"transhumanism" I do not understand and nor do I care to. However for some reason I feel as if this game will involve fighting hordes of Tom Cruises and a John Travolta every now and then. The idea of this dose slightly intrigue me.
You should also beware applying your experience with solar cells to to every solar cell. I would probably be willing to put money of the fact that you were working with monocrystalline cells. Yes using monocrystalline cells in this situation would be stupid. But to be honest the people designing these project did not even consider monocrystalline because their advantages/disadvantages do not match this project at all. Amorphous cells on the other hand match the job a lot better. Cheaper more rugged and relying more on large surface area than high efficiency.
As other haves pointed out. This solution dose not need to break even. Right now sunk costs per mile of highway can be in the millions per mile. In order for solar to work in this situation it dose not need to have a net profit over the lifetime, it just needs to have a slightly lower net cost. Which is entirely possible as paving is not cheap.
Self heating would make it so you dont need to plow. Having electricity flowing would likely result in snow never being able to accumulate even in the middle of a sever storm. And yes Ive been in some big snows myself, Ive seen 6 feet in one night.
The short answer is they have bendable solar panels. Solar panels come in a variety of classes. Expensive High Efficiency, Brittle and Cheap Low efficiency flexible are the two main classes with a range in between. Fortunately the cheap version is also the flexible version which is a handy synergy in this situation. Yes mechanical stress will play a role. But the trick is not to make them last forever, the trick has been to make them a little more cost effective than any other solution. Yes normal roads may cost only a $1,000,000 a mile per 10 years and the new solar roads may cost 1,400,000 a mile per 10 years but what if they pay you back 500,000 grand? The road dose not even need to be break even for this idea to work. IT just needs to cost slightly less. This idea may actually be more feasible than getting solar power in general due to the fact that it only needs to be cheaper not break even.
To be honest I agree with all those quid pro quo statements. However I think that all of the above should be legal... and they are... If you can find the numbers go ahead and call. Robo calls more or less occur for our elected representatives as is. Do you have any idea how many mass copied e-mails/faxes their offices get per day? They do it on the both sides of the fence...one side more than the others (republicans do it more as far as I know they send to use it more as a strategy more than a tactic) but thats just the name of the game. Everyone including our elected representatives have rights.
Because over the last few years hardware was not the limiting factor. Now apparently it is becoming the limiting factor. The ps3 seemed to be designed for a longer life cycle than the x-box or wii. Longer to ramp up and longer to get into full swing. It seems like a strategic decision however I do not know if it will pay off in the end. The bet was that by loading it with the most up to date hardware they could they would be able to A) push blue ray and B) make a system that would hold out for a few extra years and C) make the jump between the next, next gen system smaller. All these decisions were aimed at the same battle plan. Don't worry about now (they knew the economy was going down the crapper), beat the competition during the late game and make the transition to the next gen system seamless for those designing the games. The next gen x-box 360 will not be able to use a DVD player they will either A) need to go all digital and loose the market of anyone without a high speed connection or B) beg Sony to let them use blueray, they likely will also need to make a major architectural change. The Wii relied on a gimmick there have been loads of cheap counsel like knockoffs they did well this cycle but I dont think that strategy will lead to good profits in the future.
The general idea is that the ranking of ones expertise is based ones previous works. The fact that in his many decade long career he has apparently done little of significance indicates that his most recent work should receive about the same or less trust then the work of a new college grad. As an engineer if you are doing something of major worth you should have some kind of paper trail to prove it. It could be a few papers every so often or some patents in your name. There should be some kind of paper trail showing that youve been working the last few years not content to re-invent the wheel a 1000 times.
Just like any skill. If you don't practice the art of making real progress the skill will fade if not die. There are few individuals with a single notch on their belt in any field. Its usually either none or several.
But than again. His work may be of worth and thus the situation is sad. The scientific community has in general been pushed around the last few years to the point where it has become very defensive. Ideally if 1 out of 1000 papers came to a different conclusion the scientific community would see it as an interesting anomaly to be further studied. However in today's media media that 1/1000 turns into 1/2 and pushes work of the majority to the fringe. This is where the reactive nature of the scientific community has stemmed from.
Your statement is at the very least miss leading if not completely full of crap. The FDA equivalents of many nations with "socialized" medical systems (European/Canadian) have been running much smoother to that of the US. They have acted to ban many substances the FDA has ignored. A quick search yielded this article "http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1008-01.htm" . The issue isn't simply that the FDA bans fewer substances than its peers. That could be because the FDA made an informed decision not to do so. The issue is that our FDA either takes a much much longer time to reach a conclusion or simply dose little investigation at all and fails to make an informed decision.
