Slashdot Mirror


10 Tech Concepts You Should Know for 2007

mattnyc99 writes "Popular Mechanics has a new list of wide-ranging technology terms it claims will be big in 2007. From PRAM to BAN and SmartPills to data clouds, it's a pretty nice summary of upcoming and in-the-works trends across the board (with a podcast embedded). Though these aren't technologies they expect to be in everyone's homes next year, they're sure this tech will be in the headlines. How do their predictions from a year ago stack up now?" From the article: "Printed Solar Panels - Tomorrow's solar panels may not need to be produced in high-vacuum conditions in billion-dollar fabrication facilities. If California-based Nanosolar has its way, plants will use a nanostructured "ink" to form semiconductors, which would be printed on flexible sheets. Nanosolar is currently building a plant that will print 430 megawatts' worth of solar cells annually--more than triple the current solar output of the entire country."

195 comments

  1. data cloud by rojebrio · · Score: 0

    Data Cloud?? Isn't it cheaper to just put up an ftp server on your machine?? You can access your data from anywhere in the world

    1. Re:data cloud by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Data Cloud is a silly name for online file storage, but it is something that will be exceedingly useful. There are files storage services now, but many of them charge ten times what it would cost to back up your files locally. The innovation is that these services will finally become cheap and/or free, even for data in the hundreds of GB.

      This gives you countless advantages: You can get away without buying extra drives and implementing RAID. You are protected against fire, theft, and (possibly) accidental deletions. You don't have to open up an FTP channel on your local router. You aren't required to have a static IP for your home machine, and you don't have to always keep it running. You can take apart your local machine, rebuild it, and move things around without worrying about your files. You can backup things which were previously impractical to back up, such as ripping your entire DVD collection and storing it without extra compression. Sounds pretty darn good to me.

    2. Re:data cloud by rojebrio · · Score: 0

      Well yes, it sounds good, but it will open a lot of scenarios in which users upload vital information to a data cloud and get screwed by hackers. Important information should still be stored in a physical drive, and be unaccessible from the outside, even if this innovation means that it will no longer be important to have huge drives. It would also suck being unable to access some file because the data cloud server is too loaded or under maintenance..

    3. Re:data cloud by Jerf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just did a backup of my laptop. It took 6 single-layer DVDs, which were nearly full. At 20KB/s upstream, which is about what I get (and yes that's kilobytes not bits), that's a minimum of 17 days of continuous uploading, and that's assuming Comcast doesn't shut me down first.

      Consumer bandwidth is the problem for those services, really.

    4. Re:data cloud by throx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem with the whole "Data Cloud" thing is that the network bandwidth just isn't there yet. I get impatient enough waiting for my files from my LOCAL hard drive (which has a peak transfer of around a gigabit per second) and yet the best broadband access you can get at the moment is lucky to exceed ten megabits peak transfer (and forget sustained). It's the same issue with network backups - you just can't transfer the terabyte of information I have on my home machine to anywhere on the internet fast enough for it to be called anything even approaching useful. I'll just keep the RAID setup for now, thanks.

      Sorry, but I've been hearing about the wonders of storing all my data on some network drive for a long time now, but the storage requirements of "all my data" have been growing faster than the network bandwidth has. Until that trend is reversed, local storage is here to stay.

      --

      Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

    5. Re:data cloud by Inmatarian · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you stopped for a moment to think about what's actually *your* data, in terms of original creation, a gigabyte is overkill. Individual people have a My Documents directory, containing text files and word documents, their program profiles, bookmarks, and emails (received and sent). I'm sure some extremophiles would contest me on the size, but for the average person, I don't think there is that much there.

      MP3s is an entirely different subject.

    6. Re:data cloud by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Large user created data: photos and home movies.

      A high percentage of people will have high resolution digital photos. Some users will have digital camcorders. A few will have 300 hours of their kids filmed on HD digital camcorders, which would be terabytes of data.

      And practically, there is a need to back up one's CDs and DVDs, since if something happens to them, there's no other way to get them back short of repurchasing.

    7. Re:data cloud by Tsagadai · · Score: 1

      Is anyone out there thinking what backups does the data centre do? Does it just use another online service? Tapes? Raid? These are important questions that will shoot it down for corporations. Who backs up the backups? who is responsible for the data?

    8. Re:data cloud by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      While I like online storage for transferring files between machines in different geological locations, I don't trust it for the majority of my files.

      You are protected against fire, theft, and (possibly) accidental deletions. You don't have to open up an FTP channel on your local router.

      Keeping an off-site backup of data does protect against fire. However, you'd be relying of your service provider to protect against theft and accidental deletions. No, you wouldn't need to open a local ftp channel with online file storage. However, your service provider would need to provide 27/7 online access. At least with having a local channel open, you can control how and when people access your data.

      You can backup things which were previously impractical to back up, such as ripping your entire DVD collection

      As this is illegal in several countries, I wouldn't recommend it. Service providers have a poor track record when it comes to handing data over to police without a search warrant.

      One last thought, most corporations have policies against storing data on servers not controlled by said corporation. If the business sector doesn't trust them, why should I?

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    9. Re:data cloud by mlush · · Score: 1

      I just did a backup of my laptop. It took 6 single-layer DVDs, which were nearly full. At 20KB/s upstream, which is about what I get (and yes that's kilobytes not bits), that's a minimum of 17 days of continuous uploading, and that's assuming Comcast doesn't shut me down first.

      Consumer bandwidth is the problem for those services, really. On top of that maxing out the ADSL upload is going to make the connection suck bigtime
    10. Re:data cloud by superflippy · · Score: 1

      Data Cloud is a silly name for online file storage

      I agree. It makes me think of a tag cloud, not hard drive space.

      I have the same issue with "VoN (Video on the Net)." Nobody calls online video distribution "VoN," do they? The closest to that I've actually seen is the term "net video."

      --
      Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
    11. Re:data cloud by anominous · · Score: 1

      I use http://www.carbonite.com/pricing.aspx? very cheap, unlimited storage, and fantastic customer service! (not affiliated with them in any way, just a happy customer). BTW: if you do sign up, why not use the referral link http://www.carbonite.com/raf/signup.aspx?RAFUserUI D=3557&a=0 :) R

  2. #11 by Ridgelift · · Score: 1

    #11 = Web 2.0

  3. a future Ask Slashdot... by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 5, Funny

    I tripled the size of my Body Area Network using the Twinkie Expansion Method so I could have enough bandwidth to access my whole personal Data Cloud.

    Now my bed is made of Bendable Concrete and my girlfriend has left me, complaining about my Plasma Arc Gasification.

    Now who is going to mend my Printed Solar Panel shirts?

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    1. Re:a future Ask Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you for a hilarious end to the day :)

    2. Re:a future Ask Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and my girlfriend has left me...

      So in your vision of the future, Slashdotters will be able to get girlfriends? Seems a bit optimistic to me.

  4. 2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by 8127972 · · Score: 4, Informative

    For example:

    "Pedestrian Protection System (PPS)
    Radar sensors and computer-controlled braking will keep drivers safer than ever, but what about pedestrians? In case your adaptive cruise control fails to spot someone darting into the road, TRW Automotive is introducing the PPS system: if you smack a pedestrian, the hood is automatically raised to cushion his landing on the engine block. The system is already being tested, part of a drive to meet new European and Japanese regulations on pedestrian safety which are being phased in, starting with 2006 models."

    Jaguar's new XK coupe has this: http://www.jaguarusa.com/us/en/xk/highlights/highl ights/performance.htm

    Not to mention FTTH (via Verizon), Perpendicular Storage (via Hitachi Global Storage Technologies), Mobile WiMAX (Rogers and Bell in Canada have this).

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by orim · · Score: 1

      Right. So they can not only have fractures, but horrible burns from the hot engine.
      Sounds like a plan.

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    2. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by exspecto · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think it means that it will "pop" the hood up just a little so that when they land on it, there is some "give". I don't believe it means that the hood will open so wide that they'll be *eaten* by the car.

      See here: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsnew/3ded9ee77c5d 9010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

    3. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by Moofie · · Score: 5, Informative

      You really didn't get that right at all. The hood rises up and forward, not opening like Herbie's mouth. New European pedestrian impact standards require there to be (I think) 6" of air space between the surface skin of the car and any big, heavy component like an engine or a structural member. This system allows compliance with that requirement, and a low hood line.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

      screw that.. if I'm buying some fancy Jaguar I want a system that cushions my hood against flying pedestrians.

    5. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by CowardWithAName · · Score: 1

      Huh? Maybe you misunderstood.

      The hood doesn't open fully, it just pops a bit right before impact. The idea is that it will "give" more if it's partially open than if the pedestrian smacks into the closed hood and the hard engine block right beneath it. Think of it sort of like an external airbag... only made of metal... so not quite as good...

    6. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by JCondon · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to teaching your children to "look both ways" before crossing the street?

    7. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of redundant safety systems?

      Teaching kids to look both ways before crossing might reduce impacts by 25%, but it won't eliminate them. There are still vehicles that will jump the curb onto the sidewalk, or do 40 mph before pulling a hard turn around a blind corner, or hit a person while going into a driveway (often the car owner's own kids).

      Extra safety features can only help reduce the pedestrian death and injury toll further.

    8. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you smack a pedestrian, the hood is automatically raised

      Er, so basically, not only do they get hit by a car, but they get launched fifty feet into the air too?

    9. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by thelonestranger · · Score: 1

      Heh heh heh. Pedestrian catapult :)

      --
      To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
    10. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      TFA has good entertainment value. Especially when one read the predictions for 2006. I will be laughing next year too I guess.

    11. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's going to sign up to demo THIS safety feature in the next run of VW commercials?

