Slashdot Mirror

Hi. I do know what I am talking about. I am from Hyderabad in India which has a lot of monuments showcasing Islamic architecture. My Masters project is in computer vision to rectify images automatically when they exhibit planar symmetry. I have found these architectural patterns to be the ideal dataset for my thesis. It is a fact that the art of producing these patterns attained a stagnation at around 1000 AD. That is not to say that great monuments were not constructed after that. In fact, the Taj Mahal (the finest specimen of these patterns, from what I heard) has not been built until 1650 AD. But, what I want to clarify is that the developement of these patterns didn't extend beyond craftsmanship. Had the Indo-Arabic science not been hampered by the lack of funding (which is exactly how Ahmed-Sirhindi's philosophy got manifested as), this would have enabled the people to have discovered several new areas of mathematics and engineering.

You can view my blogpost celebrating the finish of my master's project :)

http://geekvideo.blogspot.com/2007/02/dawn-of-man- for-real.html

I was actually saying that leaving carbon in the ground is the most secure, not putting it back in. If we need to pull it back out of the atmosphere, then I agree that mineralization is the most reliable, but if we do need to pull it out, then I kind of think that a few quarries won't do the job and we are going to have to use biological methods. I'm considering competing for the prize in this by making ocean seeding profitable through the induced fishery. Let me know if you'd like to work on this. I don't think I can pull it off without some help.

On the "we have ten years" thing. We don't actually know it we have plus ten or minus ten. Feedbacks could already be underway that reducing emissions can no longer hold back. This would be the situation where we would need to pull carbon out of the atmosphere quickly. We could also have room for a doubling of CO2 with major species loss only happening at the poles and a gradual loss of coastal cities but no runaway feedback.

I terms of the equivalent solar forcing, the IPCC report has quantified errors, and thus is persuasive regarding the origin of the warming. The models about the future seem a little biased though. You can read about my take on that at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/executive-summ ary.html.

It is sad that we have not yet joined Kyoto even though we participated in the negociations. It is quite possible that our efforts on ozone depletion will have been wasted because we no longer have the credibility to work on treaties about the content of the atmosphere. What shall we say now to this situation? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/business/23cool. html

You mean .02 cents or .02 dollars ( = 2 cents)? I think we have gone through it all before...

Exactly. You don't see terrorist bombings in Norway, because Norway isn't sticking their collective noses in other peoples' business.

Forget NORWAY! :-)

(kenya believe it?)

It's called an analog filter I think. http://www.analogsf.com/0704/issue_04.shtml
--
The future of solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Switching to non-carbon-producing energy sources is a great idea if it can be done

but switching from oil to methane isn't terrible in the meantime.

1. Sunk costs
2. Technological momentum

This mixture forms all over the contenental shelves. And, as pointed out here, in Alaska as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate.

There has been an ongoing effort, especially by the Navy, to figure out ways to exploit these deposits. The rapid release of the methane may be a hazard to drilling and shipping and is also considered a possible cause for rapid climate change in the past.
--
Solar really is clean. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

http://internetfreedomdisk.blogspot.com/

Great persistent memory LiveCD. Videos to explain them to noobs

Obviously you've never read this blog: http://lustlaureate.blogspot.com/

Big Brother in 1984 didn't give a damn about the "proles" (which is what all the other Big Brother threats up until now were about), all the surveillance was for making sure party members kept in line.

The surveillance was used to make sure nobody stepped out of line, be it party member or prole.

A few agents of the Thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous; but no attempt was made to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the Party. It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working-hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.

If there is to be any hope, it lies in the proles... the only problem is the proles are too fat and satisfied to do anything but yell at the TV or bitch on Slashdot. When was the last time anyone did anything about the injustices occurring all around us... For instance, you'd think there would be at least a few slashbots out there living somewhere near Norwich, CT. And you'd think that at least one of those slashbots would create a meetup group to publicly gather and protest the conviction of Julie Amero. Yet she faces up to 40 years in prison pretty much alone when everyone here sitting on their fat asses knows for a fact that she is innocent. Well, we'll do what slashbots and proles do... wait for the horribly unfair sentencing on March, 2 2007 to come and go, and then put up a free Julie Amero website... assuming a squatter doesn't get there first. Wow, that's conviction guys. It really is. I know those who died for our freedom would be really fucking proud.

