Which reverses your original comment. It's the electrics that are being relatively subsidized, when compared to gas/diesel powered cars.

That's not true; the Net subsidy is: (Tax credits for operating vehicle) + (Uncharged Cost for Externalities). The gasoline tax is a charged cost for one specific externality: the impact on road infrastructure built using collective taxpayer funds.

In some areas such as London there is a congestion fee which helps charge for even more of the externalities produced by vehicles.

Although the gasoline tax does currently have a disparately positive impact on high fuel-mileage vehicles or vehicles which do not require gasoline to operate:

This does not mean there is a relative subsidy higher than gasoline vehicle subsidy for the electric, since the poor mileage gasoline vehicles generate other externalities which are not charged for, such as localized pollution, which would be extremely expensive or difficult to abate.

About a 15% tax on energy for gas powered vehicles. What's the energy tax on all those shiny electric plug ins?

They need to work on adding taxes that will cover electric plug ins, etc. The government is reluctant to do so; however, funding for transportation infrastructure has to come from somewhere ---- and it should come in proportionate amounts from those who use that infrastructure most heavily.

This is not an energy tax per se. This is a tax largely for road usage that goes to the united states highway trust fund; the tax certainly goes a ways to help cover the financing of the national highways, however: the tax is inadequate, even for that; the trust fund has become insolvent, largely due to congress' reluctance to increase the tax even to meet inflation, so it doesn't even cover what it is supposed to cover.

If you operate your gasoline vehicles exclusively on a farm, you can get all the fuel used on your farm free of the tax, or get a quarterly refund check for all the fuel taxes.

as for the cars and global warming thing, cars contribute somewhere between 1% and 5% of bad greenhouse gasses

Greenhouse gas release is not the only negative effect of vehicle emissions. They also release materials such as CO1 and Nitrogen-based compounds with negative health effects on the local environment and human populations, they cause smog and other issues.

Chemical plants are not mobile like Vehicles are. Emissions by chemical plants are at a fixed location and in the future can be regulated or mitigated much more effectively as a result.

just because they do something wrong means they should do more wrong?? no, just no

Except it's not something "more wrong"; it is just something you seem to disagree that they should do. A number of consumers might have already made an investment to purchase a fossil fuel vehicle, and therefore, have a conflict of interest in regards to this matter which disqualifies them from making a fair judgement about the cost to society as a whole and the public of allowing citizens to operate such equipment.

I am essentially neutral on the matter whether they attempt to correct the problem by subsidizing manufacturesr of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles OR make owners of fossil fuel vehicles and manufacturers start paying for the share of emissions release caused by their activities (manufacturer tax for emissions during manufacturing, operator tax for expected emissions based on emission estimation formulae taking into account number of power-on hours total miles driven, and average mileage, to attempt to calculate quantity of fuel burned).

end of discussion, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers

The problem is the government is already unfairly picking winners and already subsidizing fossil fuel vehicles by failing to require that manufacturers and operators of fossil fuel vehicles pay for the pollution they generate in order to internalize the externalities.

The fact is.... new development is always expensive. And, economics doesn't favor improvement of society, when the actors are not required to pay for the damage they are causing and the point of the new technology requiring major investments in development and infrastructure is to mitigate such damage.

Why not? Because if you hand out $20,000 to buy a car, you just increase the price of every car by $20,000. It is basic economics.

OK... would it please you if they implement their subsidy by creating a $10,000 tax on the purchase or transfer of any vehicle; used or new? Then waive that tax for buyers of a new or used certified hydrogen-only vehicle and pay the manufacturer $10,000 directly, for each one sold.

Fuel cells are for idiots who want to pretend that the hydrogen comes from someplace clean and green for free.

The CO2 has a less harmful affect on human health and the environment than the smog which collects when other nitrogen compounds emitted when burning fossil fuels.

Furthermore, the Hydrogen can produced in centralized locations which means the method of production can be more easily changed in manners which minimize any release.

Consider: If there were no constitution, what would be the legal basis for Parliamentary supremacy?

The legal basis being the monarch in a sovereign monarchy has absolute power; England is a sovereign monarchy, and the courts rely on this sovereignty to get to say anything.

The monarchy was then forced to cede many of their God-given powers after the Glorious revolution in 1689; at which time parliament passed the Bill of Rights asserting Parliament to be supreme, even over the monarch, and the "truce" between Monarchy and Parliament, effectively forever moved the supreme source of law to Parliament by agreement.

New acts of parliament supercede previous laws regardless of source due to Parliamentary Supremecy, a fundamental pillar of English law.... Parliament is the supreme law-making body: its Acts are the highest source of English law.

