China's hardware is obviously based upon the old Soviet Soyuz space hardware. (It may even be a licensed copy.) So, China has made theirs a little bit bigger---big deal. At least they probably got bargain pricing on the technology. (Besides, the Soyuz strongly resembles the hardware and methodology proposed by General Electric in thier failed bid for NASA's Apollo program.)
So, who cares? A country like China should be able to afford and implement these older technologies if they want to spend the money and time. If this project is properly funded and managed there is no excuse for them not to succeed.
When are these "environmentalists" going to realize that electricity costs money and isn't made from pixie dust? Charging batteries to make a car run used to work out to well over $3/gallon gasoline equivalent.
According to the DOE, in May of 2005 314.8 terawatthours of electricity was generated. Of this 50.7% came from coal, 19.9% came from nuclear, 16.4% came from natural gas, and 2.5% came from petroleum. So, I doubt this car is helping the environment.
Also, changing the definition of "MPG" is not the solution, either. When are the dumb-ass reporters going to realize that?
Huh? MPG has no relevance to efficiency? What are you huffing?
Let's look at it another way: what is "the well-to-wheels" cost efficiency of the electricity? I will bet that if you factor all of the costs per mile, the "80 MPG" wonder cost more $/mile than the standard hybrid does.
Electricity isn't cheap, and doesn't come from fairy dust. In the US around half comes from the burning of coal, so this solution isn't environmentally sound yet, either.
"stuff like sawdust, wood pulp, cardboard, corn stems, yard waste etc." can already be used for many other things that would already keep them out of landfills. Sure, you can also turn it into ethanol, too, but that isn't going to necessarily keep it out of the landfills.
As the "Network Administrator" how long does it take you to make an "administrative" decision to pick up the phone and call the IT-outsourced company you have decided to use to come fix the problem?
1% of your time seems reasonable for this effort.
Honestly, 1% is not enough. It may not require 100% of someone's time, but it's closer to the 100% than the 1%.
What a typical, moronic CS reply. Actually, don't you mean "hack", (as in done blindly with an axe) like a CS person trying to do math.
Well, we have tried to use CS people, and I have seen the code, too.
The usual result is that the engineer's code works. The engineer's code gets the job done. And, it didn't take freaking 1.5 years to explain it to the dumb-ass CS person who doesn't know jack sh*t about differential equations and physical chemistry.
People with "real degrees", like engineers, tend to pick-up very sophisticated programming concepts and can write very good code.
Lots of CS people cannot multiply without firing up a copy of the Python IDE, and you wonder why I want someone with a "real degree" that can program.
Also, I am not exaggerating. We wasted 1.5 years with a programmer writing code under the direction of some engineers. Out of desparation, I gave the project to some engineering grad students to work on. They were done in a month!
Actually, when you graduate, you are screwed no matter what your degree is in...because you probably have little or no experience.
Anyhow, people who only studied CS only know CS. For many companies, this is not worth it. In my division, I prefer to hire people with a "real degree" (i.e. non CS) who can also program. For example, just about every engineer can hack out a FORTRAN or C program, but almost no CS people can do engineering. Some of these engineers can also write beatiful and useful programs, too!
Another article about IT prima donnas complaining about how their job is worse than any other job.
Geez! I am so tired of the whole "IT is worse than X".
IT is no worse than any other job. In fact, it's a great deal easier than many.
If you want big bucks, then you will work hard for longer than 40 hours a week. PERIOD! That's the way it is. I do not know what IT people were promised by their recruiters, but that's the way it works in every other profession.
I guess that IT people have pressures like "my job can go somewhere else" now more than ever, but that's just the way it is now---for almost everyone!
Suck it up, get help, or get lost! And STOP THE WHINING!
Because you can probably get a decent notebook/tablet pc for less the cost of the equipment to print an 800-page book cheaply.
There are some very nice and inexpensive laser printers out there! Much less expensive than even a crappy laptop. And then there's the used equipment market...
Any other reason you want paper?
Yup, you just cant spread out all of your manuals on a large table when you use a laptop. Sometimes, paper is just better.
Of course, I don't want a huge inventory of manuals that I don't reference frequently. However, there are always those manuals you can quickly grab off the shelf and flip open to get what you need very quickly. Electronic files are not always better.
Besides, the original poster wanted to print a manual---not an argument for not printing a manual.
Well, if you put 15 liters into a tank that will hold 15 gallons, you will not get nearly as far. You may think you have a full tank (i.e. there are 15 units of liquid) but you have much less than a full tank.
My point was that NASA probably screwed-up the units for their fuel inventory on the craft.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmmmm.
Socially awkward, technically-minded achievers...
Why is this a stretch of the imagination?
Exactly what I was thinking!
Planning is engneering. How is it any different if you are planning an attack?
Didn't the whole planet come from non-terrestial sources.
China's hardware is obviously based upon the old Soviet Soyuz space hardware. (It may even be a licensed copy.) So, China has made theirs a little bit bigger---big deal. At least they probably got bargain pricing on the technology. (Besides, the Soyuz strongly resembles the hardware and methodology proposed by General Electric in thier failed bid for NASA's Apollo program.)
So, who cares? A country like China should be able to afford and implement these older technologies if they want to spend the money and time. If this project is properly funded and managed there is no excuse for them not to succeed.
