How does the lack of pollution from the process compare against that generated from the acquisition of the coal?
Is it possible/practical to convert an existing coal power plant?
Is there an appreciable energy/pollution cost to produce the fine powder coal used in the process?
How much energy is consumed or how much pollution is produced in transporting the coal to the reactor?
Is the process itself efficient in regards to the energy output when compared against the total energy costs?
I'm sure there's a lot of other things that don't spring to mind instantly, but I'm certainly not an expert on any of this. Doubts notwithstanding, this is pretty cool.
Then the point still stands that you're making a comparison that's not equivalent. I could say that the Nexus 10 has a far superior screen at 300 DPI and higher resolution to the 264 DPI of the Fire 8.9, but this is an irrelevant match-up.
I'll take your posts seriously when you can offer a reasonable match-up, cite data to support it and use adult language to argue your points.
Yes, but the HD Fire 8.9 is not the Kindle Fire HD - you're comparing apples and oranges. The price points also have a $100 difference, so I'd expect a higher quality screen in the model that costs a third more than the baseline we were using for comparison. Furthermore, despite the increased cost the innards still manage to be inferior to those of the Nexus 7 when it comes to power and there is no GPS.
TL;DR: Your argument "sucks balls" and logically "rapes" itself with faulty comparisons. Good day to you, sir.
I've already read through two books on my Nexus 7, so I can tell you from experience it functions just fine as an eReader. I'm not sure what you're getting at in terms of screen differences, because they have identical resolutions (and PPI).. Even the Color Gamut is identical, though the red range is superior on the Nexus 7 and the Kindle Fire HD does better with greens and yellows.
The only real noticable difference between the two screens is factory calibration and range of brightness, and it's minor. You may subconsciously perceive the Fire HD's screen as superior because it as touted as a "media device", but try a head-to-head comparison. You've been bamboozled if you think the Kindle Fire HD is far superior as a display.
I compared devices thoroughly before purchasing my Nexus 7 and I have to say that I find the screen size just about perfect. It's sharp, responsive and sized at a very convenient format. Plus, as you mentioned the processor is definitely superior.
I could understand wanting to convert an existing device if you already own a Kindle Fire, but if you're buying a new one I think the Nexus 7 is the way to go hands down. The Kindle is essentially a waste of money if you compare what you get between the two devices.
Exactly, I've been faced with opposing viewpoints on many occasions that have resulted in changing my own (for the better, in my opinion). The feeling of being wrong is grating, but it's certainly better than staying in denial and looking like an idiot.
Regardless of whether the beef was minced or not, it could be recovered. The beef could even be smashed into a pulp and still scraped from the bag, the bag itself could be wrung for the juices or inverted and hung to drip if it was watertight. In the analogy, there are options for recovery and definite measurement of quantity to ensure value is achieved.
The problem is that there is no way to verify the accuracy of provided figures from the merchant to ensure that they are measured in a fair and standards-compliant fashion so we know that we're getting what we paid for.
Let's take the beef in adolf's example, but now that beef is invisible (yes, I know this is getting strange - just bear with me). Now, your butcher takes this theoretical beef (bagged, minced, mashed, whole or otherwise) to the back room to measure the weight on an industrial scale kept under lock and key and he expects you to take him on his word that is actually 1,000 pounds of beef. Again, as with adolf's analogy, he has only given you 750 pounds. Many people would not protest, or even notice the difference; it is rather a lot of beef after all. Others might painstakingly take it to a home scale and measure it chunk by chunk, but how many people keep scales for such occasions? How can they be sure that they have all of the beef or that they measured correctly? It is hard to measure invisible beef. Perhaps a meat-enthusiast might dabble in the equipment necessary and have a scale sufficient to measure it in whole, but the butcher does not expect this to be an issue.
In the end, we're left frustrated about a suspected lack of product but an inability to concretely prove it. In short: "Where's the beef?!"
I've been saying this for years - If they'd lower the prices they would net more sales at release and lessen the sales of resellers.
$40 would be a much more approachable entry level price. $30 would be amazing, but will probably never happen. This $60-$70 business has got to stop or it will drive sales into the ground. Why would anyone want to spend that much money on something they can't guarantee they'll enjoy, may not work properly, and can't even return to any sane retailer?
If they present games in a more impulse-buy friendly fashion, they will see sales increase.
It would also help if they would get back to making games worth playing, but that's a whole 'nother topic...
The root of the problem with reselling has never been the company doing the reselling - it's the pricing of the product that allows, and even encourages the purchase and sale of used products.