Of course, even if you bastards did do anything, none of you have the balls to stand up and say "40 years for letting kids see pr0n?? That's a bit harsh. We should roll that back to a small fine or something."

From memory, 5600 K, nope, off by 180 K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature .

White light is hotter than yellow light and blue light is hotter still, but emotionally we feel differently.
--
Catch the Sun before it turns to heat: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Not only is the PHP development team negligent when it comes to dealing with security bugs, but they're incompetent when it comes to understanding the limitations of their own language, the tenants of object oriented programming, and database object-relational mapper design.

Here is quick summary of my previous post about Zend's ZActiveRecord Boondoggle:

The creators of PHP are morons, and their support company Zend is dishonest and incompetent. The ZActiveRecord boondoggle demonstrates exactly what I mean: They can't program their way out of a paper bag, an don't even understand the limitations of the very language that they haphazardly "designed".

To summarize: [Criticism of PHP "references".] [Criticism of PHP "object system".] [Description of "static methods".] [Description of Ruby on Rail's ActiveRecord.] [Description of "ZActiveRecord", Zend's lame half-baked cargo cult attempt to ape ActiveRecord.] [Zend busted for misleading screencast.] [Blog posting that proves: ZActiveRecord Can't Work.] [Zend misunderstood their own language's object system, showed fake code in a screencast that could not possibly work (because of a PHP bug), and made promises of ZActiveRecord they couldn't keep, because of that stupid bug they refused to fix.] [Longstanding bug that PHP static methods that the developers refuse to fix.] [Summary of comments on the bug that prevents anyone from writing an ActiveRecord-like ORM in PHP.] [Final word from andi, calls it expected behavior, demonstrating how he misunderstands object oriented programming, and casually dismisses all the bug report's valid comments.] [Zend gets hoisted on their own pitard by this very bug.]

And here's the final word from andi: "Thank you for taking the time to write to us, but this is not a bug. Please double-check the documentation available at http://www.php.net/manual/ [php.net] and the instructions on how to report a bug at http://bugs.php.net/how-to-report.php [php.net] This is expected behavior. self:: binds statically to its class (to the best of my knowledge other languages like C++ don't support this either as they require to explicitly use the class name). There are actually advantages also to this approach as they allow you to protect and encapsulate functinality."

Since Zend's dishonest and embarassing public-relations disaster with the ZActiveRecord Boondoggle, Zend has quietly withdrawn their plans for ZActiveRecord, instead of fixing the stupid bug that made it impossible to implement and ORM like ActiveRecord in PHP.

It's not just security that the PHP developers and Zend don't care about. They also don't care about nor understand object oriented programming, nor database object-relational mapping.

There is absolutely no reason to use PHP, when there are great languages like Python with extremely powerful, easy to use, safe and secure, database independent, object-relational mappers like SQLObject , and intelligent scalable SQL toolkits with multiple modular ORMs like SQLAlchemy. That stuff so blows away PHP's horribly insecure string-concatination approach to SQL, and all of the kludgy PHP database libraries people have cobbled together over the years.

-Don

I find I get more light out for the candelabra base fixtures which make the fixtures useful for room lighting. Take a look at these: http://www.1000bulbs.com/products.php?cat=14-Watt- Candelabra-Base-Compact-Fluorescents-Light-Bulbs. I think the issue is the heat. The decorative fixtures often have a 15 to 40 watt rating which you can circumvent with CFLs.
--
Solar is here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

This 20 year bulb is cool, but expensive and less efficient that a CFLs. http://www.besthomeledlighting.com/product/OBS-80- 260-E27-96-WC On the other hand, my outdoor lights are solar LEDs.
--
Solar, bringing light to your home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

It's sad to see legislation based upon whether or not the bulb is incandescent. Not all incandescent bulbs are evil. this one, for example, can save a lot of energy in the context of a closet or a stairwell(*), and it doesn't have the nasty tradeoff that compact fluorescent bulbs make where they contain nasty elements that need to be recycled. (And how many people are actually going to properly dispose of compact fluorescents, honestly?) Legislation that isn't conscious of the tradeoffs could end up doing more harm than good. (*) Caveat, this bulb was taken off the market. :-(

This one is a little pricey but it is dimmable: http://www.1000bulbs.com/product.php?product=28601
--
Be bright with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Ahhh... Reading Gary Snyder on BART... Wandering amid the redwoods... Tahoe in winter...

