"Electricity sockets on Overground trains are clearly marked with the words: “cleaners use only and not for public use”
The sign sounds more like "we cannot be held responsible if this destroys your device" than a hard interdiction. Besides it's a really stupid way of doing things: they should just have a switch to turn off electricity to all these switches in the driver's compartment. The drivers would just have to turn the switch on/off when taking/parking the train (they already have a checklist to go through). Then the public can safely plug in all they want, without risk of 'abstracting' electricity or damaging their equipment.
So assuming he fully-charged his iPhone 6 Plus, 11.1WH * 0.61 * 0.15/1000 = 0.00101565, he would have used 0.1 UK cents worth of electricity.
I think your calculation is wrong. The charging efficiency normally specifies the fraction of the consumed energy that actually ends up being stored in the battery. So your calculation should be 11.1WH / 0.61 * 0.15/1000 = 0.00272950 so almost 0.3 pennies. Still not enough to make it worth charging him (though I don't know what the capacity or charging efficiency is in his case;-).
They (supposedly) didn't have enough ballots to go around, and thus polling places were closing hours ahead of schedule, with the reason given by the Registrar of Voters as "We didn't have enough ballots for everyone to be able to vote".
That's really a trivial problem to solve and the fact that it occurred means the election officials were criminally incompetent which is now obvious for all to see. In contrast detecting hacks in voting computers is close to impossible, proving them harder still and preventing them while maintaining transparency downright impossible.
Regardless of whether the laws as written are correct (I would argue that the very existence of a "medallion" that costs more than the filing fee is evidence of collusion between the taxi authority and the taxi's)
In Paris the taxi medallions are free but there is a 15 to 18 years waiting list. So most drivers either get their medallion on the secondary market where the price was multiplied by about 20 in the past 25 years, reaching about 250 000 €. This financial pressure may be at the root of a lot of misbehaviors like refusing short rides, refusing credit cards (cash makes cheating the IRS easier), refusing to load passenger within a quarter mile from a train station (they can charge more at the train station), etc. There were 12 500 taxis in 1956 and they are now 19 500 (a 0.78%/year increase). There should be more but, besides the obvious lobbying (which I guess you could call collusion), every time the government wants to do so the taxis go on strike and block all traffic like last week (extortion). Some say the government should promise to buy back existing medallions but besides not making very much sense, that would cost well over 4 billions euros. Just for Paris!
Another aspect is that the space tubing uses up a lot of space, hence the single seat in the car. As is it won't ever have an impact on regular everyday cars. So while the approach may be revolutionary, it's only for a niche market and won't revolutionize car manufacturing in general.
I also take exception to calling this a '3D printed chassis' when only small bits and pieces are 3D printed.
I did. You'd need hundreds of cameras (more than two per mile on each side) leading to quite a bit of complexity and high maintenance costs (e.g. to replace those that break down). Even so you'd have to limit the field of view to only far away scenery otherwise the transition from one camera to the next would not work. That would be a problem near urban areas. Really does not seem practical/worth it.
Rather than windows, it's to have large digital wall displays that show the outside as if you had giant picture windows. This is the direction airplanes are looking to move in the future as well.
The difference with planes is that any camera attached to the capsule will still be inside the metallic tube and thus useless. They could show some unrelated video footage or a pre-recorded one of the trip however.
We've been over this. 10 years into the future is still well within the 30 years that it takes to define climate.
And forecasting one particular day each year falls strictly under weather, not climate. It seems you are the one who has trouble with distinguishing the two.
First you should re-read the terms of the bet! Second, either it's weather and you should enter the bet, or it's climate giving you reason not to enter the bet. Make up your mind.
We can't precisely model weather patterns, despite such events happening at a pace that allows us to test the model daily, continuously. So why do we think we model climate perfectly?
