Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:next gen batteries (Score 1) 230

You eventually start running into problems supplying that much power to the charging station to power the car. A 4 car 'ultra-charge' station could pull more power than an entire neighborhood when 4 cars are there.

Bury a bunch of beacon power flywheels and top it with a generac natgas fuel cell

Or other brands, I just know these guys have stuff

Comment: Re:next gen batteries (Score 1) 230

Much more likely that that sort of connection will be made to specialized places, sort of like a gas station.

Our grid is not a grid, it is bullshit, so it is likely that these connections will be made anywhere there is actually capacity. That might well be in places which make some sort of logical sense, or it might just be in places where they think EV drivers go and where they can find someplace to plug in their kit.

Comment: Re:Maybe.....but maybe not (Score 1) 230

The energy density of diesel is much higher than hydrogen

Yes, that's true, it's seven times higher. But the specific energy is only about a third as much. So the question then becomes one of cost of containment. And that's the real reason diesel wins. Diesel fuel is the most convenient fuel we have in terms of actually managing the fuel itself. It has all the same advantages as gasoline (as compared to hydrogen) plus the lack of volatility.

the lifespan of a large diesel engine is vastly more than the lifespan of a hydrogen ICE engine

Yeah, but you pretty much have to be an asshole to want to burn hydrogen in an ICE, because it's so feasible to use it in a fuel cell.

HFC is probably worse.

Fuel cells have been demonstrated operating 10,000 hours without any decrease in efficiency, which is supposed to correspond to a roughly 300,000 mile lifespan. They'll have to make it at least twice that long, though, in order to get into big rig territory. On the other hand, the efficiency improvements gained by eliminating the big, complicated transmission could be significant.

Comment: Re:I don't think hydrogen makes sense (Score 1) 230

Containing hydrogen is no longer much of a problem, though compressing it in the first place is still expensive.

Last I checked, containing it was still expensive, too. That's a problem in my book.

Still, you don't really need a distribution network: the trend is to use electrolysers and produce the hydrogen locally.

So what's the efficiency of the electrolysers? Last I checked they were down around 40% at best. And since we don't actually have a national power grid, we can't simply ship electrical power around at will. We can only ship it for relatively short distances.

The energy density of Li-ion batteries is about 100 Wh/kg, hydrogen is 32500 Wh/kg

Yes, but in terms of volume, it's not notably better than Li-Ion.

Also, let us not forget replacement, which is going to have to happen at about the same time for the fuel cell as it does for batteries. Fuel cells are still very expensive, just like batteries.

Finally, the charging time for an electric vehicle may be measured in hours, but the charging time for a hydrogen vehicle is measured in years. We'll have to wait years for the fueling infrastructure. But you can plug your EV in right now. How rapidly do you really think we'll get hydrogen fueling stations anywhere but in a corridor similar to where Tesla has "supercharger" stations? Right now there's only a handful on the seaboards.

Comment: Re:AIDS is bad (Score 1) 95

by drinkypoo (#48453479) Attached to: Apple To Donate Profit Portion From Black Friday For AIDS Fight

Note that Apple is donating all of the proceeds to charity. It's kind of hard to make a profit in volume when you're losing money on each individual sale.

Note that Apple is not donating all the proceeds to charity, as the headline suggets ("profit portion") but in fact a portion of profits. I am not new here so I am not surprised you have not read TFA but in fact the truth is that 100% of the profits from 25 apps will be donated, while a portion of the profits from Apple retail locations will be donated. Congratulations to ZDNet, they fooled you completely with that headline. Sucker.

Comment: Re:Legal Issue (Score 1) 126

by drinkypoo (#48453397) Attached to: NASA Offering Contracts To Encourage Asteroid Mining

As it stands now, we are all effectively owners, as is our children.

No, as it stands now, we are effectively jerking off, because none of us are in a position to claim ownership of rocks in space. Only the first person to set up camp there will be in that position, not least because they will have a ready supply of said rocks.

I don't know about you, but I certainly won't give up my rights or claims and anyone with an ounce of sense wouldn't either.

You won't have to. They will be taken from you, just as easily as they were granted. Assuming you even think they were granted, which they actually weren't.

Comment: Re:Legal Issue (Score 1) 126

by drinkypoo (#48453383) Attached to: NASA Offering Contracts To Encourage Asteroid Mining

The question that needs to be asked though is if any country would be willing to start a global thermonuclear war over a sovereign claim made by another country?

The question that needs to be asked though is if any country would be stupid enough to risk throwing nukes when the response is going to come from space. Once you're actually in a position to mine asteroids, you're also in a position to bombard the Earth with rocks.

Comment: Re:Space Resources (Score 1) 126

by drinkypoo (#48453349) Attached to: NASA Offering Contracts To Encourage Asteroid Mining

Exactly. There are no people in space

chicken egg

nor is there much use for them

pot kettle black

So the water isn't very valuable either.

things are worth what people will pay for them

Too Short, Didn't Read? Allow me to elaborate. There's not much use for people here on Earth, mostly we stink up the place. Space is maybe not the next frontier (seems like we should finish exploring the oceans first) but it's coming up. We are curious monkeys, and we want to know what's out there. So we're going, sooner or later, if we don't drown in our own waste first. And in order to do that, we're going to have to mine asteroids, because of the externalities involved in lifting sufficient mass from Earth.

