"Agree" yes. I never said it was easy to avoid. Homeless dirty bum, revolutionary, it doesn't matter. And there are plenty of places on earth you can live completely disentangled from the government, or any human for that matter. Perhaps not legitimately, but I would never expect a man of such uncompromising principles to be disturbed about breaking laws.
I mean GP has made completely unfounded and inflexible statements about the importance of his liberty without acknowledging that by agreeing to be governed he has significantly diminished this "freedom." Critics place excessive weight to these abstract notions of liberty and freedom without ever explaining what they mean or detailing the necessary concessions required of civilized life. Yes, I know you don't want to be treated as a slave, whipped and beaten at the mercy of a tyrant. That's not what were talking about. Suicide bombers in American Cafes? Can we please be productive? Our government governs in a way that freedom will be exchanged with security, efficiency, and practicality among other things. Only a retreat into complete anarchy will dismiss this idea.
It may be logical to reduce his definition to that outlined in the constitution, but this in no way diminishes the scope of the problem for me and perhaps makes it worse by requiring obtuse reinterpretations within nonexistent context. Our government is a complex beast, but it reduces to few available choices that are permeated many, many times. By eliminating one of these choices (with say an uncompromising appeal to freedom), we create an extremely unreasonable and ambiguous constraint. GPs sensational attempts at honorable and emotional rhetoric cloud any notion of reason in his argument. I fail to understand how such a rigid position could develop on any democratic principle, let alone some abstract which I feel he has not adequately defined.
Enough with the theatrics. No one gives two nuts about your ridiculously unattainable principles. Your participation in our society has nullified your statements. Get with the program; compromises between your freedom and security define the life you live every day.
I agree, GP seems to be out of step with current PV technology. I'm usually first in line to blast solar (especially in favor of nukes) but the current state of technology is not as GP suggests. Furthermore I think the economic analysis is slightly outdated and patently untrue for areas with high solar incidence (southwest). It rings more true of the midwest or northeast. Concentrated solar is entirely neglected. Basic concentrated solar (e.g. parabolic/trough technology) does not need subsidies to be cost competitive. Let's not forget the large subsidies that nuclear tech receives to remain competitive. We could further argue about the validity of GPs utility investment given the costs of said subsidies and industry regulations to the tax payer. Lastly, GPs reasoning is precarious. His economic argument is incomplete. He should be investing in utilities that forsake all technology in order to run grandfathered coal plants. These high profit utilities should pay the most back to shareholders. I don't understand how he can be critical of green technology without fully realizing and endorsing his own position.
You should replace the pool heater and include passive heating for hot water. These systems are nearly technologically complete (they are just flat plate absorbers). Don't get ripped off on the installation cost and payback should be excellent in Southern California.
Having breasts doesn't automatically mean that a person is going to bring any different a point of view. She would be a fool not to recognize that her gender does figure into the way she looks at things. There's no "automatic" about it either, but the chances are immeasurably higher. It's not the breasts, it's any difference. IMO, and to the point of the article, the female difference *can* provide an extremely powerful counterpoint to what has become an entire engineering monoculture. There are many others, of course.
I've worked with women in many male saturated engineering environments. And your right, a certain type of lego inclined woman might not add anything all that different. Its the barbie dolls and psycho feminists (Allow me to generalize for the point) that can really change the environment.. I have seen barbie dolls and feminists that may have traditionally been persuaded against (or educated away from) the job become very impressionable engineers.
further. I think the "problem" is that engineering, science, and mathematics are entirely misrepresented to the public at large. I think this misinformation disproportionally drives people (e.g. barbie dolls) away depending on their inclination. Conversely, I think this misinformation grabs a hold of another huge group, but by the time this group realizes engineering, science, and mathematics are not what we thought, we're already working for NASA and Microsoft.:D
The void seen in IT, self taught or otherwise, is large enough to matter. Instead of jumping the gun about total equality, maybe our faculties would be better spent considering simply just better representation. There is a difference between 50-50 equality and your industry average 100-1. It is a no brainer that something in between would be vastly superior to the current sausage fest. Men and women may be different and may have separate interests, but much of this is cultural (e.g. characterized by generations of predispositions that cling like parasites to our progress) It is just as preposterous to demand 50-50 as it is to concede the current ratio is due to the developmental differences between Dick and Jane. A predisposition toward dolls does not disqualify a career in problem solving. Social flare is something IT could use given the popular impression of the segment.