Why did I ever leave?
--
Get your soolar here CA: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I like your idea of a deposit, but why not require a deposit for incadescents? The cost saving for a CFL is about $40. Why not make this plain by charging a deposit of $40 for an incadescant? You get your money back once you turn it in, but you do get the information at the point of purchace that you are wasting your money.

Leave carbon behind, go solar. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Carbon trades at $3.75/ton on the Chicago Climate Exchange http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/. They don't do an avoided emissions credit but they are working on it. For a CFL that replaces a 60 W incadescent at 13 W and lasts for 7 years with 4 hours of use per day the avoided electric use is 0.49 MWh and so using the low conversion rate that the exchange uses for renewable electric power http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/news/publications/p df/CCX_Renewable_Offsets.pdf based on displacing gas turbines this comes to 0.18 ton of carbon, or $0.74.

You can get CFLs for 1.89 bulk retail http://www.1000bulbs.com/products.php?cat=13-Watt- Compact-Fluorescents so just the carbon savings are likely coming close to the cost of production.

At $0.09 per kWh electric cost, one also saves $44 per bulb.

So, why would legislation be needed? I think mainly to get people thinking.

LED street lights are begining to get going with a similar boost in efficiency and greater reliablility http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=11712 95242023.
--
Switch to solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I look forward to hearing the results [eventually] of this study, but it's my experience that the average autistic child has such an appalling diet, that any improvement in nutritional intake is likely to skew the results. Cheers http://whitterer-autism.blogspot.com/

The replication consisted of a physics professor from a small Texas university and two students going to Purdue and doing the experiment in Rusi's laboratory using Rusi's apparatus. To many, that is not quite independent replication.

See http://united-irish-pubs.blogspot.com/2006/12/bubb le-fusion_05.html

It is still true that no one has independently reproduced the results using equipment not built by Rusi Taleyarkhan.

Actually, no I'm not exaggerating just a quick google for [blender user interface] found me this little page (at position 6 in my results).

http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/2006/01/blender-user -interface-tutorial.html

I possibly will retry it at some other time, but for now the only positive thing to come out of this is a link to Sketchup which at first glance seems a lot less headache inducing and might just do for what I need.

AMD has been skimping lately on its cache. I have a sneaking suspicion that the majority of AMD's current performance issues are related to cache and lack thereof.

The Intel chips carry 4 to 8 Mb of cache. The thing about the Intel architecture is that the cache is shared across both or all 4 cores. In contrast the AMD chips have a dedicated *tiny* 1 MB cache for the consumer chips and 2mb per core on the high-end parts.

With that said, the reality of dual core computing is that one core is used much more heavily than the other. In Intel's case this means that one core is basically given the entire cache for its use - a significant performance boost when running a few tasks. In AMD's case the idle cache is inaccessible to the heavily loaded core.

The reason that makes me think that the cache is the current bottleneck is that the memory controller on the AMD chip is significantly faster than Intel's. Given that fact one would conclude that in non disk-bound applications that require large amounts of memory (games) the AMD chips would pull ahead. This is not the case. Of course there is more than just cache at play here but the fact that the Intel chips has 4 to 8 times more cache available to it has to make a fairly significant difference.

Check out my AMD FX-70 at http://amd4x4.blogspot.com/

There was no consensus on this topic. There still isn't. There is controversy surounding the first paper in Science because there were neutron sources near the setup. A later paper seemed to have accounted for this and reproduced the results. Now there is a third paper where different experimenters reproduced the results. There are other labs that are having trouble doing this.

This is completely different from global warming. Most of the field has been over the data many times, they get the same result. When something comes out that says it might not be right, the flaw in the analysis is quickly found. Everyone has roled up their sleeves on global warming, has worked it through. That is why there is consensus.

Consensus is not a vote. One person can hold the whole thing up if they feel their reservations have not been addressed. A consensus document requires the assent of everyone involved. There is no minority report. It produces the most conservative position possible given the data.

