In addition to what icebrain noted, alcohol also contains less energy per unit of volume (mass? I don't remember which) than gasoline. Meaning, you have less range with an alcohol-based fuel than with a gasoline based fuel.
Having said that, my airplane, running on a Rotax two-stroke engine, ran just fine on the blended gasoline we get here in Anchorage.
Aviation engines generally run at rather high compression ratios with significantly less electronic monitoring and control than auto engines, so detonation/knocking is a significant factor. The lead prevents knocking. If you were to look at the engine in an average Cessna or Piper, you'd be appalled at how primitive they are compared to what's under the hood in your car. Magnetos, rather than electronic ignition, carbs or mechanical fuel injection (on later models) rather than EFI...they really are very simple engines.
2m^2? Typo perhaps? That's about the size for a model airplane's wings, not a four passenger general aviation airplane.
The specifications page calls it 20.9 m^2 (224.8 ft^2, which Google tells me is 20.9 m^2. That means1kW of power from solar, assuming all of your other numbers are correct -- although that still isn't enough output to negate your argument:)
As often as I've heard radiation levels as compared to the radiation exposure caused by eating a banana, you'd think we'd all be glowing in the dark by now.
Except that instead of informing ourselves, we download Twilight on Netflix, watch kitteh videos on YouTube, and tell the whole world every time we take a leak on Twitter.
It may not be that we can't always be well-informed, but it certainly is that we aren't.
[Obama is n]ot all perfect, but the best I've seen in my life.
Wow. You must either be really, really young or blind. Or both.
I posted here on/. in 2008 that I doubted Obama was as good as everyone thought he was, but that I hoped I would be proven wrong. I wasn't. To wit:
* He promised to vote against telco immunity. After being elected President, but before taking office, he instead voted *FOR* telco immunity.
* NDAA. It's been beaten to death in the threads above; I won't repeat the argument here.
* He promised we'd be out of Iraq by 2009. We weren't.
* He signed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act into law.
*TSA went from annoying to outright evil (AIT scanners, "pat downs", expanding from airports to train stations, buses and even highways) on his watch.
I won't even touch on Obamacare since one can at least make a plausible argument for that.
From my vantage point, Obama has only ramped up the crap that Bush started. I never thought I'd say this, but I yearn for the "good old days" when Clinton (who I despised) was President.
I would expect people posting on/. to understand that you don't upload anything to Google that you don't want the world to see.
I've been using Google Docs for a while, and I love it. I have access to files from my work PC, my laptop at home, my netbook and/or phone while out-and-about...it's very convenient. I have also used Google Docs to share files with others, hands down a better solution than sending e-mails with attachments back and forth. However, and this is the crux of my point, NOTHING I have uploaded to Google Docs contains information that I really need to keep private. There is no tax information there, health records, etc. On Google Docs, I've got a spreadsheet tracking fuel consumption and maintenance records on my motorcycle (I'm a geek, what do you expect?), I've got another spreadsheet tracking upgrades and costs for motorcycle parts, I've got planning routes for motorcycle trips, a handful of recipes and a few other odds and ends...but nothing that would incriminate/embarrass/reveal trade secrets/allow identity theft. Bottom line: if you don't trust Google, then either limit what you upload to their servers, encrypt what you upload to their servers, or both. It's not exactly rocket science.
GPS Essentials for Androids is considering a move to OSM. They sent me a notification a while back asking about using OSM rather than Google Maps, and would it be worth paying for this ability rather than using the Google Maps. IIRC, their primary motivation was having the ability to use the maps off-line.
The bottom line: If you want a programmer to hear you out, don't start by assuming that they'll steal your great idea.
Really? This is a business deal, not a marriage. You are agreeing to share trade secrets that can potentially lead to the loss of a huge sum of money if leaked to competitors. Assuming everyone is a nice guy and won't screw you over is a really poor strategic plan. MOST people won't, but you aren't going to spend a year or two dating beforehand to make sure your new-hire programmer isn't one of those people -- you are going to have a matter of hours in an interview or two in which to decide whether or not to trust each other. If you are going to get your feelings hurt when a business partner wants you to sign an NDA, then quite frankly you aren't mature enough for me to want to hire you after all.