If you don't want us to go to space, I submit that this is not the site for you

Comment: Re:Eggs are a very healthy food (Score 1) 120

But you can't put egg yolks in a jar and put it on a shelf for months without refrigeration.

What? Who told you that?

Not without preservatives and/or by using some processed "egg product" instead of whole, fresh, egg yolks.

The citric acid in the lemon juice is sufficient once you've pasteurized the eggs. What it won't do is keep for years, which is why Hellman's mayo contains Disodium EDTA.

Comment: Re:What is it? (Score 1) 120

I agree with you about what we evolved to eat. But I don't agree with you about cows being environmentally friendly. Everywhere in the world they mostly graze land which used to be forest. Here in the USA that is definitely true. And I have a great example, in fact. I live in Kelseyville, which is in Lake County. It's named for a guy who enslaved, raped, and murdered the locals — it's a bit living in Hitlerville or Santa Torquemada. This town has a whole bunch of walnut trees, and indeed it used to be one of the biggest walnut producers in California. The US government paid people to plant these trees, and so they did. But first, they cut down whichever oaks hadn't already been cut down to make room for cattle ranching. Part of the idea, of course, was to eliminate the natives' food source. They ate acorns. You can live on those, but you can't live on walnuts alone.

So yeah, in places which naturally tend to pasture, grazing cattle is perfectly environmentally friendly. Problem is, those places are in the minority. Most places tend towards forest, if you give them enough time. And most of the places where cows now stand, trees once stood. Many of them have been recently slashed and burned.

I love me some meat, and I eat as much as I can, but let's not pretend that it's more environmentally friendly than vegetarianism. And sadly, cows are pretty much the worst. The methane of their flatulence is a significant greenhouse gas and the deforestation their existence implies is part of the problem with global climate today.

Comment: Re:Relativistic Species (Score 1) 157

by drinkypoo (#48453099) Attached to: Complex Life May Be Possible In Only 10% of All Galaxies

I always like to think that any suitably advanced civilization eventually develops space-drives that can reach appreciable percentages of the speed of light. The time dilation effects would make traversing the galaxy relatively(heh) reasonable. The only hitch is that relative to all other lifeforms not moving at a such a speed would blink in and out of existence in the time it would take them to burp.

That's why it isn't useful. You can't use it for anything interesting to anyone but you. So why would anyone do that? There's no real point to moving at near-relativistic speeds because your civilization will be gone by the time you get home from anywhere worth going. After poking around your own solar system, you really need to be able to travel faster than light to achieve anything meaningful by going anyplace. Sending out probes to other places might still be worth it, but if everyone you ever knew will be dead by the time you get home, what's the point?

Now, if you could move a whole planet through the universe at those speeds, that might be useful. You could move your whole civilization, and everything it needed to survive (assuming you're not dependent on a star.) And if you are still dependent on a star, obviously by choice at that point, I suppose you'll need to take your whole system.

So, what would a star moving at near-C look like to the rest of us?

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 542

by andydread (#48453009) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility
You have no clue what you are talking about. I have never installed resolvconf. If you comprehended my message you would have gleaned that I didn't install resolvconf. It comes installed by default on the latest versions of Ubuntu Server and latest Debian. By the way i've been running Linux on servers since 95, the days of the SLS release so again you have no clue what you are talking about. You sure think you do though but sorry you don't

Comment: Re:ObFry (Score 1) 315

by drinkypoo (#48452835) Attached to: Eizo Debuts Monitor With 1:1 Aspect Ratio

How are you taking advantage of economies of scale when you have two totally different product lines for two totally different products?

Mu.

The reason that question cannot be answered as asked is that you have not even approached adequately describing the situation.

There's a reason both kinds of tires exist, much as there is a reason a separate manufacturing line can exist to punch out 50" LCD screens vs. 19" monitors.

There are both 50" and 19" televisions.

Different refresh rates

Who told you that? They do not necessarily have different refresh rates. And even if they did, there are parts of the panels which don't have refresh rates which can be shared between disparate panels.

different interfaces

The panels use a variety of interfaces, and the interfaces of the completed product have no relation whatsoever to the interface between the panel and the board in the complete display.

and different end-use, as only one of those devices also has an antenna input.

The same display can be offered with and without a tuner by placing the tuner hardware on a separate PCB which is connected to the main PCB in models where it is needed. Or, two PCBs can be made, one with and one without. Again, none of this affects the panels.

Guess I'm not finding the economies of scale argument.

That's because you're woefully ignorant of what's inside of televisions and LCD monitors. Once you've taken a few apart, you won't be under these various misapprehensions about what's inside of them.

Comment: Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids (Score 1) 240

by drinkypoo (#48452793) Attached to: Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood

"Since we live under capitalism"

That's where you fucked up. This is the definition of fascism/corporatism.

Corporatism is just a variety of capitalism. Maybe you should look up "capitalism" in the dictionary to see why this is true. Any kind of capitalism which is not "free market" (in which the government assures freeness, not the kind where it's hands-off) will inevitably support fascism. HTH, HAND.

Comment: Re:Calories in, calories out... (Score 1) 240

by drinkypoo (#48452775) Attached to: Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood

If that's true

It is, and if you cared you'd have looked it up already.

that's not an argument against calories in=out, it just means the measurement has an error.

The most obvious argument against calories in=out is that digestion is regularly incomplete. No further argument is necessary, but there are numerous other factors which influence the argument as well, and as none of them can lead to calories out being greater than calories in, there's still no currency to the argument.

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist

Working...