Even, if as you say "I mean, having a firearm that my life may depend on in a home invasion, that may not fire if I'm not wearing a watch" -- that's actually a good thing, because the thing that you should most be worried about in a home invasion is getting killed by your own gun.
Worrying that a hacker is going to break into your home, hack your gun, and then kill you with it is pretty remote.
You really want a gun that only fires when you fire it. A gun that fires when you don't want it to is not a good thing.
65% loss?!? What do you think they are they using to transmit, wet string?
The link you cite says "Energy lost in transmission and distribution: About 6% – 2% in transmission and 4% in distribution".
But Britain's a small place, and they don't wheel power thousands of miles (they don't have thousands of miles), so I expect a smaller number is appropriate.
We'll see what happens to their economies when these bans are ready to take place, I will bet that they end up backing off rather than crippling themselves (or people will end up using a lot more used cars and trucks until they vote the bums out)
I don't see any reason why not selling petrol cars would "cripple" Britain. You do know that it's a tiny little island by American standards of distance-- all of the U.K. is still a little smaller than Michigan-- and few people drive long distances. As far as I can see, it's a great location for electric cars.
limited range, long recharge time, what little infrastructure there is to support it, is typically broken, price, longevity. just off the top of my head
Depends on what you need. Almost all of my driving is around town, and it turns out that this is actually very typical-- most people use cars for mostly short trips. Actually, a ten mile range would be fine for me-- we're a two-car family, so it would be practical to have one car used for most of our uses, and when we do need longer range, we could use the other.
I have a perfectly good ten-year-old car, so I don't need a new car now-- but when I replace it, an electric car makes sense.
The take-away lesson is that different people have different needs for which they use their car.
Microsoft Paint was basically a workalike copy of the MacPaint, which was one of the free tools supplied with the original Apple Macintosh. MacPaint was dropped ages ago, though (the last version was 1988!)-- it was groundbreaking for its time, but basically primitive by any modern standards.
The series "Moonrace!" ran from 1968 to 1972-- it was a sequel to the very popular "Space Race!" series.
They did a sequel called "Skylab!" that ran for a few episodes in the 1970s, but didn't get very good ratings and got cancelled early. Then they tried one more revival, with the terrible name "Apollo-Soyuz Test Project", where they tried to get a more international audience, but that was cancelled after the pilot in 1975.
There is talk of a reboot, but the fan community is understandably skeptical.
A quick google and a couple minutes with a calculator comes up with ~$1.5T for the solar panels, assuming sunny days all year round.
That cheap???? The U.S. spends 1.2 Trillion dollars on electricity per year.
oops, my google-fu failed me. 1.2 Trillion is the amount we spend on all energy per year, not just electricity. Electricity is about 31 percent of that.
Still, you're saying that four years of the money we spend on electricity would pay for the panels? Still sounds like a bargain.
Specifically, the cost part.
A quick google and a couple minutes with a calculator comes up with ~$1.5T for the solar panels, assuming sunny days all year round.
That cheap???? The U.S. spends 1.2 Trillion dollars on electricity per year. You could make enough panels to power the whole U.S with just the money we spend on electricity in 15 months?
Go for it!
Plus the cost of the batteries, of course. And extra panels to cover rainy days......
I prefer to look at production in terms of megawatt-hours-per-year-per-year. According to Wikipedia, the projected total PV output for the entire world was projected to be around 400,000 Megawatt-Hours this year
No.
The graph you link shows a production rate of 400,000 Megawatt (p) this year. Not Megawatt-hours.
Megawatt (p) = "peak Megawatt". One MW(p) of solar panels would produce 1 Megawatt under peak sun: that is, at noon, if placed normal to the noon sun. How many megawatt-hours you get from that many panels depends on how much sunlight they get (which depends on where they are, how cloudy it is, and what direction they are pointed).
Here's a map of the global insolation (short for "incident solar radiation", by the way) on a horizontal surface (which is not the optimum pointing for a solar panel): http://solargis.com/assets/gra... Sunlight at noon is nominally 1 kW/m2, so the numbers on the top are effective hours of noon sunlight per year. Thus, if you put the panels horizontal at the "orange" regions of this map, you get about 2200 hours of sunlight. So: multiply your "Megawatts (p)" by 2200 to get Megawatt-hours.
The developer can decide to just end up not supporting it, with no option to pay for support. Open source is notorious for screwing over loyal users in this manner.
Because that never happened with closed source...
Yeah. I've been screwed over much worse with projects done using commercial software where my old project files are now unusable because the software either stopped being supported, or the vendor decided to "upgrade" in a way that was not back-compatable with old files.
With maybe the difference that in closed source, nobody can pick up the slack and continue if he feels the software is worth supporting. Closed source maker going under, software is dead in the water. Sucks to be you if you depended on it.
I would have designed the probe to utilize the radiation as a power source, prolonging the mission. I don't understand why the mission planners didn't utilize this obvious power source but I'm sure they had their reasons. I would have done things completely differently.
How would you possibly do that?.