Secondly another user previously pointed out that the USA spends 15% of its GDP on health care the Canada 10% and the UK 7.5% Both nation have more socialized systems and higher health care rankings according to all metrics I have come across. For example the WHOs rankings http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Third point. The costs of malpractice litigation is virtually insignificant to the industry as a whole. http://www.piaa.us/pdf_files/press_releases/Kessler_Malpins_Report.pdf . The net cost of insurance for the industry is on the order of magnitude of billions and that's including all transfer of funds, not just lost productivity. When health care costs are on the order of hundreds of billions, one or two billion is nothing and to bring it up is just silly. Its like talking about the cost of parking meters being a significant aspect of the health care system.
In short the data indicates that STATE RUN INSURANCE PLANS REDUCE COSTS AND MAKE THINGS MORE EFFICIENT. you talk about reducing waste as the means reduce costs. I agree. However you fail to realize that the evidence/data indicate that THE WHOLE PRIVATE HEALTH INDUSTRY IS THE WASTE.
My original post agrees with your assessment that electrical vehicles are more efficient. But also just to point out something. There are more than your two sources of loss. Things like motor efficiency etc also play into the net efficiency.
On a qualitative argument they were a middle ground between current gas engines and electric engines. Slightly more energy efficient and less emissions but still holding a (more) explosive and volatile fuel on board. Electrical systems offer more benefits (they in general are more energy efficient) and have less logistical hurdles. There seemed like there was little reason to go the way of hydrogen. Basically they were an alternative, and thus received some initial funding. It just wasn't a very good alternative. Time to let it die
I am very surprised to see all the comments saying how a masters will not earn you more money. But than again they seem to be mentioning CS degrees and IT work. The poster was speaking about a computer engineering degree. I am currently getting a masters and for my degree in electrical computer and systems engineering someone with a masters has a good 20,000 ish higher salary than in individual with only a B.S as published by my schools career development center. Even still the C.S. stats Ive seen indicate that there is still a significant differance in pay between a B.S. and a M.S.
On a side note. I may recommend going for a combined PHD/MS program and just stopping when you get your MS. Doing this will potentially get you more funding in forms for a teaching assistant position or grants.
Except for the large sunk costs of 10742 euros. By that math it would take around 25 years to break even, assuming no maintenance and no interest or discount rate. So in other words that's garbage.
"So now we have a method to bulk-produce graphene; but do we have a way to implement it in devices? "
No, no we don't. They found a RELATIVLY easy way to make carbon nanoribbons from nanotubes. Nanotubes are still incredibly hard to make.
âoe90wt% are still priced well below our competition at $150 per gram or $75,000 per KG.â
Carbon nanotubes. The third most expensive substance per weight that I know of. (preceded by nanoribbons and than anti matter)
Don't be pedantic. The term clean coal is just as accurate as the term dirty nuke. No a dirty nuke doesn't mean your going to have to wash your dishes for a week to get them crud free it means your going to die of radiation poisoning. Just as clean coal means that you hopefully wont die from fine particulate matter inhalation. The same goes for those who complain about there being no such thing as clean coal. Fine maybe it should be called "cleaner coal" but than again even solar/wind/hydro/nuke etc all generate emissions of some level. "There is no black and white only shades of brown".
My Google Fu is failing at the moment, but there are several economic studies that have shown the differences between countries that have free trade and those that don't. The group with free trade shows much higher growth over any period you look at than does the group without free trade.
You obviously have not heard of China a nation nation which is incredibly protectionist and anti free trade has been dwarfing the growth rate of the free trade world for several decades now.
"Protectionist policies are part of what has hurt the US automakers. They were protected for too long and they weren't forced to be competitive."
What protectionist policies? Besides the recent bail out I personally know of a grand total of "0"
"Additionally, there is a strong ethical argument against protectionism." The rest of that is such garbage I wont even quote it.
The standard of living for the youngest generation in the US is going to be lower than that of their parents. This is first time in US history that this will happen. This is entirely because of so called free trade practices. If person X is doing a job for $20 an hour but a employer can higher someone to do it for $.10 an hour the company is going to switch to the cheaper worker. This is great for worker 2 and the company. IT is however horrible for person 1. It increases the surplus for society but person 1 gets shafted.
In the case of the whole of the US, EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE US AND THE WESTERN WORLD is person
1. There are no jobs which can not be shipped to cheap foreign labor. And as such this will continue to happen. Until.... two differant end games can happen.