And here you go again, claiming that difficulty in predicting weather means we cannot model climate. What makes the weather hard to predict is that it's a turbulent phenomenon and that people want to know if it will rain where they are when they come back from work, not a mile away or an hour before they leave. Climate has neither of these problems so your analogy with weather falls flat on its face. Proof: I can infer things based on climate ten years into the future without even a hand calculator when supercomputers are unable to predict where and when it will rain next month. Don't believe me? Enter the bet!
I don't recall making any claims about times spans below the threshold for judging average climate. [...] So it is reasonable to consider the climate 10 years from now to be approximately the same as the climate today.
Yet you're the one who conflated climate and weather.
The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands, various other changes, and declining numbers, and the sea observations are way more sparse. Add to this that NASA has made "adjustments" to the data about ten times over the past 30 years and each time, of the six possibilities, they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present.
This urban island effect is well known. This pushed some climate skeptics to do an independent reconstruction of the temperature history and their results match closely the existing reconstructions. So no. No conspiracy there.
Considering we don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow, or whether it will rain at my house, I'm pretty sure we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years. So, not settled in my book.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Let's enter a bet.
For each of the next ten years I bet that will not be enough naturally fallen snow(*) in order for the Markstein ski station to open on the 14th of July. Every year I'm wrong I'll give you $10,000. Every year I'm right you'll give me $1,000.
So if I'm wrong just once you'll come out ahead and given that we don't even know what the temperature will be tomorrow, surely I'm bound to be wrong at least once. So your not entering the bet will be your own admission that even you can make climate predictions ten years into the future.
(*) No, bringing in trucks of snow or building an ice factory to cover the ground does not count.
However, virtually all of the devices I have quit working when the cell voltage gets below about 1.34 volts.
This is strange. All the devices I have work just fine with NiMH batteries and these are 1.2V. (LED flashlights, basic remote controls, Harmony-with-screen remote control, 2 wireless keyboards, 1 wireless mouse, 3 alarm clocks, SLR camera flash, bathroom and kitchen scales, cd player, 90's walkman, cordless phones)
and not caring if they destroyed the company and the lives of the superior employees who still worked there.
Oh, and where you work there are superior and inferior employees too? And anyone who gets fired is obviously a serf^H^H^H, an inferior employee. Let me guess, you're part of the superior employees.
the thump/thump/thump of the blades (like a whirleybird *old ref* overhead for days)
during the prevalent low wind conditions doomed this project even though it lasted
long enough to depress property values within 15 miles. low frequencies travels far.
I have family that lives about 700m from a 105m high wind turbine (height at the axle) and you cannot hear it. What you can clearly hear however is the wind in the trees and the cows of the nearby farm when they are here.
Without a shell game of tax dollars shuttling in and out with many transfers of project ownership, there would be NO turbines standing.
Do you really expect us to believe that power plants burning coal or gas don't involve any political shenanigans and don't benefit from any subsidy?
You do realize that even when those monsters are turning in the wind, they usually are just lubricating internals and not generating?
Wrong: The EROI for wind energy is between 20 and 25, meaning they produce 20 to 25 times more energy than has been used for their construction, operation and decommission.
Some may argue the company has a right to know exactly where their equipment is at all times. This comes down to trust and if a company doesn't trust an employee to take a cellphone home and return it without constant tracking, I would strongly question why I would want to work for such an un-trusting company.
Conversely if a company does not trust an employee to return the cellphone, then they should not give him/her one, or even not have him/her as an employee. And if their trust problem is not limited to a specific employee, then their management should go see a shrink and seriously question the way they treat their employees.
Slashdot Mirror
how many pennies is in 0.0027 GBP? hint it's the same as cents in a dollar.
100 pennies in a GBP, so 0.0027 GBP * 100 pennies / GBP = 0.27 pennies or close to 0.3 pennies as I said all along. What's the problem then?
Yes... except there aren't 1000 pennies in a pound.
But there are a 1000Wh in a kWh, hence the division by a thousand.
