The whole point is that as they are currently teenagers, they perform better when classes start later. The research does not apply to adults. So, now that they are teenagers, have school later, and when they graduate from college, they will be ready for earlier start times.
10 am sounds really late to me. My school started at 7:30, which meant that the bus picked us up at 7 am. That felt like 4 years of punishment. The reason for the early start time was all the afternoon activities. School got out at 2:30; at that point it was sports (swimming for me) or various clubs, until 4:30 or 5. How on earth can you have any sort of sports when school starts at 10 am?
It's expensive to run all those lines and make all those towers, but the overall cost is less. If you can plug wind power into this sort of system (which is a huge if) then the overall system can be even better.
But, that's silly because we are going to figure out human cloning. Eventually, if it can be done (and I don't know of any show stoppers), someone will figure it out, regardless of whether we used embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells. So, the moral questions about human cloning are relevant, regardless of the moral questions about ESCs, which appear to be highly entwined with moral questions about abortion.
So, we're going to be able to make human clones, we're going to be able to make organs, and might as well start figuring out how to deal with it. Putting your finger in the dike isn't going to work on this issue. As usual, the people who have been thinking about this sort of thing are the sci-fi writers. Maybe we can have William Gibson or Bruce Sterling help us work through the implications. Actually, it would be nice to have a clone of Asimov that we can have ponder the issues, but maybe he'd be biased.
They can't be told the risks, because nobody knows what the risks are. Just saying "Well, it might cause cancer someday" isn't telling someone the risks. What sort of cancer? With what probability? What are the chances that it will metastasize? What are the other possible side effects? Until you have some idea about the answers to these questions, then you cannot have informed consent.
Vinod Khosla isn't really stupid. In fact, he's generally the opposite of stupid. So, I would doubt their numbers, but there is probably some piece of technology there that improves efficiency. The real question is whether or not the overall effect is positive, in terms of engine maintenance, control, emissions, and cost.
And of course, we have absolutely no idea if it's a good idea or not, because this is just a press release.
I agree to move along, but I'll be cautiously optimistic that something positive will come out of it.
Dude, you forgot the links. This is actually a very interesting idea: put the wind generators where the wind is much faster and consistent (though not completely).
Plus, may I point out that most of that music which is "classical" now, was once the avantgarde thing that shocked the elders of the day? Are you aware that Mozart, who now is used to deterr the youth from being there, once was pretty much the equivalent of punk and wrote such shock pieces as "Lick Me In The Arse" and "Lick Me In The Arse Really Nice And Clean"? Now that ought to have gotten a few proper old ladies ranting about the decadence of youth and their music these days.
Are you aware that complaints about "today's youth" and pretty much a verbatim rehash of all the "cool" stereotypes about them, can be found as early as Socrates or Hesiod in the 8'th century BC?
Wow. Just wow. Mozart really did write a song called Lick Me in the Arse. I had absolutely no idea.
Don't people that want to live in a community with standards that they agree to have the right to do that? Who are you to say, no, you people can't live in a community with your own rules? And if they agree to the rules, and are happy with it, why should you care?
The problem in this case is that there is a community with their standards, that they agreed to, and someone came in and decided that they didn't like the rules. The rules were there first. It's like people who buy a house next to an airport (or a military base) and then complain about the aircraft noise and try to get it shut down. If you are so stupid that you buy into a community with existing rules or environment and then decide not to follow them, it's your fault.
One of the great things about living in the US is that these sorts of rules / laws are very local. If you don't like the rules, live someplace else. There is a very wide variety of state laws, county, city, and local living arrangements. Pick one that you like, and live there. You want to put a huge tower in your backyard, or put a rusted out 78' Impala in your front yard on blocks, or just have dirt everywhere, great, live someplace that allows that. Don't do it someplace that people in the community have agreed not do to it.
The annoying thing to me is that people decide that there is someplace nice that they want to live, move in and then bitch about the rules that prevent them from doing dumb-ass things to their property with no regards to their neighbors, when it is those rules that made it a nice to place live in in the first place.
Putting things in sea water is a bitch. They tend to either sink or get salt encrusted or eroded. Unless you have high power density and you are close to the shoreline, maintenance costs will absolutely kill you. They have been working for decades to make maintainable wind turbines and wave energy generators. Putting a diffuse power source like solar on the ocean is a recipe for disaster.