I'm surprised that so many were so quick to cast aside the entire situation. Engineers and problem solvers in general should recognize that the best solutions come from diverse teams with widely different POVs. This whole dolls vs. legos debate is absurd. There is room in all of IT for those who like dolls and those who like legos. If only the latter weren't such a bunch of disagreeable know-it-all assholes.. I wonder about the relationship between the lack of woman in IT and the misadventures (or lack there of) IT males have with women...
It is funny you crackpot. Would you make the same claim of Newton and his physics? Derailing physics for hundreds of years to the detriment of science?
It takes about 5 seconds of third grade research to find that you are completely misrepresenting reality.
I've used ubuntu exclusively on my mobile and desktop since breezy and this is the most absurd comment I've heard to date. Compared to NT5+, ubuntu is slower, has many more bizarre incompatibilities, and lacks equivalent multimedia support. If you are a power user who can take care of a system, ubuntu (linux) excels in fewer areas (e.g. security & stability are non-issues). Any and all of the exciting OSX/XP/VISTA-like features for linux are dreadfully unstable compared to their commercial counterparts. Linux GUI and usability elements are behind MS and Apple as they have always been.
As you point out, GNU is a philosophical choice. You do GNU users & proponents a disfavor by claiming anything otherwise. And pulling numbers out of your ass doesn't reflect well on anything else you have to say.
DH isn't expensive. The costs are just upfront. There are loads of studies from the late 70s that show how district heat is economically desireable in much of the northern US (east coast, north midwest). Reagan killed it all with his absurd phillosophy, "let the markets decide." Well DH was a good investment, just not as good (in the short term) as other investments. e.g. natural gas. In addition to saving 10s of billions of barrels of oil-equivalent energy, consumers would have saved 2+ trillion 2005 dollars on energy since 1980 if DH was used where economically viable. This natural gas heating network is patently the most ridiculous energy investment we have ever made. Cogeneration + district heat can displace 10-20% of US energy demand. LOL, it should make us all laugh. These figures are from DOE, ORNL, and ANL studies. I used this data for a report I recently compiled.
It is entirely possible to eliminate heating/cooling load with passive design in residential stuctures. Given the remaining energy demand, the payback for renewable, distributed production of electricity is still well under that of a morgage, typically ~10yr. It is sad that all new construction doesn't at least take advantage of good passive design. Proper insulation and orientation of all houses in the US would have an impact large enough to transform the US into a global environmental/energy leader.....
This isn't a suprise at all. Residential energy use is well documented in the EIA's Residential Energy Consumption Survey. The DOE runs these once every 4 or 5 years. Heating > A/C > Lights/Fridge/Cook/Clothes > gadgets.
Things might change as people consume their 8h/day TV on 60" plasma space heaters.
I don't know what this means. Wind is highly variable; proponents claim this variability is not a problem. I am skeptical of this as wind grows as an energy source. Capacity factor really only tells us how much total or annual power we convert. Even on windy days this is highly variable. The output from these multi MW turbines can vary between megawatts and kilowatts over the course of a few minutes. But when the wind blows, power is converted. When 750k homes rely on a gigawatt windfarm and the wind stops (even temporarily), I would imagine that gas turbines are the only thing that can pick up the demand quick enough. I find this unsettling, but necessary.
Ultimately, I think wind/solar + (syn)gasification of biofuel, waste, or DME can make for pretty robust power generation.
I don't understand your comments in the context of that article. What conspiracy is he alledging? What history is he trying to revise? and how is he paranoid? I've heard people make this claim before, but not in reference to this material...
It isn't a hell of a lot cheaper. Electricity was never cheaper than equivalent gasoline before about 2001. Nationally averaged prices show your argument to be true, but this is a new phenomenon. Gas prices during EV1 development were half of what they are today and electricity was more expensive. Further, unless new generation is dirty coal, the price of electricity will increase. Everything, including clean coal, is substantially more expensive. It will be interesting to see where it goes.
I get about $1.25(E) vs $2.28(GAS) with EIA national October prices or $2.04(E) vs $2.33(GAS) in NYC. Once again, the difference is not hella huge, and electricity has only had the lead for the last 3-6 years (depending on where you live).
>>But onto your figures, you are still more like to die in Detriot than in a random place in Iraq, as the overall mortality rate is far lower across the country that it is there.
Get real. Your statement is worthless except to show that you're clever enough not to back yourself into a hole. Baghdad is a war zone. American Patrols get attacked _every_ day on patrols 0.5mi from the green zone. Grenades and bombs go off on Hafia street _every_ day. There are 1000 km2 of uninhabited desert for every 1km2 warzone, of course your absurdly articulated statement is true. there are 2600ppl/km2 in detroit; the average for the whole of iraq is 60.