When are these "environmentalists" going to realize that electricity costs money and isn't made from pixie dust? Charging batteries to make a car run used to work out to well over $3/gallon gasoline equivalent.
According to the DOE, in May of 2005 314.8 terawatthours of electricity was generated. Of this 50.7% came from coal, 19.9% came from nuclear, 16.4% came from natural gas, and 2.5% came from petroleum. So, I doubt this car is helping the environment.
Also, changing the definition of "MPG" is not the solution, either. When are the dumb-ass reporters going to realize that?
Huh? MPG has no relevance to efficiency? What are you huffing?
Let's look at it another way: what is "the well-to-wheels" cost efficiency of the electricity? I will bet that if you factor all of the costs per mile, the "80 MPG" wonder cost more $/mile than the standard hybrid does.
Electricity isn't cheap, and doesn't come from fairy dust. In the US around half comes from the burning of coal, so this solution isn't environmentally sound yet, either.
unless you don't mind having your phone unavailable for the better part of 19 days a year!
Don't throw it out!
Just give it to me!
So, what exatly are the window protectors protecting the shuttle from? Peeping-Toms?
I mean, honestly, aren't the shuttle's windows supposed to be fairly durable because of all of the debris in orbit with the shuttle?
?wHaT eLsE mAtTtErS
wat els mahturs?
doo yoo undurstand mee?
it mahkes sens tu mee
eye culled knot aghree moor with yoo.
"stuff like sawdust, wood pulp, cardboard, corn stems, yard waste etc." can already be used for many other things that would already keep them out of landfills. Sure, you can also turn it into ethanol, too, but that isn't going to necessarily keep it out of the landfills.
Ditto! This is old news for even Slashdot!
The bigger it gets, the lower it hangs.
As the "Network Administrator" how long does it take you to make an "administrative" decision to pick up the phone and call the IT-outsourced company you have decided to use to come fix the problem?
1% of your time seems reasonable for this effort.
Honestly, 1% is not enough. It may not require 100% of someone's time, but it's closer to the 100% than the 1%.
What a typical, moronic CS reply. Actually, don't you mean "hack", (as in done blindly with an axe) like a CS person trying to do math.
Well, we have tried to use CS people, and I have seen the code, too.
The usual result is that the engineer's code works. The engineer's code gets the job done. And, it didn't take freaking 1.5 years to explain it to the dumb-ass CS person who doesn't know jack sh*t about differential equations and physical chemistry.
People with "real degrees", like engineers, tend to pick-up very sophisticated programming concepts and can write very good code.
Lots of CS people cannot multiply without firing up a copy of the Python IDE, and you wonder why I want someone with a "real degree" that can program.
Also, I am not exaggerating. We wasted 1.5 years with a programmer writing code under the direction of some engineers. Out of desparation, I gave the project to some engineering grad students to work on. They were done in a month!
Go for the non CS major!!!
----'nuf said.
Actually, when you graduate, you are screwed no matter what your degree is in...because you probably have little or no experience.
Anyhow, people who only studied CS only know CS. For many companies, this is not worth it. In my division, I prefer to hire people with a "real degree" (i.e. non CS) who can also program. For example, just about every engineer can hack out a FORTRAN or C program, but almost no CS people can do engineering. Some of these engineers can also write beatiful and useful programs, too!
Another article about IT prima donnas complaining about how their job is worse than any other job.
Geez! I am so tired of the whole "IT is worse than X".
IT is no worse than any other job. In fact, it's a great deal easier than many.
If you want big bucks, then you will work hard for longer than 40 hours a week. PERIOD! That's the way it is. I do not know what IT people were promised by their recruiters, but that's the way it works in every other profession.
I guess that IT people have pressures like "my job can go somewhere else" now more than ever, but that's just the way it is now---for almost everyone!
Suck it up, get help, or get lost! And STOP THE WHINING!
Well, Pascal is still used so that people can say how much better Modula 2 is.
Because you can probably get a decent notebook/tablet pc for less the cost of the equipment to print an 800-page book cheaply.
There are some very nice and inexpensive laser printers out there! Much less expensive than even a crappy laptop. And then there's the used equipment market...
Any other reason you want paper?
Yup, you just cant spread out all of your manuals on a large table when you use a laptop. Sometimes, paper is just better.
Of course, I don't want a huge inventory of manuals that I don't reference frequently. However, there are always those manuals you can quickly grab off the shelf and flip open to get what you need very quickly. Electronic files are not always better.
Besides, the original poster wanted to print a manual---not an argument for not printing a manual.
Most of these features are supported by many laser printer drivers already.
Unless Kinkos has changed their policy, they are not supposed to be reproducing anything that you do not own the copyright on.
Apparently, however, they don't mind it if you use their self-serve copiers to make illegal copies of things, though.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/03081 3070545.htm
The NIST (and many others) has been working with a bunch of other people on this for a while.
Transmission speeds are currently slow - 120km/h, but are expected to speed up
Don't the photons travel at the speed of light in the fiber? Perhaps it is some other unit?
Well, if you put 15 liters into a tank that will hold 15 gallons, you will not get nearly as far. You may think you have a full tank (i.e. there are 15 units of liquid) but you have much less than a full tank.
My point was that NASA probably screwed-up the units for their fuel inventory on the craft.