| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403785 is a reply to message #403777] |
Tue, 05 January 2021 14:46   |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 18:14:20 GMT
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
> That's a very weak justification. You're saying that it's okay for
> self-driving cars to kill and maim people in accidents, as long as it can
> be statistically shown that they do so less frequently than humans.
Yes because at that point they save lives.
> Would you care to explain that argument to someone who just lost a loved
> one in an accident with a self-driving vehicle?
It's a very strong justification, car drivers kill and maim a lot
of people every year. Once self driving vehicles kill and maim substantially
fewer people per mile driven there is little justification for permitting
people to drive.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403788 is a reply to message #403779] |
Tue, 05 January 2021 15:12 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2021-01-05, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> Three people have died because they relied on Telsa Autopilot
> to do the driving. Of course, they're not supposed to do that,
> but it's a strong indication that self-driving technology is
> not ready for the public.
Or that the public isn't ready for self-driving technology.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403790 is a reply to message #403740] |
Tue, 05 January 2021 15:12 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2021-01-05, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
> On 2021-01-04, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-01-04, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> reductio ad absurdum:
>>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
>>>
>>> The alternatives:
>>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-ma trix/
>>>
>>> Where can we go from here:
>>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/discovering-limits-to-gro wth/
>>
>> Thanks, those are a nice supplement to my favourite back-of-the-envelope
>> calculations, which show that if our population continues to double every
>> 40 years (as it has done until recently), there will be one person for every
>> square meter of dry land in 600 years - and that the entire mass of the
>> planet will be converted into a swarming mass of humanity in 1800 years.
>
> AFAIK, without being racist, the population of most Western-stype
> countries is falling, Germany being a good example. Immigration from the
> third world is offsetting that, but as the women of those immigrating
> people realize that there is more to life than popping out babies, thT
> will change.
Our government's obsession with immigration extends primarily
to skilled immigrants. That way they don't have to waste money
maintaining an effective education system.
UFOlogists and immigration enthusiasts have a lot in common.
The UFO people believe we will be saved by aliens from another planet.
Immigration advocates belive we will be saved by aliens from another country.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403793 is a reply to message #403777] |
Tue, 05 January 2021 16:06 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 19:34:18 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:50:01 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> For apartment dwellers, the self driving vehicle may come into play.
>>>> You get out of the car and it goes and finds it's charger.
>>>
>>> That kind of self-driving car is a pipe dream. We won't see them in our life
>>> time. Barring radical changes across the entire transportation infrastructure,
>>> self-driving vehicles will only be viable in limited, closed environments.
>>
>> My thought, though, is that self-driving cars don't have to be perfect,
>> they just have to be at least as good as human drivers. Seeing the way most
>> people drive, I'd say that's not a hard job.
>
> That's a very weak justification. You're saying that it's okay for self-driving
> cars to kill and maim people in accidents, as long as it can be statistically
> shown that they do so less frequently than humans. Would you care to explain
> that argument to someone who just lost a loved one in an accident with a
> self-driving vehicle?
>
>
Of course, you don’t have to explain it to the relatives of the one or two
who weren’t killed by drunk drivers. From what I’ve seen of drivers around
here, Orangutans would be an improvement.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403798 is a reply to message #403777] |
Tue, 05 January 2021 16:21 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris
On 05/01/2021 18:14, Questor wrote:
> That's a very weak justification. You're saying that it's okay for self-driving
> cars to kill and maim people in accidents, as long as it can be statistically
> shown that they do so less frequently than humans. Would you care to explain
> that argument to someone who just lost a loved one in an accident with a
> self-driving vehicle?
Let's turn that on its head.
You're saying that it'll be OK for humans to drive cars even though it
can be statistically shown that they kill more humans than self-driving
cars.
The self drivers will be a lot better. Just because the manufacturers
have to be able to survive the lawsuits from the unlucky few.