1) The US citizens and every western european will have the same quality of living as North Koreans/ Chinese/Somalians. etc and thus will be willing to work for $.10 an hour
or
2) We start protecting our national interests again.
I personally like option 2 better. Those are the two options
The in short no. Chances are just about every lesson they learned is top secret. The fact attacks have been occurring at all was probably secret for some time
This is something that people say quite often that buggs me. We ALREADY have the ability to make nuclear fusion reactors. The trick is makeing them produce more energy than they consume.
But ya 2020/2030 may be good time frame for the possibility of a commercial plant. For those of you who want to do a little introduction reading
http://www.iter.org/a/n1/downloads/construction_schedule.pdf
the ITER project aims to be produce more energy than it consumes and it should be finished in a few years. It will never make more money than it consumes but theoretically it could be connected to the grid and i belive they plan on doing that. So ya France will have fusion power before the U.S dose thanks to Dubya et all not funding things properly.
As a student who is studying plasmas and fusion reactors etc. I wouldn't say any one really knows if fusion power will ever be economically viable. But than again the person who invented fire didn't know that either. They were probably just rubbing two stick together hoping that something would happen because he was freezing to death.
Likewise we do not know if we will ever make money off fusion as a society. But its a good way to make your living. Honestly in what other field of study would you get to play with lasers, ion beams atomic power generation etc? Its a science lovers paradise.
Despite the fact that fusion power may never be fruitful the search for it already has been. The search for commercial fusion can be compared to the space race. Both have spurred technology on significantly. The concepts of plasma manipulation alone have helped benefit the semiconductor industry massively.
"Unless you have to overcome the counter measures and the chances that a few of your warheads may malfunction. We must calulate in a safety factor for annihlating the entire world. I think a factor of 5 to 10 (or maybe a little more) should be adequate."
The best part about that comment is that, that could actually have been the line of thinking used to make the decision.
Well that leads to two possible conclusions. The first most probable one is that those is Texas still have not mastered the concepts of North and South or East and West.
Or the US/Russia are involved in a petty eye for an eye battle with spy satellites. (/end conspiracy theory)
I personally hope for the latter. Its less frightening to me.
Slashdot Mirror
"transhumanism" I do not understand and nor do I care to. However for some reason I feel as if this game will involve fighting hordes of Tom Cruises and a John Travolta every now and then. The idea of this dose slightly intrigue me.
You should also beware applying your experience with solar cells to to every solar cell. I would probably be willing to put money of the fact that you were working with monocrystalline cells. Yes using monocrystalline cells in this situation would be stupid. But to be honest the people designing these project did not even consider monocrystalline because their advantages/disadvantages do not match this project at all. Amorphous cells on the other hand match the job a lot better. Cheaper more rugged and relying more on large surface area than high efficiency.
As other haves pointed out. This solution dose not need to break even. Right now sunk costs per mile of highway can be in the millions per mile. In order for solar to work in this situation it dose not need to have a net profit over the lifetime, it just needs to have a slightly lower net cost. Which is entirely possible as paving is not cheap.
Self heating would make it so you dont need to plow. Having electricity flowing would likely result in snow never being able to accumulate even in the middle of a sever storm. And yes Ive been in some big snows myself, Ive seen 6 feet in one night.
The short answer is they have bendable solar panels. Solar panels come in a variety of classes. Expensive High Efficiency, Brittle and Cheap Low efficiency flexible are the two main classes with a range in between. Fortunately the cheap version is also the flexible version which is a handy synergy in this situation. Yes mechanical stress will play a role. But the trick is not to make them last forever, the trick has been to make them a little more cost effective than any other solution. Yes normal roads may cost only a $1,000,000 a mile per 10 years and the new solar roads may cost 1,400,000 a mile per 10 years but what if they pay you back 500,000 grand? The road dose not even need to be break even for this idea to work. IT just needs to cost slightly less. This idea may actually be more feasible than getting solar power in general due to the fact that it only needs to be cheaper not break even.
To be honest I agree with all those quid pro quo statements. However I think that all of the above should be legal... and they are... If you can find the numbers go ahead and call. Robo calls more or less occur for our elected representatives as is. Do you have any idea how many mass copied e-mails/faxes their offices get per day? They do it on the both sides of the fence...one side more than the others (republicans do it more as far as I know they send to use it more as a strategy more than a tactic) but thats just the name of the game. Everyone including our elected representatives have rights.