What about geothermal? Japan is a volcanic island (okay, technically, Japan is several volcanic islands...). I lived in Japan for about eight years as a kid, and IIRC, there were a lot of geothermal hot spots at or near the surface, which I would think would make geothermal energy a particularly attractive option. Is it just not a mature-enough technology? Is there some other problem with geothermal (scalability?) that makes it a poor renewable energy source for a nation the size of Japan?
'Kay, I didn't pick up on what you were suggesting with NAT, since that doesn't really address the topic we were discussing (bridging an IPv4 private network onto an IPv6 network). The post that I replied to recommended staying with IPv4 networks. I commented that translating IPv4 to IPv6 was doable, but ugly. I also mentioned that dual stack was the best option.
In other words, we are in agreement about which technologies work, and we aren't even arguing the same topic;)
Yep. Of all the compatibility schemes I've seen, dual stack is the only one that really makes sense to me. The other ones (tunneling, NAT in its various implementations) all seemed too complex and involved too many trade-offs, IMHO. You can make them work, but...ugh.
Even dual stack has its issues. For starters, that means you need to have two configurations on every piece of network equipment -- routers, servers, desktops, switches, firewalls. And correct me if I'm wrong, but with dual stack, don't you generally try one addressing scheme first and then fail over to the second, if you can't reach the device? You try a DNSv6 lookup for your host, but you get a nack on that host name, so then you have to send a *second* DNS request, IPv4 this time, and wait for that response. IIRC, Vista did that by default, and people complained that Vista was a dog compared to XP until they learned to turn IPv6 off (I think they still complained it was a dog, but at least it was a Husky or Malemute instead of a lazy, old hound dog, lol).
<shrug>
There *are* ways of getting IPv4 and IPv6 to play together, but it's still kind of a PITA, no matter how you do it. I heard the same story about the IPv6 engineers realizing they could have done a better job providing transition tools, but there's only so much you can do when opening up a vastly larger address space.
Have you looked at what it takes to NAT IPv4 to IPv6? There are 2^128 possible addresses in IPv6 vs 2^32 in IPv4. Thus it is simply impossible to map all possible IPv6 addresses into IPv4, for starters. You can map a subset, but then you have to have a stateful firewall doing the mapping, and adjusting the mapping on the fly. Next, DNS is an issue, because you aren't just translating an internal subnet to an external subnet. You have to proxy DNS as well and that has to be consistent with the mapping on your firewall. The end result is that you need a significantly beefier router/firewall to NAT IPv4 to IPv6. It becomes a lot easier to DoS a network because of the additional overhead of NAT'ing IPv4 to IPv6. There are already workarounds in place for all of these problems, but each one comes with its own set of tradeoffs, and the network administrator has to be aware of what those tradeoffs are and make the best choice for his application.
It's somewhat easier if you are running IPv6 internally and want to reach an IPv4 Internet, but it's still a lot more complex than NAT'ing RFC-1918 addresses into public IPv4 addresses like we are all used to doing.
To the user, there is no practical difference. "...Still there, you just can't get to it" might as well be "removed entirely" as far as a user wanting to build an IPv6 network is concerned.
Remember: the shortage of IPv4 addresses is on the PUBLIC INTERNET. (An extremely important distinction.) A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6. At all. Now, those of you with hundreds of clients on a large network, might indeed want it. But for most of us, all we'll need is an IPv6-capable router/modem at the Internet gateway. Inside the facility, who cares?
That's all well and good, but the technology to translate an IPv4 private network to an IPv6 public network -- and the need to do that is coming quickly -- *sucks*. It is not nearly as trivial a problem as one might initially expect, and every solution I've seen other than dual stack is an ugly hack that makes IPv4 NAT look like the very model of elegance. Removing IPv6 as even an option at this point is just stupid. Make the default "off?" Sure. But remove it entirely? Stupid in the extreme.
Yup. That was pretty much what I was saying above -- you can blame Hawley for not turning things around during his tenure at TSA, but I really don't think there was much he could do to reroute the agency. It was an abomination from the word go, and it was going to take a lot more leverage than he had to make a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and not really, respectively ;)
In addition to what icebrain noted, alcohol also contains less energy per unit of volume (mass? I don't remember which) than gasoline. Meaning, you have less range with an alcohol-based fuel than with a gasoline based fuel.
Having said that, my airplane, running on a Rotax two-stroke engine, ran just fine on the blended gasoline we get here in Anchorage.