From the linked article:
"Electricity sockets on Overground trains are clearly marked with the words: “cleaners use only and not for public use”
The sign sounds more like "we cannot be held responsible if this destroys your device" than a hard interdiction. Besides it's a really stupid way of doing things: they should just have a switch to turn off electricity to all these switches in the driver's compartment. The drivers would just have to turn the switch on/off when taking/parking the train (they already have a checklist to go through). Then the public can safely plug in all they want, without risk of 'abstracting' electricity or damaging their equipment.
So assuming he fully-charged his iPhone 6 Plus, 11.1WH * 0.61 * 0.15/1000 = 0.00101565, he would have used 0.1 UK cents worth of electricity.
I think your calculation is wrong. The charging efficiency normally specifies the fraction of the consumed energy that actually ends up being stored in the battery. So your calculation should be 11.1WH / 0.61 * 0.15/1000 = 0.00272950 so almost 0.3 pennies. Still not enough to make it worth charging him (though I don't know what the capacity or charging efficiency is in his case ;-).
They (supposedly) didn't have enough ballots to go around, and thus polling places were closing hours ahead of schedule, with the reason given by the Registrar of Voters as "We didn't have enough ballots for everyone to be able to vote".
That's really a trivial problem to solve and the fact that it occurred means the election officials were criminally incompetent which is now obvious for all to see. In contrast detecting hacks in voting computers is close to impossible, proving them harder still and preventing them while maintaining transparency downright impossible.
Who signs the envelope? You make it sound like every voter has to manually sign his own vote with his name. That would totally destroy voter secrecy!
Regardless of whether the laws as written are correct (I would argue that the very existence of a "medallion" that costs more than the filing fee is evidence of collusion between the taxi authority and the taxi's)
In Paris the taxi medallions are free but there is a 15 to 18 years waiting list. So most drivers either get their medallion on the secondary market where the price was multiplied by about 20 in the past 25 years, reaching about 250 000 €. This financial pressure may be at the root of a lot of misbehaviors like refusing short rides, refusing credit cards (cash makes cheating the IRS easier), refusing to load passenger within a quarter mile from a train station (they can charge more at the train station), etc. There were 12 500 taxis in 1956 and they are now 19 500 (a 0.78%/year increase). There should be more but, besides the obvious lobbying (which I guess you could call collusion), every time the government wants to do so the taxis go on strike and block all traffic like last week (extortion). Some say the government should promise to buy back existing medallions but besides not making very much sense, that would cost well over 4 billions euros. Just for Paris!
So neither side is clean. At all.
Another aspect is that the space tubing uses up a lot of space, hence the single seat in the car. As is it won't ever have an impact on regular everyday cars. So while the approach may be revolutionary, it's only for a niche market and won't revolutionize car manufacturing in general. I also take exception to calling this a '3D printed chassis' when only small bits and pieces are 3D printed.
I did. You'd need hundreds of cameras (more than two per mile on each side) leading to quite a bit of complexity and high maintenance costs (e.g. to replace those that break down). Even so you'd have to limit the field of view to only far away scenery otherwise the transition from one camera to the next would not work. That would be a problem near urban areas. Really does not seem practical/worth it.
Rather than windows, it's to have large digital wall displays that show the outside as if you had giant picture windows. This is the direction airplanes are looking to move in the future as well.
The difference with planes is that any camera attached to the capsule will still be inside the metallic tube and thus useless. They could show some unrelated video footage or a pre-recorded one of the trip however.
Me too ;-) You have no clue and/or you have reading/attention problems. Bye then!
We've been over this. 10 years into the future is still well within the 30 years that it takes to define climate.
And forecasting one particular day each year falls strictly under weather, not climate. It seems you are the one who has trouble with distinguishing the two.
First you should re-read the terms of the bet! Second, either it's weather and you should enter the bet, or it's climate giving you reason not to enter the bet. Make up your mind.
We can't precisely model weather patterns, despite such events happening at a pace that allows us to test the model daily, continuously. So why do we think we model climate perfectly?