BP is an energy company at this point, not simply an oil company. They have, more than the other huge oil companies, realized that they need to diversify, so they have moved aggressively into natural gas, solar, wind, and geothermal. Yes, they still get most of their money from oil, and will continue to focus on it as long as it is making them money. But they are hedging their bets and putting large amounts of money into research to be well positioned for whatever comes next.
If a solar solution appears that costs less than oil, they will pour money into it and beat the others to market with it. That's the way that capitalism works.
It depends on the application. For large scale deployments in the desert, yes, the panel cost is the most important part, since much of the rest can be spread over the entire application. For home / small / remote applications, unfortunately, other costs dominate (mechanical, installation, maintenance). If the panels were free (as in beer), but the costs of a home installation cost $10,000 (what it would cost in my area), it would not be worth it from a purely economic point of view.
It's different now. My tivo talks WiFi to my cablemodem / wireless access point. It gets the data that way, as well as connecting to NetFlix. Its fast and secure (well, it's using WPA) and I don't have to have a phone connection, so could put my TV where I wanted it.
The NetFlix connection in particular is great, since I can load up a huge number of Play Now movies for the kids on Netflix and play them through the Tivo interface (which the kids can use). Only downside is that the movies that I want to watch, but don't want the kids watching, can't be on the Play Now list.
This actually makes even more sense when you posit that Microsoft lied in the document, and actually does record your MS messenger data, and keeps your emails forever. It's all part of the disinformation campaign.
I had not even thought of that. Google needs lots and lots of power. Power comes from nuclear reactors (and other places). But nuclear reactors cost lots and lots of money, and up front too. Solution: Google builds nuclear plants! Win!
While it's true that nobody gets to define language, it can be slowly modified by a dedicated group of people. So, we'll just keep yelling at people who misuse the term. A robot is, by definition, autonomous. A ROV is not. That's the difference; and anyone who uses the wrong term will be mocked.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I understand some of the argument, but googling 'US farm bank' doesn't turn up anything relevant (it keeps getting State Farm Bank). so, do you have a link? If there is a giant federal program for people to put their farm land in, it would make sense that it would come up on a search, but so far nothing.
If there is a law, and the AG doesn't enforce it, it might as well not be a law. That's an (implicit) form of veto. Of course, the summary is hyperbole, but the key point (that the guy's a loon and in a position to affect how the law is applied) is correct.
Don't blame Boeing. Boeing doesn't determine where the seats go. Take a look at the bottom of the chairs. There's a railing that the seats are attached to, and so the seats can be swapped out and moved forward and back. The decision of what seats to use, and where to put them is determined by the airline, not the manufacturer of the aircraft.
What I stated was that government advice would probably be as about as good as astrology.
No, that's not what you stated. What you stated was (here quoted in full, so hopefully you'll understand the difference):
Climate science is in its infancy, as anyone who has been really following the "Global Warming" debate knows. Certainly we know the globe is warming, but the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still very much up in the air.
Setting up a Climate Service today would be akin to setting up an Astrology Service. They would probably both give equally good advice.
Almost every sentence in the above quote is wrong. Climate science is not in its infancy. It's been going on for 40 years now. The 'Global Warming' debate is a political issue and hotly debated; climate science is not. We know a great deal about the climate, and have for some time now.
The greenhouse gas aspect is not very much up in the air. I gave you a bunch of links to the organizations that state that it is not up in the air.
A climate service would not be akin to an astrology service. Equating them in any way does a huge disservice to science in general and climate science specifcally. They are not even close. Astrology is pseudoscientific crap; climate is an honest, technical, and fascinating science.
They would not give equally good advice. Using what we do know, a Climate Science organization can give good advice about the likely effects of various political policies. And, it can give us good advice about what we do and do not know, and can tell us something about the uncertainties involved. (Aside: Of course, on the other hand, I've have a friend who is an astrologer and she seems to give really good advice, largely because she doesn't believe astrology, and just uses what she learns about the person to help them through their problems, YMMV).
When everybody in a thread thinks that you said one thing, and you think that you said something else, then maybe, just maybe, the problem is not with their comprehension skills, but with your communication skills. If you wanted to state that government advice would probably be as good as astrology, they that's what you should have said, and they backed up the statement with supporting arguments. For example you could say:
With regards to Climate Science, government advice would probably be as about as good as astrology. The uncertainties involved so large that nobody can give competent advice. Further, the issue is so politicized that the advice would be less about what science we do know than about secondary social and moral goals of the political appointees that would run it.