Andy
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403802 is a reply to message #403798] |
Tue, 05 January 2021 17:13 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 21:21:33 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/01/2021 18:14, Questor wrote:
>> That's a very weak justification. You're saying that it's okay for self-driving
>> cars to kill and maim people in accidents, as long as it can be statistically
>> shown that they do so less frequently than humans. Would you care to explain
>> that argument to someone who just lost a loved one in an accident with a
>> self-driving vehicle?
>
> Let's turn that on its head.
>
> You're saying that it'll be OK for humans to drive cars even though it
> can be statistically shown that they kill more humans than self-driving
> cars.
>
> The self drivers will be a lot better. Just because the manufacturers
> have to be able to survive the lawsuits from the unlucky few.
Uh, "will be" implies that they don't exist now, which is not the
case.
>
> Andy
|
|
|
|
| Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403803 is a reply to message #403788] |
Tue, 05 January 2021 17:15 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 5 Jan 2021 20:12:38 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2021-01-05, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>
>> Three people have died because they relied on Telsa Autopilot
>> to do the driving. Of course, they're not supposed to do that,
>> but it's a strong indication that self-driving technology is
>> not ready for the public.
>
> Or that the public isn't ready for self-driving technology.
A problem with Tesla self-driving technology, and one that Tesla
really should address, is that if you take your hand off the wheel for
longer than is allowed, instead of continuing to try to drive, or
pulling off the road and stopping, it just disengages. The concept of
"fail-safe" is apparently foreign to Tesla.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403815 is a reply to message #403441] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 00:42 |
Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-12-31, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:14:20 -0600
>> JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 15:13:57 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>>
>>>> It is still different than powering any device in the world (or a big
>>>> area) from the air filled with "waves".
>>>
>>> Since I can download gigabytes of software I have paid for 'over the
>>> air waves', your claim seems a bit odd.
>>
>> That says nothing about being able to deliver useful amounts of
>> energy over long distances to arbitrary locations (nobody knows any way to
>> do this - two out of three applies) and a great deal about the
>> sophistication of our data transmission technology.
>>
>
> So we need to find a way to compress the energy for transmission, and then
> decompress it for use. <g>
Forget PoE, this is PoIP!
Niklas
--
Here in the US, we are so schizoid and deeply opposed to government
censorship that we insist on having unaccountable private parties
to do it instead.
-- Bill Cole
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403817 is a reply to message #403370] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 00:56 |
Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-12-30, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 30/12/2020 15.46, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 2020-12-30, Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2020, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe that wireless energy is just smoke. Can not exist.
>>>
>>> Yet you charge your electric toothbrush via wireless induction ...
>>
>> Good point. My phone also charges that way.
>
> Not at all. This effect can only be used at very short distances. I have
> forgotten the formula that tells you how the transmitted power
> diminishes with distance, but I guess it is cubic.
What do you mean, "not at all"? Of *course* induction only works over
short distances. When I charge my phone, it is in physical contact with
the charger.
Niklas
--
Babbage pioneered IT management: his project took vast sums of cash, the spec
kept changing, and it ultimately failed to deliver. Turing scavenged supplies
and knocked together something that worked and solved the problem - reward?
Arrest and castration. Which one feels most like your career? -- Peter Corlett
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403818 is a reply to message #403378] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 00:59 |
Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-12-30, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-12-30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 11:31:07 -0000 (UTC)
>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Nuclear combined with hydrogen generation from excess wind and
>>> solar power using steam electrolysis: Much better.
>>
>> This has much to recommend it in principle but hydrogen storage is
>> still tricky and the cycle efficiencies are pretty poor compared with
>> batteries. That's before you get to the hydrogen == Hindenburg perception
>> problem.
>
> That's assuming people even remember the Hindenburg.
> Hiroshima is more recent (and spectacular), and there are
> plenty of people opposed to that nook-yu-lur stuff. One
> editorial pointed out the problem by quoting some hayseed
> saying, "We don't want no damn atoms around here!"
Not to mention Chernobyl, even more recent and certainly spectacular. Of
course, it was both constructed and operated by idiots.
Niklas
--
The company keeps a helpdesk to allow staff to vent certain excess
pressures by ranting, just as other excess pressures are vented thanks
to the company installing toilets. Generally the toilets last longer.