Aviation engines generally run at rather high compression ratios with significantly less electronic monitoring and control than auto engines, so detonation/knocking is a significant factor. The lead prevents knocking. If you were to look at the engine in an average Cessna or Piper, you'd be appalled at how primitive they are compared to what's under the hood in your car. Magnetos, rather than electronic ignition, carbs or mechanical fuel injection (on later models) rather than EFI...they really are very simple engines.
2m^2? Typo perhaps? That's about the size for a model airplane's wings, not a four passenger general aviation airplane.
:)
The specifications page calls it 20.9 m^2 (224.8 ft^2, which Google tells me is 20.9 m^2. That means1kW of power from solar, assuming all of your other numbers are correct -- although that still isn't enough output to negate your argument
Don't forget "eating bananas."
As often as I've heard radiation levels as compared to the radiation exposure caused by eating a banana, you'd think we'd all be glowing in the dark by now.
How about "over my dead body?"
Except that instead of informing ourselves, we download Twilight on Netflix, watch kitteh videos on YouTube, and tell the whole world every time we take a leak on Twitter.
It may not be that we can't always be well-informed, but it certainly is that we aren't.
[Obama is n]ot all perfect, but the best I've seen in my life.
Wow. You must either be really, really young or blind. Or both.
/. in 2008 that I doubted Obama was as good as everyone thought he was, but that I hoped I would be proven wrong. I wasn't. To wit:
I posted here on
* He promised to vote against telco immunity. After being elected President, but before taking office, he instead voted *FOR* telco immunity.
* NDAA. It's been beaten to death in the threads above; I won't repeat the argument here.
* He promised we'd be out of Iraq by 2009. We weren't.
* He signed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act into law.
*TSA went from annoying to outright evil (AIT scanners, "pat downs", expanding from airports to train stations, buses and even highways) on his watch.
I won't even touch on Obamacare since one can at least make a plausible argument for that.
From my vantage point, Obama has only ramped up the crap that Bush started. I never thought I'd say this, but I yearn for the "good old days" when Clinton (who I despised) was President.
I would expect people posting on /. to understand that you don't upload anything to Google that you don't want the world to see.
I've been using Google Docs for a while, and I love it. I have access to files from my work PC, my laptop at home, my netbook and/or phone while out-and-about...it's very convenient. I have also used Google Docs to share files with others, hands down a better solution than sending e-mails with attachments back and forth. However, and this is the crux of my point, NOTHING I have uploaded to Google Docs contains information that I really need to keep private. There is no tax information there, health records, etc. On Google Docs, I've got a spreadsheet tracking fuel consumption and maintenance records on my motorcycle (I'm a geek, what do you expect?), I've got another spreadsheet tracking upgrades and costs for motorcycle parts, I've got planning routes for motorcycle trips, a handful of recipes and a few other odds and ends...but nothing that would incriminate/embarrass/reveal trade secrets/allow identity theft. Bottom line: if you don't trust Google, then either limit what you upload to their servers, encrypt what you upload to their servers, or both. It's not exactly rocket science.
They key to having people believe you can predict things is to predict them before they happen.
GPS Essentials for Androids is considering a move to OSM. They sent me a notification a while back asking about using OSM rather than Google Maps, and would it be worth paying for this ability rather than using the Google Maps. IIRC, their primary motivation was having the ability to use the maps off-line.
The bottom line: If you want a programmer to hear you out, don't start by assuming that they'll steal your great idea.
Really? This is a business deal, not a marriage. You are agreeing to share trade secrets that can potentially lead to the loss of a huge sum of money if leaked to competitors. Assuming everyone is a nice guy and won't screw you over is a really poor strategic plan. MOST people won't, but you aren't going to spend a year or two dating beforehand to make sure your new-hire programmer isn't one of those people -- you are going to have a matter of hours in an interview or two in which to decide whether or not to trust each other. If you are going to get your feelings hurt when a business partner wants you to sign an NDA, then quite frankly you aren't mature enough for me to want to hire you after all.
I figured it had to be something like that, but I didn't realize that geothermal was quite that limited. Thanks!
Was he driving a DeLorean, by any chance?