    12. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      I want a real jaquar, the kind that can eat a deer. If I had a jaguar, I could let it eat Pedro's fancy fighting rooster. All he ever does is talk about that rooster and that fancy truck of his.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re:2006's predictions were kind of accurate.... by Pope · · Score: 1

      No, Pedestrian Repulsificator! Or the Electro Bastard Ray if you're in a foul mood.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  5. units? by N3TW4LK3R · · Score: 0, Troll

    430 megawatts' worth of solar cells annually ugh.... who writes this shit anyway?
    1. Re:units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Editors'?

    2. Re:units? by 0racle · · Score: 0

      Wake me up when it's 1.21 jigawatts.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:units? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thats the equivalent of powering 1.3 Libraries of Congress. Or a string of AA batteries that would wrap around the library of congress 3 times!

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    4. Re:units? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Funny

      How many times do I have to tell you people? Hogsheads!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    5. Re:units? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      <obligatory>"My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!"</obligatory>

    6. Re:units? by swordfishBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I assume from the title you think there's something wrong with the units used. They didn't say "430MW/year".
      If you make a 43W cell, and you can make 10,000,000 of them in 12 months, then you can make 430MW worth of cells in a year. Units are ok, just a question of whether they have the technology and resources to achieve it.

      --
      -- All your bass are below two Hz
  6. Salor Power is not yet viable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if they make theoretically impossible 100% efficient solar panel. That's not enough for me to buy a solar panel.

    However, if they can make a 5% efficient solar panel. I will buy it.

    Why? It all comes down to cost. Solar power is too expensive for me. It takes over 5 years for a solar panel to pay for itself. Also, a solar panel only lasts (the efficiency declines over time) about 20 years. The capital cost is too high.

    So companies should focus on reducing the per watt cost of solar panels. Not on improving the efficiency. If you can make solar panels for $5 per 100 watt panel .. you can bet I'll be off grid. I don't care about efficiency, I only care about cost.

    A 100% efficiency solar panel can take up 1 m^2 and generate a kilowatt, a 10% efficiency solar panel would need 10 m^2 to match that up .. but if you think about it .. the sides of the square are only 3 meters wide versus the 1 meter wide sides of the 100% efficiency panels. That's not a huge land area to sacrifice.

    1. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Itchyeyes · · Score: 1

      Or... we could try to make them more efficient and cheaper! It's not like it's and either/or problem.

    2. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 5, Informative

      ? moderation?

      So in 20 years the solar panel just stops working?

      I think not. actually it's an asymptotic curve which levels out over time. Yes their peak is at teh begining, but they still produce Usable power for a long time.

      From Wiki ". (Normally, photovoltaic modules have 25 years' warranty, but they should be fully functional even after 30-40 years.)"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

      Also, your economics are slightly skewed
      your not paying for 100W of e-. Your paying for a system to manufacture a peak of 100W of e- during daylight hours (avg probably 50W (just guessing?))

      If it was $5 for 100W panel, e- would be close to free anyway because everyone would produce their own.

      Secondly not many man made conversions happen at 100% efficiency.

      I am not a huge alternative energy freek, but economics dictate that solar panels are allready a smart choice for home use. Admittedly, if demand for them suddenly increased, that would not be so. But assuming e- prices continue to go up, (they will, you can bet on it in the long term for at least another 20-40 years) Then you have an even more economicaly strong position. Now, it's probably not going to net you the hugest gains, but it pays for itself, and then more. It's a solid return, that lasts a long time, and is scalable, upgradeable, and virtually maintenance free.

      P.S. talking about grid tied, inverted system here. None of that silly battery stuff.

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    3. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 1

      Uh... Printable solar panels, by negating the need for extensive/expensive fabrications processes will do both, make them more efficient and less expensive. Isnt that the whole point?

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    4. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by firemangreg · · Score: 1

      Aren't those notoriously inefficient?

    5. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Huh? What if the $5/watt cells are not powerful enough to power your A/C during peak hours, but the $10/watt cells are? There are a lot of factors here. You've only got so much roof space, and most people won't put them out on the lawn, even if community standards allowed that. For the A/C scenario, the 20 years during which the cells become less powerful is 20 years during which you could be growing trees to shade your house. Deciduous trees will reduce the power from the cells, but they'll reduce your cooling bill and add value to your property (assuming you live in an area where trees can grow). I think there are way too many factors you aren't taking into account. As others have pointed out, what if the cells are more efficient *and* less costly?

      FWIW, I think the cells will make more sense on the roofs of low-rise "flex office space" initially. You can't grow trees tall enough to shade a low-rise office, and nobody cares what the roof of a sprawling low-rise looks like anyway.

    6. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by rrhal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you can make solar panels for $5 per 100 watt panel .. you can bet I'll be off grid. I don't care about efficiency, I only care about cost You paid ~ $10,000 to have a licenced electrician (time and materials) wire your fuse box to the grid. For that kind of money you could buy a solar system that would keep you in electricity for a long time. There would be thousands of dollars left over. If you invested that along with your monthly electric payments you would have a fund that would replace anything that failed in your home system for much of the rest of your life.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
    7. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by h2_plus_O · · Score: 2
      Aren't those notoriously inefficient?
      compared to what's already on your roof (probably an asphalt tile, which converts 0% of that energy to electricity) they're... well, infinitely more efficient.
      --
      If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
    8. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Who paid $10k for an electrian to wire you to the grid?!?

      The power company runs the power to your house for free in every state I have lived in. They will even upgrade the service from 100 amps to 200 amps for free. The only "tie in to the grid" is the connection from the meter to the mains, which are less than a meter away from each other, as required by code.

      This is a $200 job, not a $10,000 job. Everything else you are paying for, from the mains to the socket, has to be done regardless of where the power comes from. AND you can wire a brand new 2400 sq ft house for less than half of what you are claiming, sockets and switches included.

      Now, to hook your DC powered solar panels up to use in your home, you will need to either wire new DC circuits to everything or use an inverter system. To connect YOUR power to the grid to sell back/use off time, and sync the phasing, etc. you are going to spend several thousand for autoswithing, inversion, etc. It's worthwhile, but it isn't cheap to connect your OWN power source to the grid.

      Your numbers are simply out of whack and (with all due respect) not based on real world scenarios.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    9. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Yartrebo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps the parent is using union labor that has to be paid a living wage? I certainly would never bid $10,000 for a modern wiring job of a huge house (2,400 sq. ft. is huge in my book) if I'm paying my employees $20/hour + medical + taxes.

      If it's in new construction it's maybe doable, but as a retrofit job (which I'm assuming is the case as this is being conpared to a solar panel retrofit) it will be extremely labor intensive as old plaster has to be removed and then new plaster put over wherever you have to go into the wall.

    10. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      He was saying you pay $10k for the tie, which is absurd. I am currently rewiring a 2700sqft house, but it had only paneling and I tore it all down. Doing the work myself, so not paying but a few hundred for wire.

      Doing it to an old house wouldn't require tearing out much sheetwork or plaster if you have a clean run from the attic to the socket. Even if you did, you would just be ripping the section between two 16" studs. Not a $10k job in the worst of situations. The main point is that it is CHEAPER to tie in mains for the power company than for solar power.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    11. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Kuvter · · Score: 1

      Some times when things are better for the world, and not just your budget, it's a good reason to switch to them.

      In correlation to your reply, if you stick by "I only care about cost" when you buy things, what kind of automobile do you drive?

      I drive a 2001 Echo (37/41mpg) costing me $11,000. It's been driving just fine for 5 years now with only routine maintenance. I don't think anyone would argue that that is not a viable cost for a car, but do you have a car that costs less and has lasted as long as mine?

      If you drive a truck of any sort your point on budget is pretty much moot.

      If you dive an SUV, that probably costs 3 times as much as my car. That definitely doesn't seem viable for a car. For that 20k more you could have gotten solar panels, an Echo, saved money, and helped the environment in two ways.

      If, however, you do drive a viable costing automobile, I'll put up for debate the idea that you're selfish and greedy, because right now it's very much in question.

      --
      "To be is to do." --Socrates
      "To do is to be." -- Aristotle
      "Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
    12. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      I was assuming that the house had no wiring - in other words, you need to build an electrical system from scratch. That is going to take a lot of time, and plenty of engineering effort too. Even in a building like the one I live in, which does have an electrical system (even if it dates to before WWII), bringing the wiring up to modern standards would require a complete rewiring if you want to get any more than 20 amps on a circuit and a major wiring job if you want any more than 3 circuits (it's set up as 3 circuits of 20 amps each, powering a total of about 5 outlets and a few ceiling mounted fixtures). You'll also have to update the system to use a third prong and a grounding wire, since all the outlets are of the two prong variety.

      Now if I could get my electrical system replaced with a fully modern one - 3 prongs, 3+ outlets in every room, not having air conditioners throw circuit breakers - for $2,500 (it's about 600 sq. ft., so I figure the cost would be about 1/4 as much) - I'd do it in a heartbeat.

      PS: There is no attic or space in the ceiling. Wires must be run through the wall or on the outside of the wall in the living space (which is how the phone line and cable TV line were retrofitted in). I hang hangers sometimes on the phone line, so I guess it isn't all bad ;)

    13. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      You're right on the money there.

      Also, what the solar guys neglect in their calculations is that if you're going purely by financial reasons, the investment of $10,000 today is a huge opportunity cost.

      To say that the panels "will pay for themselves" in five years doesn't quite cut it. They not only need to pay for themselves, but also the earning potential of that initial $10,000 investment in order to be worthwhile. In a decent savings account, by then end of five years, you'll have $12,762 on your $10,000 assuming 5% interest. And at that point they'd need to continue saving you over $650 a year to eternity, just to break even. That number just increases as the interest compounds, while the decreasing effectiveness of the panels would ensure diminishing returns.