There are roughly 400 murders per year in Detroit. The population is 4.5 million people = 1 murder per 11250 persons/year
Lets say theres 200k troops in Iraq ( overestimate ) 2895 US troop deaths in 3.5 years = 1 death per 207 soldiers/year
23000 wounded US troops = 1 war causalty per 30 soldiers/year
: It is more dangerous for a soldier to be in Iraq. It is even more dangerous for a soldier to be in Baghdad.
These are impressive numbers from a DoD perspective. We are incredibly efficient at making war against a nation 1/150th our size, but Iraq is still a dangerous place for our soldiers, even more so for Iraqi soldiers.
This world is not vastly better than in the past. In fact a good argument can be made that it is substantially worse. Strong words there. I might take the opposite position. I'm not sure how you define better. I'm not even sure how I define better. I do know that sitting here in my warm apartment meandering on end in response to some asshole is "better" than collapsing in the snow of exhaustion after failing to kill a deer with a stick knowing the consequences of my failure include the fatal starvation of my offspring.
Okay caveman. Let us toss out all the improvements in power, efficiency, and emissions constrol on modern vehicles so the cavemen of the world can huff gas fumes and drink beer in their garages. Any car requires expensive proprietary interfaces in order to do real work. You might call this a "tool" in caveman jargon. Software doesn't prohibit you from doing any mechanical repair on your car. The worst thing I can imagine is paying $49 for a diagnostic. But since your a super car god, diagnostics are for sissies: so unplug your battery.
I'm not concerned about the economics. I'm a hippie and I was emphasizing the that destruction of our planet is at the hands of a bunch of assholes who'd rather use electric powered vapor compression cycle rather then the freely available low grade sources that are currently going to waste.
AC is the last resort of poor engineers. Building data centers 3-5 stories underground ought to eliminate any of the local climate effects. Even above ground, all they need are systems that tap the constant temperature source down there ~50F. We're all doomed until we realize the value of smart engineering, more specifically, engineering that avoids using high grade energy for low grade applications. US electrical demand would shrink by 30% if we used more low grade sources (cogeneration, waste incineration, geothermal sinks) for the appropriate low grade tasks (sub 0-100C heat/cool processes).
We'll first have to wait decades for them to hit the market. By then I would imagine cocentrating solar thermal will be a cheaper and better alternative for the SW. PVs belong in distributed installations in the rest of the world with poor solar resource.
Slashdot Mirror
"Agree" yes. I never said it was easy to avoid. Homeless dirty bum, revolutionary, it doesn't matter. And there are plenty of places on earth you can live completely disentangled from the government, or any human for that matter. Perhaps not legitimately, but I would never expect a man of such uncompromising principles to be disturbed about breaking laws.
I mean GP has made completely unfounded and inflexible statements about the importance of his liberty without acknowledging that by agreeing to be governed he has significantly diminished this "freedom." Critics place excessive weight to these abstract notions of liberty and freedom without ever explaining what they mean or detailing the necessary concessions required of civilized life. Yes, I know you don't want to be treated as a slave, whipped and beaten at the mercy of a tyrant. That's not what were talking about. Suicide bombers in American Cafes? Can we please be productive? Our government governs in a way that freedom will be exchanged with security, efficiency, and practicality among other things. Only a retreat into complete anarchy will dismiss this idea. It may be logical to reduce his definition to that outlined in the constitution, but this in no way diminishes the scope of the problem for me and perhaps makes it worse by requiring obtuse reinterpretations within nonexistent context. Our government is a complex beast, but it reduces to few available choices that are permeated many, many times. By eliminating one of these choices (with say an uncompromising appeal to freedom), we create an extremely unreasonable and ambiguous constraint. GPs sensational attempts at honorable and emotional rhetoric cloud any notion of reason in his argument. I fail to understand how such a rigid position could develop on any democratic principle, let alone some abstract which I feel he has not adequately defined.
Enough with the theatrics. No one gives two nuts about your ridiculously unattainable principles. Your participation in our society has nullified your statements. Get with the program; compromises between your freedom and security define the life you live every day.