-- Anthony de Boer
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403819 is a reply to message #403453] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 01:04 |
Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-12-31, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 13:04:16 -0700, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I worry about wireless energy. There’s now talk about large solar arrays in
>> orbit beaming power back to earth. People are worried about radiation from
>> cell phones, what’s the scoop on large amounts of radiation (microwaves?)
>> being transmitted from space?
>
> Actually that was talk from the '70s before the Space Shuttle proved
> to be as dismal as it was.
>
> Radiation goes to rural areas, tightly focused, no humans in the way
> unless someone jumps the fence or flies into the beam. Even flying
> into the beam though, microwave is line of sight and the aircraft
> structure should provide shielding.
I'm concerned about the consequences if the aim is off, though. You
might say "can't happen", but things that "can't happen" often do
happen.
Niklas
--
"... although point and click pretty much means you have run out
of ammo, which is not the point at all." -- David Jacoby
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403820 is a reply to message #403352] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 01:06 |
Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-12-30, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2020 14:06:14 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-12-30, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe that wireless energy is just smoke. Can not exist.
>>
>> Well, microwave transmission exists. Of course, it has the drawback that
>> if you miss the receiver, you end up cooking whatever you hit instead.
>> Otherwise we could be getting power from the sun via satellites that can
>> use photovoltaics without the losses from filtering through the
>> atmosphere.
>
> We could, and "cooking whatever you hit when you miss the reciever" is
> not really the issue that opponents make it out to be. Size the
> antennas so that the energy density on the ground is too low to be
> harmful even with malicious action.
I see. I sit corrected.
Niklas
--
Buy a bloody kettle and a teapot. Good grief, what else is are the spare
sockets on the UPS for? When the power goes down, the -first- thing I
want is a hot beverage.
-- Dave in asr
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403821 is a reply to message #403645] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 01:25 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> My luck the commissar of garbage will be out that day. We have one of
> those. Also a dandelion inspector.
You have to be kidding. A weed inspector in an agricultural region I
can understand. And it's not neccessary to drench the county with
herbicide to restrain weed plagues. But a dandelion inspector?
The carpet of dandelions is one of our welcom harbingers of spring
and the source of enthusiastically greeted hot dandelion-greens salad.
> I have friends who grew up in the Soviet Union. They agree that
> this is a level of inanity that the Soviets at their worst never
> achieved.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403830 is a reply to message #403821] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 07:31 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 06 Jan 2021 02:25:41 -0400, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> My luck the commissar of garbage will be out that day. We have one of
>> those. Also a dandelion inspector.
>
> You have to be kidding. A weed inspector in an agricultural region I
> can understand. And it's not neccessary to drench the county with
> herbicide to restrain weed plagues. But a dandelion inspector?
>
> The carpet of dandelions is one of our welcom harbingers of spring
> and the source of enthusiastically greeted hot dandelion-greens salad.
As long as none are more than 12 inches tall. And yes, I've seen him
take a ruler to one.
>
>> I have friends who grew up in the Soviet Union. They agree that
>> this is a level of inanity that the Soviets at their worst never
>> achieved.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403831 is a reply to message #403817] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 07:37 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 6 Jan 2021 05:56:23 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2020-12-30, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 30/12/2020 15.46, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
>>> On 2020-12-30, Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2020, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I believe that wireless energy is just smoke. Can not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you charge your electric toothbrush via wireless induction ...
>>>
>>> Good point. My phone also charges that way.
>>
>> Not at all. This effect can only be used at very short distances. I have
>> forgotten the formula that tells you how the transmitted power
>> diminishes with distance, but I guess it is cubic.
>
> What do you mean, "not at all"? Of *course* induction only works over
> short distances. When I charge my phone, it is in physical contact with
> the charger.
The inverse square law applies to omnidirectional point sources. If
you can focus them the situation changes. Lasers are one example. But
microwaves can also be focused.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403832 is a reply to message #403819] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 07:39 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 6 Jan 2021 06:04:10 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2020-12-31, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 13:04:16 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I worry about wireless energy. There’s now talk about large solar arrays in
>>> orbit beaming power back to earth. People are worried about radiation from
>>> cell phones, what’s the scoop on large amounts of radiation (microwaves?)