      So, in order for the panels to be cost effective, they'll need to pay for themselves assuming a 5% interest on your initial investment, AND additionally save you another $10,000 within that 20 years to pay for the inevitable replace ment cost.

      It would be nice if these were economically viable, but if you do the math they're just not there yet. Hopefully this printing process will change the equation.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    14. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "FWIW, I think the cells will make more sense on the roofs of low-rise "flex office space" initially."

      Not to mention that most businesses are open, and as such, need power, during the daylight hours...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    15. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by !eopard · · Score: 1

      A 3x3m panel will halve the amount of sunlight I receive in my dungeon-like ground floor unit (only 1 side is external). You bet I want more efficient panels that take less square meter-age! A single 50cms strip along the edge of the fence, now that's doable!

      --
      Boolean logic: True, False, and File not found.
    16. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I certainly would never bid $10,000 for a modern wiring job of a huge house (2,400 sq. ft. is huge in my book)

      Yeah, it's more like 12k. At least, that's what my coworker was quoted by a contractor to rewire his newly bought house (harry homeowner shit all over the place). This is in seattle, which isn't exactly cheap.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    17. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Actually, they only need to make the initial invesment + interest. Once that's happened, you're in the black, and will most likely be able to pay for replacement panels that work better 15 years later.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    18. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Both are important.

      If the efficiency is too low, then it requires to much *area*. Land is not free. The size of your roof is not unlimited.

      If the price/watt is too high, then it doesn't matter how efficient it is -- it's still never going to pay for itself. I actually think you're being overly optimistic in your estimates that current solar-panels pay for themselves in 5 years.

      If they did, they'd be good investments. Life-span is around 20 years, but as you say they get somewhat less efficient with age. So, if they repaid themselves in 5 years, that'd probably mean they end up paying back triple cost in 20 years. That gives you a 6% interest-rate on your investment, which is decent (not spectacular, but decent) and the interest-rate is *better* if you assume energy-prices are going to rise. (A fair assumption I think)

      Sadly, unless solar-cells have improved a lot I don't think payback in 5 years is realistic. Last time I did the math it was more like 10-12 years. (which means never in economic terms: you'd be better off sticking your money in the bank) You may be thinking of *energy-payback* (i.e. the time it takes for a solar-cell to produce the same amount of energy that was spent in manufacturing it) that used to be like 5 years, but is today actually more like 1-2 years.

    19. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by jbash · · Score: 1

      It takes over 5 years for a solar panel to pay for itself.

      That's a much better return on investment than you can make in the stock market. (The S&P 500 has returned an average of 10% a year since 1926.)

    20. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by necro81 · · Score: 1

      That may be true in an area that already has plenty of electrical service wired up. But away from main roads, in the countryside, where the nearest utility pole isn't 50 feet away, but 5000, you can expect to pay on the order of $10,000/mile to bring service to your house. In some cases, this is incentive enough for people to forego the electric company and build an off-grid house - the capital investment is essentially the same, but they end up getting their electricity nearly free afterwards.

    21. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Open up a socket and see if it has a ground wire. Many homes built in the 70s and such HAD 3 wire, but used two wire sockets with center screw ground. Cost to replace each socket: $.49 each at Home Depot.

      And code doesn't support more than 20amps on a circuit anyway, not unless you are running dedicated circuits. If you have no crawl space in the attic, you might have crawl space under the house and you use floor mounted outlets.

      And for the record, there is no real "engineering" to wiring a new home. Its pretty simple: no more than 6 end points for a circuit, put at least one socket on 3 walls, no closer than 6', no greater than 12', etc. A little planning, but far from rocket science.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    22. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm dubious of it's long term economic value. Here's the two alternatives as I see them: 1) buy grid power indefinitely, save your money, or 2) buy a solar power system. The costs of just buying grid power are pretty striaghtforward. You are exposed to potentially high energy prices down the road. The money you saved by not buying the solar power system can be saved. Or buy a solar power system. Save money on power and get a boost to your home's value. I imagine that a well-maintained home with a working solar power system is going to look pretty attractive and might command a premium merely because so few are in the market. Ie, solar power on its own might not work economically, but when combined with other factors that increase the value of the home, there might be some synergies that tip the scales.

      Also, there's the matter of whether you can obtain discounted equipment. You might be able to get used panels, inverters, and other equipment to lower the costs of the system by a great deal.
    23. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I was also quoted $7200 for a concrete pad that I ended up paying $3200 from someone else. Someone could also quote you $100,000, but that isn't the going rate.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    24. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      And dubious you should be. Economics (which is basically all it is) is never just simple "supply and demand." (except when it is)

      That being said, so far in my situation (where I did get discounted equipment, but even at 2x the cost...) The system has paid for itself allready in grid power savings. I live in Olympia, WA btw not the best place to live for solar power. Realize that the system PRODUCES e- for you basically forever.

      So as far as economics go, you spend say 7K. You get back 12K in the first few years (instant boost of cost to your home value, plus e- generated at the peak of the cells life) + ~.5K / year* until we find the longevity limit of silicon cells. so maybe the system only lasts say 30 years. in the first 5 you make a few K and in the 25 years after you make at least another 10K. and probably more. Also realize that it's realistic to say your system will last 40+ years.
      So really, you can probably get a straight 3-500 a year off of a measly 600 W system for a LONG time, with almost 0 maintenance. (just gotta clean the panels when you clean your gutters / inspect your roof)

      Honestly, I didn't think it was economical at first either, till I decided to just try it and see. (talk about risky! I wasn't even sure it would work.)

      *Wrap it around this...
      Degredation of the cells leads to slightly less output over time right? but with e- going up slightly over time, that cancels out because your cells provide more $ per watt, but a little bit fewer watts.

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    25. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The 12k was a bit generous - he got it when he was negotiating the purchase. I suspect he'll be fixing the dangerous stuff and using power conditioners on the other stuff.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    26. Re:Salor Power is not yet viable by Reziac · · Score: 1

      In parts of California, the cost to hook up to the grid is something like $16,000. There's permits and other crap involved, so it's not just Edison.

      I have a shop building that has an electrical permit and was once hooked up, but some dickwad stole the panel and drop wire, and when I've inquired what it would cost to hook it back up to the meter -- I about had a heart attack, $10k (mostly re-permitting fees) and that's with a meter and pole already present. I'm going to have to bootleg it from my pumphouse instead. (Same meter, but won't need its own drop or panel. Technically not allowed, but what they don't know won't hurt 'em.)

      In 1984, when I last checked on the cost to run electric service to a new house, it was free out to 1500 feet, but if you were further out (like most of California is, away from developed areas) Edison charged $16/foot for overhead, and $40/foot for buried cable (and you don't get to choose which; the county does, plus there might be permit fees depending on where you are). At a guess, it's probably now 3x that. One problem is that new overhead wires are taxable but frequently prohibited by various environmental impact regs, but buried cable isn't taxable, so the counties won't allow it. Developers get around it, of course -- they do pretty much whatever the hell they want, just so long as they pay the bri^H^H^H fees.

      Hooking up to public water/sewer here costs you a similar fee, somewhere in the $10k-$20k range depending on where you are. With developer-built houses, it's worked into the price so you never see it, but if you build it yourself (and pay 'em $38k just for the building permit) you'll get socked for it firsthand.

      What's worse, L.A. County has new regs that prohibit drilling your own well if you're within a water district. And the new regs will shut down a lot of existing wells. Also, if you have a well and let the power service to it lapse, you won't be able to restart it.

      Complete horseshit from top to bottom, but gods forbid that the county not be allowed to maximize its tax base!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  7. Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why exactly do I need to know about these things? Is there going to be a test?

  8. Why should I know these? by frieza79 · · Score: 1

    Most of these are rated "Low" for short term impact. So why do I need to know about them next year?
    So when they finally do get well known and publicized, we can all say its a dupe, and post links to this story!

  9. 10 Tech Concepts You Should Know for 2007... by pestario · · Score: 0

    ... or you won't be allowed to enter?

    --
    :n
    1. Re:10 Tech Concepts You Should Know for 2007... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You'll be left at new years eve and be forced to party until new years eve 2007. On second thought, that's not so bad... Oh damn why did I read the article?

  10. based on last year's predictions... by deesine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I should just ignore the ones for 2007.

    --
    damaged by dogma
    1. Re:based on last year's predictions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen Brother, Amen.

  11. Who is your financial advisor? by Ogemaniac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A five year payback is great, roughly the equivalent of 15% interest. That's far better than stocks, with far less risk. Ignoring risks and commissions, the stock market can be expected to have a 8-10 "payback time".

    You are right, though. The answer is dollars per watt. Solar is still not there yet, though it is getting close to matching peak prices in some markets (California, Japan, Germany). However, the "printed" thin-film versions are still highly inefficient compared to normal silicon-crystal systems. Their cost advantage does not make up for this.

    1. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. That just means you get your money back in five years. Investments compounding at 15% double their value in five years, not merely maintain it.

    2. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by oakgrove · · Score: 1
      Well, for the sake of argument, if you say that the solar panel is still worth what you originally paid for it 5 years ago, actually, you did double your money because you could just sell the solar panel for what you paid for it. However, if you take the money you have not paying electric bills and buy another identical solar panel, in another 5 years, you will have saved twice as much so adding that to the value of both solar panels, you now have 4 times your original investment.