I agree, GP seems to be out of step with current PV technology. I'm usually first in line to blast solar (especially in favor of nukes) but the current state of technology is not as GP suggests. Furthermore I think the economic analysis is slightly outdated and patently untrue for areas with high solar incidence (southwest). It rings more true of the midwest or northeast. Concentrated solar is entirely neglected. Basic concentrated solar (e.g. parabolic/trough technology) does not need subsidies to be cost competitive. Let's not forget the large subsidies that nuclear tech receives to remain competitive. We could further argue about the validity of GPs utility investment given the costs of said subsidies and industry regulations to the tax payer. Lastly, GPs reasoning is precarious. His economic argument is incomplete. He should be investing in utilities that forsake all technology in order to run grandfathered coal plants. These high profit utilities should pay the most back to shareholders. I don't understand how he can be critical of green technology without fully realizing and endorsing his own position.
You should replace the pool heater and include passive heating for hot water. These systems are nearly technologically complete (they are just flat plate absorbers). Don't get ripped off on the installation cost and payback should be excellent in Southern California.
Authoritative results from google 1 second.
I've worked with women in many male saturated engineering environments. And your right, a certain type of lego inclined woman might not add anything all that different. Its the barbie dolls and psycho feminists (Allow me to generalize for the point) that can really change the environment.. I have seen barbie dolls and feminists that may have traditionally been persuaded against (or educated away from) the job become very impressionable engineers.
further. I think the "problem" is that engineering, science, and mathematics are entirely misrepresented to the public at large. I think this misinformation disproportionally drives people (e.g. barbie dolls) away depending on their inclination. Conversely, I think this misinformation grabs a hold of another huge group, but by the time this group realizes engineering, science, and mathematics are not what we thought, we're already working for NASA and Microsoft.
The void seen in IT, self taught or otherwise, is large enough to matter. Instead of jumping the gun about total equality, maybe our faculties would be better spent considering simply just better representation. There is a difference between 50-50 equality and your industry average 100-1. It is a no brainer that something in between would be vastly superior to the current sausage fest. Men and women may be different and may have separate interests, but much of this is cultural (e.g. characterized by generations of predispositions that cling like parasites to our progress) It is just as preposterous to demand 50-50 as it is to concede the current ratio is due to the developmental differences between Dick and Jane. A predisposition toward dolls does not disqualify a career in problem solving. Social flare is something IT could use given the popular impression of the segment.
I'm surprised that so many were so quick to cast aside the entire situation. Engineers and problem solvers in general should recognize that the best solutions come from diverse teams with widely different POVs. This whole dolls vs. legos debate is absurd. There is room in all of IT for those who like dolls and those who like legos. If only the latter weren't such a bunch of disagreeable know-it-all assholes.. I wonder about the relationship between the lack of woman in IT and the misadventures (or lack there of) IT males have with women...
It is funny you crackpot. Would you make the same claim of Newton and his physics? Derailing physics for hundreds of years to the detriment of science? It takes about 5 seconds of third grade research to find that you are completely misrepresenting reality.
I've used ubuntu exclusively on my mobile and desktop since breezy and this is the most absurd comment I've heard to date. Compared to NT5+, ubuntu is slower, has many more bizarre incompatibilities, and lacks equivalent multimedia support. If you are a power user who can take care of a system, ubuntu (linux) excels in fewer areas (e.g. security & stability are non-issues). Any and all of the exciting OSX/XP/VISTA-like features for linux are dreadfully unstable compared to their commercial counterparts. Linux GUI and usability elements are behind MS and Apple as they have always been.
As you point out, GNU is a philosophical choice. You do GNU users & proponents a disfavor by claiming anything otherwise. And pulling numbers out of your ass doesn't reflect well on anything else you have to say.
DH isn't expensive. The costs are just upfront. There are loads of studies from the late 70s that show how district heat is economically desireable in much of the northern US (east coast, north midwest). Reagan killed it all with his absurd phillosophy, "let the markets decide." Well DH was a good investment, just not as good (in the short term) as other investments. e.g. natural gas. In addition to saving 10s of billions of barrels of oil-equivalent energy, consumers would have saved 2+ trillion 2005 dollars on energy since 1980 if DH was used where economically viable. This natural gas heating network is patently the most ridiculous energy investment we have ever made. Cogeneration + district heat can displace 10-20% of US energy demand. LOL, it should make us all laugh. These figures are from DOE, ORNL, and ANL studies. I used this data for a report I recently compiled.
It is entirely possible to eliminate heating/cooling load with passive design in residential stuctures. Given the remaining energy demand, the payback for renewable, distributed production of electricity is still well under that of a morgage, typically ~10yr. It is sad that all new construction doesn't at least take advantage of good passive design. Proper insulation and orientation of all houses in the US would have an impact large enough to transform the US into a global environmental/energy leader.....