>>> being transmitted from space?
>>
>> Actually that was talk from the '70s before the Space Shuttle proved
>> to be as dismal as it was.
>>
>> Radiation goes to rural areas, tightly focused, no humans in the way
>> unless someone jumps the fence or flies into the beam. Even flying
>> into the beam though, microwave is line of sight and the aircraft
>> structure should provide shielding.
>
> I'm concerned about the consequences if the aim is off, though. You
> might say "can't happen", but things that "can't happen" often do
> happen.
Two techniques:
1) Size the antennas such that the beam intensity cannot be
dangerous.
2) Use a phased array that requires feedback from a ground sensor to
maintain coherence--if the beam drifts the signal goes away.
>
> Niklas
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403835 is a reply to message #403831] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 08:29 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:37:22 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> The inverse square law applies to omnidirectional point sources. If
> you can focus them the situation changes. Lasers are one example. But
> microwaves can also be focused.
<mode=pedant>
Unless you can achieve a perfectly parallel beam (which you can't
because of diffraction) any divergent radiation is affected by the inverse
square law. The only difference is that it's easier to catch all or most of
the output if it is directed and tight, even easier if it is convergent and
you are at the focal point.
</mode>
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403836 is a reply to message #403818] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 08:37 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2020-12-30, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2020-12-30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 11:31:07 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nuclear combined with hydrogen generation from excess wind and
>>>> solar power using steam electrolysis: Much better.
>>>
>>> This has much to recommend it in principle but hydrogen storage is
>>> still tricky and the cycle efficiencies are pretty poor compared with
>>> batteries. That's before you get to the hydrogen == Hindenburg perception
>>> problem.
>>
>> That's assuming people even remember the Hindenburg.
>> Hiroshima is more recent (and spectacular), and there are
>> plenty of people opposed to that nook-yu-lur stuff. One
>> editorial pointed out the problem by quoting some hayseed
>> saying, "We don't want no damn atoms around here!"
>
> Not to mention Chernobyl, even more recent and certainly spectacular. Of
> course, it was both constructed and operated by idiots.
>
I’m a bit more sympathetic after reading the novel _Chernobyl_. Bad design,
and idiots in management, but many of the rank-and-file did heroic work to
try to stop the mess.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403837 is a reply to message #403819] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 08:37 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2020-12-31, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 13:04:16 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I worry about wireless energy. There’s now talk about large solar arrays in
>>> orbit beaming power back to earth. People are worried about radiation from
>>> cell phones, what’s the scoop on large amounts of radiation (microwaves?)
>>> being transmitted from space?
>>
>> Actually that was talk from the '70s before the Space Shuttle proved
>> to be as dismal as it was.
>>
>> Radiation goes to rural areas, tightly focused, no humans in the way
>> unless someone jumps the fence or flies into the beam. Even flying
>> into the beam though, microwave is line of sight and the aircraft
>> structure should provide shielding.
>
> I'm concerned about the consequences if the aim is off, though. You
> might say "can't happen", but things that "can't happen" often do
> happen.
>
Bayesian statistics. quantify the odds, and try to figure out what happens
if things do do south. (where did this expression come from anyway?)
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403841 is a reply to message #403832] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 08:31 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:39:50 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Size the antennas such that the beam intensity cannot be
> dangerous.
> 2) Use a phased array that requires feedback from a ground sensor to
> maintain coherence--if the beam drifts the signal goes away.
3) Do both - although that leads to the failure mode where you need power
to get the power back on so preparations for that are in order.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403847 is a reply to message #403836] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 12:03 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 06:37:18 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
>> On 2020-12-30, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2020-12-30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 11:31:07 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Nuclear combined with hydrogen generation from excess wind and
>>>> > solar power using steam electrolysis: Much better.
>>>>
>>>> This has much to recommend it in principle but hydrogen storage is
>>>> still tricky and the cycle efficiencies are pretty poor compared with
>>>> batteries. That's before you get to the hydrogen == Hindenburg perception
>>>> problem.
