If you're generating electricity, it's much more efficient to use that to charge electric cars, and reduce the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere
It depends on what your goals are. Even without looking at their numbers I can safely guess that this will be less efficient and therefore more expensive than just using batteries. So if your goal is to have the cheapest low-emission energy possible then yeah, batteries are better. On the other hand, if you're more worried about recapturing some of the carbon we've emmited over the last century or two and are willing to paya bit more towards that goal, then this technique might make more sense.
Whether or not it makes sense even in the latter scenario will depend on just how much more expensive it happens to be. We won't know that until they've done a lot more work on this tech.
The information collected is used to target ads, which don't get to me, ergo I am not being targeted
While I agree with most of what you've written... since you're being rather pedantic, two can play at that game: you ARE being targeted, but the ads are missing you.
Like if I pick up a rifle and aim it at you, I am targeting you. If you have a magic BulletBlock script which stops my shot from getting to you, that doesn't mean you weren't targeted. Just means you didn't get shot.
We get it Pete. You're very happy literally living in your moms basement and spamming your 1990s era "program". Good for you bro. As a wise man once said, don't reach for the stars; you'll never grasp them. Just reach for a beer; it's right there.
The examples were provided as a refutation of the 'it is legal' defence.
Horseshit. "The examples" were themselves a strawman since nobody ever argued that legal and moral are the same thing. The previous guy merely pointed out that the government is enforcing the law the way they're supposed to, rather than ignoring it the way a certain previous administration did.
You think the law is immoral? Great, start a campaign to change it. Meanwhile the government has a duty to enforce it as it's written.
Ask Milo why he called for violent assault on the press.
He didn't. He made an offhand barb in private correspondence with reporters who emailed him asking for comment. They then reported his words in "the news". If any violence erupted from that it would be their fault, not his. You might rightly view his words as insulting, rude, or otherwise indicative of a douchebag, but only a moron would see them as "calling for violence".
Had he made the same comment on twitter, or another public forum, or even just egged on his followers in private, that would be a different story. But he didn't.
Then they're not facts, and you refute them with actual facts. Duh.
The pertinent question isn't really "what if they're wrong"; it's "what if they're right". If you have a policy of censoring anyone you believe to be wrong, you aren't even leaving yourself open to the possibility that YOU might be wrong. This is how dictatorships operate. They don't argue with you, they don't consider your position, they just shut you up and lock you away the moment you say anything they don't like.
I would far rather have a marketplace of ideas in which any crank can say whatever stupid thing pops into their mind than a marketplace of ideas where only popular things can be said. The former might be annoying and anarchic, but the latter is far, far more dangerous. All progress ceases when intelligent disagreements aren't even allowed to take place.
None of the people you've quoted are calling their opponents Nazis. At best they're drawing strained, emotional analogies. The same cannot be said for the opposition. The left is chock full of people who are more than happy to label Trump - and, often, all conservatives - as racist sexist white supremacist Nazis who do everything they do just to opress anyone who isn't white and male.
If you don't see the difference between those positions you're clearly not a very bright individual.
The Holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal.
The brave woman who care for and hid my 6 year-old aunt in her attic in Budapest was a criminal. She broke the law by sheltering Juden.
Legality is not a guide for morality.
Legality is not a guide for a morality, but it is also not the opposite of morality. This is an idiotic association fallacy, akin to the Gallileo Gambit:
"Hurt durr, they laughed at Galileo too, so if they're laughing at me then I'm right."
"Hurt durr the holocaust was legal, so if this other thing is legal then it's also immoral."
No, that's not how logic works. If your argument is that it's immoral then YOU have to show WHY it's immoral; you don't just get to make an offhand reference to other immoral acts.
I got his sarcasm; the issue here is that you're as ignorant as he is, so both of you believe the "Hurr durr scientists thought bumblebees couldn't fly" nonsense. Which is why you completely missed my point.
We've had over a century to figure this out and yet it hasn't happened yet. Why should it change now?
Because it would massively ease the burden on small businesses, allowing them to operate in more jurisdictions, encouraging competition and entrepreneurship, thereby benefiting consumers and the economy.
You didn't like those goal posts so I'll set you up another pair. The IRS has no problem knowing all this shit.
"This shit" is the lifeblood of the IRS. They damn well better know it. They've had centuries of practice doing it. Online retailers have not.
As he (and others) have said, the government needs to provide an API for this shit, and an easy way to file taxes over hundreds of thousands of jurisdictions. Since the IRS "has no problem knowing this shit" it sounds like they would be the ones best positioned to implement such a system. Get them to do it and the whole mess goes away.