If you had actually made that argument (which you did not), then I might agree with you. Instead, you made the statement that greenhouse gas effects were unknown and then made a statement that seemed to equate Astrology and Climate Science. The problem in understanding what you meant is you, not everybody else.
At this point, I think that climate deniers are very close to creationists. In both cases, there are people and organizations that disagree with the science. They can talk a good talk, but fail in the actual doing of the science. They can ask more questions than can be answered currently, can take quotes (and emails) out of context, they can use the human failures of people involved in the science against them, and any screw ups (and they certainly exist in both cases) are taken as evidence that the entire science is incorrect. But, they are ignoring the basic science as a whole, discarding what we do understand, and blowing the uncertainties way out of proportion, in order to promote an unscientific point of view.
Intel (the company) is interested in real robotics. Yes, it may ultimately be a way to sell more processors, but they do serious research into robotics. See this page for example, or this page. They have also been heavily involved in image processing (for robotics and other things) for many years, for example with OpenCV.
Who knows what the marketing department is really interested in besides making Intel look cool.
No, content as in the data or information in the page, as opposed to the semantics or decorations.
The fact that RMS doesn't like the word because it doesn't fit his philosophy doesn't make it incorrect, or not a term of art; it just means that RMS is a fanatic.
Slashdot Mirror
That was Paul, not Jesus. And, I've never trusted Paul. His version of Christianity seems unlike that espoused by Jesus.
I don't know about him, but I'm using CentOS 5.3 (2.6.18). If I do:
/dev/mem | strings
/dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama /dev/mem: Operation not permitted
/dev/mem | grep -i llama
# sudo cat
I get a stream of output, and pretty interesting too. But, if I do:
# sudo cat
cat:
Oops. Not clear why that happened.
# sudo strings
Does work. It's very odd.
The whole point is that as they are currently teenagers, they perform better when classes start later. The research does not apply to adults. So, now that they are teenagers, have school later, and when they graduate from college, they will be ready for earlier start times.
10 am sounds really late to me. My school started at 7:30, which meant that the bus picked us up at 7 am. That felt like 4 years of punishment. The reason for the early start time was all the afternoon activities. School got out at 2:30; at that point it was sports (swimming for me) or various clubs, until 4:30 or 5. How on earth can you have any sort of sports when school starts at 10 am?
But we're already doing it. See the Pacific DC Intertie. 1300 km of 500 kV DC power. Or, see the marketing literature of Bonneville power.
It's expensive to run all those lines and make all those towers, but the overall cost is less. If you can plug wind power into this sort of system (which is a huge if) then the overall system can be even better.
But, that's silly because we are going to figure out human cloning. Eventually, if it can be done (and I don't know of any show stoppers), someone will figure it out, regardless of whether we used embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells. So, the moral questions about human cloning are relevant, regardless of the moral questions about ESCs, which appear to be highly entwined with moral questions about abortion.
So, we're going to be able to make human clones, we're going to be able to make organs, and might as well start figuring out how to deal with it. Putting your finger in the dike isn't going to work on this issue. As usual, the people who have been thinking about this sort of thing are the sci-fi writers. Maybe we can have William Gibson or Bruce Sterling help us work through the implications. Actually, it would be nice to have a clone of Asimov that we can have ponder the issues, but maybe he'd be biased.
They can't be told the risks, because nobody knows what the risks are. Just saying "Well, it might cause cancer someday" isn't telling someone the risks. What sort of cancer? With what probability? What are the chances that it will metastasize? What are the other possible side effects? Until you have some idea about the answers to these questions, then you cannot have informed consent.
Vinod Khosla isn't really stupid. In fact, he's generally the opposite of stupid. So, I would doubt their numbers, but there is probably some piece of technology there that improves efficiency. The real question is whether or not the overall effect is positive, in terms of engine maintenance, control, emissions, and cost. And of course, we have absolutely no idea if it's a good idea or not, because this is just a press release.
I agree to move along, but I'll be cautiously optimistic that something positive will come out of it.
Dude, you forgot the links. This is actually a very interesting idea: put the wind generators where the wind is much faster and consistent (though not completely).