>>>
>>> That's assuming people even remember the Hindenburg.
>>> Hiroshima is more recent (and spectacular), and there are
>>> plenty of people opposed to that nook-yu-lur stuff. One
>>> editorial pointed out the problem by quoting some hayseed
>>> saying, "We don't want no damn atoms around here!"
>>
>> Not to mention Chernobyl, even more recent and certainly spectacular. Of
>> course, it was both constructed and operated by idiots.
>>
>
> I’m a bit more sympathetic after reading the novel _Chernobyl_. Bad design,
> and idiots in management, but many of the rank-and-file did heroic work to
> try to stop the mess.
If you haven't seen the miniseries, you might want to. It was very
well done.
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403848 is a reply to message #403830] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 12:04 |
|
|
Originally posted by: maus
On 2021-01-06, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06 Jan 2021 02:25:41 -0400, Mike Spencer
> <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> My luck the commissar of garbage will be out that day. We have one of
>>> those. Also a dandelion inspector.
>>
>> You have to be kidding. A weed inspector in an agricultural region I
>> can understand. And it's not neccessary to drench the county with
>> herbicide to restrain weed plagues. But a dandelion inspector?
>>
>> The carpet of dandelions is one of our welcom harbingers of spring
>> and the source of enthusiastically greeted hot dandelion-greens salad.
>
> As long as none are more than 12 inches tall. And yes, I've seen him
> take a ruler to one.
>>
>>> I have friends who grew up in the Soviet Union. They agree that
>>> this is a level of inanity that the Soviets at their worst never
>>> achieved.
I have seen recovering animals picking dandelions out to eat.
Local name for them is `piss-in-the-beds' so they must be diurtics(sp)?
--
greymausg@mail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403851 is a reply to message #403835] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 12:11 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 13:29:05 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:37:22 -0500
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The inverse square law applies to omnidirectional point sources. If
>> you can focus them the situation changes. Lasers are one example. But
>> microwaves can also be focused.
>
> <mode=pedant>
> Unless you can achieve a perfectly parallel beam (which you can't
> because of diffraction) any divergent radiation is affected by the inverse
> square law. The only difference is that it's easier to catch all or most of
> the output if it is directed and tight, even easier if it is convergent and
> you are at the focal point.
> </mode>
<mode=physicist>
Check again.
</mode>
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403853 is a reply to message #403773] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 12:38 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On 5 Jan 2021 17:35:34 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2020-12-31, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Interestingly, apparently some volcanos at the east end of the Caribbean
>> (Leewards?) are starting to cook. Geologists say theres no connection
>> between them, and no,significance to the fact that several are becoming
>> active at once... Also Hekla is still a potential problem.
>
> Also, Yellowstone is a concern, yes?
>
> Niklas
Very much so. Last time it blew, most of North America was covered in
ash. IIRC, only the eastern seaboard didn't get it too badly. I
remember seeing an ash map somewhere online.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403855 is a reply to message #403851] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 13:01 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:11:19 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 13:29:05 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:37:22 -0500
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The inverse square law applies to omnidirectional point sources. If
>>> you can focus them the situation changes. Lasers are one example. But
>>> microwaves can also be focused.
>>
>> <mode=pedant>
>> Unless you can achieve a perfectly parallel beam (which you can't
>> because of diffraction) any divergent radiation is affected by the
>> inverse square law. The only difference is that it's easier to catch all
>> or most of the output if it is directed and tight, even easier if it is
>> convergent and you are at the focal point.
>> </mode>
>
> <mode=physicist>
> Check again.
> </mode>
<mode=mathematician>
Checked and verified. Would you like a rigorous proof ?
</mode>
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403858 is a reply to message #403855] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 15:11 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:11:19 -0500
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 13:29:05 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:37:22 -0500
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The inverse square law applies to omnidirectional point sources. If
>>>> you can focus them the situation changes. Lasers are one example. But
>>>> microwaves can also be focused.
