that the wrong lizard doesn't get in.
People feel powerless, and if they live in reality as presented by the media and stick to the choices offered, they effectively are. A few individuals may break free from the matrix, but statistically they can't affect the system. It's not that people don't give a fuck, it's that they can't see any realistic way to make a difference.
Wrong. "Dissenting opinion" implies not voting with the majority. If a judge votes with the majority but issues a separate opinion, that is a "concurring opinion". See Wikipedia on Majority opinion Dissenting opinion Plurality opinion Concurring opinion Memorandum opinion
The guy clearly was not thinking straight when he showed them the usenet porn feed he stored on his machine, but it is conceivable given his behavior that the CP files were not downloaded with specific intent, but as undesired parts of an automated downloading process.
I presume the government still has the laptop. How is he supposed to comply with the order to produce an unencrypted version of the drive which is in their possession?
Because doctors are contractually bound by some insurers to accept as full payment the lowest rate that they accept from anyone else (Medicare reportedly also takes this tack), Medicare and insurance companies end up setting the rates they pay, which are far lower than what an uninsured person would be billed. This is part of the reason why so many people are bankrupted by medical bills - they are being asked to pay much more than giant companies.
When a patient gets a discount, it's usually at most to the rate the provider would get from the insurance company, although this might get even better in a large debt workout, when the provider can say the lower rate was not full payment but a negotiated settlement to avoid collection costs or getting stiffed completely. Small providers with more flexibility may take an additional amount off beyond insurance rates for immediate payment and the avoidance of onerous paperwork, but this might be slightly legally risky.
Insurance companies make money because of careful analysis of statistics and probability tables. If it cost them more to pay your bills then what you were giving them, they'd be broke - and the "you" in this statement includes 83 year olds with multiple organ failure. Insurance is a scam, plain and simple.
Nearly true - they also make money kiting the delay between premium payments and claim payments. If they can make more than the rate of cost increases in claims, then they can turn a profit even when payouts = premiums. This seems unlikely in health insurance, but since their premiums increase they effectively are still in a good position to make money from investments (or speculation - see AIG). In fact, by buying their own much cheaper insurance (reinsurance) and getting cheap loans based on their incoming premium cash flows, insurance companies become giant money golems.
What a troll. Dr Evan Harris' letter mostly was spot on.
Of course one should have the freedom to confront unsupported or falsified beliefs, to shun, fire or otherwise boycott those who espouse such beliefs, and to seek to prevent those who hold such beliefs from hijacking the law to suppress their opponents' views.
Anybody who argues their right to hate, and encourages others to do so, is an idiot, and is probably up to no good.
So you not only wish to outlaw what people say on the basis of how it might make people feel (even people who believe utter nonsense, and don't like having it pointed out that it is utter nonsense) but you want to outlaw an emotion you, um... hate? Well, that would put most of the Jews, Muslims, gender feminists, and Slashdot posters behind bars, as well as those who hate pedophiles, upper class white men, gender feminists, telemarketers, politicians, estate agents, advertising executives...and those who hate those who hate.
Let's say that this is a 40ft. diameter dish in 6kWh/m^2 per day, 365 days per year territory with a thermal efficiency of 25%
that's about 63,000 kWh per year, if I've done my math right, which means $6300 at 10 cents/kWh. I think that's a realistic number. But let's say they get $10,000 a year for the power from one dish. The dishes aren't going to cost $50000, it'll be more. Then they'll need land, permits, environmental studies. Then they need power lines, which can't be bought for any price in California, but even if they could, would add tens of thousands of dollars per dish. Then there will be maintenance - the mirrors need cleaning, the moving parts in the Stirlings will wear out, and unforeseen expenses are inevitable. At the end of the day they simply can't make a return on capital that is attractive. If everything goes perfectly, the projections they make to get investors turn out to be correct, there are no expenses other than their $50,000 projected equipment costs (...hell freezes over, monkeys fly out my butt...)they make 20% return. Given the factors mentioned above, it's more likely that the best case is they net $3000 after maintenance and land on $100,000 investment, which means they don't cover real inflation, let alone the cost of capital.
You do not need a "radiator", to cool the cells just a heat sink in the most general sense of the term. Running enough cold water through to keep the panels 150F is a great way to do that and get hot water for home use. In fact the most popular type of solar panels do just that and leave out the PV element. Many get a little fancier and use a closed-loop with antifreeze and a simple water-water heat exchanger. If there's too much heat evaporation is astonishingly effective at those temperatures no mater what the humidity, or one could use a "radiator". But I do agree with you that any heat engine is unlikely to be economical at the temperature drops seen in this application.