This is an incredibly stupid thing to say. There are essentially zero countries which have well developed hydrogen vehicle infrastructure. While some countries are better than others, there are certainly far more countries where hydrogen fuel for vehicles is essentially nonexistent than there are countries where it's commonly available.
Those particular 8 words are pretty much the worst thing you could have said if you actually want to be taken seriously on the subject.
According the rollout at Nikola, those stations will be built and maintained by Ryder and available to all hydrogen vehicles.
Great, those 800 stations are a nice start, assuming they actually get built. They only need to add another 113,733 gas stations and then we can fully get rid of ICE vehicles. Meanwhile the number of BEV charging stations can be a fraction of that due to the fact that a significant percentage of the population can charge them at home.
Yes, you have to pay... But believe it or not, with a Tesla too, you just paid up front. With the newer Teslas, the "all free" model has been withdrawn.
This is a red herring. Nobody has ever argued that "free refueling" is a benefit of BEV, so you bringing it up here makes zero sense. The actual argument is that you pay more for hydrogen because it's far less efficient, ergo more expensive.
All of that on top of the fact that the Myrai is a shit car which is badly underpowered compared to a Tesla. Call me back when someone develops a comparable hydrogen vehicle so we can actually look at efficiency/range/price/etc when comparing two evenly matched cars.
It's true; the Mirai - which weighs 800lbs less than a Tesla Model S, and delivers 1/5th the horsepower - gets about the same range. It's still a pretty shit vehicle which costs more to operate and is far less efficient than a battery electric. The only advantage it could provide would be faster refueling if the hydrogen infrastructure ever gets rolled out; however at the moment it's even more inconvenient to refuel than a battery electric.
The idiots who repeat that "bumblebees" misnomer are usually the same idiots who believe that Bill Gates really thought computers would never have more than 640k RAM. You think that you're providing a witty rejoinder to his comment when, in fact, you're just further demonstrating your own ignorance.
The attorney made a point of saying, "they have people for that".
If you have ever thought or uttered those words, you should consider partaking in some very deep self reflection.
Why? They DO have people for that. Why would you do the work that you're paying someone else to do for you?
If I pay for someone to come set up a network connection at my house, I don't take over when the job is half done and finish it myself. Why would I do it at a restaurant?
Windows has IFS interface allowing new files systems to be plugged in without permission. btrfs and zfs IFS driver are available for windows.
They're both test implementations which are completely unstable, are missing features, and apparently have no ongoing development. Ergo no, windows does not have zfs or brfs.
Windows server core / nano does exactly this.
I don't think you know what the word "custom" means. So no, windows does not have custom kernels. Though I'm sure MS will make one for you if you have a few million to spend.
I've run windows from a USB stick. Not a big deal. It's just as pointless as running Linux from one.
I agree; it's completely pointless for windows because, as I said, it requires you to install it in a container and it runs like crap. It also requires you to buy a corporate version of the OS, so again you're paying out the ass. Whereas Linux doesn't care one bit whether you put it on a hard drive or a USB stick and will work perfectly fine on both. So we agree that no, windows cannot be properly run from a USB stick.
Your responses are zero for three at this point; do I really need to go through the rest?
Using SSD (especially USB) as a swap drive/ram drive is ludicrously slow.
How the hell is this marked informative? SSDs are way faster than spinning rust for swap. USB flash drives can be shit for it if you get a crappy one, but there are several thumb drives out there which have full on SSD controllers in them which makes them suitable as an alternative for an internal SSD (and, hence, also perform very well as swap drives).
I'd love to see what metrics you're using to conclude they're "ludicrously slow".
In other words, there is no compelling reason to use Linux. I'm simply using your logic, in that Windows has every Linux feature, plus AAA games.
Come again?
Features windows doesn't have: btrfs, zfs, custom kernels, minimal text-only installs, ability to run from a USB stick or CD without a bastardized container install.
Features Linux doesn't have: price tag above $0, shitty activation requirements tied to a single machine, built-in spyware, unavoidable "upgrades" which often break the OS, and some games.
Not only that, but I'm re-purposing Moscow Donald's old campaign chant "lock her up" which he used against a devoted public servant who unlike him was not a criminal or a traitor.
The over-doing of secrecy in our government has caused me (and hopefully most of you) to distrust our government more and more.
Nah. There's more transparency in government now than there was in, say, the 1950s. What's changed is that we have far more access to information now than we ever had before, so people expect even less "secrecy". When you don't even have enough information to know how much is secret, you tend not to think about it much.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're generating electricity, it's much more efficient to use that to charge electric cars, and reduce the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere
It depends on what your goals are. Even without looking at their numbers I can safely guess that this will be less efficient and therefore more expensive than just using batteries. So if your goal is to have the cheapest low-emission energy possible then yeah, batteries are better. On the other hand, if you're more worried about recapturing some of the carbon we've emmited over the last century or two and are willing to paya bit more towards that goal, then this technique might make more sense.