>>>
>>> <mode=pedant>
>>> Unless you can achieve a perfectly parallel beam (which you can't
>>> because of diffraction) any divergent radiation is affected by the
>>> inverse square law. The only difference is that it's easier to catch all
>>> or most of the output if it is directed and tight, even easier if it is
>>> convergent and you are at the focal point.
>>> </mode>
>>
>> <mode=physicist>
>> Check again.
>> </mode>
>
> <mode=mathematician>
> Checked and verified. Would you like a rigorous proof ?
> </mode>
Why would someone need rigorous proof in these days of Google search?
What I'm trying to figure out is that xml like syntax that's mixing up elements
and attributes.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403859 is a reply to message #403858] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 15:38 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:11:30 -0500
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> <mode=mathematician>
>> Checked and verified. Would you like a rigorous proof ?
>> </mode>
>
> Why would someone need rigorous proof in these days of Google search?
<expression=grin/>
> What I'm trying to figure out is that xml like syntax that's mixing up
> elements and attributes.
It's an extension resulting in simplification, elements can have
values just like attributes so the element name is really just the first
attribute key.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403861 is a reply to message #403832] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 16:41 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2021-01-06, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 Jan 2021 06:04:10 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-12-31, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 13:04:16 -0700, Peter Flass
>>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I worry about wireless energy. There’s now talk about large solar arrays in
>>>> orbit beaming power back to earth. People are worried about radiation from
>>>> cell phones, what’s the scoop on large amounts of radiation (microwaves?)
>>>> being transmitted from space?
>>>
>>> Actually that was talk from the '70s before the Space Shuttle proved
>>> to be as dismal as it was.
>>>
>>> Radiation goes to rural areas, tightly focused, no humans in the way
>>> unless someone jumps the fence or flies into the beam. Even flying
>>> into the beam though, microwave is line of sight and the aircraft
>>> structure should provide shielding.
>>
>> I'm concerned about the consequences if the aim is off, though. You
>> might say "can't happen", but things that "can't happen" often do
>> happen.
In my experience, "never" is usually about six months.
> Two techniques:
> 1) Size the antennas such that the beam intensity cannot be
> dangerous.
> 2) Use a phased array that requires feedback from a ground sensor to
> maintain coherence--if the beam drifts the signal goes away.
That reminds me of Jerry Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_,
which described a tight-beam radio link, scaled down for
suit-to-suit communications. The main antenna was surrounded
by two concentric rings. If the beam strayed enough to hit the
inner one, a correction signal was sent back to the transmitter.
If the beam continued to stray and hit the outer ring, the
signal was cut off. This was meant for secure communications,
but the principle could be applied to power transmission as well.
(This was before man-in-the-middle attacks were considered.)
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403863 is a reply to message #403858] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 16:45 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:11:30 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:11:19 -0500
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 13:29:05 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:37:22 -0500
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The inverse square law applies to omnidirectional point sources. If
>>>> > you can focus them the situation changes. Lasers are one example. But
>>>> > microwaves can also be focused.
>>>>
>>>> <mode=pedant>
>>>> Unless you can achieve a perfectly parallel beam (which you can't
>>>> because of diffraction) any divergent radiation is affected by the
>>>> inverse square law. The only difference is that it's easier to catch all
>>>> or most of the output if it is directed and tight, even easier if it is
>>>> convergent and you are at the focal point.
>>>> </mode>
>>>
>>> <mode=physicist>
>>> Check again.
>>> </mode>
>>
>> <mode=mathematician>
>> Checked and verified. Would you like a rigorous proof ?
>> </mode>
>
> Why would someone need rigorous proof in these days of Google search?
>
> What I'm trying to figure out is that xml like syntax that's mixing up elements
> and attributes.
It seems to be a style that people are using these days. It's quite
common to see "/s" to indicate "end of sarcasm" for example.
However anyone who thinks that "rigorous proof" trumps "experimental
results" in physics isn't a physicist.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Grid capacity was: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403864 is a reply to message #403863] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 17:28 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 16:45:48 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> However anyone who thinks that "rigorous proof" trumps "experimental
> results" in physics isn't a physicist.
If the mathematics in your theoretical models isn't rigorous then
the model is invalid - mathematical rigour is vital in theoretical physics.
