You do understand that "watt" in this context is referring to the measure of power consumption right? A 20 watt LED is a bit brighter than a 100 watt incandescent. I fail to see why the size of the heat sink should mean anything. Your 100 watt incandescent is throwing off something like 140 btu/hr, whereas your 20 watt LED is throwing off perhaps 5.6 btu/hr.
They're hardly what I'd call comparable. Using a 60 watt incandescent bulb equivalency: incandescent produces 85 btu/hr, CFL 30 btu/hr, LED 3.4 btu/hr. source For the energy of a traditional nightlight, you can get the illumination of a desk lamp.
The first part makes sense, your second part doesn't track well. Yes the Montreal guy is getting heat from the bulb for his home, but the production and distribution systems from plant to home that produces and delivers the electricity to power those incandescents is grossly inefficient. He might as well be heating his home with the windows left open. Half the energy has already escaped as heat before it event reaches his house. In both your case and his incandescents are wasting similarly.
Shall I work for free protecting the very organizations that declined me even a job interview, or shall I work for a nice cushy salary pilfering from them? Decisions, decisions...
It also means that you have to go through your carrier to change your device. Regardless of where or how you obtain your device you will always have to go down to your local shop and have them push the config.
You also just added $2 to the price. With respect to the feed trough dwellers you're trying to address, after they get done drowning their salad in dressing to hide the taste of salad they've inevitably created something as healthy as fries but to them much less tasty that's more expensive to boot. Thus explains why they just opt for the fries and carbonated corn-syrup. Cattle shall always be cattle.
Prior to my career as a software engineer I worked in a couple different warehouses, one for food, one for home improvement. In both cases the job had very much the same idea as an Amazon fulfillment center. Take large pallets of boxes filled with a certain product. Unpackage and re-shelve or repackage and load onto trucks for delivery at a retail center or direct to homes. It's the same damn job, the only difference is that in one case the shelves had tires and an engine underneath them.
Countless millions of Chinese are very grateful for the work we give to them. Otherwise they'd be poverty stricken peasant farmers. In this way they have an income to provide a better life for their families and a leg on the ladder if not for themselves, for their children.
You can correct bugs in a robot's operation software, you cannot correct a human. A human is subject to fatigue and emotions whereas a robot never tires, never has a bad day, always operates at peak efficiency. Humans can learn and improve efficiency and accuracy, but this investment is lost when the human breaks down or departs. Robotic can be continuously improved, continuously made more efficient, more reliable. Each new model better than its predecessor. As a human improves their skills they demand better compensation. As technological improvements are made, robots become cheaper to operate, cheaper to maintain, cheaper to manufacture.
If you as an unskilled or low-skilled laborer are taking comfort in the fact that the state-of-the-art is not up to the task of doing your job you are deluding yourself. The more trouble you are for your employer, the more they will seek out and invest in your replacement. Humanity may beg for comfortable wages and work conditions, but ultimately that begging will only lead to the unemployment line. You as an employee are not as valuable as you think you are. If that statement angers you or gives you cause for despair then stop blaming your employer and do something about it. If your ambitions in life are no higher than shoveling boxes all day like a robot expect to be treated like one.
Amazon is probably the best in the world when it comes to logistics. They didn't get there because of human laborers, they won't stay the best because of human laborers. If Germans do not wish to be employed as laborers at Amazon distribution facilities then that is their choice. There are plenty of robots waiting in line to replace them.
That's easy, rice actually sticks to the road while Mustangs and their cousins go looking for the nearest ditch. Throwing some ponies under a hood is easy. Building a car worthy of them isn't.
We do, and we destroy the livelihoods of everyone who lives in these agrarian societies. It's called dumping and these bags represent one of the largest contributors to poverty in the third-world. Those bags do not represent a leg-up but a boot smashing them back into the mire.
I'd be careful with how you word things. Ethanol is not in an of itself evil and purely political. Ethanol derived from renewable biological processes has merit in as much as it closes the carbon loop. The trouble comes when politics steps in and subsidizes source material whose production is every bit, if not more harmful than the petroleum the ethanol is supposed to be replacing.
If you want to make actual progress against environmental destruction you need to capture the external costs in the price people pay. Innovation will then be driven to that which costs the least.