Magenn makes a rotating blimp thing.
Sky WindPower uses the turbine to fly as well as generate power. Here's an article at Stanford
Is this a good idea? I don't know how the economics really works out, but certainly there is a much higher energy density at altitude.
Plus, may I point out that most of that music which is "classical" now, was once the avantgarde thing that shocked the elders of the day? Are you aware that Mozart, who now is used to deterr the youth from being there, once was pretty much the equivalent of punk and wrote such shock pieces as "Lick Me In The Arse" and "Lick Me In The Arse Really Nice And Clean"? Now that ought to have gotten a few proper old ladies ranting about the decadence of youth and their music these days.
Are you aware that complaints about "today's youth" and pretty much a verbatim rehash of all the "cool" stereotypes about them, can be found as early as Socrates or Hesiod in the 8'th century BC?
Wow. Just wow. Mozart really did write a song called Lick Me in the Arse. I had absolutely no idea.
Don't people that want to live in a community with standards that they agree to have the right to do that? Who are you to say, no, you people can't live in a community with your own rules? And if they agree to the rules, and are happy with it, why should you care?
The problem in this case is that there is a community with their standards, that they agreed to, and someone came in and decided that they didn't like the rules. The rules were there first. It's like people who buy a house next to an airport (or a military base) and then complain about the aircraft noise and try to get it shut down. If you are so stupid that you buy into a community with existing rules or environment and then decide not to follow them, it's your fault.
One of the great things about living in the US is that these sorts of rules / laws are very local. If you don't like the rules, live someplace else. There is a very wide variety of state laws, county, city, and local living arrangements. Pick one that you like, and live there. You want to put a huge tower in your backyard, or put a rusted out 78' Impala in your front yard on blocks, or just have dirt everywhere, great, live someplace that allows that. Don't do it someplace that people in the community have agreed not do to it.
The annoying thing to me is that people decide that there is someplace nice that they want to live, move in and then bitch about the rules that prevent them from doing dumb-ass things to their property with no regards to their neighbors, when it is those rules that made it a nice to place live in in the first place.
Putting things in sea water is a bitch. They tend to either sink or get salt encrusted or eroded. Unless you have high power density and you are close to the shoreline, maintenance costs will absolutely kill you. They have been working for decades to make maintainable wind turbines and wave energy generators. Putting a diffuse power source like solar on the ocean is a recipe for disaster.
BP is an energy company at this point, not simply an oil company. They have, more than the other huge oil companies, realized that they need to diversify, so they have moved aggressively into natural gas, solar, wind, and geothermal. Yes, they still get most of their money from oil, and will continue to focus on it as long as it is making them money. But they are hedging their bets and putting large amounts of money into research to be well positioned for whatever comes next.
If a solar solution appears that costs less than oil, they will pour money into it and beat the others to market with it. That's the way that capitalism works.
It depends on the application. For large scale deployments in the desert, yes, the panel cost is the most important part, since much of the rest can be spread over the entire application. For home / small / remote applications, unfortunately, other costs dominate (mechanical, installation, maintenance). If the panels were free (as in beer), but the costs of a home installation cost $10,000 (what it would cost in my area), it would not be worth it from a purely economic point of view.
New unit of Slashdot measurement for commercial success: one iPod.
I believe that it is 3 iPhones to an iPod. Previous measurements were in PlayStations, and before that VCRs.
It's different now. My tivo talks WiFi to my cablemodem / wireless access point. It gets the data that way, as well as connecting to NetFlix. Its fast and secure (well, it's using WPA) and I don't have to have a phone connection, so could put my TV where I wanted it. The NetFlix connection in particular is great, since I can load up a huge number of Play Now movies for the kids on Netflix and play them through the Tivo interface (which the kids can use). Only downside is that the movies that I want to watch, but don't want the kids watching, can't be on the Play Now list.
This actually makes even more sense when you posit that Microsoft lied in the document, and actually does record your MS messenger data, and keeps your emails forever. It's all part of the disinformation campaign.
I had not even thought of that. Google needs lots and lots of power. Power comes from nuclear reactors (and other places). But nuclear reactors cost lots and lots of money, and up front too. Solution: Google builds nuclear plants! Win!
