Posts by Yet Another Anonymous coward 26124 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Dec 2009
That's the reason for the popularity of these things, you don't need any if that communist infrastructure that other people use - these just need a pad+charger that you own and only your brand of magics flying car can use.
It's as if you had private roads for each manufacturer
There are bunch of companies trailing this - some of which have actual aircraft operating.
As you said, they don't replace taxis, they replace JFK-Manhattan helicopter service.
Basically all are battery powered quad copters, should be cheaper, quieter, lower emission and vastly lower maintenance costs than a helicopter. Might be safer, just because just about anything is safer than a helicopter.
Big problem is that the economics only work out if you are autonomous, helicopter pilots are expensive and cost you a passenger seat. However the FAA and other 3letter agencies are slightly nervous about having potentially remotely controllable 500kg-payload drones flying around Manhattan
> Otherwise they'll have to use the generators all the time, which means no real difference
Aircraft generally need 100% of engine power at take-off but much less for cruise.
If you have enough battery to supply 50% of take-off power you can rate the engines for 50% - just enough for cruise. It's also quieter and lower emissions at take off - especially important for city centre airports.
The government prohibits me from saying things all the time. I'm not allowed to make all sorts of claims about my products that I sincerely believe.
The government also forces me to say all sorts of things about my product which harm sales
Celeron was originally the branding if you used certain Intel processors AND Intel's wifi chipset.
The idea was that they couldn't demand CPU customers use their expensive wifi chips cos of monopoly laws, but they could stop computer makers from benefiting from the halo of the wonders of the Celeron brand if they didn't pay up
>Their target strike price of $48/MWh is AFAIK higher than what the North Sea is already operating at.
The North Sea is very shallow
The pacific off the California / Washington coast is very deep, and gets deep very fast.
The east coast has shallow seas but has storms and nimbys. The great^4 grandchildren who inherited their ocean front homes from 19C industrial barons strangely don't want their view spoiled.
The tech billionaires in California think the wind turbines look cool, but it's currently slightly expensive to buidl them in 4000m deep water
>"Chip manufacturing, as opposed to hardware use and energy consumption, accounts for most of the carbon output," the report said.
Really? Just for Samsung chips or in general?
The majority of chips by volume are memory flash/dram. The process to make them is going to have to be very energy intensive to cancel out a server running for a decade. You can just think of the energy bill, if a chip costs $1 retail it can't have more $0.1 of energy in its manufacture and you can bet the computer containing the chips is going to use more than "number of chips * $0.1" energy during it's life
> For example, nearly 30 percent of emissions from manufacturing 12-inch wafers are due to PFCs, chemicals, and gases"
That statement doesn't link to the previous one. It's entirely possible that 30% emissions is due to processing chemical steps. But that could still be 1% of the energy to truck the chips to the store or 0.001% of the energy the computer will use during its life
Every last fscking nut and bolt. That's why even bone-yard aircraft coffee machines are worth $$$$$
Any parts supplier that doesn't want permanent bans from the USA at best, and visits from unsympathetic men in acronym-ed windcheaters at worst, is going to be very careful.
They could probably buy scrapped parts from crashed African freight airlines - definitely the sort of thing you want flying over your capital.
> And the lady doing the tests can clearly been seen faking tests because she has to "meet targets"
So that's where Elizabeth Holmes went
>Lets hope they aren't doing the same with the plane tests.
No need to fake the plane tests, just don't do them and don't tell the Feds
>Its not the people of China that are the issue, it's the CCP that we all have an issue with,
Fortunately in a democracy the failings are the fault of the electorate not the leaders