Engineering Ratholes.pdf "there is a key component to a Stirling engine that nobody - but nobody - has figured out how to build yet. It is called a regenerator. Any regenerator has to be long and thin and short and fat. Not to mention being an excellent insulator and a superb conductor." -Don Lancaster
Also see www.tinaja.com/glib/hack64.pdf for a review of the dismal Carnot efficiency of modest temperature drops. You can get hot water from cooling PVs, but running heat engines is impractical unless they're really, really cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
2000 km away the earthquake magnitude is still 4.4, I believe.
There's a 42 meter European scope that should be complete by 2016, 8" ~=0.2m, telescope diameter is linearly related to distance of detection of a given brightness object, so 12 or 13 million km, so that's effective warning for a 30m asteroid for purposes of orderly evacuation, but not for a space mission.
Destruction goes roughly as the cube of the asteroid diameter while brightness rises as the square, so there's an overall inverse relationship between our ability to detect (using a given size of telescope) and the danger posed. In other words odds are we won't see the big one until it's too late.
Also, it's a big sky. If it comes from a weird direction we very likely won't see it at all. It'll also have a bigger relative velocity and thus much more destructive power (E=m*v^2.)
Telescopes are cheap, though. The risks are existential - the human race could be wiped out. But even on an individual accounting, leaving aside the risk to the human race, if there's a 1 in 10^8 risk of a KT-like event per year that would kill 10^9.8 people, then that's 6800 deaths per year over the long haul. If a life is worth a million bucks to save, then we should be spending at least 6.8 billion a year on asteroid detection and response - actually much more than that counting the danger from the much more numerous smaller asteroids.
Could we please try this system out on the primary-care lawyers first?
We could call it "Socialized Law" - nah, that's bad marketing... hmm how about "National Justice" or even "Free American Rights" or maybe "Just Governance".
Your IQ only matters to the extent that you actually use it.
I have a couple of doctors in my family with IQs likely above IQ 150 / (s.d.15) but the routine of practicing the same kind of medicine for decades seems to have made it difficult for them apply their higher intelligence to their jobs, or even many aspects of their lives. I have seen the same phenomenon in ultra-high IQ societies, too - a nuclear physicist becoming a born-again Christian, for example.
It doesn't matter how smart you are unless you are constantly applying that to questioning what you think you know and how you know it. There is a tendency to become certain, to absorb the beliefs of the people around you and even to believe your credentials make your opinions correct. This sort of magical thinking effectively counteracts intelligence, and in few places is this more evident than in the medical profession.
Whoosh.
The point of the sig was not to bash Bush (worthy cause though that is), it was ironic humor since Bush for once is telling the literal truth - he does know how it feels since he had to give up his job due to constitutional term limits and thus has to move out of the White House and find a new place to live. The humor is he has a family fortune, personal fortune, at least two other houses, whopping big pension and plenty of opportunities to make $100,000 a pop for speaking engagements and other forms of delayed bribery. Bush was speaking the truth, but he meant it humorously.
In other news, you have a new entry on your freak list. (It's so I can avoid reading the dumber posts.)
The standard cell power rating is peak power in 1kW/m^2 sunlight pointing directly at the sun. In the highest-sunlight areas such as the Mojave you'll get about 6kWh/m^2 of gross sunlight power per day averaged over a year, or 6 hours of noon-equivalent sunlight per day, so if you have a 1kW rated panel in the Mojave you'll get about 6 kWh average per day. In more normal locations it'll be more like 4kWh/day, in bad regions maybe 2.5kWh/day.
So that's 2,190kWh per year per kW rated output in ideal location, 1450kWh/year in an normal area.
This comment had some good info on lease deals, which make solar pay immediately even with much more expensive cost per watt than $1.
This commenthad detailed calculations on the effective cost per kWh counting all parts and expenses and came up with something under 10 cents per kWh
We cannot stop all people who want to commit violence, but we CAN stop them from being in a positions of power..
... by shooting them in the fucking head.
Looks good, but you should do a NPV calculation for the value of the electricity. OTOH, the price of electricity will likely go up in real terms, so I think the interest rate for the NPV calculation should be the long term borrowing rate minus the expected rate of electricity price increases, which will be close to a wash, at least within the margin of error.
Yes, it's all about bad metrics. Bad metrics are the root of all evil. Taylorism, six-sigma, ISO x000, outsourcing, call-center idiocy, TPS reports accounting manipulation, stock analyst BS, structured finance, gaussian risk assumptions, macro-economic stats, bond ratings,.... on and on.