Because over the last few years hardware was not the limiting factor. Now apparently it is becoming the limiting factor. The ps3 seemed to be designed for a longer life cycle than the x-box or wii. Longer to ramp up and longer to get into full swing. It seems like a strategic decision however I do not know if it will pay off in the end. The bet was that by loading it with the most up to date hardware they could they would be able to A) push blue ray and B) make a system that would hold out for a few extra years and C) make the jump between the next, next gen system smaller. All these decisions were aimed at the same battle plan. Don't worry about now (they knew the economy was going down the crapper), beat the competition during the late game and make the transition to the next gen system seamless for those designing the games. The next gen x-box 360 will not be able to use a DVD player they will either A) need to go all digital and loose the market of anyone without a high speed connection or B) beg Sony to let them use blueray, they likely will also need to make a major architectural change. The Wii relied on a gimmick there have been loads of cheap counsel like knockoffs they did well this cycle but I dont think that strategy will lead to good profits in the future.
You are assuming that A) They are going to continue to use Silicon B) They are going to continue to use it in the diamond structure for Silicon http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seas.harvard.edu%2Fekaxiras%2Fpubs%2FPapers%2F31.pdf&ei=ktmSSq73L8KBtgf_kNjOBA&usg=AFQjCNHGxhozLCbzzjkIuXVzCiNV_UZX9g also they already take into consideration "left alone quantum-size effects, leakage, behavior under oxidation, etc."
The general idea is that the ranking of ones expertise is based ones previous works. The fact that in his many decade long career he has apparently done little of significance indicates that his most recent work should receive about the same or less trust then the work of a new college grad. As an engineer if you are doing something of major worth you should have some kind of paper trail to prove it. It could be a few papers every so often or some patents in your name. There should be some kind of paper trail showing that youve been working the last few years not content to re-invent the wheel a 1000 times. Just like any skill. If you don't practice the art of making real progress the skill will fade if not die. There are few individuals with a single notch on their belt in any field. Its usually either none or several. But than again. His work may be of worth and thus the situation is sad. The scientific community has in general been pushed around the last few years to the point where it has become very defensive. Ideally if 1 out of 1000 papers came to a different conclusion the scientific community would see it as an interesting anomaly to be further studied. However in today's media media that 1/1000 turns into 1/2 and pushes work of the majority to the fringe. This is where the reactive nature of the scientific community has stemmed from.
$10 says his old liver ends up on ebay.
Your statement is at the very least miss leading if not completely full of crap. The FDA equivalents of many nations with "socialized" medical systems (European/Canadian) have been running much smoother to that of the US. They have acted to ban many substances the FDA has ignored. A quick search yielded this article "http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1008-01.htm" . The issue isn't simply that the FDA bans fewer substances than its peers. That could be because the FDA made an informed decision not to do so. The issue is that our FDA either takes a much much longer time to reach a conclusion or simply dose little investigation at all and fails to make an informed decision.
Secondly another user previously pointed out that the USA spends 15% of its GDP on health care the Canada 10% and the UK 7.5% Both nation have more socialized systems and higher health care rankings according to all metrics I have come across. For example the WHOs rankings http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Third point. The costs of malpractice litigation is virtually insignificant to the industry as a whole. http://www.piaa.us/pdf_files/press_releases/Kessler_Malpins_Report.pdf . The net cost of insurance for the industry is on the order of magnitude of billions and that's including all transfer of funds, not just lost productivity. When health care costs are on the order of hundreds of billions, one or two billion is nothing and to bring it up is just silly. Its like talking about the cost of parking meters being a significant aspect of the health care system.
In short the data indicates that STATE RUN INSURANCE PLANS REDUCE COSTS AND MAKE THINGS MORE EFFICIENT. you talk about reducing waste as the means reduce costs. I agree. However you fail to realize that the evidence/data indicate that THE WHOLE PRIVATE HEALTH INDUSTRY IS THE WASTE.
Since when don't politicians pay taxes? Social Security etc gets taken out of their pay checks just like everyone one else.....
My original post agrees with your assessment that electrical vehicles are more efficient. But also just to point out something. There are more than your two sources of loss. Things like motor efficiency etc also play into the net efficiency.
On a qualitative argument they were a middle ground between current gas engines and electric engines. Slightly more energy efficient and less emissions but still holding a (more) explosive and volatile fuel on board. Electrical systems offer more benefits (they in general are more energy efficient) and have less logistical hurdles. There seemed like there was little reason to go the way of hydrogen. Basically they were an alternative, and thus received some initial funding. It just wasn't a very good alternative. Time to let it die
I am very surprised to see all the comments saying how a masters will not earn you more money. But than again they seem to be mentioning CS degrees and IT work. The poster was speaking about a computer engineering degree. I am currently getting a masters and for my degree in electrical computer and systems engineering someone with a masters has a good 20,000 ish higher salary than in individual with only a B.S as published by my schools career development center. Even still the C.S. stats Ive seen indicate that there is still a significant differance in pay between a B.S. and a M.S. On a side note. I may recommend going for a combined PHD/MS program and just stopping when you get your MS. Doing this will potentially get you more funding in forms for a teaching assistant position or grants.
