Slashdot Mirror
Scientific American's Sci/Tech Gifts for 2003
Rick DeBay writes "Scientific American has come out with their Sci/Tech gift list for 2003. I think they did a good job, even the selections in the under $25 category are quite tasteful and dignified. And what Sophisticated Lady wouldn't be overjoyed at unwrapping a genuine Swarovski crystal accessory? My personal favorites fall in to those well-worn categories, 'Imprisoning Small Creatures for Amusement' and 'Getting Someone Else to Clean-Up.' The frog and shrimp farms fufill the first, and the domestically-challengeds' favorite Roomba the latter. Seriously, there is a mix of interesting gadgets, products that should never have been made, refugees from Sharper Image, and humorous geek stocking stuffers. It is unlikely that you could go wrong."
I'm pretty much a gadget geek. Here are some of the things that I want for Christmas:
1) Job, so that I can buy these things for myself. Being laid off sucks.
2) Something for my daughter, besides the bare necessities.
3) Something for my wife. She works hard because I'm laid off.
4) December's mortgage payment.
5) November's property tax payment.
6) One night of uninterrupted sleep.
7) A two-month contract, just enough to get through December
8) A month contract, just enough to get through November.
9) A week contract, just enough to pay my phone and electric bill.
10) All the above for my friend, who's worse off than I am.
I stopped dreaming about dual Opterons about six months ago.
What is with this trend? Wired devotes at least ten pages a month to hawking gadgets. Popular Science too. Now Scientific American? Guys - we already get the Sharper Image catalog in the mail whether we want it or not - please stick to reporting on science.
I was in the mall last weekend. So was Santa. Yes, it seems that the christmas shopping season starts earlier every year. No, I no longer call it the "Christmas Season", it's now the "christmas shopping season".
Now, I see christmas gift ideas... "stocking stuffers" on Slashdot.
Yes, this is off topic.
This year, I'm doing my best not to buy anything for the chirstmas shopping season. I don't need an excuse to purchase something for my significant other. I'm not about to spend $20 on little pieces of plastic that will be tired of within a few hours for my niece.
For the past couple years, when people have asked what I wanted for Christmas/birthdays/other occasions, I have said "nothing". I have everything I *need*. I'm well educated, I have a job, and I'm in the process of getting back into physical shape. I also like to think that I have a good life and I'm happy. Do I need the latest games, toys, and distractions? No. If I needed it, I'd buy it myself.
This frustrates a fair number of people. "What do you mean you don't want anything?!? I need to get you something!" No, you don't. Save your money. One day you may need it to visit a dying loved-one. One day, you may not have a job anymore.
A friend and I have an understanding. I never buy anthing for him, he never buys anything for me. It's the only way that we don't feel like we stiffed each other. It's been working quite well for 6 years now.
Anyway, I don't really have a point. Just a collection of ideas I wanted to share. How do you people feel about the chirtmas shopping season?
Beware TPB
Wired did this recently and used up about half the magazine. This is not why I subscribe. I want long, informative articles on new trends, research, and innovative people; not a rehashing of the latest Hammacher Schlemmer catalog.
Electrolysis is powered by (duh) electricity. Basically, running power through two oppositely charged rods in water cases hydrogen to separate from oxygen. Thats really a dumbed down explaination, but it'll suffice and you already knew that anyway.
Your point is "where does the electricity come from, and isn't that pollution the same or worse anyway?"
There are non-polluting sources of electricity. Water (dams), wind, and (coming soon) wave power don't produce much power, but they're very clean.
And don't forget about nuclear power. Yes, it does produce nasty radioactive substances as a by-product, however, these substances do not pollute the air.
Not to mention that coal burning plants with strict environmental controls are far less polluting that the millions of equivalent cars, each burning gasoline themselves.
So yes, fuel cells in cars is a more environmentally sound means of propulsion. Some journalists may be dumb, but in this case they're still correct.
// harborpirate
// Slashbots off the starboard bow!
And why oh why can't you understand that that doesn't change the fact that fuel cells are still more environmentally sound, and still only produce water as a by-product? They're more environmentally sound because it centralizes power production, meaning it's generated at large scales, rather than all these mini powerplants we have now. And, funny enough, most power generation methods work more efficiently on larger scales. And more efficiency == more environmentally friendly.
So, while yes, it's useful for people to understand that fuel cells shift the load of power generation, rather than solving the problem, that doesn't change the fact that it's still a far better solution for powering cars than burning hydrocarbons. As such, it's an important, but minor detail, when trying to sell the technology to the masses.
People have been complaining for at least 50 years that christmas shopping season starts earlier every year. If that was true, it would be back in at least September by now. Truth is, it still starts in mid November, like it always has.
The fact that people perceive it as starting earlier is pretty interesting. I read an article about it once, but I can't find it on the net in 5 minutes, so I'll just claim it emphatically for now!
Building the fuel cells and providing them with fuel will create bad byproducts, that's true. However, the fact that those byproducts can be controlled easier than things like coal smoke makes them an improvement. Instead of having to control the emissions of hundreds of millions of vehicles, which will now only produce water, they only need to control the emissions of the plants that produce the fuel cells and the fuel for those cells. Much easier to do when you plan from the start too, rather than trying to upgrade 50 year old equipment and facilities.