Never try to fix the bad metrics, though. You won't win. They are bad because it butters somebody's bread. Don't try to explain why you can't add minutes, percentages, stock prices, checklist tick-counts and fluid ounces together and get a meaningful number, (no, not even if your team leader can make a chart of it in Excel and embed it in a Powerpoint slide for the morning huddle. No, hiring consultants, taking the standard deviation and setting stretch goals won't help, either).
No, don't try to explain. Manipulate the system shamelessly and cynically while trying to hedge against the coming collapse - at least you know the options will be cheaper than they ought to be because of the bad metrics.
I agree, but the cap gains tax should only be on real profits over $500 per year taken as income and not reinvested. Now you pay on purely nominal gains caused by inflation, fill out onerous paperwork over tiny amounts of savings account interest, usually can't deduct all investment losses from profits, and usually take a tax penalty for rebalancing your portfolio. Investment companies don't have most of these burdens, but individuals do. Getting around the ridiculous rules is a big part of why the market is dominated by mutual funds, hedge funds, IRA money-jailers and other parasites.
Inflation-adjusting nominal capital gains using the government's numbers isn't good enough. The have been fiddled with so much over the years that they are 3 to 6 percentage points lower than they would be when calculated using the methods of 15 to 30 years ago. This fiddling has also inflated GDP growth and screwed Social Security recipients by a similar percentage compounded over many years.
Also, capital gains shouldn't be taxed if the underlying capital is intellectual property. Ireland got that right; it really paid off for them. (I know this is Slashdot, but individual authors and inventors would be more viable if their product weren't taxed out of existence.)
100k is a little stiff, but why shouldn't they be forced to pay to keep their high titles and status? those CxOs at Volt do nothing that requires any more skill than some of the people three levels down. They do not earn what they are paid. No one's forcing them to take the high-status title. They got the rewards when things were good. When the economy gets tough, sales are down, then they should bear the risks. If they're such hot shit, they can go look for another job. They may find that executive hiring is even slower than usual, though. Just because they have some class sense of entitlement, doesn't mean they can't be replaced with somebody better for 75% less.
If they were loyal to the business, they wouldn't need a giant salary, especially in this economy, and if they were loyal to their employees they wouldn't pass on 100% of the customer's spending cut when Volt's margins are so much higher than the rest of the industry. But they aren't loyal, they aren't good - they're opportunists, amoral swindlers, psychopaths out only for number one. That's all you're going to get when the money and the power and the status all go together, winner take all. Pay the top people less and you'll actually have a chance of getting people who have some sense of responsibility to others.
The 10% pay cut now is at least a better outcome for the temp than the 100% cut he'd take later if his job is outsourced to India.
The workers aren't getting anything in exchange for the cut in their pay, least of all a commitment from Volt or MS that their job will exist a moment longer than is most profitable for their employers.
I think the best response by the workers would be to counteroffer a 10% reduction in hours at the same hourly rate, while looking for both a new job and a class-action attorney to handle the breach of contract case.
No, it is a legal term of art. Insofar as an opinion is dissenting it is by definition not a majority opinion. (An opinion can be dissenting in part and concurring in part.) Wikipedia: "A dissenting opinion in a legal case is an opinion of one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment."
You might have a point if we were talking English, but this is black-letter Legalese.
For instance, I would find it odd to hear of a "beyond the (partially illuminated) shadow of an unreasonable doubt".
What about "the emanations of the penumbras of the enumerated rights"?
I think a great percentage of the American people are against torture, but the brainwashing of the corporate-owned media and the effective corporate control of the government prevents any collective action by the people. Amorality is rampant in the electorate but nearly universal among candidates for office, so there is effectively not much choice. We're in the position of voting for the lizard with the best campaign and trying to make sure that the wrong lizard doesn't get in.
People feel powerless, and if they live in reality as presented by the media and stick to the choices offered, they effectively are. A few individuals may break free from the matrix, but statistically they can't affect the system. It's not that people don't give a fuck, it's that they can't see any realistic way to make a difference.
Wrong. "Dissenting opinion" implies not voting with the majority. If a judge votes with the majority but issues a separate opinion, that is a "concurring opinion". See Wikipedia on
Majority opinion
Dissenting opinion
Plurality opinion
Concurring opinion
Memorandum opinion
The guy clearly was not thinking straight when he showed them the usenet porn feed he stored on his machine, but it is conceivable given his behavior that the CP files were not downloaded with specific intent, but as undesired parts of an automated downloading process.
I presume the government still has the laptop. How is he supposed to comply with the order to produce an unencrypted version of the drive which is in their possession?
