put a high price tag on it, and watch the buyers flock. Try giving kittens away. Its hard, because when people evaluate if they should take one of your kittens, they will think of the problems of owning a cat. Now try selling kittens for 100$ each. Its about as hard as giving them away because the cost will draw attention away from the other problems, but it will also earn you money.
Same applies here. For 2000$, the big issue for the buyer is that he's buying something illegal that might actually not contain anything really interesting. For 200 000$, the big issue is to get the cash.
That's very nice and I am sure it will net them more than they would if they released it the traditional way. But I'd like to see a completely independent band do the same. These guys are famous because their record companies have invested in them. Extremely few independent bands could support themselves on their music by letting their customers choose how much to pay for the music. They don't get enough attention and hype.
My point is that this doesn't prove that record companies are not needed. It just proves that the rich and famous can do whatever they want, and that has always been a well known fact. But those who only care about destroying the record companies and don't care about replacing them with a sustainable model, this is great, I guess.
No, doing something is not better than doing nothing. They are perfectly equal. Its the results that matter, only the results. Doing something to help someone might make you feel better, but not doing something to help that someone might actually be better for him.
Yes, even though the world bank says he actually reduced corruption in the country more than what had previously been done. But I guess he reduced other peoples corruption and added his own. And bombings? Who suspects that? I mean, apart from the people behind the recent military coup of a democratically elected president?
I'm sorry, but you just seem to be someone who has completely swallowed the propaganda of anti-democrats. If you want to live like that, fine, I don't care. I just want you to know that from a bystanders point of view, you appear quite insane. If many people in Thailand shares your views, it would be very bad if the UK sent him back; he might very well be killed by a bunch of lunatics!
Do they really? Sure, you can write documents on them. But you can't electronically send those documents. You can print them, if you're at work, chances are you'll use a network printer, which usually means internet access as well.
You can use it for games, but the worlds most popular games are online games, no doubt about that.
You can use it for many other things as well, but when you think about it, most of the things you do with a PC today are closely related to the internet. If I for some reason permanently lost internet access, I wouldn't bother with computers at all, I'd pick up another hobby. Initially, PCs started the popularization of the internet, but nowadays I actually think its the other way around. So its only fair to include PCs as an extension of the internet, in my humble opinion.
Ok, if we send people up there every now and then, it costs Nasa 2.3 billion. But just keeping it there, what does that cost? I mean, if you installed an ion propulsion system to maintain altitude, is there anything else that needs to be done?
Because the obvious answer to me seems to be that everyone puts in the money needed to just keep it in orbit, and then countries and corporations can pay to rent it for a few weeks at a time or whatever. It seems so pointless to just drop it into the sea when its done.
What? Isn't he saying that he has heard other people refer to those who play as the opposite gender as "degenerate"? From what I gather, you agree with this "grammatically-challenged, obviously teenage and sexually-challenged writer".
Yep, you are absolutely correct, an earth based space elevator may very well be impossible even in theory because of the demands on the tether, and that's even before considering issues with climbers, wear and tear, etc... The people who put their faith in carbon nanotubes are blind to the facts.
However, on the moon or on mars, a space elevator is possible in theory. I expect that in the next 20 years, we'll see more and more detailed proposals for a space elevator on the moon. If one is built in our lifetime or not probably depends more on politics and money than on technology development.
Why is this danger greater than the danger of getting hit by debris from an exploding space shuttle attempting reentry? Anyway, the tether would have extremely low density. If it for some strange reason did not burn or break because of the increased stress, it would probably fall to ground like a feather, if it even came down at all. It might just stay up there with the help of jet streams, like a kite.
In other words, the sci-fi authors don't know what they're talking about.
Well, I'd just like to point out that its a bit of a myth that TGV runs on regular track. The fact is that where ever you want to have a very fast train running, you have to completely rebuild the track. It has to take a greater load, be straighter and have less defects. Furthermore, you often have to dedicated this new piece of track to the fast trains, partly because its so expensive that you cannot afford having goods running on it, and partly because to avoid delays. You didn't say that TGV runs on regular track, but I you said TGV runs at a fraction of the cost, and I'm just wondering what your source on that is. My guess is that the whole TGV-system could have been built in maglev, if maglev estimates are true, for maybe twice the cost. Sure, "half" is also a fraction, but TGV isn't as cheap as you seem to think.