You will find that experimental results back me up. If you know of
any that don't please provide links.
Consider, if your laser beam has a spot diameter of 0.1 inch at the
aperture and 0.2 inch at 100 miles then it will be 0.4 inches at 200 miles,
0.8 inches at 400 miles and so on - the spot diameter is proportional to
the distance that is simple geometry. The only exceptions are constant spot
size (impossible because of diffraction) and converging beams for which it
only applies past the point of convergence.
The spot area is proportional to the square of the spot diameter
and therefore the distance.
The beam power is at best[1] constant with distance and so the beam
intensity (beam power/spot diameter) varies by the inverse square of the
distance.
Thomas Koenig also explained it perfectly clearly and correctly.
[1] This is where your experimental results will differ from inverse
square, the actual intensity will be lower than predicted because beam
energy is lost to scattering along the way and that hasn't been allowed for.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403867 is a reply to message #403574] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 20:38 |
Leo
Messages: 89
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 2021 Jan 2, , J. Clarke wrote
(in article<s4v1vfpcmdg0ro112q17mq1j0vpfla936k@4ax.com>):
> If you want to have some fun of that nature some time, have the GPS
> take you somewhere a good distance off avoiding highways. My favorite
> there is the time that it took me down a nice residential street, that
> turned into a road of increasing degrees of roughness, and on to
> broken pavement, and dirt, and finally a cowpath that led to a fence
> with a hole cut in it. I was on a dual-sport, I could have gone
> through the fence, but the bull in the pasture and the rather glum
> looking farmer with a shotgun were significant deterrents.
The road got narrower and narrower ´till it run up a tree.
|
|
|
|
| Re: autonomous car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403868 is a reply to message #403788] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 20:41 |
usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 5 Jan 2021 20:12:38 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2021-01-05, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> Three people have died because they relied on Telsa Autopilot
>> to do the driving. Of course, they're not supposed to do that,
>> but it's a strong indication that self-driving technology is
>> not ready for the public.
>
> Or that the public isn't ready for self-driving technology.
That's a nonsensical statement. One of the promises of true self-driving
vehicles -- which the Tesla is no where near -- is that the young, the disabled,
and the infirm -- will be able to rely on them for transportation without having
to drive at all. There's nothing to "being ready" for it -- the technology
either works or it doesn't. What Tesla has is mis-named driver assist features.
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403869 is a reply to message #403785] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 20:41 |
usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:46:39 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 18:14:20 GMT
> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>> That's a very weak justification. You're saying that it's okay for
>> self-driving cars to kill and maim people in accidents, as long as it can
>> be statistically shown that they do so less frequently than humans.
>
> Yes because at that point they save lives.
>
>> Would you care to explain that argument to someone who just lost a loved
>> one in an accident with a self-driving vehicle?
>
> It's a very strong justification, car drivers kill and maim a lot
> of people every year. Once self driving vehicles kill and maim substantially
> fewer people per mile driven there is little justification for permitting
> people to drive.
That's a very radical position that doesn't comport with our responses to other
more deadly threats to life.
In the U.S., many tens of thousands of people die every year -- more than twice
the number of traffic fatalities -- due to consumption of cigarettes. Similarly
for alcohol. Yet neither of them are illegal. You can work out the many
contradictions for yourself.
I don't expect consistancy from the body politic, but this "self-driving cars
will be safer" is just another argument from fantasy. It's a variant of the
"but what about the chi-l-l-l-dren" lament. See also "if just one life can be
saved (no matter the cost)."
I don't hold the participants in this group responsible for the statements of
self-driving car proponents. Consequently, I don't expect an answer to one of
my many questions. If the primary motivation for autonomous vehicles is traffic
safety and saving lives, then why aren't these people actively advocating for
the many things that can literally be done today without spending billions of
dollars trying to develop an expensive, unproven technology that will require
radical changes to our transportation infrastructure? For example, if one is
worried about drunk driving, then lobby for stricter laws like has been done in
Norway.
