Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. You are now speaking for all computer users? That only takes one counter example to prove false.

And it's easy to provide an example that affects a lot more than 1 person: iTunes. As crappy as it is, it's used by several hundred million people - and it doesn't run on Linux. (And please don't try to start explaining how you can do it with Wine, because that already goes WAY beyond everything you just said about "able to the things they know how to do")

And it you are talking some philosophical "if people can't tell what OS it is they don't care" - sure, but that will never be the reality, and is about as useful and practical an argument as hypothesizing we are all living in The Matrix...

I use Linux on a workstation for many things at work, and as a server at home. I also use a Mac (with OSX, Linux, and Windows installed) because their hardware is really nice and Parallels works well. And I also have a Windows machine because I do like the occasional PC game, and Windows is the only OS that supports all of the mainstream games. I absolutely care which OS I am using for each because the reality is, they all have their strengths and will never be 100% interchangeable.

Wait, so anyone who has more than one person in their car and doesn't charge them for it is part of the "protected class"?

Either you replied to the wrong comment or the whoosh over your head sounded something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Your post is absurd, though I guess I should get it from your username.

This is about someone getting paid to drive someone else somewhere for a profit (a significant portion of which is taken by a large company), and that person not being able to use the HOV lane. That's it.

And what's wrong with that? It's not a carpool, it's a business. And in fact it often doesn't even get any cars off the street, anyway, so why should they get to use the HOV lane?

Except no, that's completely incorrect.

http://blog.uber.com/uberXride...

That's silly. If you are just driving someone somewhere because they paid you, you are not removing any cars off the street.

The point is it answers the question that is the title of the article: "If Tesla Can Run Its Gigafactory On 100% Renewables, Why Can't Others?"

If everyone did the same thing as Tesla, there would be so much excess generation in the day much of it would be wasted, and you'd still have the same non-solar requirements at night so you could never offset that with solar. Without storing all of the excess capacity in the day it's never going to be possible for *everyone* to run "neutral".

Yeah, this.

If this is all about an excited atom causing other atoms around it to move in a chain reaction (which is what we already know eventually causes our ear drums to vibrate, get converted to neurological signals to the brain and perceive "sound") then it pretty much seems like the most ridiculous waste of time and money in an experiment of which everyone knew the outcome I have heard of in a long while. So they built a super-sensitive electronic ear drum - big deal. This is not physics research, it's engineering a cool sensor.

It's a lot more economical when you get a couple billion in grants and tax breaks from the government!

But anyway - net metering is the "creative accounting" of the green energy industry. It lets companies like Tesla pretend they are "100% renewable energy" when in reality they are using electricity from the same non-renewable plants after dark as anyone else.

Now, if they did actually STORE that solar energy produced in the day time to use later that would be impressive, and they should receive proper credit. Since one of the uses of the batteries they produce will be (high end) industrial storage, it's possible they could make this happen... probably way too expensive for them to be profitable, but who knows...

No, it's really not, and neither is the Tesla plant. Self contained != net metering positive. Especially for Germany, which has invested a crapload into solar power that does absolutely nothing for a "net average" of almost 1/2 of the year.

Not saying it's not a good initiative, but it's definitely not 100% renewable energy without very "creative math".

386's were relatively ancient by 1993. I got a 486 in late 1992 to replace the 386 I bought in 1989 and was already jealous of the new Pentiums. Moore's law was in hyperdrive back then and the cutting edge games always relied on that.

UU2 still ran in 1/3 the screen size with slower average frame rate, awful navigation/controls and (intentionally) slower paced gameplay compared to DOOM. Face it, it was a great game but a different game, and it was NOT a fast action FPS by any stretch.

No, sorry, flight sims don't count. Flight sims in 1993 were either one awful ground texture with 1-2 objects on the screen (or in the case of X-Wing no ground textures). Some were good games, but not even remotely similar.

Beyrayal at Krondor used 1/2 the screen, could do maybe 1-2 FPS max in the world with *turn* based combat, and the graphics were awful compared to DOOM (though it was a fun game, just not competitive in gfx).

UU/UUII has been discussed already, they used 1/3 size screen and had single digit frame rates anyway. Felt very claustrophobic, really. But again great games, just not FPS. With FPS it is and always has been about the full screen immersive experience and the frame rate.

And AFAIK 3DO didn't have any decent 3D games in 1993. Later they did, and one of the better ones was - wait for it - DOOM (unfortunately in using real 3D effects it sacrificed one of its biggest strengths over the other games at the time - frame rate...)

I said *superior*, and - graphics wise - none of those came close.

Please name all of those other "3D environments" that were superior in 1993?

UU was a revolutionary game, but a 3D FPS is was NOT. It rendered in a small window at an awful framerate and minimal action/responsiveness. Obviously 3D was possible using high end hardware, tiny viewports, or single digit frame rates, but none of those are traits of an FPS.

Two totally different games. DOOM's expansive spaces (including large convincing outdoor areas), colored lighting, high res textures, and amazing framerate for what it did was most definitely revolutionary as a "3D FPS".

And ironically it's prohibited by International law, of war while just plain killing someone is fine...