Unlike in other countries such as the US, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, or an act of parliament being "illegal" if properly passed, because there is no constitution in the UK, and an act of the parliament duly passed is supreme.

Maybe, but I am sure that is not what this is about. Dell is trying to get more business from members of the Bitcoin community who get all excited and extremely enthusiastic and start buying when a vendor starts accepting their coins.

In other words.... it's not about Bitcoin users being technical or not..... just a way to drum up some additional business for Dell, and to increase margins for some transactions, since banking fees will be much lower.

The perspective is supposed to be from that of the microcomputer revolution, which was to have ended that elitism of mainframe and minicomputer "once and forever".

You're just continuing the same idiocy of the article. The point is programming is not hard because language designers are elitists.

Programming is hard because it is solving a fundamentally hard problem of converting human language into extremely detailed formal procedure which can be executed by a machine, and you have to know how the machine works to do it effectively -- this is a fundamental knowledge barrier.

This is nothing discriminative or exclusionary, but fundamental. It's like saying Calculus is hard to grasp, therefore the culture of mathematics unfairly excludes some groups.

You haven't worked with large scale virtualization much, have you?

In all fairness.. I am not at full scale virtualization yet either, and my experience is with pods of 15 production servers with 64 CPU Cores + ~500 Gb of RAM each and 4 10-gig ports per physical server, half for redundancy, and bandwidth utilization is controlled to remain less than 50%. I would consider the need for more 10-gig ports or a move to 40-gig ports, if density were increased by a factor of 3: which is probable in a few years, as servers will be shipping with 2 to 4 Terabytes of RAM and run 200 large VMs per host before too long.

It is thus unreasonable to pretend that large scale virtualization doesn't exist or that organizations are going to be able in the long run to justify not having large scale virtualization, OR moving to a cloud solution which is ultimately hosted on large scale virtualization.

The efficiencies that can be gained from a SDD strategy versus sparse deployment on physical servers are simply too large for management/shareholders to ignore.

However: the network must be capable of delivering 100%.

Perfectly content to overallocate CPU, Memory, Storage, and even Network port Bandwidth at the server edge. However the network at a fundamental layer has to be able to deliver 100% of what is there --- just like the SAN needs to be able to deliver within a degree of magnitude the Latency/IOPS and Volume space size that the vendor showed as the capacity of the SAN --- we will intentionally choose to assign more storage than we actually have, BUT that is an informed choice, the risks simply become unacceptable if the lower level core resources can't make some absolute promises about what exists and the controller architecture forces us to make an uniformed choice, OR guess about what our own network will be able to handle affected by the loads created by completely unrelated networks or VLANs outside our control, E.g. perhaps another tenant of the datacenter.

This is why a central control system for the network is suddenly problematic. The central controller has suddenly removed a fundamental capability of the network to be heavily subscribed, fault-isolated within a physical infrastructure (through Layer 2 separation), and tolerate and minimize the impact of failures, if designed appropriately.

I hate it when my problems get angry, it usually just exacerbates things.

I hear most problems can be kept reasonably happy by properly acknowledging their existence and discussing potential resolutions.

Problems tend to be more likely to get frustrated when you ignore them, and anger comes mostly when you attribute their accomplishments to other problems.

Your 300 x 10GB ports on 50 Servers is ... not efficient. Additionally, you're not likely saturating your 60GB off a single server,

It's not so hard to get 50 gigabits off a heavily consolidated server under normal conditions; throw some storage intensive workloads at it, perhaps some MongoDB instances and a whole variety of highly-demanded odds and ends, .....

If you ever saturate any of the links on the server then it's kind of an error: in critical application network design, a core link within your network being saturated for 15 seconds due to some internal demand burst that was not appropriately designed for is potentially a "you get fired or placed on the s***** list immediately after the post-mortem" kind of mistake. Leaf and spine fabrics which are unsaturatable, except at the edge ports: are definitely a great strategy to approach sizing of core infrastructure --- from there most internal bandwidth risk can be alleviated by shifting workloads around.

Latency performance seriously suffers instability at ~60% or higher utilization, so for latency-sensitive applications especially: it would be a major mistake to provision only enough capacity to avoid saturation, when micro "bursts" in bandwidth usage are the reality for real-world workloads.
An internal link with peak usage of 40% or higher should be considered in need of being relieved, and a link utilized 50% or higher should be considered seriously congested.

Yes..... since Bitcoin transactions involve the public ledger and miners which are all stored out of state, every time bitcoin changes hands it is simultaneously interstate commerce and foreign commerce, because the internet itself is inherently interstate.