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403870 is a reply to message #403798] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 20:41 |
usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 21:21:33 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/01/2021 18:14, Questor wrote:
>> That's a very weak justification. You're saying that it's okay for self-driving
>> cars to kill and maim people in accidents, as long as it can be statistically
>> shown that they do so less frequently than humans. Would you care to explain
>> that argument to someone who just lost a loved one in an accident with a
>> self-driving vehicle?
>
> Let's turn that on its head.
>
> You're saying that it'll be OK for humans to drive cars even though it
> can be statistically shown that they kill more humans than self-driving
> cars.
We permit people to engage in many activities that are dangerous.
> The self drivers will be a lot better. Just because the manufacturers
> have to be able to survive the lawsuits from the unlucky few.
It could be decided, through court cases and/or legislation, to indemnify
manufacturers. Many, many issues regarding autonomous vehicles have not been
settled yet.
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403871 is a reply to message #403802] |
Wed, 06 January 2021 20:41 |
usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 17:13:41 -0500, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 21:21:33 +0000, Vir Campestris
> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/2021 18:14, Questor wrote:
>>> That's a very weak justification. You're saying that it's okay for self-driving
>>> cars to kill and maim people in accidents, as long as it can be statistically
>>> shown that they do so less frequently than humans. Would you care to explain
>>> that argument to someone who just lost a loved one in an accident with a
>>> self-driving vehicle?
>>
>> Let's turn that on its head.
>>
>> You're saying that it'll be OK for humans to drive cars even though it
>> can be statistically shown that they kill more humans than self-driving
>> cars.
>>
>> The self drivers will be a lot better. Just because the manufacturers
>> have to be able to survive the lawsuits from the unlucky few.
>
> Uh, "will be" implies that they don't exist now, which is not the
> case.
It can also mean, as I think it does in this case, that while they exist,
they're not very good. The "will be" applies to their quality, not their
existance.
|
|
|
|
| Re: car charging, was: Adobe oddity? [message #403875 is a reply to message #403869] |
Thu, 07 January 2021 02:27 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 01:41:24 GMT
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
> I don't hold the participants in this group responsible for the
> statements of self-driving car proponents.
I believe that the time will come that self driving cars are safer
than human drivers on average. From that point they will only get better. It
is happening without any support from me so I am not a proponent simply an
observer.
You are correct that there are no self-driving cars today and that
none of the driver assist autonomy on the market comes close to being
anything else.
> Consequently, I don't expect
> an answer to one of my many questions. If the primary motivation for
> autonomous vehicles is traffic safety and saving lives,
The primary motivation of those developing it is to make money
selling it. Saving lives is what it will have to do in order for fully
autonomous vehicles to take off.
That being said I have seen claims (by Tesla so add salt and check
if you really care) that the accident statistics already show that the
current state of the art improves road safety.
> then why aren't
> these people actively advocating for the many things that can literally
> be done today without spending billions of dollars trying to develop an
> expensive, unproven technology that will require radical changes to our
> transportation infrastructure?
It isn't an advocacy issue teams are working on it without any
advocacy because they believe it will sell - the evidence to date is that
they are right it does sell. Since it sells there is a market driven
feedback loop in place that will ensure continual improvement. The endpoint
of that is either fully autonomous vehicles or conclusive evidence that it
is impossible - I do *not* believe that it is impossible to make a system
that drives better than humans.
But self driving cars require *no* changes to any infrastructure.
Electric cars do but electric and self-driving are independent
technologies. Many petrol and diesel cars have similar driver assist
autonomy to Tesla's electric cars they just don't shout about it as much
and don't claim to be blazing the trail to full autonomy.
> For example, if one is worried about
> drunk driving, then lobby for stricter laws like has been done in Norway.
We (Ireland) have pretty strict drunk and drug driving laws, and
laws to keep untrained drivers off the road, and so on. The only thing
about those is enforcement is inevitably poor.
Fully autonomous vehicles would be a *great* thing to have for so
very many reasons, being safer than human drivers is a *requirement* that
they *have* to meet before we can have them. A lot of people are working on
it and I see no reason to believe that they cannot succeed.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