What about geothermal? Japan is a volcanic island (okay, technically, Japan is several volcanic islands...). I lived in Japan for about eight years as a kid, and IIRC, there were a lot of geothermal hot spots at or near the surface, which I would think would make geothermal energy a particularly attractive option. Is it just not a mature-enough technology? Is there some other problem with geothermal (scalability?) that makes it a poor renewable energy source for a nation the size of Japan?
Can a guided missile loiter at 50-70K undetected by enemies for 24-48 hours?
50-70K? That's seems unusually cold to me. Is it really necessary to supercool the drone to such an extent? >:]
'Kay, I didn't pick up on what you were suggesting with NAT, since that doesn't really address the topic we were discussing (bridging an IPv4 private network onto an IPv6 network). The post that I replied to recommended staying with IPv4 networks. I commented that translating IPv4 to IPv6 was doable, but ugly. I also mentioned that dual stack was the best option.
;)
In other words, we are in agreement about which technologies work, and we aren't even arguing the same topic
Cool -- I hadn't heard that. Thanks for sharing!
Yep. Of all the compatibility schemes I've seen, dual stack is the only one that really makes sense to me. The other ones (tunneling, NAT in its various implementations) all seemed too complex and involved too many trade-offs, IMHO. You can make them work, but...ugh.
Even dual stack has its issues. For starters, that means you need to have two configurations on every piece of network equipment -- routers, servers, desktops, switches, firewalls. And correct me if I'm wrong, but with dual stack, don't you generally try one addressing scheme first and then fail over to the second, if you can't reach the device? You try a DNSv6 lookup for your host, but you get a nack on that host name, so then you have to send a *second* DNS request, IPv4 this time, and wait for that response. IIRC, Vista did that by default, and people complained that Vista was a dog compared to XP until they learned to turn IPv6 off (I think they still complained it was a dog, but at least it was a Husky or Malemute instead of a lazy, old hound dog, lol).
<shrug>
There *are* ways of getting IPv4 and IPv6 to play together, but it's still kind of a PITA, no matter how you do it. I heard the same story about the IPv6 engineers realizing they could have done a better job providing transition tools, but there's only so much you can do when opening up a vastly larger address space.
Have you looked at what it takes to NAT IPv4 to IPv6? There are 2^128 possible addresses in IPv6 vs 2^32 in IPv4. Thus it is simply impossible to map all possible IPv6 addresses into IPv4, for starters. You can map a subset, but then you have to have a stateful firewall doing the mapping, and adjusting the mapping on the fly. Next, DNS is an issue, because you aren't just translating an internal subnet to an external subnet. You have to proxy DNS as well and that has to be consistent with the mapping on your firewall. The end result is that you need a significantly beefier router/firewall to NAT IPv4 to IPv6. It becomes a lot easier to DoS a network because of the additional overhead of NAT'ing IPv4 to IPv6. There are already workarounds in place for all of these problems, but each one comes with its own set of tradeoffs, and the network administrator has to be aware of what those tradeoffs are and make the best choice for his application.
It's somewhat easier if you are running IPv6 internally and want to reach an IPv4 Internet, but it's still a lot more complex than NAT'ing RFC-1918 addresses into public IPv4 addresses like we are all used to doing.
To the user, there is no practical difference. "...Still there, you just can't get to it" might as well be "removed entirely" as far as a user wanting to build an IPv6 network is concerned.
Remember: the shortage of IPv4 addresses is on the PUBLIC INTERNET. (An extremely important distinction.) A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6. At all. Now, those of you with hundreds of clients on a large network, might indeed want it. But for most of us, all we'll need is an IPv6-capable router/modem at the Internet gateway. Inside the facility, who cares?
That's all well and good, but the technology to translate an IPv4 private network to an IPv6 public network -- and the need to do that is coming quickly -- *sucks*. It is not nearly as trivial a problem as one might initially expect, and every solution I've seen other than dual stack is an ugly hack that makes IPv4 NAT look like the very model of elegance. Removing IPv6 as even an option at this point is just stupid. Make the default "off?" Sure. But remove it entirely? Stupid in the extreme.
Exactly.
It is quite discouraging to see the U.S. giving up its liberties, but at the same time, we are a far cry from being truly "oppressed."
Good point...
Yup. That was pretty much what I was saying above -- you can blame Hawley for not turning things around during his tenure at TSA, but I really don't think there was much he could do to reroute the agency. It was an abomination from the word go, and it was going to take a lot more leverage than he had to make a difference.