Now, many people will say that science does not work that way, and they are correct. The science part is already done. The consensus report is a review of the science, not new science. The need for a consensus report is owing to the request of policy makers for information about what the science says. If you want to get involved in questioning the science, you need to steer clear of the consensus report and go back to the data. Is there a problem with the thermometers? Are the Mauna Loa measurements affected by development in Kona? Yes, there could be all these problems that somehow got past peer review, but you have to find them. And since there has already been a lot of checking with consistent results all over the place, you're going to have your work cut out for you.

There is definitely a prejudice (a useful one) asking extraordinary claims to really demonstrate themselves and the claim of table top fusion is extraordinary. But, this prejudice is not a consensus, it is just an attitude. And it is not shared by everyone. Lab managers, for example, will see an advantage in pushing something out prematurely since it can help in bringing in funding to have a contoversial topic flying around.

So, I hope you see what consensus really means. It is quite different from what you really mean which is prejudice.
-
Catch the new consensus before it forms: Get solar. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

And then there is this line of research, which Dr. Bussard is trying to pursue.

The first break even was achieved back in 1959!

This reminds me of the case (again, near Atlanta) of a vegan being arrested and sent to jail for writing down the license plate number of an unmarked cop car that Homeland Security sent to photograph the protester.

Fortunately the ACLU took up the case .

Don't be shocked as the tyrants find more ways to increase their power of tyranny. They are not here to help you, there are not here to protect you -- there are there to protect their own incomes and pensions, and you are powerless to stop...

To show the truth of this, and to point out the absurdity, anyone who is engaged in political protest is targeted in an effort to intimidate -- even the police themselves. When the police publicly protested the slow pace of their contract talks with the city, they too were videotaped, photographed, and harassed . They were very surprised, because they were police themselves.

If you look at that situation in terms of the system being mostly in maintaining itself, then it would be natural for the system to fear and harass anyone pushing for change, even the police themselves.

Hopefully the "new media" of blogs and other internet information will help become an effective counterweight to the immense power of the authoritarian elements of our government. Meanwhile, don't be too surprised at finding other examples of creeping authoritarianism in our country. A grandmother in Atlanta was shot and killed by plainclothes police when they invaded her home no-knock raid at night . She thought they were robbers trying to break in when she wounded three of them and was killed by return fire. All they found in her house was a small amount of marijuana. They tried to get an informant to lie and say that he told them that drugs were being sold there after the whole affair becam a public relations nightmare.

Making no claim to an understanding of the result, I would just point out that they were working with deuterium, a nuclear boson rather than hydrogen, a fermion. In fact, hydrogen was used as a control. Theoretical work that I know of concentrates on direct to helium fusion without any neutron production. The ideas that I am aware of, expressed by Scott Chubb, center on coherent boosting of a low branching ratio D-D->He4 reaction.

With the bubble fusion, the idea is that it is conventional hot fusion on a small scale so D+D->He3+n would be more conventionally represented and neutrons would be expected.

Both ideas are pretty facinating and with the claimed replication of bubble fusion, perhaps the numerous claimed replications of cold fusion http://www.lenr-canr.org/, will receive closer attention.
--
D fusion hot, D fusion cold, H fusion in the pot eight minutes old: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

This is about bubble fusion. Those interested in cold fusion should look here http://www.lenr-canr.org/.
--
Get hot fusion: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Interesting, I wrote about the very same thing when I reviewed Wii Play, but I do see how that segment (hardcore gamer, tons of free time, commits to games, etc.) will have a tough time with the Wii during this 1st wave of games. Nintendo has built up a lot of possibilities though their demos (Wii Sports, Wii Play) - all they can probably do is wonder how a full-fledged game would be like. Personally, I think it's perfect; I've found myself not playing as much so I can "extend the experience" (like not beating Warioware or getting all the Medals in Wii play) - it's just perfect to waste 15 minutes after a long day at work.

I do spend a lot of time on finetunefinetune, playing Kid Icarus, etc.

The truth is, there will be dead air for a while, but that's what the VC is all about. When the second Wave comes, there MUST be full fledged games and online play, if not, Nintendo just would have blundered.

I'm not commenting on the statement above because it contradicts itself (no units == excitement still there). Why not ask... to what point this shortage of systems and accessories will HURT Nintendo? I can see people getting frustrated if they can't find what they're looking for, especially if you couple it with how pleasant the buying experience can be.