A new game will set the consumer back on average $60-$70, regardless of whether it is single player, multiplayer, or moddable and any combination of these two. Why do we pay the same price for a single player game as we do for one with technically unlimited gameplay? Or for one with multiplayer that allows potentially unlimited permutations of unlimited gameplay?
Feature-based pricing with a far lower base rate would benefit everyone. Even just lowering the standard price on games to around $40 flat would allow them to -almost- be impulse buys, would easily cover packaging and shipping, and still allow a healthy profit margin that would encourage greater sales. If packaging is really that huge a concern, why not take efforts to reduce cost of packaging, like the smaller format boxes we saw appear recently, reduction of included inserts in favor of digital documentation (I read the manual, but how many of you do? I'd give it up gladly for a drop in price), or maybe even (yes, go ahead and groan) included advertising inserts to generate revenue to counter it?
$40 also gives a whole lot less "wiggle room" to the used game market, and resellers would be making $10-$30 less profit per title at the new release stage. The temptation to wait for a title to drop in price or hit the used game store's shelves at a lower price would likewise lessen greatly at a more accessible price point. Length of time before a significant price drop would, likewise, increase which would encourage further sales at the initial release price. Even so - only twice the cost of a movie for interactive entertainment? Sign me up.
It would, however, be -more- intelligent to set a standard price at something like $30 and then do feature-based pricing. Cars do it - more seats? Costs more. Convertible? Ditto. More powerful or newer engine? Same deal.
Apply to games: Multiplayer? Costs $10 more. Built-in mod support? Costs $5-10 more. Brand new game engine? Costs a little more.
You'd get a market with varying prices and incentive to make games last longer and be more interesting. It would probably even encourage innovation.
Don't get me wrong - I actually want the developers to get -more- money to better support the industry. I just think that charging more and netting less first-purchase sales is the wrong approach, and restrictive DRM is a draconian approach that avoids addressing the real problem.
You're all looking at this the wrong way - it's now become easier to fake who you are on a resume than ever before!
Step 1: Create fake profiles with perfect friends and political affiliations to suit your employer.
Step 2: Make bogus filler posts
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Prof--err, hired!
You know, the thing about Second Life is that it has so much potential. It really does. Unless you've been in there, you're the creative sort and you've experienced the way it can allow you to build, share and interact with people online you'll have a hard time understanding what the big deal is. It's a wonderful toy and an interesting social construct.
Do I believe that Second Life is really anything more than a toy? No, not really. It's fun to play around in for a while. For some people, it becomes quite literally a second life (I know it did for me) with social obligations, friends, events, and planned projects. Hell, I know how absorbing it can be and how detailed you can get, I (as Alan Beckett) won the 2005 Game Development contest with Jeffrey Gomez.
That was where I really began to lose faith in Second Life for a variety of reasons.
The technical limitations on Second Life are pretty nasty in some regards. Scripting can only go so far when your engine is struggling with the load of the basic client. Jeff had to work up a lot of work arounds in his script, created a lovely simple collision detection system, whipped up a random terrain generator, and allow for multiple users to participate on the same level at the same time. This is no small achievement within Second Life and what we built was most definately a game different and unique in and of itself. It was never perfect, though. We had to keep things as low "primcount" as possible (Prims are basic geometric shapes that make up all models. You build with them in Second Life.) to keep the game from choking outright, were constantly juggling what the sim itself could handle with what we wanted, and when all was said and done they released a patch that outright killed the game. Jeff just could not make it work again, the Lindens (those who act as administrative staff withing Second Life) talked of helping and never did and we had to badger them repeatedly before we ever even saw the promised reward money for the contest. Their staff are, in general, useless, unhelpful and irritating to deal with. Ask most long-time residents involved in the creative side of things and you'll generally find that the story is the same for any big project, assuming it ever even gets as far as completion.
Second Life is a wonderful idea, but the client is aging, the staff are not helping, and the direction it's taking is an act of desperation to keep the whole raft afloat. I haven't logged on but once or twice in the past several months and haven't really felt the desire to, either. When someone creates a better alternative I'll move over there in a heartbeat, but for now, it's the best option we've got.
Slashdot Mirror
Might be a MMS, they're getting fairly common as a delivery option and smartphones are all but the norm anymore.
How does the lack of pollution from the process compare against that generated from the acquisition of the coal?
Is it possible/practical to convert an existing coal power plant?
Is there an appreciable energy/pollution cost to produce the fine powder coal used in the process?