Whether or not it makes sense even in the latter scenario will depend on just how much more expensive it happens to be. We won't know that until they've done a lot more work on this tech.
The information collected is used to target ads, which don't get to me, ergo I am not being targeted
While I agree with most of what you've written ... since you're being rather pedantic, two can play at that game: you ARE being targeted, but the ads are missing you.
Like if I pick up a rifle and aim it at you, I am targeting you. If you have a magic BulletBlock script which stops my shot from getting to you, that doesn't mean you weren't targeted. Just means you didn't get shot.
We get it Pete. You're very happy literally living in your moms basement and spamming your 1990s era "program". Good for you bro. As a wise man once said, don't reach for the stars; you'll never grasp them. Just reach for a beer; it's right there.
Straw man.
The examples were provided as a refutation of the 'it is legal' defence.
Horseshit. "The examples" were themselves a strawman since nobody ever argued that legal and moral are the same thing. The previous guy merely pointed out that the government is enforcing the law the way they're supposed to, rather than ignoring it the way a certain previous administration did.
You think the law is immoral? Great, start a campaign to change it. Meanwhile the government has a duty to enforce it as it's written.
Ask Milo why he called for violent assault on the press.
He didn't. He made an offhand barb in private correspondence with reporters who emailed him asking for comment. They then reported his words in "the news". If any violence erupted from that it would be their fault, not his. You might rightly view his words as insulting, rude, or otherwise indicative of a douchebag, but only a moron would see them as "calling for violence".
Had he made the same comment on twitter, or another public forum, or even just egged on his followers in private, that would be a different story. But he didn't.
So what if the facts are wrong?
Then they're not facts, and you refute them with actual facts. Duh.
The pertinent question isn't really "what if they're wrong"; it's "what if they're right". If you have a policy of censoring anyone you believe to be wrong, you aren't even leaving yourself open to the possibility that YOU might be wrong. This is how dictatorships operate. They don't argue with you, they don't consider your position, they just shut you up and lock you away the moment you say anything they don't like.
I would far rather have a marketplace of ideas in which any crank can say whatever stupid thing pops into their mind than a marketplace of ideas where only popular things can be said. The former might be annoying and anarchic, but the latter is far, far more dangerous. All progress ceases when intelligent disagreements aren't even allowed to take place.
None of the people you've quoted are calling their opponents Nazis. At best they're drawing strained, emotional analogies. The same cannot be said for the opposition. The left is chock full of people who are more than happy to label Trump - and, often, all conservatives - as racist sexist white supremacist Nazis who do everything they do just to opress anyone who isn't white and male.
If you don't see the difference between those positions you're clearly not a very bright individual.
The Holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal.
The brave woman who care for and hid my 6 year-old aunt in her attic in Budapest was a criminal. She broke the law by sheltering Juden.
Legality is not a guide for morality.
Legality is not a guide for a morality, but it is also not the opposite of morality. This is an idiotic association fallacy, akin to the Gallileo Gambit:
"Hurt durr, they laughed at Galileo too, so if they're laughing at me then I'm right."
"Hurt durr the holocaust was legal, so if this other thing is legal then it's also immoral."
No, that's not how logic works. If your argument is that it's immoral then YOU have to show WHY it's immoral; you don't just get to make an offhand reference to other immoral acts.
That's great, but we can't all be liberal arts professors ...
I got his sarcasm; the issue here is that you're as ignorant as he is, so both of you believe the "Hurr durr scientists thought bumblebees couldn't fly" nonsense. Which is why you completely missed my point.
We've had over a century to figure this out and yet it hasn't happened yet. Why should it change now?
Because it would massively ease the burden on small businesses, allowing them to operate in more jurisdictions, encouraging competition and entrepreneurship, thereby benefiting consumers and the economy.
You didn't like those goal posts so I'll set you up another pair. The IRS has no problem knowing all this shit.
"This shit" is the lifeblood of the IRS. They damn well better know it. They've had centuries of practice doing it. Online retailers have not.
As he (and others) have said, the government needs to provide an API for this shit, and an easy way to file taxes over hundreds of thousands of jurisdictions. Since the IRS "has no problem knowing this shit" it sounds like they would be the ones best positioned to implement such a system. Get them to do it and the whole mess goes away.
Only in the US is there a lack
This is an incredibly stupid thing to say. There are essentially zero countries which have well developed hydrogen vehicle infrastructure. While some countries are better than others, there are certainly far more countries where hydrogen fuel for vehicles is essentially nonexistent than there are countries where it's commonly available.