Except for the large sunk costs of 10742 euros. By that math it would take around 25 years to break even, assuming no maintenance and no interest or discount rate. So in other words that's garbage.
"So now we have a method to bulk-produce graphene; but do we have a way to implement it in devices? " No, no we don't. They found a RELATIVLY easy way to make carbon nanoribbons from nanotubes. Nanotubes are still incredibly hard to make. âoe90wt% are still priced well below our competition at $150 per gram or $75,000 per KG.â Carbon nanotubes. The third most expensive substance per weight that I know of. (preceded by nanoribbons and than anti matter)
Don't be pedantic. The term clean coal is just as accurate as the term dirty nuke. No a dirty nuke doesn't mean your going to have to wash your dishes for a week to get them crud free it means your going to die of radiation poisoning. Just as clean coal means that you hopefully wont die from fine particulate matter inhalation. The same goes for those who complain about there being no such thing as clean coal. Fine maybe it should be called "cleaner coal" but than again even solar/wind/hydro/nuke etc all generate emissions of some level. "There is no black and white only shades of brown".
My microwave oven seems to disagree. So dose the U.S military
You obviously have not heard of China a nation nation which is incredibly protectionist and anti free trade has been dwarfing the growth rate of the free trade world for several decades now.
"Protectionist policies are part of what has hurt the US automakers. They were protected for too long and they weren't forced to be competitive."
What protectionist policies? Besides the recent bail out I personally know of a grand total of "0"
"Additionally, there is a strong ethical argument against protectionism." The rest of that is such garbage I wont even quote it.
The standard of living for the youngest generation in the US is going to be lower than that of their parents. This is first time in US history that this will happen. This is entirely because of so called free trade practices. If person X is doing a job for $20 an hour but a employer can higher someone to do it for $.10 an hour the company is going to switch to the cheaper worker. This is great for worker 2 and the company. IT is however horrible for person 1. It increases the surplus for society but person 1 gets shafted.
In the case of the whole of the US, EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE US AND THE WESTERN WORLD is person 1. There are no jobs which can not be shipped to cheap foreign labor. And as such this will continue to happen. Until.... two differant end games can happen.
1) The US citizens and every western european will have the same quality of living as North Koreans/ Chinese/Somalians. etc and thus will be willing to work for $.10 an hour
or
2) We start protecting our national interests again.
I personally like option 2 better. Those are the two options
The in short no. Chances are just about every lesson they learned is top secret. The fact attacks have been occurring at all was probably secret for some time
This is something that people say quite often that buggs me. We ALREADY have the ability to make nuclear fusion reactors. The trick is makeing them produce more energy than they consume. But ya 2020/2030 may be good time frame for the possibility of a commercial plant. For those of you who want to do a little introduction reading http://www.iter.org/a/n1/downloads/construction_schedule.pdf the ITER project aims to be produce more energy than it consumes and it should be finished in a few years. It will never make more money than it consumes but theoretically it could be connected to the grid and i belive they plan on doing that. So ya France will have fusion power before the U.S dose thanks to Dubya et all not funding things properly.
As a student who is studying plasmas and fusion reactors etc. I wouldn't say any one really knows if fusion power will ever be economically viable. But than again the person who invented fire didn't know that either. They were probably just rubbing two stick together hoping that something would happen because he was freezing to death. Likewise we do not know if we will ever make money off fusion as a society. But its a good way to make your living. Honestly in what other field of study would you get to play with lasers, ion beams atomic power generation etc? Its a science lovers paradise. Despite the fact that fusion power may never be fruitful the search for it already has been. The search for commercial fusion can be compared to the space race. Both have spurred technology on significantly. The concepts of plasma manipulation alone have helped benefit the semiconductor industry massively.
"Unless you have to overcome the counter measures and the chances that a few of your warheads may malfunction. We must calulate in a safety factor for annihlating the entire world. I think a factor of 5 to 10 (or maybe a little more) should be adequate."
The best part about that comment is that, that could actually have been the line of thinking used to make the decision.
Well that leads to two possible conclusions. The first most probable one is that those is Texas still have not mastered the concepts of North and South or East and West. Or the US/Russia are involved in a petty eye for an eye battle with spy satellites. (/end conspiracy theory) I personally hope for the latter. Its less frightening to me.