      So, if at the end of 10 years, you have the money in your pocket that you saved on electricity and you go and sell your solar panels for what you originally paid for them (I know that's probably unrealistic, just bear with me here), you will end up with roughly the same amount of money had you invested it in stocks and just let the interest compound. I don't really see the difference from that and the good stock investment that is averaging 15 percent per year. Just a little extra work.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    3. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> Well, for the sake of argument, if you say that the solar panel is still worth what you originally paid for it 5 years ago

      No. I don't think so.

    4. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wasn't the saying attributed to P.T. Barnum "There's a sucker born every minute."?

      You'd be amazed what some people will pay for something if you have the gift of gab to talk them into it. This coming from a successful former used car and door to door frozen meat salesman.

      Besides, I think the GP wasn't saying you would literally get all of your money back but for the sake of the discussion, assume that you will get a very good percentage of it back.

    5. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by Yartrebo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Well, for the sake of argument, if you say that the solar panel is still worth what you originally paid for it 5 years ago"

      The problem is that it is now worth a small fraction of what it was worth when you bought it. Just like a car (which also has about a 20 year lifespan), it loses value quite rapidly as it becomes less efficient and closer to being a pile of junk that you have to pay to get rid of.

    6. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A five year payback is great, roughly the equivalent of 15% interest. That's far better than stocks, with far less risk. Ignoring risks and commissions, the stock market can be expected to have a 8-10 "payback time".
      You're this clueless about investing, and yet you try to bust somebody else's balls? Amazing.
    7. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine which 'tard mod gave this tripe plus two insightful but it isn't. The OP was talking a five to ten year time frame. Reputable distributors give 25 year transferrable warranties. Used solar panels lose very little of their value in such a short period of time. If you don't believe me, google for used panels and compare the price to new. What the first guy was saying about making your money back on the panels if you decide to sell them in the future is spot on correct especially since it is being compared to an unrealistically high gain of average 15 percent in the suckers^H^H^H^H^H stock market. You'd actually do better with the solar array than you would with the securities.

    8. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much you can sell the installation and wiring portion of your setup for? Perhaps you can get a fair penny for the actual panels, but the panels are less than 50% of the cost of a complete setup.

    9. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by oakgrove · · Score: 1
      Just like a car (which also has about a 20 year lifespan),

      If you are implying that solar panels only have a twenty year lifespan, you obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about and consequently should STFU.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    10. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why are you all hooked on pulling the panels off and selling them? The value of the house goes up more with the panels left on than the cost of installation, panels, wires, and whatever else. Just leave them on and sell it all. You still come out better than in stocks or whatever. However you look at it, if you have the money to put the damn things on there, then just do it and get paid. Besides, there isn't any way in hell that the wiring and installation costs half of the total outlay. Are we not nerds? If you cut us, do we not bleed electrons? Do we not install our own kit? And wiring can be bought very cheaply if you know where to look. The inverter, etc. can easily be resold.

      You domesticated so called geeks are nothing more than a bunch of imposters. You sicken me. A real geek would take the fucking whiney pants off, put the man pants on and just do it instead of crying about how it costs too much yah de fucking blah.

      Reminds me of why women have two complete sets of lips...so they can piss and moan at the same time.

    11. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It won't be worth the same as what you paid for it. Ignoring everything else such as general technological advances, your solar panel has only 15 years life left in it, comapared with 20 years when you bought it, so it would be worth 3/4 of what you paid for it.

      Other things that affect the price include being able to get a more powerful panel for less money, and electricity prices going up or down.

    12. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by superlaughtive · · Score: 1

      Please give evidence of a longer than 20 year lifespan for a PV panel.

    13. Re:Who is your financial advisor? by jbash · · Score: 1

      Please give evidence of a longer than 20 year lifespan for a PV panel.

      Pictured here are solar panels that are 20 years old and still have 90% output: http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar.html

  12. smart pills by Random+Destruction · · Score: 1

    I'm amazed these things are just coming around now. I remember seeing them years ago on some disconvery channel show.

    Pretty neat things though.. but I don't envy those who 'recover' the pills after theyve passed through someone.

    --
    :x
    1. Re:smart pills by EMeta · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So large of a percentage of medical equipment is disposable (for hygine, of course, but man do they make a whole lot of waste), that I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was the same--at least in mostly developed nations. If you make them disposable you also needn't make them big enough to be recharged (or dissasembled for battery replacement, etc.) or carry any more charge than necessary for one trip.

      Combine that with its makers being able to sell more & it still being a cheaper prospect for many HMO's than the invasive surgery--no way these things won't be disposable.

    2. Re:smart pills by whargoul · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm amazed these things are just coming around now. I remember seeing them years ago on some disconvery channel show.

      Pretty neat things though.. but I don't envy those who 'recover' the pills after theyve passed through someone. I don't imagine these are "recovered", but can you imagine the conversation in the doctors office when presented with one of these?

      Doctor: Well sir, you have 2 options.
      Doctor: We can give you this brand new SmartPill for $500
      Doctor: or you can take this recycled SmartPill we just "recovered" from an elderly gentleman with chronic diarrhea for $7.50
      Patient: uh...I'll take the new one, thanks.
    3. Re:smart pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the U.S. University of Texas football players this year were using a smart pill to monitor body temerature and some other metrics in an attempt to combat dehydration. Not sure how it all worked but it was pretty cool to see the 2 minute report on it during half-time.

    4. Re:smart pills by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      I believe it's disposable for cost reasons. You could have perfectly safe reusable equipment, but you would have to properly sterilize it using hydrogen peroxide, heat, or some other thorough method after every use.

    5. Re:smart pills by tigga · · Score: 1

      I believe it would be easy to have discardable external 'skin' for pills. Use it, discard skin, put new skin on for another usage.

  13. I'm waiting for SmartDrugs by unformed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This way your dealer doesn't need to stock a variety of substances. You pop a pill, when it goes in, it connects with your system, and figures out what you really need to feel good, and then provides it.

    1. Re:I'm waiting for SmartDrugs by deanoaz · · Score: 1

      How about a capsule full of nanobots that bore their way into your brain and directly stimulate the pleasure center until their batteries run out?

      --
      If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
    2. Re:I'm waiting for SmartDrugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that easy. Stimulate a rat's "pleasure center" and let it do it again by pushing a switch, and it won't do anything else. But stimulate a human's, and he'll barely feel anything. Drugs work brain-wide (by messing with the transmission), so that's where you'll have to start.

  14. What's the business model by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What exactly is the business model of giving people unlimited free storage? Hard disks cost money, bandwidth costs money, and most people block ads anyway, so where is the profit? I find it difficult to believe that a company can run a business like that, with the exception of those companies, like Google, who can run it at a loss and support that loss with some other line of revenue. I suppose the service would have some prestige points, but I really see no way to make money that way.

    1. Re:What's the business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish all questions were so easy to answer!

      The answer: They DON'T! They only CLAIM to do so. But then they add a ~1min delay before your download (like rapidshare does) and extremely long delays between downloads (again, like rapidshare does - like 2mins/MB downloaded), often prevent parallel downloading (rapidshare does that too), and also makes you type nearly impossible to read captchas. (There's a few exceptions like mihd and fileho, but most are like this)

      Why all this? To make people pay, because they've intentionally made their "service" suck so badly, unless you pay.

      But personally I', already paying 65$+tax/month for internet access, and if I was going to pay anything on top of that, it would be for newsgroups - not some shitty file host like rapidshare that purposedly makes their service suck beyond imagination.

      As for the really free ones (mihd, fileho, etc), I guess it's just like gmail and others providing nearly unlimited free web mail. Where does the money come from? That's a good question! But most file hosts aren't in this category, they have lots of lusers^H^H^H^H^H^Hsuscribers paying every month to download a handful of files.

    2. Re:What's the business model by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Just scan through the data the customers store, slice them dice them and sell the consolidated data, of course. No personally identifiable information will be revealed to the Russian Mafia. yeah. sure.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:What's the business model by suggsjc · · Score: 1

      YES!

      I've said it before and will say it again. The best technology usually doesn't win, its the best marketing. People here need to realize that money DOES drive what technology will make it or not. It has to make money, or it WILL FAIL.

      If you want to be an idealist, then you can fund projects to run at losses, but don't ask people (investors) for help.

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
  15. What if the cost is almost nothing? by bigtrike · · Score: 1

    I think the point is that they're about to get much cheaper if this company succeeds. If those solar panels were only marginally more expensive than roofing shingles and could pay for themselves within 6 months, would you still not buy them?

    1. Re:What if the cost is almost nothing? by h2_plus_O · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Heck, it's hard to argue against buying solar panels now. If they pay for themselves in 5 years, as has been suggested upthread, and they have a functional lifespan of > 25 years, you could buy >25 years' worth of electricity for the price of 5 years' electricity. The only 'risks', really are: a) what if the price of electricity goes down? and b) what if the price of solar panels (cost:watt) goes down?

      If solar panels paid for themselves in 6 months, I'd cover my whole roof with them, sell my cars and buy cars that can run on electricity, convert my gas furnace and hot water heater to run on electricity... and I'd give my oil, coal, and gas-burning brethren unending hell until they did the same. If solar panels were cheap enough to pay for themselves in 6 months, it would make sense for everybody to do it- not only for environmental reasons, but also for economical ones.

      --
      If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
    2. Re:What if the cost is almost nothing? by PadainFain · · Score: 1

      A close friend of mine actually sells solar panels for a living, so I know from him that the economics talked about here are wrong. Unless you live somewhere with a significant amount of strong sunlight a solar panel, at today's costs and efficiencies, will never pay for itself. For example the whole of Europe. If you lived in southern AZ or CA you might possibly get your money back in 15 years. However unless you live very close to the Equator then to get a system that provides a good amount of power throughout the day then you need a motorised panel and software to control it. This doubles the cost of the installation but may double the output of the panel.