It turns out that, while the radiation is damaging (because each particle has high energy per particle), the actual amount of power represented by the radiation flux is not very high. You can tell that from the fact that Juno doesn't heat up when it crosses the radiation belts.
Note that each orbit the perijove has precesses slightly (due to perturbations because Jupiter is not perfectly spherical), so after some time the orbit will go through (instead of under) the belts.
Can a photon have any distinguishing characteristics that make it unique from other photons? A racing stripe, a mustache, maybe a hooked end, etc?
They are distinguished by energy and polarization.
Other than that, all photons are rigorously identical-- they are bosons, which means that they are indistinguishable (and the indistinguishability has consequences: Bose-Einstein statistics.)
How does one know it was the same photon "teleported" or just a different stray one?
What was teleported was actually the polarization state. The word "the same photon" technically has no meaning, since there's no way, even in principle, to tell whether it's "the same" or not, other than asking looking at whether it has the same quantum state (like polarization).
Tachyons, if they existed, have a rest mass that is an imaginary number.
(A difficulty with tachyons is that the theory only works in one dimension. With three spatial dimensions, tachyons become ill defined, because you can't be faster than light in all directions at the same time.)
that was obviously a typo by the AC: he meant photons, not protons.
Again: the word "mass" can have several meanings in physics. When physicists are talking with each other, it is almost always clear from context which definition of mass is being used. But if there is any ambiguity in which use of the term is being intended, you must specify which. A photon has zero rest mass. (Because it can never be at rest. When you stop a photon, it ceases to exist as a photon.)
Slashdot Mirror
But man..."smart" guns IMHO are NOT a good thing to have.
To the contrary, smart guns are a good thing to have, and the fact that they can be hacked is almost irrelevant.
The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other. This happens all the time-- 1300 children get killed by firearms per year. (alternate source)(another story on the subject).
Even, if as you say "I mean, having a firearm that my life may depend on in a home invasion, that may not fire if I'm not wearing a watch" -- that's actually a good thing, because the thing that you should most be worried about in a home invasion is getting killed by your own gun.
Worrying that a hacker is going to break into your home, hack your gun, and then kill you with it is pretty remote.
You really want a gun that only fires when you fire it. A gun that fires when you don't want it to is not a good thing.
If he is using oxygen and hydrogen to fuel the rockets, aren't we loosing it to outer space?
Actually, no. The rocket goes up. The rocket's exhaust goes down.
Newton's third law.
Not in Britain for sure, but in north america it's common.... For instance Québec -> Toronto is 800km
Sure, but the article we are commenting on is "New Diesel and Petrol Vehicles To Be Banned From 2040 In UK"
> Because they have limited range, take too long to charge
Mostly this, right, trying to do a 1600km (1000 miles) trip in an ICE vehicle? I can do it with just 2 tanks of gas in 16h. However with an AV?
I don't know how you would do a 1600km (1000 mile) trip within Britain in any kind of car, electric or petrol. Unless it floats.
If you're going a long distance, take a train.
They do still have trains in Britain, you know.
...With about 65% of that energy lost in transmission, that number doubles.
source: http://insideenergy.org/2015/1...
65% loss?!? What do you think they are they using to transmit, wet string?
The link you cite says "Energy lost in transmission and distribution: About 6% – 2% in transmission and 4% in distribution".
But Britain's a small place, and they don't wheel power thousands of miles (they don't have thousands of miles), so I expect a smaller number is appropriate.
We'll see what happens to their economies when these bans are ready to take place, I will bet that they end up backing off rather than crippling themselves (or people will end up using a lot more used cars and trucks until they vote the bums out)
I don't see any reason why not selling petrol cars would "cripple" Britain. You do know that it's a tiny little island by American standards of distance-- all of the U.K. is still a little smaller than Michigan-- and few people drive long distances. As far as I can see, it's a great location for electric cars.
That's arguable. Lithium is the irreplaceable element in batteries, and lithium is recyclable.
limited range, long recharge time, what little infrastructure there is to support it, is typically broken, price, longevity. just off the top of my head
Depends on what you need.
Almost all of my driving is around town, and it turns out that this is actually very typical-- most people use cars for mostly short trips. Actually, a ten mile range would be fine for me-- we're a two-car family, so it would be practical to have one car used for most of our uses, and when we do need longer range, we could use the other.
I have a perfectly good ten-year-old car, so I don't need a new car now-- but when I replace it, an electric car makes sense.
The take-away lesson is that different people have different needs for which they use their car.
Citation needed.
Not an assertion, a citation: who said exactly what and when, and show me a link.
Wow.
Microsoft Paint was basically a workalike copy of the MacPaint, which was one of the free tools supplied with the original Apple Macintosh. MacPaint was dropped ages ago, though (the last version was 1988!)-- it was groundbreaking for its time, but basically primitive by any modern standards.
Well, but they won't be able to use the address-- you still own it and have the password.
Get a new one.
The series "Moonrace!" ran from 1968 to 1972-- it was a sequel to the very popular "Space Race!" series.