Interesting, I wrote about the very same thing when I reviewed Wii Play, but I do see how that segment (hardcore gamer, tons of free time, commits to games, etc.) will have a tough time with the Wii during this 1st wave of games. Nintendo has built up a lot of possibilities though their demos (Wii Sports, Wii Play) - all they can probably do is wonder how a full-fledged game would be like. Personally, I think it's perfect; I've found myself not playing as much so I can "extend the experience" (like not beating Warioware or getting all the Medals in Wii play) - it's just perfect to waste 15 minutes after a long day at work.

I do spend a lot of time on finetunefinetune, playing Kid Icarus, etc.

The truth is, there will be dead air for a while, but that's what the VC is all about. When the second Wave comes, there MUST be full fledged games and online play, if not, Nintendo just would have blundered.

I'm not commenting on the statement above because it contradicts itself (no units == excitement still there). Why not ask... to what point this shortage of systems and accessories will HURT Nintendo? I can see people getting frustrated if they can't find what they're looking for, especially if you couple it with how pleasant the buying experience can be.

An anonymous coward can still claim credit for the post by printing the post submission confirmation screen. In cases where there is a pay-per-post arragement posting as an anonymous coward can boost the financial return. There is quite a lot of money behind getting these contrarian views out there without tracable attribution to the funding source http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html.

The same issue arises with voter receipts. Those why buy votes can have greater certainty that they are getting what they pay for when polling places give out receipts. In the case of the slashcode, the buyer can be even more certain. Showing no data after clicking submit for anonymous cowards might help out with this problem.

Ok, I'll dignify this. RTFA. The same issue was raised there.
--
Even anomymous cowards can save money with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

You might want to take a look at what is happening with regard to to the carryover supply of food (going down) and the impact of the large number of distilleries being built in time to eat into this year's harvest http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update63. htm. The capacity that is kept in reserve may not be quite so large as you think.
--
Solar power, the original renewable: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I can see the point that the plants adapted to the Cretaceous might have been slightly more efficient at photosysnthesis though I doubt that one can easily implicate greater availability of CO2 since the increased growing season would have a greater effect. Plants adapted to the Holocene may do much worse in the face of a rapid increase in CO2 for while productivity may go up, the range of pests can also increase with the increase in temperature subjecting large tracks of forests to die off. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046 /j.1461-9563.2002.00124.x/full/?cookieSet=1

The key here is the rapidity of the change which allows the fast moving species (the pests) to overcome the slow moving species (the trees).

With regard to agriculture, beyond growing season, the timing of the availability of water is crucial, and the loss of glaciers and snowpack reduce the availability of water during the gowing season, counteracting the increase in the season. The cost of attempting to retain water that in the past has been held by snowpack may be unrealistically high, leading to the shutting down of vast amounts of currently productive agricutural land.
--
Switch to Solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Jeremiah Grossman has a write up as well, his includes pictures.

While the car on this site, http://sirycars.blogspot.com/, isn't running on A123's, it gives you an idea of how electrics can do in cold. I need to add more H20 to my lead-acids in the winter because I overcharge to keep them warm.[oh for a garage!!]..they may not have the same pep as they do mid summer, but the get me over the hill to work. As for charging while "out" - My line is "If I can't charge, I don't shop" Most places "get it".

Hum, you want to drive up the cost of nuclear energy, which is already expensive, while solar, which can now compete with retail electric power, can only come down in price as it takes its scale advantage. Seems to me that nuclear power makes space unavailable since it needs room to store waste, while solar fits in nicely with the way we use space already. I agree though that energy storage, such as the batteries under discussion, needs to be a part of a renewable powered grid.
--
Real Energy http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

OK, so let's say that everyone is a cheap as me and keeps a car for 13 years. The same thing happens if people sell their cars as used. Assuming you can build out the auto manufacturing immediately, that means you have to get about 19 GW/year while replacing $30 billion gas costs per year. If a 500 MW/year solar production facility costs about $700 million, you can pretty much pay for the 40 you would need with the replaced gas costs over the 13 year transition period. Since the solar cells last more than 20 years, you get the other decade to cover the cost of raw materials and the whole thing looks like a better deal than what we're paying now, plus the 40 solar plants can keep producing to replace coal and nuclear power before needing to recycle the worn out solar cells they first made.