      They are a great idea and future improvements in efficiencies will help, but don't expect them to pay for themselves in under 10 years even in ideal situations and potentially never pay for themselves if less than ideal environments. Batteries don't last forever either and you need batteries, transformers and all sorts of electronic gizmo's that I don't know about to make the power useable, useful and storeable.

      I expect a massive uptake of them soon though. After all Double Glazing takes 20 years to pay for itself too. It's just about marketing now.

  16. #12 by FiveDollarYoBet · · Score: 2, Funny

    Duke Nukem

  17. Also see my past comments on SOLAR by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=210156&cid=171 38018

    I also have another one somewhere here on slashdot, but couldn't find it.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  18. I never though I'd see ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PRAMS being talked about on slashdot!

    Usually the talk here is about getting women, not about what happens afterwards.

  19. Home owners Associations by StupidMBA · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Even if solar becomes cheap enough, what will prevent me is my home owners association. They don't allow solar panels. Move to a neighborhood that doesn't have that rule? I would have to move to a neighborhood that doesn't have a home owners association. Yeah, good luck in finding one! Folks are so afraid of their property values being hurt, they turn into housing fascists.

    There was an article in the WSJ a couple of years ago where a guy in TX had to move out into the country so he could put solar panels on a house.

    Now, having a solar generating station out in the country would help me greatly.

    --
    Don't mod me down: I was joking!
    1. Re:Home owners Associations by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      It's not difficult for the Fed's to pass a law banning such restrictions. They did it with small satellite dish's after all.

    2. Re:Home owners Associations by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even if solar becomes cheap enough, what will prevent me is my home owners association. They don't allow solar panels. Move to a neighborhood that doesn't have that rule? I would have to move to a neighborhood that doesn't have a home owners association. Yeah, good luck in finding one! Folks are so afraid of their property values being hurt, they turn into housing fascists.

      Yes, this is a real problem. However, if cells become reasonably priced, and can be "printed", what would it take to "print" them onto an attractive subsurface so that it blends in nicely?

      And, lest you think this is a NEW idea, an "I'm feeling lucky" Google search led me to somebody else who already had the same idea.

      More expensive? Sure! Why else would they go to the extra effort? But it's at least POSSIBLE.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    3. Re:Home owners Associations by onepoint · · Score: 1

      well, I don't know what fed rule you are citing, but in NJ the rules were that Satellite dishes had to be enclosed and or not viewable from the homeowners roads. basically you placed a hedge around them.

      Onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    4. Re:Home owners Associations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See the FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas. In particular, restrictions cannot require that expensive landscaping screen relatively unobtrusive DBS antennas

    5. Re:Home owners Associations by Itninja · · Score: 1
      Yeah, good luck in finding one!


      It's not that hard if you get out of WASP-ville, USA. All us work-a-day slobs that don't live in a "planned community" can put up solar panels.
      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    6. Re:Home owners Associations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar Curtains! Oh wait, that makes your house dark...

    7. Re:Home owners Associations by njh · · Score: 1

      Take the HOA to court?

    8. Re:Home owners Associations by confused+one · · Score: 1
      There are several companies manufacturing roofing shingles, faux slate and metal roofing panels which are coated with PV material. Unless they're picky about the color of the shingles (or it's a historical area which insists on Real Slate (tm) ) then you CAN get a solar roof put on.

      I should mention that these do tend to be a little more expensive. Hopefully the printable solar stuff will bring the price down considerably and offset this.

    9. Re:Home owners Associations by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Is it 'and' xor 'or'?

      If it's 'and', then that hedge isn't going to cut it, as it wouldn't be enclosed.

      That's what I hate about and/or. What exactly does that / mean, and how do you compound logic operators. And, or, xor, biconditional, conditional, and negation are plenty enough logic operators (and plenty more than strictly necessary) in my book, unless you're just trying to confuse people.

    10. Re:Home owners Associations by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Many homeowners associations are indeed afraid of housing values being hurt.. but generallly, if you live in that neighborhood, so do you.

    11. Re:Home owners Associations by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Solar Curtains! Oh wait, that makes your house dark... How is that a problem? I say the darker the better.
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    12. Re:Home owners Associations by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good reason to trim back the powers of HOAs. I never did like the ones I've seen. That said, a lot of HOAs will ignore stuff that isn't visible from the street.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    13. Re:Home owners Associations by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      Many homeowners associations are indeed afraid of housing values being hurt..
      Wouldn't disallowing solar panels hurt housing values even more ?? They can be set up properly.

      (Ok, I'm European, I may not understand the US mindset on this)
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    14. Re:Home owners Associations by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Find an older neighborhood. Most housing areas built before the 70's do not have home owner's associations and if they do they are not nearly as draconian as the typical "master planned community" you find out in the burbs.

      --
      -
    15. Re:Home owners Associations by pushf+popf · · Score: 1

      Even if solar becomes cheap enough, what will prevent me is my home owners association. They don't allow solar panels. Move to a neighborhood that doesn't have that rule? I would have to move to a neighborhood that doesn't have a home owners association. Yeah, good luck in finding one! Folks are so afraid of their property values being hurt, they turn into housing fascists.

      Don't be a wuss. Move out into the real world.

      If you signed on with some group that tells you what color you can paint your house, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

    16. Re:Home owners Associations by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

      A AND/OR B = OR (inclusive by definition)

      A OR B (but not both) = XOR

      Dillywankers that can't get your change right at Mickey Ds without the register display probably use 'and/or' just because they don't know any better, others use it because they heard it at Micky Ds! ;-)

      Ha!

      --
      Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
    17. Re:Home owners Associations by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Because if some guy across the street does an ugly job of it, it may affect your housing value, so you don't permit it.

      It's a way of making sure everyone's home looks exactly the same and nobody stands out, which is apparently very important to people in north america.

  20. What about 2006? by DaveWick79 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I didn't see anything on the 2006 list that became a buzzword in 2006 - maybe they will in 2007, who knows. Only two on the list, Fiber to Home and IP Television, have made much news. There's a few obscure technologies that people will never care to know the name of, and the rest simply haven't come about. For 2007, how long will we be waiting for these? And why is Body Area Network on the list, a mere repeat of things that didn't make it to prime time in 2006 and is admittedly something they don't think will become widely manufactured or even accepted. In other words, these lists are a total washout.

    1. Re:What about 2006? by BuddyJesus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I didn't see anything on the 2006 list that became a buzzword in 2006 - maybe they will in 2007, who knows.

      I dunno, Ajax was on that list, and it became pretty big.

  21. Short Term Impacts? by pseudorand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, while the US is facing terrorism that we fund ourselves via our addiction to foreign oil, the president is going on and on about switchgrass, and the entire world may be facing declining oil production while demand continues to increas, technologies that turn trash into power, cheaper solar pannels, and more secure passports will have a LOW impact? At the same time TV and file sharing over the internet, both problems we already have perfectly good solutions for (Cable, Satellite, movie rental stors, Netflicks, HTTP/FTP protocols) will have a HIGH impact? Something just doesn't add up.

  22. Body Area Networks by VoidEngineer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work at a hospital, and I'll vouch that we're already investigating body area networks. Patient monitoring, obviously, is the big one; but we're also very interested in the cost savings of a good RFID sponge count system. After each surgery procedure, some poor shlep has to count through all the sponges and make sure that the count matches up with the number used. And if we're short a sponge or two, then we have to take an x-ray of that patient to see if something was left inside of them. And if something *was*, well, obviously it needs to be removed, necessitating more surgery, and another sponge count.... We're hoping that RFID/wireless chips are going to solve this problem. Also coming down the research pipe, as I understand, are a variety of wireless enabled surgical robots that can crawl the stomach and intestines and do various repair work, and RFID/wireless enabled aneurysm clips and pacemakers to warn against putting patients into MRI fields. Obviously, all vital sign monitoring equipment is getting ready to be put on the networks, which is going to be huge, especially with our associated nursing homes and the aging baby boomer population.

    1. Re:Body Area Networks by int21hex · · Score: 1

      If you need to count sponges because they are left behind sometimes, then what you should do is remedy the problem by developing sponges that will breakdown in the body. Not a system to count them.

    2. Re:Body Area Networks by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      That sounds very nice, but even if it's feasible it's not the hospital's responsibility to develop such a new technology.

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  23. pHp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else notice that the "smart pill" had pHp written on it?

    I KNEW it was the better language! :)

  24. I just love these feel good tech articles. by John+Sokol · · Score: 1, Offtopic


        I wish the real world would really work out like that.

        Last night I watched the movie "Who killed the electric car?",
                  (Everyone should see it, along with and "Hacking Democracy", "Fahrenheit 911" and "An Inconvenient Truth").

        In that movie, Texaco bought out the NiMH Electric car battery technology and killed it.
            Then GM and Toyota took back all the EV1's and crushed them.

        I wonder how long it will be before some Oil company buys up NanoSolar and kills them too.

        The same thing happen over and over. It's the same group of Big Oil, Bush and friends, that are holding us back from progress in almost the same way
      MA Bell had done 20 years ago before it's breakup. Most of you don't realize that the Internet, Unix and Video Confrencing was held back for decades by MA Bell.

        It's not technology that moves us forward but the decisions of the Rich and Powerful to allow us to move foward.

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:I just love these feel good tech articles. by scuba964 · · Score: 1

      Yeah! It's Bush's fault! I KNEW it!