Corn is only cheap because it is subsidized by my tax dollars. No one ever bothered to make a distinction between food crops and fuel crops, neither did they bother to subsidize nutritionally beneficial crops. This is why manufactured food is cheaper than anything in the produce aisle and why everything has corn syrup or some other corn based derivative in it. Ditch the damn agriculture subsidies and incentivize the actual goals of the public facing message, clean energy consumption and production. Our food supply and thus our health will improve and engineers can work towards solutions with technical rather than artificial merits.
Apparently she has tried to dispute the negative filing. The trouble is that credit bureaus then ask the company that filed the claim if it's legit. If they say it is, then the claim stays. Which is exactly what happened.
Which is interesting since Chevy seemed concerned enough about their Volt catching fire to do a recall. Recalls from these folks only happen when they're scarred litigation costs will exceed the cost of the recall.
Maybe I'm imagining it, but I seems to noticing more negativity from the low number posters than from the high number. Perhaps its a generational thing. Maybe all the old guys with their nostalgia for gas autos are feeling threatened. I've also noticed that those posting anti-Tesla also seem to slant Libertarian/Tea Party in other posts.
The location of the battery pack is optimal for safety. It pushes the center of gravity down, it balances the weight between front and back, it provides rigidity for the passenger compartment and it substantially increases the size of the front and rear crumple zones.
Why are people like you holding Tesla to an incomprehensibly higher standard than you are for gas autos? The two highway incidents have involved striking something substantial at highway speeds. Both drivers were warned by the car, both drivers were able to safely pull over and exit the vehicle unharmed. This is the same car that performed better than another other car in history on federal safety tests, the same car that received never before achieved perfect marks by Consumer Reports. What would be the consequences of a gas auto being harpooned by either of these large metal objects at highway speeds? Pick any location under their unshielded undercarriage. I don't think you'll get much of a warning from the car and I doubt the option of pulling over safely will be available to you.
Are you folks really that scared of what electrics will mean for the future of your beloved gas autos?
Slashdot Mirror
You do understand that "watt" in this context is referring to the measure of power consumption right? A 20 watt LED is a bit brighter than a 100 watt incandescent. I fail to see why the size of the heat sink should mean anything. Your 100 watt incandescent is throwing off something like 140 btu/hr, whereas your 20 watt LED is throwing off perhaps 5.6 btu/hr.
They're hardly what I'd call comparable. Using a 60 watt incandescent bulb equivalency: incandescent produces 85 btu/hr, CFL 30 btu/hr, LED 3.4 btu/hr. source For the energy of a traditional nightlight, you can get the illumination of a desk lamp.
The first part makes sense, your second part doesn't track well. Yes the Montreal guy is getting heat from the bulb for his home, but the production and distribution systems from plant to home that produces and delivers the electricity to power those incandescents is grossly inefficient. He might as well be heating his home with the windows left open. Half the energy has already escaped as heat before it event reaches his house. In both your case and his incandescents are wasting similarly.
Seems to me that the nano/micro-sat crowd is demonstrating that to not really be as much of an issue.
Shall I work for free protecting the very organizations that declined me even a job interview, or shall I work for a nice cushy salary pilfering from them? Decisions, decisions...
It also means that you have to go through your carrier to change your device. Regardless of where or how you obtain your device you will always have to go down to your local shop and have them push the config.
You also just added $2 to the price. With respect to the feed trough dwellers you're trying to address, after they get done drowning their salad in dressing to hide the taste of salad they've inevitably created something as healthy as fries but to them much less tasty that's more expensive to boot. Thus explains why they just opt for the fries and carbonated corn-syrup. Cattle shall always be cattle.
Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, a not insignificant amount of Europeans, and most everyone in the developing world...
Prior to my career as a software engineer I worked in a couple different warehouses, one for food, one for home improvement. In both cases the job had very much the same idea as an Amazon fulfillment center. Take large pallets of boxes filled with a certain product. Unpackage and re-shelve or repackage and load onto trucks for delivery at a retail center or direct to homes. It's the same damn job, the only difference is that in one case the shelves had tires and an engine underneath them.
Countless millions of Chinese are very grateful for the work we give to them. Otherwise they'd be poverty stricken peasant farmers. In this way they have an income to provide a better life for their families and a leg on the ladder if not for themselves, for their children.
Why would there be a difference between moving a package from a shelf in one warehouse to a shelf in another and moving it to a shelf in a home?
Are they planning to unionize robots? Unemployed members cannot pay their dues.