Seem's to me the bottle neck would be at the auto factories, not with the power supply.
--
Switch to solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Even reprocessing is not leagal in the US, so getting to a breeder program is going to be tough. Without that, shifting transportation to nuclear is pretty pointless since the available fuel will be exhauted before the new reactors are used for long. It is also doubtful that a useful breeder program can be done at even the rather horrendous safty record of the non-breeder program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nucl ear_accidents. So, what you are suggesting is both hugely expensive and very likely to lead to mass casualties.

Wind and solar plants, on the other hand add to energy genertation capacity every year they operate, not just fuel supply as with a breeder. And, there are no fuel supply constraints with wind and solar, just timing issues which can be handled with energy storage. The batteries in electric vehicles would be a small portion of the storage solution. These solutions are much cheaper and safer and because of this they'll very likely lead to early decommisioning of present day nuclear plants http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html.
--
Go solar! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Even reprocessing is not leagal in the US, so getting to a breeder program is going to be tough. Without that, shifting transportation to nuclear is pretty pointless since the available fuel will be exhauted before the new reactors are used for long. It is also doubtful that a useful breeder program can be done at even the rather horrendous safty record of the non-breeder program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nucl ear_accidents. So, what you are suggesting is both hugely expensive and very likely to lead to mass casualties.

Wind and solar plants, on the other hand add to energy genertation capacity every year they operate, not just fuel supply as with a breeder. And, there are no fuel supply constraints with wind and solar, just timing issues which can be handled with energy storage. The batteries in electric vehicles would be a small portion of the storage solution. These solutions are much cheaper and safer and because of this they'll very likely lead to early decommisioning of present day nuclear plants http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html.
--
Go solar! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I voted against this one in the firehose because I thought it got the technology wrong. The company web site mentions phosphates first, but later says they are doing lithium ion. I'm still not completely clear on what the technology is, just that they are announcing some supply contracts. In any case lithium is not that hard to come by, so your resource war might have to wait.
--
Solar: distributed energy: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

If the issue is quick charging during the day with electriciy generated at night, why not use a flywheel at the charging station? This system http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/11/beacon_pow er_re.html#more (thanks Ron Backman) is well along in development. A bank of these should provide both the amperage and the capacity to run a commercial charging station with load shifting.
--
Make you car run on the Sun. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

When the Intel 'books came out, I was happily plugging away on a 12" PowerBook G4, and had been preaching (to deaf ears) to others just coming into Mac ownership that portability makes their tool much more valuable than acres of screen real-estate.

Now, some three years after their first purchase, each one of those people has scaled down (at least from the 17" to the 15", if not down to a 12- or 13"). If you really are a road-rat, you realize the value of having a Hulk-powered, oversized 'Palm Pilot' versus 360 degrees of LCD vision. (OK, if you're really just looking for a desktop replacement that is ALSO portable, this may not be you... there is a strong market for each of these models.)

Anyway, when I found out that the 13" was to be the smallest Mac portable available, I was greatly dismayed... and wondered if I would even be able to keep the various types of luggage I had so carefully selected over the last few years (including saddlebags for my 1984 Honda Magna).

I am very happy with the current MacBook -- even like it better than the Pro's (for my purposes I don't see a lack of power or ports). Because I know that on my desk at work, there is a 17" LCD panel and a full keyboard with built-in USB hub waiting. What I'd love to have is a 10" screen that is still 1024 pixels wide. These can be had in several Sony, Toshiba, and lesser-known brands -- but if you flip through a few catalogs you will see that smaller screens actually cost MORE now than the typical 15" laptop on the market. Though it used to be true that the larger the display, the greater the price; the truth is tied very closely to the law of supply and demand: most people are buying 15" laptops, so their screens are dirt-cheap, and a smaller display can add 30 percent to the overall cost of the 'book.

It would be both 'a little retro' and a bit ballsy for Apple to come out with a smaller laptop now -- whether it had a touch screen or not (though I can't imagine they would leave a touch screen out). Regardless, I'm feeling like Apple is just the company to finally awaken this part of the market. Microsoft has tried to get manufacturers on-board with 'Origami'; but they all have a deserved sense of intrepidation here -- the parts are high-value when touch- and write-on screens are involved, and if a model fails, it means a substantial gamble in a market of slim margins leaves a scar that can take several fiscal years to recover.