    2. Re:I just love these feel good tech articles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What fascinates me about the electric car issue is that noone seems to ask from where the electricity to power electric cars comes from... It's just cool, groovy and green to drive an electric car! Well yeah, less toxic emissions in densely populated areas is great. But from a global/greenhouse perspective, if the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels like coal (as it is where I live), then the whole exercise is a waste of time wrt carbon emissions and reducing energy consumption. Adding an extra ( 100% efficient) conversion increases the energy required and coal is dirtier than petrol. Electric and hydrogen powered cars are a great idea but only if the electricity and hydrogen are not generated by combusting something! Read my lips kiddies, nuclear is inevitable! Invest now!

    3. Re:I just love these feel good tech articles. by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

      You want to stop "Big Oil" or just revel in victimhood? Do something besides being such a fatalist, otherwise you and the other knee-jerk "Big Oil conspiracy" blog posters should shut the F up.

    4. Re:I just love these feel good tech articles. by bjohnson · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Just smart enough to bleat the words, not smart enough to actually think about them.

      Yes, using electricity may involve burning coal. However it involves burning coal at non-moving, controllable locations where you can use relatively expensive scrubber technology and such to minimize pollution, instead of dispersing your emissions in millions of little boxes farting emissions out their backsides.

      And a big bonus, you don't have to store coal byproducts for 10,000 years.

    5. Re:I just love these feel good tech articles. by rujholla · · Score: 3, Informative
      Blah coal is relatively safe???
      But the official figures on the cost of coal don't tell the whole story. Coal is a killer: a more profligate one than you would expect. And it maintains a lethal efficacy across its entire lifecycle. One of the main objections held against nuclear power is its potential to take lives in the event of a reactor meltdown, such as occurred at Chernobyl in 1986. While such threats are real for conventional reactors, the fact remains that nuclear power - over the 55 years since it first generated electricity in 1951 - has caused only a fraction of the deaths coal causes every week. Take coal mining, which kills more than 10,000 people a year. Admittedly, a startling proportion of these deaths occur in mines in China and the developing world, where safety conditions are reminiscent of the preunionised days of the early 20th century in the United States. But it still kills in wealthy countries; witness the death of 18 miners in West Virginia, USA, earlier this year. But coal deaths don't just come from mining; they come from burning it. The Earth Policy Institute in Washington DC - a nonprofit research group founded by influential environmental analyst Lester R. Brown - estimates that air pollution from coal-fired power plants causes 23,600 U.S. deaths per year. It's also responsible for 554,000 asthma attacks, 16,200 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks annually. The U.S. health bill from coal use could be up to US$160 billion annually, says the institute. Coal is also radioactive: most coal is laced with traces of a wide range of other elements, including radioactive isotopes such as uranium and thorium, and their decay products, radium and radon. Some of the lighter radioactive particles, such as radon gas, are shed into the atmosphere during combustion, but the majority remain in the waste product - coal ash. People can be exposed to its radiation when coal ash is stored or transported from the power plant or used in manufacture of concrete. And there are far less precautions taken to prevent radiation escaping from coal ash than from even low-level nuclear waste. In fact, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the U.S. estimates the amount of exposure to radiation from living near a coal-fired power plant could be several times higher than living a comparable distance from a nuclear reactor. Then there are the deaths that are likely to occur from falling crop yields, more intense flooding and the displacement of coastal communities which are all predicted to ensue from global warming and rising oceans. There's so much heat already trapped in the atmosphere from a century of greenhouse gases that some of these effects are likely to occur even if all coal-fired power plants were closed tomorrow. Whichever way you look at it, coal is not the smartest form of energy.
      http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/

      Nuclear is increasingly the only quickly viable alternative to fossil fuel generation of power. I'd encourage all to read the article its a very interesting breakdown of possible energy generation sources.

    6. Re:I just love these feel good tech articles. by John+Sokol · · Score: 1


        I am hardly fatalistic, But until there is a change of the guard, we are stuck.
        It's not just Big Oil, is the Old wealthy monopolies.
        No one here blinks an eye when anyown critisizes Microsoft, but the Food companyies, and Oil companies and just about all monopolies start using the goverment, legal and other questionable tacktics to kill off any possible new competing technologies.

        The difference here is if Solar doesn't take off like it should, say because of Big oil, then we all pay a price with health problems, and global warming where with a company like Microsoft, we just have to put up with crappy software which is far less dangerous.

        And how can you guys mark my post as off topic anyhow???? It's not.

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    7. Re:I just love these feel good tech articles. by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      "And a big bonus, you don't have to store coal byproducts for 10,000 years."

      Instead, the coal and power industries spew the byproducts (such as CO2 and N2O) into the air, so that everyone can breathe them in and the CO2 can fry the planet.

  25. Re:Sailor Power is not yet viable by coldsleep · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are you kidding me? There's no way they can make sailor power more efficient. It's been in use for thousands of years, and it's not going away any time soon.

  26. #13 by KillerCow · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Flying cars

  27. It sort of is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If making them more efficient means doping them with very expensive rare metals, or if creating the required crystalline structure requires heat/energy.

    So researching efficiency can compromise researching cheap. I do agree that science needs to find out the theories and make as efficient a solar cell as possible. But given current R&D resource constraints that can be a longer term goal in comparison to making a cheaper cell. After all the economic boost resulting from the cheaper solar cells may make it cost effective to fund people to do the research on efficiency aspects.

  28. A Fraction of an Amp? by aditi · · Score: 1

    A fraction of an amp? They'd better be talking about nanoamps, because anything higher would be hell of a lot to have coursing down your arms!

    1. Re:A Fraction of an Amp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nanoamps? Not really. If I recall correctly from a bioelectrics class, amperage doesn't become deadly until about 1/10th of an amp, or 100 mA. Less than 10 mA is mild, and at 1 mA, you aren't likely to even feel it. This is for US 60 Hz AC, and different frequencies as well as DC will change these numbers slightly, as will individual body chemistry.

  29. the PRAM mentioned there is already obsolete! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    There was an announcement earlier this week by IBM that they've come up with a PRAM that is 500x faster than Flash, with unlimited writes, using half the power. This blows away the PRAM mentioned in this article. The lesson: IBM's unreleased product will always be better than your unreleased product!

    1. Re:the PRAM mentioned there is already obsolete! by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      While the PRAM developed by a joint project of IBM, Macronix and Qimonda is very impressive, it's still a long, long way from production because no commercial fab can manufacture it on a large scale. But Samsung's PRAM is far closer to production, and by the fall of 2008 don't be surprised if Apple ships a video iPod that uses 80 to 100 GB of PRAM.

    2. Re:the PRAM mentioned there is already obsolete! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Who cares if Samsung's PRAM is in production - it's obsolete! I'll take nonexistent superior technology over available obsolete technology any day of the week. It's so much cheaper that way...

  30. The key is modularity by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

    Yeah - what you said, PLUS the ability to buy pieces at a time. The systems need to be very modular, so I can buy them as I have the resources. I'll probably never go out and buy $X,000 of solar panels in one shot, but I could probably afford a few hundred dollars' worth every few months. If you make it so you need to buy the whole system at once, and replace the whole thing at once should it die, it will always be prohibitively expensive.

    The nice thing about the incremental purchase approach is that they probably won't all die at once, either. If the system is designed to be fault tolerant, it's much easier for me to replace one small subunit than to replace the whole kit-n-kaboodle.

    -Walrus

    1. Re:The key is modularity by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      If you make it so you need to buy the whole system at once, and replace the whole thing at once should it die, it will always be prohibitively expensive.

      It's called a home-improvement loan. Look into it.

    2. Re:The key is modularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone wants to pay interest, smartass, and not everyone has equity to do so. Some want to pay as they go, as they can afford, for things that are not 100% necessity. I think those people are called "responsible".

    3. Re:The key is modularity by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not everyone wants to pay interest, smartass, and not everyone has equity to do so.

      So what happened to always be prohibitively expensive now? Make up your mind. Either it is an absolute, or it is not.

      Some want to pay as they go, as they can afford, for things that are not 100% necessity. I think those people are called "responsible".

      If you have the equity then by definition you can afford it. Possessing poor home-ec skills does not make someone responsible, not by a long-shot.

    4. Re:The key is modularity by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      Not everyone wants to pay interest, smartass, and not everyone has equity to do so.
       
      So what happened to always be prohibitively expensive now? Make up your mind. Either it is an absolute, or it is not.
       
        Some want to pay as they go, as they can afford, for things that are not 100% necessity. I think those people are called "responsible".
       
      If you have the equity then by definition you can afford it. Possessing poor home-ec skills does not make someone responsible, not by a long-shot. Actually, that AC wasn't me, but I do tend to agree with him/her. I know precisely what a home improvement loan is, but I tend to be debt-averse unless there's a real payoff that makes the interest and risk worthwhile. In other words, I consider debt to be high-risk in a risk-reward analysis. The reward must be pretty high for me to go into any significant debt.

      A couple bucks off my electric bill just doesn't cut it, nor does the insignificant rise in home resale value. I'd rather use the home-improvement loan to finance that addition I've been wanting, which would improve my enjoyment of my home AND increase the resale value by as much or more than the amount of the loan.

      The AC is correct: Carefully evaluating risk-reward ratios and opportunity costs is exactly the definition of "financial responsibility".

      Also, maybe I'm using my own definition of prohibitively expensive. What I mean is that, in terms of how long I would need to save up, and the opportunity cost of using that money on solar panels as opposed to a new car, other home improvements, or payoff of other debt, monolithic solar panel systems will always be prohibitively expensive to me unless I can reasonably buy them using my disposable income saved over a relatively short term.

      "Prohibitively expensive" is always subjective to the person being prohibited, their resources, and their priorities. What's prohibitive to me isn't to Donald Trump, I'm sure you'd agree.
    5. Re:The key is modularity by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm using my own definition of prohibitively expensive.