Anyway, the fact is that regular trains have hit their upper limit in regards to speed. Many of them can run much faster, but don't, because of the extreme wear and tear. There is no more room for evolution. If you want faster trains, you need to make them maglev. Personally though, I am a bit skeptical towards both TGV and maglev, because both cost insane amounts for relatively small increases in speed. I prefer 200km/h on every route over 400km/h between the biggest cities. Competing with cars will give much more passengers than competing with airplanes...
Well, looking at the figures in your document there... In japan roughly a 1/3 of journeys are by rail, and in the USA its like 1%. This is partly explained by population density, but not entirely. Sweden has about the same population density as the USA, yet much more rail travel. Now, I think everyone knows that Japan has a very good railway network with very fast trains, and the USA has a poor railway network mostly intended for freight. So the only conclusion i can draw from this is that faster trains -> more travel by rail.
But in this particular case, I have no idea... It doesn't say how far it will be and what geographical obstacles there are, so its very hard to judge just how expensive this is. But I can say this: All kinds of railways in cities are very expensive, yet very necessary. 2.6 billion USD might actually not be that bad. I was surprised at how cheap the one in Shanghai was. Maybe it was because of cheap Chinese labor or a government that can do whatever it pleases, but there have been much worse railway projects in history.
What bothers me is that München might not be the perfect city for this. Its not very large or growing quickly, and the same is true for its economy. Shanghai on the other hand is without a doubt one of the worlds most important cities, since it is the economic engine of China. It is a good idea for Shanghai to invest in very high tech infrastructure. Partly to impress investors, and partly because rapidly increasing land values might make it impossible in the future.
Cheap as dirt solar power means high energy consumption. High consumption means increasing prices unless we cover all deserts etc with solar cells. That, on the other hand, is bad for the local ecology. Besides, I wonder if it will affect global temperatures if all the land starts being covered with energy absorbing materials. That's how it always is. Energy is always either expensive or ruins the environment. This is of course true for all products, but it seems especially true for energy.
Even if we do get cheap electricity, there are still technological leaps to be made before that becomes an efficient way of powering cars, let alone trucks, cargo ships or worst of all: Aircraft. Also, industries like to keep running 24/7. Solar power is only really efficient around noon and completely inefficient at night. Now there are ways to get around this, but they are very expensive. The even bigger issue is northern countries that get very little sunlight during the winter. Sure, they can import power, but that means power will be wasted in the grid.
These issues can be solved of course, but not for free, and not soon, and there goes the idea of cheap solar power in our lifetime. Its a bit like fusion. It seems to be the solution that's constantly 30 years away. Solar power seems more probable than fusion, but its really the exact same issue: They both work, but neither produces more energy than what is put in. Sure, solar cells produce more power than what is put in if they are placed at the optimal spots and used only as a complementary power source. But if we want to use them for more than 50% of the global power consumption, we have to start putting them at pretty bad spots too, and we will lose so much power in various conversion and transportation processes necessary to counteract the bad sides of solar power. A global average of 5% efficiency when converting the sunlight at the working solar cell to energy at the consumer will seem very optimistic, even if the cells themselves could convert sunlight to electricity at 50% efficiency in optimal conditions.
So no, this is not the solution any more than fusion is. Wind, various forms of hydro power and solar power in combination might eventually turn out to solve the big issue, but in the end, energy will never be cheap again.
But to be serious, if private space flight really becomes interesting yet is prohibitet by governments, I'm sure som small state will charge people for letting them launch in their territory. Luckily, the world is still not entirely devided among super powers.
There's no impending doom for any people. They will without a doubt be given a new land if sea levels rise. There are so few of them, they have good relations with the rest of the world and the change will come slowly. Sure, its sad that their islands might sink into the sea, but you make it sound like slashdotters are laughing while people are drowning, which is not the case.