But Apple is different... even taking into account the wild-eyed fan-base that will opine the apparent angelic inspiration of such a thing, it may take several years for an Apple sub to take hold in a subtantial way. But Apple has a tendency to stick with a design until it works; sometimes this means it takes longer for something to die that the market isn't quite ready for (Newton, QuickTake, eMate, Pippin, etc.) but the positive side of it is that Apple will stay on the ride until it comes to a complete stop. And it has the momentum and fans to do so without taking a big PR hit that could damage the sales of other lines (MacBook, Mac Pro, mini, iPod, Apple Phone, etc.).

Whatever it is, I'm looking forward to seeing it leave the gate, and will be extolling the virtues of *really* portable computing to my employer and minions for the next decade. Whether Apple does or does not lead, this part of the market will eventually grow when the right designs come along.

-----
My previous opinations:
http://macbigot.blogspot.com/2006/03/dear-steve-th is-is-what-we-want.html
http://macbigot.blogspot.com/2005/07/oqo-growing-o n-me.html
http://macbigot.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-hasnt-ap ple-done-for-portables.html

When the Intel 'books came out, I was happily plugging away on a 12" PowerBook G4, and had been preaching (to deaf ears) to others just coming into Mac ownership that portability makes their tool much more valuable than acres of screen real-estate.

Now, some three years after their first purchase, each one of those people has scaled down (at least from the 17" to the 15", if not down to a 12- or 13"). If you really are a road-rat, you realize the value of having a Hulk-powered, oversized 'Palm Pilot' versus 360 degrees of LCD vision. (OK, if you're really just looking for a desktop replacement that is ALSO portable, this may not be you... there is a strong market for each of these models.)

Anyway, when I found out that the 13" was to be the smallest Mac portable available, I was greatly dismayed... and wondered if I would even be able to keep the various types of luggage I had so carefully selected over the last few years (including saddlebags for my 1984 Honda Magna).

I am very happy with the current MacBook -- even like it better than the Pro's (for my purposes I don't see a lack of power or ports). Because I know that on my desk at work, there is a 17" LCD panel and a full keyboard with built-in USB hub waiting. What I'd love to have is a 10" screen that is still 1024 pixels wide. These can be had in several Sony, Toshiba, and lesser-known brands -- but if you flip through a few catalogs you will see that smaller screens actually cost MORE now than the typical 15" laptop on the market. Though it used to be true that the larger the display, the greater the price; the truth is tied very closely to the law of supply and demand: most people are buying 15" laptops, so their screens are dirt-cheap, and a smaller display can add 30 percent to the overall cost of the 'book.

It would be both 'a little retro' and a bit ballsy for Apple to come out with a smaller laptop now -- whether it had a touch screen or not (though I can't imagine they would leave a touch screen out). Regardless, I'm feeling like Apple is just the company to finally awaken this part of the market. Microsoft has tried to get manufacturers on-board with 'Origami'; but they all have a deserved sense of intrepidation here -- the parts are high-value when touch- and write-on screens are involved, and if a model fails, it means a substantial gamble in a market of slim margins leaves a scar that can take several fiscal years to recover.

But Apple is different... even taking into account the wild-eyed fan-base that will opine the apparent angelic inspiration of such a thing, it may take several years for an Apple sub to take hold in a subtantial way. But Apple has a tendency to stick with a design until it works; sometimes this means it takes longer for something to die that the market isn't quite ready for (Newton, QuickTake, eMate, Pippin, etc.) but the positive side of it is that Apple will stay on the ride until it comes to a complete stop. And it has the momentum and fans to do so without taking a big PR hit that could damage the sales of other lines (MacBook, Mac Pro, mini, iPod, Apple Phone, etc.).

Whatever it is, I'm looking forward to seeing it leave the gate, and will be extolling the virtues of *really* portable computing to my employer and minions for the next decade. Whether Apple does or does not lead, this part of the market will eventually grow when the right designs come along.