      Ayup.

  31. VTOL Personal Air Vehicle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bummer :( I was hoping a VTOL Personal Air Vehicle (PAV) would be on their list. I'm not talking about a hybrid "skycar" that can drive on the roads and fly. If I can fly VTOL then why would I need the roads. I just want a nice little 2-4 seater VTOL PAV. Is that too much to ask for in these modern times? I bet the Chinese will figure it out first.

  32. PRAM by conJunk · · Score: 1

    New? Anyone who's ever done anything with old Macs knows this is the Preferences RAM, and when the clock starts acting funny, it's time to replace the PRAM battery.

  33. Why? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    "That's not a huge land area to sacrifice."

    Why would you sacrifice any land at all. How about just sacrificing some roof area instead?

  34. An example: Amazon S3 by Gordo_1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Amazon's simple storage service (S3) basically gives you access to a virtually unlimited supply of highly redundant data storage for pennies a month ($.20/gig transferred, $.15/gig stored... I believe). There is no minimum or fixed start-up costs and you only pay for what you use. This is much cheaper to startup than buying HDs for performance-insensitive large blobs of data, since you don't have to pay for power supply, case, drives, motherboards, cpu, memory or ongoing electrical costs. It's also a 100% quieter than running an extra storage server in your apartment. Sure, you can't stream HD video off of this thing, but it definitely has its uses.

    Last month I backed up all my important financial and other data completely encrypted and lot more secure than I could have doen it locally. I conveniently mapped S3 to a drive letter on my local system so most programs can access it without even knowing what's going on. I mapped my Roboform password data to the drive, so I can access the same set of data files from multiple places without having to remember to always carry along a USB key. I even tried storing my Firefox profile there... though it technically worked, the problem is that Firefox accesses like a hundred files every time it starts up, and file access latency was too high to make this workable. What you use it for is really left up to your imagination. Anyway, all told, it cost me $.12 for the month.

    You need three things to make this work for you:
    1. An amazon S3 account
    2. An online storage client that supports S3 (I use the free Jungledisk program, but there are several free clients available for Win/Mac/Linux)
    3. Optionally (for Win32 users), a utility that can map webDAV drives to a physical drive letter. I use Webdrive.

    1. Re:An example: Amazon S3 by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is a fine solution for storing a gig or two of data, but let's say you need to store 300 GB. For this example, we upload the data once, download or update it an average of three times per byte, and store it for two years:

      300*(.20 * 4 + .15 * 24) = $1,320

      I don't see how that's a reasonable rate. A 300 GB drive goes for about $100 these days. Also, compare this to Dreamhost's web hosting plan. There you can get the "Code Monster" plan which gives you 400GB of storage, 4TB transfer per month, not to mention an entire web hosting package. If you pay for 2 years up front, it costs $382. That's much cheaper and you're getting much more bandwidth usage.

      Now imagine if you used all that storage and bandwidth with S3:

      4000 * .20 * 24 + 400 * .15 * 24 = $20,640

      Yikes! Amazon's prices seem to have little relation to the real cost of hosting and transfering data. (Disclaimer: I'm a Dreamhost customer but I have no other interest in their company.)

    2. Re:An example: Amazon S3 by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it ain't gonna work for you if you frequently move gigs of data back and forth. For backups of small data files that are accessed infrequently, the zero startup costs can't be beat.

    3. Re:An example: Amazon S3 by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it can get very expensive very fast. 200 GB of storage (about what the sweet spot is in the HDD market these days) will run you $30/month at those rates, and I would still have to pay to store and access that data ($80 for a full save and restore of 200 GB).

      If your needs are large enough to merit a dedicated file serving computer, you'll be far better off having your own system than paying through the nose monthly for this service.

    4. Re:An example: Amazon S3 by dynamo52 · · Score: 1
      I even tried storing my Firefox profile there... though it technically worked, the problem is that Firefox accesses like a hundred files every time it starts up

      I use the Google Browser Sync extension. It doesn't work for your extensions but it will keep bookmarks, history, cookies, And passwords synced between machines or even different operating systems or profiles on the same machine.

      --
      Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
    5. Re:An example: Amazon S3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for all of your important financial and other data - let me know as soon as you'd like me to stop using it!

    6. Re:An example: Amazon S3 by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I don't see how that's a reasonable rate. A 300 GB drive goes for about $100 these days.

      And how will that help you if your drive dies? $1320 for 300G of managed storage for 2 years is cheap.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:An example: Amazon S3 by shyampandit · · Score: 1

      I hope you dont really believe the lies that dreamhost tells you! 4TB/month 400gb.. that would take a serious dedicated server just for you costing a few hundred dollars a month.. The Amazon service would work out much cheaper than that.

      Try using even 1/10th of what they say they offer and you are sure to be booted out.. (yes I have tried it long back before I got dedicated servers :) )

    8. Re:An example: Amazon S3 by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      Seriously? You think it's cheap?

      One, I just pointed out Dreamhost, where you could just not use the web hosting part of their service and store the 300GB for 25% of the cost.

      Two, for $300 you could buy 3 300GB drives. Set two up in a RAID configuration, and put the third in a safety deposit box for two years. You're still saving about $900.

      Cheap? Ha! I hope you're a troll.

    9. Re:An example: Amazon S3 by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Yes it's cheap - dreamhost has no SLAs, and your 3 disk monty approach puts all the management onto you. This is a question of how much managed, reliable storage costs, and S3 works really well, especially for situations where you need to scale up or down. Once you're juggling a TB or so, it may make sense to do it yourself, but in the end, you get what you pay for.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  35. No need to store byproducts? by DarthStrydre · · Score: 2, Informative

    Though of course the fly ash and the tons of debris produced by coal burners is more radioactive, per energy produced, than that from a nuclear plant. Nuke plants are just generally about a million times less entropic in their output of nuclear materials, allowing for convenient disposal, as soon as politicians remove heads from tails.

      - Strydre

  36. As a Mac user by dangitman · · Score: 1

    I've known about PRAM for many years now. I was hoping by 2007 I wouldn't have to know about it, as it would be made obsolete - and I would no longer have to "zap the PRAM" when things start acting funky. Sigh.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  37. In Summary by Shadyman · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those of us who don't want to RTFA, (in no particular order):

    10) Bendable Concrete
    9) PRAM (Phase-Change Random Access Memory)
    8) Printed Solar Panels
    7) Passport Hacking
    6) Vehicle Infrastructure Integration
    5) Body Area Network
    4) Plasma Arc Gasification
    3) VoN (Video on the Net)
    2) Smart Pills
    1) Data Cloud

    I guess when #3 comes about, we will be living in the "VoN Age"?

  38. you have zero proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    What's the cost of your electricity in 20 years? Oh, you have no idea? Correct. So how do you know whether or not it's cost effective?

    When you can show the lads-point to a link-with your local electricity supplier that offers a 20 year pricing contract, then you can make such a statement. Until then, you have absolutely no data to assert your assumption and cult-like belief system, ie, it's time to dump "junk economic science".

      Now, I can't assert anything either, but I can say that solar bought today has a verifiable fixed price, you can get ten year warranties on batteries and 20-30 years on panels, and odds are the normal electric bill will always be going up in cost,by the charged kilowatt hour. See, I admit I don't actually know, but run the odds around in your brain, do you really believe it is going to be either exactly the same as you pay now or actually get cheaper from your local electrico? Or do you think "energy" in all its forms will just be rising dramatically in cost?

        Now I read a lot of energy news, and I'll tell you this, you ain't seen nuthin yet like the demands coming from the developing world within the next decade, and, if it is fuel derived-any brand fuel-costs are going to be going up, from sheer market pressures. There just slap doesn't exist the reserves in the next 20 years to fit that demand coming, especially from reserves that are already gone now, and even nuclear power has never been any way close to being as cheap as they always claimed, in fact, just check the rates anyplace where it is used extensively now, barely better cost-wise than coal, and actually more expensive than natural gas.

    Solar is our only practical fusion power, something that joe sixpack to joe big company can actually get their hands on and *use*, and it will be that way for decades to come. Coal has giant environmental and health impacts, which if you add those into what electricity costs, would probably double it right today, just like if you add in what having to have some huge military keep the oil flowing from ovewrseas (and that barely) really means your gallon of gas is a lot higher, they just hide it with more junk economic science and astroturfing FUD..

        We just don't have a lot more in the way of practical, deployable options right now,solar and wind power are at the top of the "we got it-let's use it" pile of the alternatives, so the sooner we start adopting, the faster we can get economies of scale going. Waiting until it is cheap enough by some vague junk economic science forumla is the same as waiting for cars to achieve 250 MPG before you buy one, you'll be a pedestrian for a long long time. It's better to support what we have now, with our wallet voting, if we want that tech to get better in the future.

          Now I will agree that "cheaper by the watt and who cares about the size" is a completely valid option,I would actually thow some cash at that (I have thrown cash at normal PV now) but here's something else-there's no law says you have to immediately go from grid suplied to totally solar powered in one step. You can start with just running a few things around your house, then work your way up as the tech gets better and more affordable. This way the solar companies make some money, keep doing research, more and better factories are built,stuff gets better, and etc.. That has worked with any number of other technologies, look at computers and just the last ten years for example, but the nice machines we have now with the much better pricing only happened because people bought computers on a large scale ten years ago.

    We are part of the problem, or part of the solution, that's the only choices we have right now.

    1. Re:you have zero proof by khallow · · Score: 1

      A current solar power system isn't going to operate that well in 20 years. And even if we compare new systems, it probably will be significantly less efficient. It seems a better economic decision to say toss $10,000 into something that is conservative and beats inflation. Then buy the appropriate choice twenty years down the road.