And I guess this answers your parent too: There's nothing to say the nation will cease to exist just because the islands "sink".
What you're missing is that convincing games are more fun. Sure, there are other ways of making games more convincing and thus more fun, but graphics, physics and AI are very tangible and an area which we can be sure has a potential to improve a lot, unlike more artistic elements which vary from title to title without necessarily improving over time.
Its also a personal opinion about what convinces you, just like with books, movies etc. People who like Conan the Barbarian might think the movie Sound of Music is just silly because everyone sings all the time. Some people think a 2d surface is enough to represent water, but can't stand a level of a supposed factory that doesn't appear to produce anything. But others might feel just the other way around.
Books are not art. I can see how they are useful to art when, for example, you need to record the script for a play or a story, or the mathematical formulas needed in architecture, but they themselves are not art. Give me one example of a book that can be considered art! Surely, they don't compare to classical epic plays and stories, to music, to statues or even pottery.
Besides, they are just a fad. People might be reading a lot now, but it will soon fade away again when people realize that the theater was superior all along when it comes to art.
Now, what are these "games" you speak off? Are they too some new invention? Never mind, spare me.
You'll develop problems much faster than that if you drink your own urine.
98% sounds much, but it isn't. It means that the salinity can be up to 2% - not far from sea water. If you drink it, it will make you dry out faster than not drinking at all. See, that's how the (healthy) kidneys work: the stuff you pee out can never have a lower salinity than the rest of your body.
Its not fast enough for it to make that much of a difference. If you fly it far enough from the equator though, you can get pretty much constant sunlight, which seems like a better trick to pull if you want to cheat a little:)
Slashdot Mirror
put a high price tag on it, and watch the buyers flock. Try giving kittens away. Its hard, because when people evaluate if they should take one of your kittens, they will think of the problems of owning a cat. Now try selling kittens for 100$ each. Its about as hard as giving them away because the cost will draw attention away from the other problems, but it will also earn you money.
Same applies here. For 2000$, the big issue for the buyer is that he's buying something illegal that might actually not contain anything really interesting. For 200 000$, the big issue is to get the cash.
That's very nice and I am sure it will net them more than they would if they released it the traditional way. But I'd like to see a completely independent band do the same. These guys are famous because their record companies have invested in them. Extremely few independent bands could support themselves on their music by letting their customers choose how much to pay for the music. They don't get enough attention and hype.
My point is that this doesn't prove that record companies are not needed. It just proves that the rich and famous can do whatever they want, and that has always been a well known fact. But those who only care about destroying the record companies and don't care about replacing them with a sustainable model, this is great, I guess.
No, doing something is not better than doing nothing. They are perfectly equal. Its the results that matter, only the results. Doing something to help someone might make you feel better, but not doing something to help that someone might actually be better for him.
Yes, even though the world bank says he actually reduced corruption in the country more than what had previously been done. But I guess he reduced other peoples corruption and added his own. And bombings? Who suspects that? I mean, apart from the people behind the recent military coup of a democratically elected president?
I'm sorry, but you just seem to be someone who has completely swallowed the propaganda of anti-democrats. If you want to live like that, fine, I don't care. I just want you to know that from a bystanders point of view, you appear quite insane. If many people in Thailand shares your views, it would be very bad if the UK sent him back; he might very well be killed by a bunch of lunatics!
Well, if the US isn't to blame for deaths in iraq, why is the UN to blame for deaths in Darfur?
Do they really? Sure, you can write documents on them. But you can't electronically send those documents. You can print them, if you're at work, chances are you'll use a network printer, which usually means internet access as well.
You can use it for games, but the worlds most popular games are online games, no doubt about that.
You can use it for many other things as well, but when you think about it, most of the things you do with a PC today are closely related to the internet. If I for some reason permanently lost internet access, I wouldn't bother with computers at all, I'd pick up another hobby. Initially, PCs started the popularization of the internet, but nowadays I actually think its the other way around. So its only fair to include PCs as an extension of the internet, in my humble opinion.