How much energy is consumed or how much pollution is produced in transporting the coal to the reactor?
Is the process itself efficient in regards to the energy output when compared against the total energy costs?
I'm sure there's a lot of other things that don't spring to mind instantly, but I'm certainly not an expert on any of this. Doubts notwithstanding, this is pretty cool.
Then the point still stands that you're making a comparison that's not equivalent. I could say that the Nexus 10 has a far superior screen at 300 DPI and higher resolution to the 264 DPI of the Fire 8.9, but this is an irrelevant match-up.
I'll take your posts seriously when you can offer a reasonable match-up, cite data to support it and use adult language to argue your points.
Yes, but the HD Fire 8.9 is not the Kindle Fire HD - you're comparing apples and oranges. The price points also have a $100 difference, so I'd expect a higher quality screen in the model that costs a third more than the baseline we were using for comparison. Furthermore, despite the increased cost the innards still manage to be inferior to those of the Nexus 7 when it comes to power and there is no GPS.
TL;DR: Your argument "sucks balls" and logically "rapes" itself with faulty comparisons. Good day to you, sir.
I've already read through two books on my Nexus 7, so I can tell you from experience it functions just fine as an eReader. I'm not sure what you're getting at in terms of screen differences, because they have identical resolutions (and PPI).. Even the Color Gamut is identical, though the red range is superior on the Nexus 7 and the Kindle Fire HD does better with greens and yellows.
The only real noticable difference between the two screens is factory calibration and range of brightness, and it's minor. You may subconsciously perceive the Fire HD's screen as superior because it as touted as a "media device", but try a head-to-head comparison. You've been bamboozled if you think the Kindle Fire HD is far superior as a display.
I compared devices thoroughly before purchasing my Nexus 7 and I have to say that I find the screen size just about perfect. It's sharp, responsive and sized at a very convenient format. Plus, as you mentioned the processor is definitely superior.
I could understand wanting to convert an existing device if you already own a Kindle Fire, but if you're buying a new one I think the Nexus 7 is the way to go hands down. The Kindle is essentially a waste of money if you compare what you get between the two devices.
Exactly, I've been faced with opposing viewpoints on many occasions that have resulted in changing my own (for the better, in my opinion). The feeling of being wrong is grating, but it's certainly better than staying in denial and looking like an idiot.
I find this refreshing. If only everyone would take the time to reevaluate their beliefs from time to time we might be so much better off.
No.
Not helpful, AC. You may be correct but you should still cite your source, provide otherwise constructive material for your comment or GTFO.
Regardless of whether the beef was minced or not, it could be recovered. The beef could even be smashed into a pulp and still scraped from the bag, the bag itself could be wrung for the juices or inverted and hung to drip if it was watertight. In the analogy, there are options for recovery and definite measurement of quantity to ensure value is achieved.
The problem is that there is no way to verify the accuracy of provided figures from the merchant to ensure that they are measured in a fair and standards-compliant fashion so we know that we're getting what we paid for.
Let's take the beef in adolf's example, but now that beef is invisible (yes, I know this is getting strange - just bear with me). Now, your butcher takes this theoretical beef (bagged, minced, mashed, whole or otherwise) to the back room to measure the weight on an industrial scale kept under lock and key and he expects you to take him on his word that is actually 1,000 pounds of beef. Again, as with adolf's analogy, he has only given you 750 pounds. Many people would not protest, or even notice the difference; it is rather a lot of beef after all. Others might painstakingly take it to a home scale and measure it chunk by chunk, but how many people keep scales for such occasions? How can they be sure that they have all of the beef or that they measured correctly? It is hard to measure invisible beef. Perhaps a meat-enthusiast might dabble in the equipment necessary and have a scale sufficient to measure it in whole, but the butcher does not expect this to be an issue.
In the end, we're left frustrated about a suspected lack of product but an inability to concretely prove it. In short: "Where's the beef?!"
Misspelled Tolkien's name in the subject... /facepalm.
AltaRock will dig too greedily and too deep. You know what they will awaken in the darkness of Newberry.. shadow and flame.
I've been saying this for years - If they'd lower the prices they would net more sales at release and lessen the sales of resellers.
$40 would be a much more approachable entry level price. $30 would be amazing, but will probably never happen. This $60-$70 business has got to stop or it will drive sales into the ground. Why would anyone want to spend that much money on something they can't guarantee they'll enjoy, may not work properly, and can't even return to any sane retailer?
If they present games in a more impulse-buy friendly fashion, they will see sales increase.