-----
My previous opinations:
http://macbigot.blogspot.com/2006/03/dear-steve-th is-is-what-we-want.html
http://macbigot.blogspot.com/2005/07/oqo-growing-o n-me.html
http://macbigot.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-hasnt-ap ple-done-for-portables.html

When the Intel 'books came out, I was happily plugging away on a 12" PowerBook G4, and had been preaching (to deaf ears) to others just coming into Mac ownership that portability makes their tool much more valuable than acres of screen real-estate.

Now, some three years after their first purchase, each one of those people has scaled down (at least from the 17" to the 15", if not down to a 12- or 13"). If you really are a road-rat, you realize the value of having a Hulk-powered, oversized 'Palm Pilot' versus 360 degrees of LCD vision. (OK, if you're really just looking for a desktop replacement that is ALSO portable, this may not be you... there is a strong market for each of these models.)

Anyway, when I found out that the 13" was to be the smallest Mac portable available, I was greatly dismayed... and wondered if I would even be able to keep the various types of luggage I had so carefully selected over the last few years (including saddlebags for my 1984 Honda Magna).

I am very happy with the current MacBook -- even like it better than the Pro's (for my purposes I don't see a lack of power or ports). Because I know that on my desk at work, there is a 17" LCD panel and a full keyboard with built-in USB hub waiting. What I'd love to have is a 10" screen that is still 1024 pixels wide. These can be had in several Sony, Toshiba, and lesser-known brands -- but if you flip through a few catalogs you will see that smaller screens actually cost MORE now than the typical 15" laptop on the market. Though it used to be true that the larger the display, the greater the price; the truth is tied very closely to the law of supply and demand: most people are buying 15" laptops, so their screens are dirt-cheap, and a smaller display can add 30 percent to the overall cost of the 'book.

It would be both 'a little retro' and a bit ballsy for Apple to come out with a smaller laptop now -- whether it had a touch screen or not (though I can't imagine they would leave a touch screen out). Regardless, I'm feeling like Apple is just the company to finally awaken this part of the market. Microsoft has tried to get manufacturers on-board with 'Origami'; but they all have a deserved sense of intrepidation here -- the parts are high-value when touch- and write-on screens are involved, and if a model fails, it means a substantial gamble in a market of slim margins leaves a scar that can take several fiscal years to recover.

But Apple is different... even taking into account the wild-eyed fan-base that will opine the apparent angelic inspiration of such a thing, it may take several years for an Apple sub to take hold in a subtantial way. But Apple has a tendency to stick with a design until it works; sometimes this means it takes longer for something to die that the market isn't quite ready for (Newton, QuickTake, eMate, Pippin, etc.) but the positive side of it is that Apple will stay on the ride until it comes to a complete stop. And it has the momentum and fans to do so without taking a big PR hit that could damage the sales of other lines (MacBook, Mac Pro, mini, iPod, Apple Phone, etc.).

Whatever it is, I'm looking forward to seeing it leave the gate, and will be extolling the virtues of *really* portable computing to my employer and minions for the next decade. Whether Apple does or does not lead, this part of the market will eventually grow when the right designs come along.

-----
My previous opinations:
http://macbigot.blogspot.com/2006/03/dear-steve-th is-is-what-we-want.html
http://macbigot.blogspot.com/2005/07/oqo-growing-o n-me.html
http://macbigot.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-hasnt-ap ple-done-for-portables.html

Here's another three wheeler one of my customers told me about http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=188. They are doing this with lead acid.
--
Run you car from your roof. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Irony in TFA:

And the start of the open-source sessions was delayed as organizers fiddled with the computer running their projector. The conference room screen had been displaying the words "Windows XP."

There's this old canard about GNU-latry and a certain proletarian dictatorship that I'd rather not repeat. I will say this, though: the eagerness with which the Cuban communists adopted the rhetoric of “proprietary software” is comical.

I wonder how RMS is going to spin this victory to his States-side detractors?

The link to the blog is great. Also look to http://superconducting.blogspot.com/

Absolutely ...
If we use (an upgraded version) of the current bionic eye technology to hook a the client ("viewer") software of any standard MMORPG style "game" or environment like SecondLife, then the border between what is "reality" and what is "virtual reality" becomes extremely blurred. Are You Real is a short movie that explores this possibility.
WYSIWYG could take on a different meaning altogether whether the definition of seeing can be expanded from the current "optical" version to the direct digital version.