This isn't a suprise at all. Residential energy use is well documented in the EIA's Residential Energy Consumption Survey. The DOE runs these once every 4 or 5 years. Heating > A/C > Lights/Fridge/Cook/Clothes > gadgets.
Things might change as people consume their 8h/day TV on 60" plasma space heaters.
I don't know what this means. Wind is highly variable; proponents claim this variability is not a problem. I am skeptical of this as wind grows as an energy source. Capacity factor really only tells us how much total or annual power we convert. Even on windy days this is highly variable. The output from these multi MW turbines can vary between megawatts and kilowatts over the course of a few minutes. But when the wind blows, power is converted. When 750k homes rely on a gigawatt windfarm and the wind stops (even temporarily), I would imagine that gas turbines are the only thing that can pick up the demand quick enough. I find this unsettling, but necessary. Ultimately, I think wind/solar + (syn)gasification of biofuel, waste, or DME can make for pretty robust power generation.
1 - 1.5 kW is a standard average number used for home electricity demand (void of natural gas heating energy)
The numbers are interesting. Wind is typically rated in peak capacity. The capacity factor for excellent wind resources is about 40%.
I don't understand your comments in the context of that article. What conspiracy is he alledging? What history is he trying to revise? and how is he paranoid? I've heard people make this claim before, but not in reference to this material...
It isn't a hell of a lot cheaper. Electricity was never cheaper than equivalent gasoline before about 2001. Nationally averaged prices show your argument to be true, but this is a new phenomenon. Gas prices during EV1 development were half of what they are today and electricity was more expensive. Further, unless new generation is dirty coal, the price of electricity will increase. Everything, including clean coal, is substantially more expensive. It will be interesting to see where it goes. I get about $1.25(E) vs $2.28(GAS) with EIA national October prices or $2.04(E) vs $2.33(GAS) in NYC. Once again, the difference is not hella huge, and electricity has only had the lead for the last 3-6 years (depending on where you live).
No, hydrogen is not a battery.
>>But onto your figures, you are still more like to die in Detriot than in a random place in Iraq, as the overall mortality rate is far lower across the country that it is there. Get real. Your statement is worthless except to show that you're clever enough not to back yourself into a hole. Baghdad is a war zone. American Patrols get attacked _every_ day on patrols 0.5mi from the green zone. Grenades and bombs go off on Hafia street _every_ day. There are 1000 km2 of uninhabited desert for every 1km2 warzone, of course your absurdly articulated statement is true. there are 2600ppl/km2 in detroit; the average for the whole of iraq is 60. There are roughly 400 murders per year in Detroit. The population is 4.5 million people = 1 murder per 11250 persons /year
Lets say theres 200k troops in Iraq ( overestimate ) 2895 US troop deaths in 3.5 years = 1 death per 207 soldiers /year
23000 wounded US troops = 1 war causalty per 30 soldiers /year
: It is more dangerous for a soldier to be in Iraq. It is even more dangerous for a soldier to be in Baghdad.
These are impressive numbers from a DoD perspective. We are incredibly efficient at making war against a nation 1/150th our size, but Iraq is still a dangerous place for our soldiers, even more so for Iraqi soldiers.
At least liquid crystals will enhance the taste of UNICEF rice cakes. Use sparingly.
Okay caveman. Let us toss out all the improvements in power, efficiency, and emissions constrol on modern vehicles so the cavemen of the world can huff gas fumes and drink beer in their garages. Any car requires expensive proprietary interfaces in order to do real work. You might call this a "tool" in caveman jargon. Software doesn't prohibit you from doing any mechanical repair on your car. The worst thing I can imagine is paying $49 for a diagnostic. But since your a super car god, diagnostics are for sissies: so unplug your battery.
I'm not concerned about the economics. I'm a hippie and I was emphasizing the that destruction of our planet is at the hands of a bunch of assholes who'd rather use electric powered vapor compression cycle rather then the freely available low grade sources that are currently going to waste.
AC is the last resort of poor engineers. Building data centers 3-5 stories underground ought to eliminate any of the local climate effects. Even above ground, all they need are systems that tap the constant temperature source down there ~50F. We're all doomed until we realize the value of smart engineering, more specifically, engineering that avoids using high grade energy for low grade applications. US electrical demand would shrink by 30% if we used more low grade sources (cogeneration, waste incineration, geothermal sinks) for the appropriate low grade tasks (sub 0-100C heat/cool processes).
We'll first have to wait decades for them to hit the market. By then I would imagine cocentrating solar thermal will be a cheaper and better alternative for the SW. PVs belong in distributed installations in the rest of the world with poor solar resource.