      Now I will agree that "cheaper by the watt and who cares about the size" is a completely valid option,I would actually thow some cash at that (I have thrown cash at normal PV now) but here's something else-there's no law says you have to immediately go from grid suplied to totally solar powered in one step. You can start with just running a few things around your house, then work your way up as the tech gets better and more affordable. This way the solar companies make some money, keep doing research, more and better factories are built,stuff gets better, and etc.. That has worked with any number of other technologies, look at computers and just the last ten years for example, but the nice machines we have now with the much better pricing only happened because people bought computers on a large scale ten years ago.

      People bought lots of computers because they provided huge value ten years ago. I like that economic model. I don't see the benefit to buying something I don't get a lot of value out of right now, and which won't have that great an impact down the road. After all, solar energy is already getting a lot of investment. Maybe the more experimental sector of solar energy needs customers. That might be worthwhile to buy a little cutting edge and playing with it. Having said that, I do have my own pet industries (space launch) that are in an even worse situation than solar power. At least, solar power has a lot of customers, is profitable, and has a strong R&D effort. I think it's merely a matter of time till the economics of solar power make sense.
  39. 2007? by mattcoz · · Score: 0

    "Samsung ... expects PRAM-enabled devices to be available in 2008" So why do we need to know about it for 2007?

  40. nuclear is inevitable! by John+Sokol · · Score: 2, Informative


      No nuclear is not inevitable... Using things like the Nanosolar solar cells or one of many other promising alternate power systems.
        Solar, Wind, wave, geothermal, Bio-fuels etc, it possible to recharge your electric car without Coal, oil or Natural gas.

        Actually for $30K you can power your whole house just fine off the grid even sell back electricity to power your neighbors and make money from the power companies.

      So with an electric car, you'd just get that charged at home for free also without polution...

      Now with home prices at $500K for a shack here is California what's another $30K for Solar Panels.

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  41. Bendable concrete isn't new by Thornae · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My Grandfather was an expert on concrete, especially pre-stressed concrete. One of his party tricks was to show off a piece of thin, flat concrete, slightly larger than a standard ruler, then bend it in an arc.

    He'd created this by stretching a thin wire with weights along a form, then pouring the concrete. Once the concrete was set, he removed the weights, which caused the wire to shrink, compressing the concrete and rendering it much more flexible.

    Admittedly, they're actually talking about a different technology in the article, but they make it sound like no-one's ever made bendable concrete before.

    --
    |>
    Here be Dragons
  42. BAN by Tribbin · · Score: 1

    Body area network, must be invented by a geek who can't get laid:

    "Let me just examine your body area network to see if I can pin-point this little problem... Do you feel a little tingeling here?"

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  43. Solar Shingles/Siding by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    will however completely change the equation for new housing.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  44. Printable solar panels by rossdee · · Score: 1

    That would be cool, as long as you don't need special paper or ink.

    1. Re: Printable solar panels by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "That would be cool, as long as you don't need special paper or ink."

      You can only use genuine Epson ink, at $500 a milliliter...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  45. Don't Read Popular Science by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    Don't read Popular Mech.. I mean Science. I used to think they were okay until I found out they are a total tool for the man. They are tasked with shaping public perception and expectation. I read a report pointing out several examples but just the most recent one I can think of is thier 'debunking the 9/11 truth myths'. They are completely full of shit, although there is some cool technology in the mag.

    If you watch 'They Live' three times in a row and then look at an issue of PS, I swear you will see the brain slugs all over that rag.

    Believe it.

  46. I'll take the recovered pill by patio11 · · Score: 1

    If you have put it in an autoclave, I don't have any issues about you inserting it into me afterwards. Do I want direct blood-to-blood contact with any member of the population? No. Do I think that fear is rational? Yes. Do I worry about surgery because oh-my-God-who-knows-where-that-scalpel-has-been? No. I *know* where it has been: the autoclave. It has no magical memory of being in the HIV-infected crack-fiend two weeks before.

    1. Re:I'll take the recovered pill by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      There's a good chance that the scalpel has been in a sealed plastic package: surgeons take sterile procedure seriously.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  47. Re:Sailor Power is not yet viable by Fred_A · · Score: 1

    Just try having a dozen sailors in your cellar for a while and you'll soon try and find another power source !

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  48. #11 Ipod drive emulator for all mp3 players by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    So we can then use any mp3 player out there with itunes.

    This would be killed faster than you can eat an apple, and a new itunes would probably be released to detect it, but it could be done if you emulated
    an older ipod 100% and remapped its HD to the other imposter mp3 player.

    Any one got a dump of IDE/USB traffic dumps from itunes when it talks to the ipod?

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  49. Yes it is. by tygerstripes · · Score: 2, Informative
    You're right, this isn't the same tech at all. What your grandfather demonstrated was an extreme example (ie very thin) of a well-established structural technology - pre-stressed steel-reinforced concrete. Putting the steel members of a beam under strain before pouring in the magic-mix is very, very widely used in the construction industry.

    The reason this allowed the beam your grandfather manufactured to be so flexible is that it was so thin - basically a steel member with a coating of concrete (probably with a heavy dose of admixture to increase the concrete's plasticity). Attempting to apply the same approach to a concreate beam of appreciable scale would result in something that basically lacked the compressive strength or tortional rigidity for which it had been manufactured (the tensile strength would be unaffected as this essentially comes from the steel reinforcements in any case). This new technology allows you to fabricate a decent-sized beam of appreciable strength which nevertheless does not crack or spall when forced into flexure, but bends a little instead.

    This will make a huge difference in the construction industry where serious over-stresses are a possibility (earth-quakes, land slippage, explosion risks). The one disadvantage I envisage is that - more often than you'd like to know - miscalculations or unaccounted stress factors can lead to the failure of structures over time, and while this is usually noticed and corrected thanks to stress cracks in rigid concrete members, flexible concrete will probably not give you the same warnings before it fails. This would need to be offset by the use of stress-monitoring and displacement checks such as are used in large bridges atm.

    Of course, the focus this will bring to dynamic structural calculations means that Civ Eng undergraduates are going to drop out in their first year instead of their third...

    --
    Meta will eat itself
    1. Re:Yes it is. by Thornae · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. My post title was a little overstated.

      I do realise the importance of this discovery. I was pointing out, possibly not as clearly as I could have, that the article in question makes it sound like concrete hasn't been improved upon since the pyramids were cast, and that engineers hadn't come up with any other form of dealing with the inherent rigidity of concrete structures until now.

      The pictured example looks to be at least 20 times as thick as my Grandfather's trick casting, which gives an idea of the scale of improvement (I doubt it's linear).

      What will be fascinating will be to see how this technology combines with light transmitting concrete - we could be looking at a whole new class of building material.

      Sometimes I wish I'd followed in my Grandfather's footsteps. Then I remember that I can't stand the smell of cement.

      --
      |>
      Here be Dragons
  50. That's all fine and dandy... by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    but when do I get my flying car?

  51. 10Mb peak transfer? by splutty · · Score: 1

    Uhm.. Not to put a spanner in your ideas, but where I live 20Mb and 24Mb (cable and ADSL respectively) are available to customers without any problems. I'm currently paying 60 euros a month for a 20Mb downlink (granted that uplink is 2Mb). So if you would want to use this for purely retrievable data, then your 10Mb doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    And just ftr, this is sustained. I get 2.4MB/s from my corporate network through a VPN connection without any real problems.

    Furthermore in the university town I used to live, we had Gb fibre pretty much all over the place. My connection to the university network was 11MB/s sustained, only limited because of the intermediate 1G -> 100Mb router.

    So it's available, just not everywhere yet (and yes, I live in the Netherlands, which seems to be a leader in the broadband arena at the moment)

    Splut.

    --
    Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    1. Re:10Mb peak transfer? by throx · · Score: 1

      Those numbers are significantly higher than the core US market. Comcast over here is pretty much crowing about their ability to hit 10Mb if the phase of the moon is right and you have nice neighbors who couldn't tell a computer from a cow.

      In any case, 10Mb, 20Mb, 24Mb - it's all the same really and still two orders of magnitude below local storage (which was my point). The whole "data cloud" concept relies on the idea that network storage will be as cheap and accessible as local storage.

      --

      Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

  52. BAN? by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

    Butt-Area Network? As in "you can take your poxy 56k modem and route it via your BAN"...? Hm, maybe I should go and read teh article!

    --
    "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
    - JRR Tolkien.
  53. Stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would think the ten tech concepts I need to know in 2007 would include things that actually will have an impact in 2007. However, 6 of the 10 concepts are rated "low" because they won't have an impact for years. Why not a list of things that will actually have an impact in 2007?

  54. Move to Arizona! :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Arizona, there's a state law that homeowners associations can't use their rules to prevent the installation of solar panels. And possibly other forms of alternative energy as well ( I don't remember ). The most HOAs can do is demand you make minimal accomadations to appearance. Hopefully, people will push for this in other states as well.

  55. THis is the problem with our country... by GregNorc · · Score: 1

    I won't buy a Hybrid car, it's too expensive. I won't buy solar panels for my roof, they're too expensive.

    The fact of the matter is that if we want our planet to be here for our children, we need to re-evaluate our priorities, do things that GASP might inconvenience us. It's not a game anymore, it's we're not talking about 3 toed butterflies or baby seals, global warming is happening as we speak, and we can stop it.

  56. I SEE A PROBLEM WITH BENDABLE CONCRETE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would happen if your are in the 20th floor of a bendable concrete building during a 7 degrees earthquake?

    Probably the building would not crack, but people and objects inside the building would be stirred and melted. Or not?