And here you go again, claiming that difficulty in predicting weather means we cannot model climate. What makes the weather hard to predict is that it's a turbulent phenomenon and that people want to know if it will rain where they are when they come back from work, not a mile away or an hour before they leave. Climate has neither of these problems so your analogy with weather falls flat on its face. Proof: I can infer things based on climate ten years into the future without even a hand calculator when supercomputers are unable to predict where and when it will rain next month. Don't believe me? Enter the bet!
I don't recall making any claims about times spans below the threshold for judging average climate. [...] So it is reasonable to consider the climate 10 years from now to be approximately the same as the climate today.
Yet you're the one who conflated climate and weather.
The adjustments look nothing like a normal distribution either: not a small bias.
Why would the adjustments follow a normal distribution given that they don't correct random errors (those cannot be corrected), but systematic ones?
The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands, various other changes, and declining numbers, and the sea observations are way more sparse. Add to this that NASA has made "adjustments" to the data about ten times over the past 30 years and each time, of the six possibilities, they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present.
This urban island effect is well known. This pushed some climate skeptics to do an independent reconstruction of the temperature history and their results match closely the existing reconstructions. So no. No conspiracy there.
Considering we don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow, or whether it will rain at my house, I'm pretty sure we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years. So, not settled in my book.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Let's enter a bet.
For each of the next ten years I bet that will not be enough naturally fallen snow(*) in order for the Markstein ski station to open on the 14th of July. Every year I'm wrong I'll give you $10,000. Every year I'm right you'll give me $1,000.
So if I'm wrong just once you'll come out ahead and given that we don't even know what the temperature will be tomorrow, surely I'm bound to be wrong at least once. So your not entering the bet will be your own admission that even you can make climate predictions ten years into the future.
(*) No, bringing in trucks of snow or building an ice factory to cover the ground does not count.
I just don't see this as being a common problem: all 20 devices I have work just fine with NiMH batteries that only supply 1.2V.
Did you have a Canon among them? At least their Canon PowerShot A1100 IS from 2009 still works just fine with NiMH batteries.
Try a Canon PowerShot A1100 IS. Dates back to 2009, still works just fine with NiMH batteries.
However, virtually all of the devices I have quit working when the cell voltage gets below about 1.34 volts.
This is strange. All the devices I have work just fine with NiMH batteries and these are 1.2V. (LED flashlights, basic remote controls, Harmony-with-screen remote control, 2 wireless keyboards, 1 wireless mouse, 3 alarm clocks, SLR camera flash, bathroom and kitchen scales, cd player, 90's walkman, cordless phones)
and not caring if they destroyed the company and the lives of the superior employees who still worked there.
Oh, and where you work there are superior and inferior employees too? And anyone who gets fired is obviously a serf^H^H^H, an inferior employee. Let me guess, you're part of the superior employees.
the thump/thump/thump of the blades (like a whirleybird *old ref* overhead for days) during the prevalent low wind conditions doomed this project even though it lasted long enough to depress property values within 15 miles. low frequencies travels far.
I have family that lives about 700m from a 105m high wind turbine (height at the axle) and you cannot hear it. What you can clearly hear however is the wind in the trees and the cows of the nearby farm when they are here.
Without a shell game of tax dollars shuttling in and out with many transfers of project ownership, there would be NO turbines standing.
Do you really expect us to believe that power plants burning coal or gas don't involve any political shenanigans and don't benefit from any subsidy?
You do realize that even when those monsters are turning in the wind, they usually are just lubricating internals and not generating?
Wrong: The EROI for wind energy is between 20 and 25, meaning they produce 20 to 25 times more energy than has been used for their construction, operation and decommission.
Some may argue the company has a right to know exactly where their equipment is at all times. This comes down to trust and if a company doesn't trust an employee to take a cellphone home and return it without constant tracking, I would strongly question why I would want to work for such an un-trusting company.
Conversely if a company does not trust an employee to return the cellphone, then they should not give him/her one, or even not have him/her as an employee. And if their trust problem is not limited to a specific employee, then their management should go see a shrink and seriously question the way they treat their employees.