You can correct bugs in a robot's operation software, you cannot correct a human. A human is subject to fatigue and emotions whereas a robot never tires, never has a bad day, always operates at peak efficiency. Humans can learn and improve efficiency and accuracy, but this investment is lost when the human breaks down or departs. Robotic can be continuously improved, continuously made more efficient, more reliable. Each new model better than its predecessor. As a human improves their skills they demand better compensation. As technological improvements are made, robots become cheaper to operate, cheaper to maintain, cheaper to manufacture.
If you as an unskilled or low-skilled laborer are taking comfort in the fact that the state-of-the-art is not up to the task of doing your job you are deluding yourself. The more trouble you are for your employer, the more they will seek out and invest in your replacement. Humanity may beg for comfortable wages and work conditions, but ultimately that begging will only lead to the unemployment line. You as an employee are not as valuable as you think you are. If that statement angers you or gives you cause for despair then stop blaming your employer and do something about it. If your ambitions in life are no higher than shoveling boxes all day like a robot expect to be treated like one.
Amazon is probably the best in the world when it comes to logistics. They didn't get there because of human laborers, they won't stay the best because of human laborers. If Germans do not wish to be employed as laborers at Amazon distribution facilities then that is their choice. There are plenty of robots waiting in line to replace them.
That's easy, rice actually sticks to the road while Mustangs and their cousins go looking for the nearest ditch. Throwing some ponies under a hood is easy. Building a car worthy of them isn't.
We do, and we destroy the livelihoods of everyone who lives in these agrarian societies. It's called dumping and these bags represent one of the largest contributors to poverty in the third-world. Those bags do not represent a leg-up but a boot smashing them back into the mire.
I'd be careful with how you word things. Ethanol is not in an of itself evil and purely political. Ethanol derived from renewable biological processes has merit in as much as it closes the carbon loop. The trouble comes when politics steps in and subsidizes source material whose production is every bit, if not more harmful than the petroleum the ethanol is supposed to be replacing.
If you want to make actual progress against environmental destruction you need to capture the external costs in the price people pay. Innovation will then be driven to that which costs the least.
Corn is only cheap because it is subsidized by my tax dollars. No one ever bothered to make a distinction between food crops and fuel crops, neither did they bother to subsidize nutritionally beneficial crops. This is why manufactured food is cheaper than anything in the produce aisle and why everything has corn syrup or some other corn based derivative in it. Ditch the damn agriculture subsidies and incentivize the actual goals of the public facing message, clean energy consumption and production. Our food supply and thus our health will improve and engineers can work towards solutions with technical rather than artificial merits.
Last I knew premium didn't get blended, just low and mid-grade fuel.
Apparently she has tried to dispute the negative filing. The trouble is that credit bureaus then ask the company that filed the claim if it's legit. If they say it is, then the claim stays. Which is exactly what happened.
This was a pretty crazy crash. 100MPH through two concrete walls and into trees. Even then the drunk was able to get out and walk away.
Which is interesting since Chevy seemed concerned enough about their Volt catching fire to do a recall. Recalls from these folks only happen when they're scarred litigation costs will exceed the cost of the recall.
Maybe I'm imagining it, but I seems to noticing more negativity from the low number posters than from the high number. Perhaps its a generational thing. Maybe all the old guys with their nostalgia for gas autos are feeling threatened. I've also noticed that those posting anti-Tesla also seem to slant Libertarian/Tea Party in other posts.
The location of the battery pack is optimal for safety. It pushes the center of gravity down, it balances the weight between front and back, it provides rigidity for the passenger compartment and it substantially increases the size of the front and rear crumple zones.
Why are people like you holding Tesla to an incomprehensibly higher standard than you are for gas autos? The two highway incidents have involved striking something substantial at highway speeds. Both drivers were warned by the car, both drivers were able to safely pull over and exit the vehicle unharmed. This is the same car that performed better than another other car in history on federal safety tests, the same car that received never before achieved perfect marks by Consumer Reports. What would be the consequences of a gas auto being harpooned by either of these large metal objects at highway speeds? Pick any location under their unshielded undercarriage. I don't think you'll get much of a warning from the car and I doubt the option of pulling over safely will be available to you.
Are you folks really that scared of what electrics will mean for the future of your beloved gas autos?
An inconsequential amount. I suspect a 20mA @3.2V LED would probably look similar to the one in the photo.