Because doctors are contractually bound by some insurers to accept as full payment the lowest rate that they accept from anyone else (Medicare reportedly also takes this tack), Medicare and insurance companies end up setting the rates they pay, which are far lower than what an uninsured person would be billed. This is part of the reason why so many people are bankrupted by medical bills - they are being asked to pay much more than giant companies.
When a patient gets a discount, it's usually at most to the rate the provider would get from the insurance company, although this might get even better in a large debt workout, when the provider can say the lower rate was not full payment but a negotiated settlement to avoid collection costs or getting stiffed completely. Small providers with more flexibility may take an additional amount off beyond insurance rates for immediate payment and the avoidance of onerous paperwork, but this might be slightly legally risky.
Insurance companies make money because of careful analysis of statistics and probability tables. If it cost them more to pay your bills then what you were giving them, they'd be broke - and the "you" in this statement includes 83 year olds with multiple organ failure. Insurance is a scam, plain and simple.
Nearly true - they also make money kiting the delay between premium payments and claim payments. If they can make more than the rate of cost increases in claims, then they can turn a profit even when payouts = premiums. This seems unlikely in health insurance, but since their premiums increase they effectively are still in a good position to make money from investments (or speculation - see AIG). In fact, by buying their own much cheaper insurance (reinsurance) and getting cheap loans based on their incoming premium cash flows, insurance companies become giant money golems.
What a troll. Dr Evan Harris' letter mostly was spot on.
Of course one should have the freedom to confront unsupported or falsified beliefs, to shun, fire or otherwise boycott those who espouse such beliefs, and to seek to prevent those who hold such beliefs from hijacking the law to suppress their opponents' views.
Anybody who argues their right to hate, and encourages others to do so, is an idiot, and is probably up to no good.
So you not only wish to outlaw what people say on the basis of how it might make people feel (even people who believe utter nonsense, and don't like having it pointed out that it is utter nonsense) but you want to outlaw an emotion you, um... hate? Well, that would put most of the Jews, Muslims, gender feminists, and Slashdot posters behind bars, as well as those who hate pedophiles, upper class white men, gender feminists, telemarketers, politicians, estate agents, advertising executives...and those who hate those who hate.
If it doesn't work then what are these people doing?
Losing money.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2008-01-20-solar-power_N.htm (worth reading)
"Osborn agrees cost is Stirling's biggest technical challenge. Each hand-built test dish cost $225,000. That needs to drop to less than $50,000, Osborn says."
Let's say that this is a 40ft. diameter dish in 6kWh/m^2 per day, 365 days per year territory with a thermal efficiency of 25%
that's about 63,000 kWh per year, if I've done my math right, which means $6300 at 10 cents/kWh. I think that's a realistic number. But let's say they get $10,000 a year for the power from one dish. The dishes aren't going to cost $50000, it'll be more. Then they'll need land, permits, environmental studies. Then they need power lines, which can't be bought for any price in California, but even if they could, would add tens of thousands of dollars per dish. Then there will be maintenance - the mirrors need cleaning, the moving parts in the Stirlings will wear out, and unforeseen expenses are inevitable. At the end of the day they simply can't make a return on capital that is attractive. If everything goes perfectly, the projections they make to get investors turn out to be correct, there are no expenses other than their $50,000 projected equipment costs (...hell freezes over, monkeys fly out my butt...)they make 20% return. Given the factors mentioned above, it's more likely that the best case is they net $3000 after maintenance and land on $100,000 investment, which means they don't cover real inflation, let alone the cost of capital.
What's your point? Phase space is not space alone but also direction.
Your overall point is right, but the gross insolation is about 6kWh/m^2 per day even in the Mojave because the sun isn't usually directly overhead.
You do not need a "radiator", to cool the cells just a heat sink in the most general sense of the term. Running enough cold water through to keep the panels 150F is a great way to do that and get hot water for home use. In fact the most popular type of solar panels do just that and leave out the PV element. Many get a little fancier and use a closed-loop with antifreeze and a simple water-water heat exchanger. If there's too much heat evaporation is astonishingly effective at those temperatures no mater what the humidity, or one could use a "radiator". But I do agree with you that any heat engine is unlikely to be economical at the temperature drops seen in this application.
Stirling engines will never be economical.
Engineering Ratholes.pdf
"there is a key component to a Stirling engine that nobody - but
nobody - has figured out how to build yet. It is called a
regenerator. Any regenerator has to be long and thin and
short and fat. Not to mention being an excellent insulator
and a superb conductor." -Don Lancaster
Also see www.tinaja.com/glib/hack64.pdf for a review of the dismal Carnot efficiency of modest temperature drops.
You can get hot water from cooling PVs, but running heat engines is impractical unless they're really, really cheap.