Those particular 8 words are pretty much the worst thing you could have said if you actually want to be taken seriously on the subject.
According the rollout at Nikola, those stations will be built and maintained by Ryder and available to all hydrogen vehicles.
Great, those 800 stations are a nice start, assuming they actually get built. They only need to add another 113,733 gas stations and then we can fully get rid of ICE vehicles. Meanwhile the number of BEV charging stations can be a fraction of that due to the fact that a significant percentage of the population can charge them at home.
Yes, you have to pay... But believe it or not, with a Tesla too, you just paid up front. With the newer Teslas, the "all free" model has been withdrawn.
This is a red herring. Nobody has ever argued that "free refueling" is a benefit of BEV, so you bringing it up here makes zero sense. The actual argument is that you pay more for hydrogen because it's far less efficient, ergo more expensive.
All of that on top of the fact that the Myrai is a shit car which is badly underpowered compared to a Tesla. Call me back when someone develops a comparable hydrogen vehicle so we can actually look at efficiency/range/price/etc when comparing two evenly matched cars.
It's true; the Mirai - which weighs 800lbs less than a Tesla Model S, and delivers 1/5th the horsepower - gets about the same range. It's still a pretty shit vehicle which costs more to operate and is far less efficient than a battery electric. The only advantage it could provide would be faster refueling if the hydrogen infrastructure ever gets rolled out; however at the moment it's even more inconvenient to refuel than a battery electric.
The idiots who repeat that "bumblebees" misnomer are usually the same idiots who believe that Bill Gates really thought computers would never have more than 640k RAM. You think that you're providing a witty rejoinder to his comment when, in fact, you're just further demonstrating your own ignorance.
If you can let me know which restaurants I can find prostitute waitresses at, I would very much appreciate it.
5/5, would go again?
The attorney made a point of saying, "they have people for that".
If you have ever thought or uttered those words, you should consider partaking in some very deep self reflection.
Why? They DO have people for that. Why would you do the work that you're paying someone else to do for you?
If I pay for someone to come set up a network connection at my house, I don't take over when the job is half done and finish it myself. Why would I do it at a restaurant?
Nice one, Gene. What happened to your website bro? I noticed it's not up any more. Give up on the Time Cube thing?
Windows has IFS interface allowing new files systems to be plugged in without permission. btrfs and zfs IFS driver are available for windows.
They're both test implementations which are completely unstable, are missing features, and apparently have no ongoing development. Ergo no, windows does not have zfs or brfs.
Windows server core / nano does exactly this.
I don't think you know what the word "custom" means. So no, windows does not have custom kernels. Though I'm sure MS will make one for you if you have a few million to spend.
I've run windows from a USB stick. Not a big deal. It's just as pointless as running Linux from one.
I agree; it's completely pointless for windows because, as I said, it requires you to install it in a container and it runs like crap. It also requires you to buy a corporate version of the OS, so again you're paying out the ass. Whereas Linux doesn't care one bit whether you put it on a hard drive or a USB stick and will work perfectly fine on both. So we agree that no, windows cannot be properly run from a USB stick.
Your responses are zero for three at this point; do I really need to go through the rest?
What I'm getting from your comments is that even Gene Ray now prefers Linux.
Using SSD (especially USB) as a swap drive/ram drive is ludicrously slow.
How the hell is this marked informative? SSDs are way faster than spinning rust for swap. USB flash drives can be shit for it if you get a crappy one, but there are several thumb drives out there which have full on SSD controllers in them which makes them suitable as an alternative for an internal SSD (and, hence, also perform very well as swap drives).
I'd love to see what metrics you're using to conclude they're "ludicrously slow".
In other words, there is no compelling reason to use Linux. I'm simply using your logic, in that Windows has every Linux feature, plus AAA games.
Come again?
Features windows doesn't have: btrfs, zfs, custom kernels, minimal text-only installs, ability to run from a USB stick or CD without a bastardized container install.
Features Linux doesn't have: price tag above $0, shitty activation requirements tied to a single machine, built-in spyware, unavoidable "upgrades" which often break the OS, and some games.
Yeah, sure, they're just about equal ...
Not only that, but I'm re-purposing Moscow Donald's old campaign chant "lock her up" which he used against a devoted public servant who unlike him was not a criminal or a traitor.
Kek. Poe's law in full effect right there ...
The over-doing of secrecy in our government has caused me (and hopefully most of you) to distrust our government more and more.
Nah. There's more transparency in government now than there was in, say, the 1950s. What's changed is that we have far more access to information now than we ever had before, so people expect even less "secrecy". When you don't even have enough information to know how much is secret, you tend not to think about it much.