It would also help if they would get back to making games worth playing, but that's a whole 'nother topic...
The root of the problem with reselling has never been the company doing the reselling - it's the pricing of the product that allows, and even encourages the purchase and sale of used products.
A new game will set the consumer back on average $60-$70, regardless of whether it is single player, multiplayer, or moddable and any combination of these two. Why do we pay the same price for a single player game as we do for one with technically unlimited gameplay? Or for one with multiplayer that allows potentially unlimited permutations of unlimited gameplay?
Feature-based pricing with a far lower base rate would benefit everyone. Even just lowering the standard price on games to around $40 flat would allow them to -almost- be impulse buys, would easily cover packaging and shipping, and still allow a healthy profit margin that would encourage greater sales. If packaging is really that huge a concern, why not take efforts to reduce cost of packaging, like the smaller format boxes we saw appear recently, reduction of included inserts in favor of digital documentation (I read the manual, but how many of you do? I'd give it up gladly for a drop in price), or maybe even (yes, go ahead and groan) included advertising inserts to generate revenue to counter it?
$40 also gives a whole lot less "wiggle room" to the used game market, and resellers would be making $10-$30 less profit per title at the new release stage. The temptation to wait for a title to drop in price or hit the used game store's shelves at a lower price would likewise lessen greatly at a more accessible price point. Length of time before a significant price drop would, likewise, increase which would encourage further sales at the initial release price. Even so - only twice the cost of a movie for interactive entertainment? Sign me up.
It would, however, be -more- intelligent to set a standard price at something like $30 and then do feature-based pricing. Cars do it - more seats? Costs more. Convertible? Ditto. More powerful or newer engine? Same deal.
Apply to games: Multiplayer? Costs $10 more. Built-in mod support? Costs $5-10 more. Brand new game engine? Costs a little more.
You'd get a market with varying prices and incentive to make games last longer and be more interesting. It would probably even encourage innovation.
Don't get me wrong - I actually want the developers to get -more- money to better support the industry. I just think that charging more and netting less first-purchase sales is the wrong approach, and restrictive DRM is a draconian approach that avoids addressing the real problem.
You're all looking at this the wrong way - it's now become easier to fake who you are on a resume than ever before!
Step 1: Create fake profiles with perfect friends and political affiliations to suit your employer.
Step 2: Make bogus filler posts
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Prof--err, hired!
Ugh. Forgot to format. Sorry for the annoying read, folks.
You know, the thing about Second Life is that it has so much potential. It really does. Unless you've been in there, you're the creative sort and you've experienced the way it can allow you to build, share and interact with people online you'll have a hard time understanding what the big deal is. It's a wonderful toy and an interesting social construct. Do I believe that Second Life is really anything more than a toy? No, not really. It's fun to play around in for a while. For some people, it becomes quite literally a second life (I know it did for me) with social obligations, friends, events, and planned projects. Hell, I know how absorbing it can be and how detailed you can get, I (as Alan Beckett) won the 2005 Game Development contest with Jeffrey Gomez. That was where I really began to lose faith in Second Life for a variety of reasons. The technical limitations on Second Life are pretty nasty in some regards. Scripting can only go so far when your engine is struggling with the load of the basic client. Jeff had to work up a lot of work arounds in his script, created a lovely simple collision detection system, whipped up a random terrain generator, and allow for multiple users to participate on the same level at the same time. This is no small achievement within Second Life and what we built was most definately a game different and unique in and of itself. It was never perfect, though. We had to keep things as low "primcount" as possible (Prims are basic geometric shapes that make up all models. You build with them in Second Life.) to keep the game from choking outright, were constantly juggling what the sim itself could handle with what we wanted, and when all was said and done they released a patch that outright killed the game. Jeff just could not make it work again, the Lindens (those who act as administrative staff withing Second Life) talked of helping and never did and we had to badger them repeatedly before we ever even saw the promised reward money for the contest. Their staff are, in general, useless, unhelpful and irritating to deal with. Ask most long-time residents involved in the creative side of things and you'll generally find that the story is the same for any big project, assuming it ever even gets as far as completion. Second Life is a wonderful idea, but the client is aging, the staff are not helping, and the direction it's taking is an act of desperation to keep the whole raft afloat. I haven't logged on but once or twice in the past several months and haven't really felt the desire to, either. When someone creates a better alternative I'll move over there in a heartbeat, but for now, it's the best option we've got.
Hooray! Finally we have everything Firefox already has with only half the security!