While it's true that nobody gets to define language, it can be slowly modified by a dedicated group of people. So, we'll just keep yelling at people who misuse the term. A robot is, by definition, autonomous. A ROV is not. That's the difference; and anyone who uses the wrong term will be mocked.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I understand some of the argument, but googling 'US farm bank' doesn't turn up anything relevant (it keeps getting State Farm Bank). so, do you have a link? If there is a giant federal program for people to put their farm land in, it would make sense that it would come up on a search, but so far nothing.
If there is a law, and the AG doesn't enforce it, it might as well not be a law. That's an (implicit) form of veto. Of course, the summary is hyperbole, but the key point (that the guy's a loon and in a position to affect how the law is applied) is correct.
Don't blame Boeing. Boeing doesn't determine where the seats go. Take a look at the bottom of the chairs. There's a railing that the seats are attached to, and so the seats can be swapped out and moved forward and back. The decision of what seats to use, and where to put them is determined by the airline, not the manufacturer of the aircraft.
What I stated was that government advice would probably be as about as good as astrology.
No, that's not what you stated. What you stated was (here quoted in full, so hopefully you'll understand the difference):
Climate science is in its infancy, as anyone who has been really following the "Global Warming" debate knows. Certainly we know the globe is warming, but the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still very much up in the air.
Setting up a Climate Service today would be akin to setting up an Astrology Service. They would probably both give equally good advice.
Almost every sentence in the above quote is wrong. Climate science is not in its infancy. It's been going on for 40 years now. The 'Global Warming' debate is a political issue and hotly debated; climate science is not. We know a great deal about the climate, and have for some time now.
The greenhouse gas aspect is not very much up in the air. I gave you a bunch of links to the organizations that state that it is not up in the air.
A climate service would not be akin to an astrology service. Equating them in any way does a huge disservice to science in general and climate science specifcally. They are not even close. Astrology is pseudoscientific crap; climate is an honest, technical, and fascinating science.
They would not give equally good advice. Using what we do know, a Climate Science organization can give good advice about the likely effects of various political policies. And, it can give us good advice about what we do and do not know, and can tell us something about the uncertainties involved. (Aside: Of course, on the other hand, I've have a friend who is an astrologer and she seems to give really good advice, largely because she doesn't believe astrology, and just uses what she learns about the person to help them through their problems, YMMV).
When everybody in a thread thinks that you said one thing, and you think that you said something else, then maybe, just maybe, the problem is not with their comprehension skills, but with your communication skills. If you wanted to state that government advice would probably be as good as astrology, they that's what you should have said, and they backed up the statement with supporting arguments. For example you could say:
With regards to Climate Science, government advice would probably be as about as good as astrology. The uncertainties involved so large that nobody can give competent advice. Further, the issue is so politicized that the advice would be less about what science we do know than about secondary social and moral goals of the political appointees that would run it.
If you had actually made that argument (which you did not), then I might agree with you. Instead, you made the statement that greenhouse gas effects were unknown and then made a statement that seemed to equate Astrology and Climate Science. The problem in understanding what you meant is you, not everybody else.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences disagrees with you. The American Association for the Advancement of Science disagrees with you. The American Geophysical Union disagrees with you. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disagrees with you. There are many more, but the point is that the scientists actually studying it are generally convinced. Do you have any scientific organizations that agree with you that the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still up in the air?
At this point, I think that climate deniers are very close to creationists. In both cases, there are people and organizations that disagree with the science. They can talk a good talk, but fail in the actual doing of the science. They can ask more questions than can be answered currently, can take quotes (and emails) out of context, they can use the human failures of people involved in the science against them, and any screw ups (and they certainly exist in both cases) are taken as evidence that the entire science is incorrect. But, they are ignoring the basic science as a whole, discarding what we do understand, and blowing the uncertainties way out of proportion, in order to promote an unscientific point of view.
Intel (the company) is interested in real robotics. Yes, it may ultimately be a way to sell more processors, but they do serious research into robotics. See this page for example, or this page. They have also been heavily involved in image processing (for robotics and other things) for many years, for example with OpenCV.
Who knows what the marketing department is really interested in besides making Intel look cool.
Are the overlapping boxes decoration, or is it more content?
Content, as opposed to malcontent?
No, content as in the data or information in the page, as opposed to the semantics or decorations.
The fact that RMS doesn't like the word because it doesn't fit his philosophy doesn't make it incorrect, or not a term of art; it just means that RMS is a fanatic.