Ok, if we send people up there every now and then, it costs Nasa 2.3 billion. But just keeping it there, what does that cost? I mean, if you installed an ion propulsion system to maintain altitude, is there anything else that needs to be done?
Because the obvious answer to me seems to be that everyone puts in the money needed to just keep it in orbit, and then countries and corporations can pay to rent it for a few weeks at a time or whatever. It seems so pointless to just drop it into the sea when its done.
Why would that be interesting?
What? Isn't he saying that he has heard other people refer to those who play as the opposite gender as "degenerate"? From what I gather, you agree with this "grammatically-challenged, obviously teenage and sexually-challenged writer".
Yep, you are absolutely correct, an earth based space elevator may very well be impossible even in theory because of the demands on the tether, and that's even before considering issues with climbers, wear and tear, etc... The people who put their faith in carbon nanotubes are blind to the facts.
However, on the moon or on mars, a space elevator is possible in theory. I expect that in the next 20 years, we'll see more and more detailed proposals for a space elevator on the moon. If one is built in our lifetime or not probably depends more on politics and money than on technology development.
Why is this danger greater than the danger of getting hit by debris from an exploding space shuttle attempting reentry? Anyway, the tether would have extremely low density. If it for some strange reason did not burn or break because of the increased stress, it would probably fall to ground like a feather, if it even came down at all. It might just stay up there with the help of jet streams, like a kite.
In other words, the sci-fi authors don't know what they're talking about.
Well, I'd just like to point out that its a bit of a myth that TGV runs on regular track. The fact is that where ever you want to have a very fast train running, you have to completely rebuild the track. It has to take a greater load, be straighter and have less defects. Furthermore, you often have to dedicated this new piece of track to the fast trains, partly because its so expensive that you cannot afford having goods running on it, and partly because to avoid delays. You didn't say that TGV runs on regular track, but I you said TGV runs at a fraction of the cost, and I'm just wondering what your source on that is. My guess is that the whole TGV-system could have been built in maglev, if maglev estimates are true, for maybe twice the cost. Sure, "half" is also a fraction, but TGV isn't as cheap as you seem to think.
Anyway, the fact is that regular trains have hit their upper limit in regards to speed. Many of them can run much faster, but don't, because of the extreme wear and tear. There is no more room for evolution. If you want faster trains, you need to make them maglev. Personally though, I am a bit skeptical towards both TGV and maglev, because both cost insane amounts for relatively small increases in speed. I prefer 200km/h on every route over 400km/h between the biggest cities. Competing with cars will give much more passengers than competing with airplanes...
Well, looking at the figures in your document there... In japan roughly a 1/3 of journeys are by rail, and in the USA its like 1%. This is partly explained by population density, but not entirely. Sweden has about the same population density as the USA, yet much more rail travel. Now, I think everyone knows that Japan has a very good railway network with very fast trains, and the USA has a poor railway network mostly intended for freight. So the only conclusion i can draw from this is that faster trains -> more travel by rail.
But in this particular case, I have no idea... It doesn't say how far it will be and what geographical obstacles there are, so its very hard to judge just how expensive this is. But I can say this: All kinds of railways in cities are very expensive, yet very necessary. 2.6 billion USD might actually not be that bad. I was surprised at how cheap the one in Shanghai was. Maybe it was because of cheap Chinese labor or a government that can do whatever it pleases, but there have been much worse railway projects in history.
What bothers me is that München might not be the perfect city for this. Its not very large or growing quickly, and the same is true for its economy. Shanghai on the other hand is without a doubt one of the worlds most important cities, since it is the economic engine of China. It is a good idea for Shanghai to invest in very high tech infrastructure. Partly to impress investors, and partly because rapidly increasing land values might make it impossible in the future.
More specifically, they are convinced that owning 5% will prevent Google from ever getting a part of the Facebook action.