They did a sequel called "Skylab!" that ran for a few episodes in the 1970s, but didn't get very good ratings and got cancelled early. Then they tried one more revival, with the terrible name "Apollo-Soyuz Test Project", where they tried to get a more international audience, but that was cancelled after the pilot in 1975.
There is talk of a reboot, but the fan community is understandably skeptical.
A quick google and a couple minutes with a calculator comes up with ~$1.5T for the solar panels, assuming sunny days all year round.
That cheap???? The U.S. spends 1.2 Trillion dollars on electricity per year.
oops, my google-fu failed me. 1.2 Trillion is the amount we spend on all energy per year, not just electricity. Electricity is about 31 percent of that.
Still, you're saying that four years of the money we spend on electricity would pay for the panels? Still sounds like a bargain.
Specifically, the cost part.
A quick google and a couple minutes with a calculator comes up with ~$1.5T for the solar panels, assuming sunny days all year round.
That cheap???? The U.S. spends 1.2 Trillion dollars on electricity per year. You could make enough panels to power the whole U.S with just the money we spend on electricity in 15 months?
Go for it!
Plus the cost of the batteries, of course. And extra panels to cover rainy days......
OK, slightly more.
Seems like a bargain, though
I prefer to look at production in terms of megawatt-hours-per-year-per-year. According to Wikipedia, the projected total PV output for the entire world was projected to be around 400,000 Megawatt-Hours this year
No.
The graph you link shows a production rate of 400,000 Megawatt (p) this year. Not Megawatt-hours.
Megawatt (p) = "peak Megawatt". One MW(p) of solar panels would produce 1 Megawatt under peak sun: that is, at noon, if placed normal to the noon sun. How many megawatt-hours you get from that many panels depends on how much sunlight they get (which depends on where they are, how cloudy it is, and what direction they are pointed).
Here's a map of the global insolation (short for "incident solar radiation", by the way) on a horizontal surface (which is not the optimum pointing for a solar panel): http://solargis.com/assets/gra...
Sunlight at noon is nominally 1 kW/m2, so the numbers on the top are effective hours of noon sunlight per year. Thus, if you put the panels horizontal at the "orange" regions of this map, you get about 2200 hours of sunlight. So: multiply your "Megawatts (p)" by 2200 to get Megawatt-hours.
Yes, verbs would have been nice. Usually, they are considered "required" in an English sentence.
Nonsense.
Usually. Not always.
The developer can decide to just end up not supporting it, with no option to pay for support. Open source is notorious for screwing over loyal users in this manner.
Because that never happened with closed source...
Yeah. I've been screwed over much worse with projects done using commercial software where my old project files are now unusable because the software either stopped being supported, or the vendor decided to "upgrade" in a way that was not back-compatable with old files.
With maybe the difference that in closed source, nobody can pick up the slack and continue if he feels the software is worth supporting. Closed source maker going under, software is dead in the water. Sucks to be you if you depended on it.
Yep.
It's way too early in the morning for me to exert this much brainpower trying to decipher such a poorly worded summary.
Yes, verbs would have been nice. Usually, they are considered "required" in an English sentence.
I would have designed the probe to utilize the radiation as a power source, prolonging the mission. I don't understand why the mission planners didn't utilize this obvious power source but I'm sure they had their reasons. I would have done things completely differently.
How would you possibly do that?.
It turns out that, while the radiation is damaging (because each particle has high energy per particle), the actual amount of power represented by the radiation flux is not very high. You can tell that from the fact that Juno doesn't heat up when it crosses the radiation belts.
For what it's worth, here's a paper discussing radiation effects on power systems at Jupiter: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/...
The probe will fail due to radiation exposure, but the orbit was designed to minimize that.
Right. Here's a good picture of the perijove, skimming in under the radiation belts: http://www.catherineq.com/wp-c...
Note that each orbit the perijove has precesses slightly (due to perturbations because Jupiter is not perfectly spherical), so after some time the orbit will go through (instead of under) the belts.
Here's an "infographic" with more information: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...
Can a photon have any distinguishing characteristics that make it unique from other photons? A racing stripe, a mustache, maybe a hooked end, etc?
They are distinguished by energy and polarization.
Other than that, all photons are rigorously identical-- they are bosons, which means that they are indistinguishable (and the indistinguishability has consequences: Bose-Einstein statistics.)
How does one know it was the same photon "teleported" or just a different stray one?
What was teleported was actually the polarization state. The word "the same photon" technically has no meaning, since there's no way, even in principle, to tell whether it's "the same" or not, other than asking looking at whether it has the same quantum state (like polarization).
Tachyons, if they existed, have a rest mass that is an imaginary number.
(A difficulty with tachyons is that the theory only works in one dimension. With three spatial dimensions, tachyons become ill defined, because you can't be faster than light in all directions at the same time.)
that was obviously a typo by the AC: he meant photons, not protons.
Again: the word "mass" can have several meanings in physics. When physicists are talking with each other, it is almost always clear from context which definition of mass is being used. But if there is any ambiguity in which use of the term is being intended, you must specify which. A photon has zero rest mass. (Because it can never be at rest. When you stop a photon, it ceases to exist as a photon.)