Cheap as dirt solar power means high energy consumption. High consumption means increasing prices unless we cover all deserts etc with solar cells. That, on the other hand, is bad for the local ecology. Besides, I wonder if it will affect global temperatures if all the land starts being covered with energy absorbing materials. That's how it always is. Energy is always either expensive or ruins the environment. This is of course true for all products, but it seems especially true for energy.
Even if we do get cheap electricity, there are still technological leaps to be made before that becomes an efficient way of powering cars, let alone trucks, cargo ships or worst of all: Aircraft. Also, industries like to keep running 24/7. Solar power is only really efficient around noon and completely inefficient at night. Now there are ways to get around this, but they are very expensive. The even bigger issue is northern countries that get very little sunlight during the winter. Sure, they can import power, but that means power will be wasted in the grid.
These issues can be solved of course, but not for free, and not soon, and there goes the idea of cheap solar power in our lifetime. Its a bit like fusion. It seems to be the solution that's constantly 30 years away. Solar power seems more probable than fusion, but its really the exact same issue: They both work, but neither produces more energy than what is put in. Sure, solar cells produce more power than what is put in if they are placed at the optimal spots and used only as a complementary power source. But if we want to use them for more than 50% of the global power consumption, we have to start putting them at pretty bad spots too, and we will lose so much power in various conversion and transportation processes necessary to counteract the bad sides of solar power. A global average of 5% efficiency when converting the sunlight at the working solar cell to energy at the consumer will seem very optimistic, even if the cells themselves could convert sunlight to electricity at 50% efficiency in optimal conditions.
So no, this is not the solution any more than fusion is. Wind, various forms of hydro power and solar power in combination might eventually turn out to solve the big issue, but in the end, energy will never be cheap again.
You obviously haven't watched James Bond enough. You just have to make the launch platform submersible!
But to be serious, if private space flight really becomes interesting yet is prohibitet by governments, I'm sure som small state will charge people for letting them launch in their territory. Luckily, the world is still not entirely devided among super powers.
There's no impending doom for any people. They will without a doubt be given a new land if sea levels rise. There are so few of them, they have good relations with the rest of the world and the change will come slowly. Sure, its sad that their islands might sink into the sea, but you make it sound like slashdotters are laughing while people are drowning, which is not the case.
And I guess this answers your parent too: There's nothing to say the nation will cease to exist just because the islands "sink".
What you're missing is that convincing games are more fun. Sure, there are other ways of making games more convincing and thus more fun, but graphics, physics and AI are very tangible and an area which we can be sure has a potential to improve a lot, unlike more artistic elements which vary from title to title without necessarily improving over time.
Its also a personal opinion about what convinces you, just like with books, movies etc. People who like Conan the Barbarian might think the movie Sound of Music is just silly because everyone sings all the time. Some people think a 2d surface is enough to represent water, but can't stand a level of a supposed factory that doesn't appear to produce anything. But others might feel just the other way around.
Books are not art. I can see how they are useful to art when, for example, you need to record the script for a play or a story, or the mathematical formulas needed in architecture, but they themselves are not art. Give me one example of a book that can be considered art! Surely, they don't compare to classical epic plays and stories, to music, to statues or even pottery.
Besides, they are just a fad. People might be reading a lot now, but it will soon fade away again when people realize that the theater was superior all along when it comes to art.
Now, what are these "games" you speak off? Are they too some new invention? Never mind, spare me.
Because "almost as good" means nothing in high tech industries, no matter if its free.
Which actually proves what a great poet he is. Real poets never admit being poets.
You'll develop problems much faster than that if you drink your own urine.
98% sounds much, but it isn't. It means that the salinity can be up to 2% - not far from sea water. If you drink it, it will make you dry out faster than not drinking at all. See, that's how the (healthy) kidneys work: the stuff you pee out can never have a lower salinity than the rest of your body.
So let your money talk: Sell your shares. Oh thats right, you cant, because these people make you lots of money.
Its not fast enough for it to make that much of a difference. If you fly it far enough from the equator though, you can get pretty much constant sunlight, which seems like a better trick to pull if you want to cheat a little :)