Orbital space habitats can have huge land areas per person and they can thereby support ecosystems engineered to the natural predelictions of their humans.
ROFL! Been reading much sci-fi lately? Maybe an episode of Futurama?
Cities just can't do that.
Where are the oribals that can? Wake up.
The other thing orbital space habitats buy you, aside from a place for technological civilization outside Earth's natural habitats, is time for humans to learn enough about themselves to humanely evolve themselves to a different mode of life entirely. Cramming humans into cities with our current ignorance of human biodiversity and nature is hubris.
ROFL!
Worse, those who are most in a position to influence public policy are most adapted to urban environments...
And I suppose YOU are adapted to a space orbital environment?
At just the time when NASA's strangle-hold on access to space is being broken by private entrepreneurs, Brand bails out on the most obvious long-term solution to "the human question"...
You think cities are inhumane because people aren't adapted to them and you want to put populations of people in SPACE? What the fuck?
That's exactly the attitude that I've observed. But, as Brand points out, many in the environmental movement like villages. And I suppose the grocery stores in these high-density areas will be supplied from simple farmers who ride their horse-drawn carts into town on market day. Yeah, right...
That is the Amish, not environmentalists. The village vs. city *aesthetic* was not to be taken literally. To say that something has a village aesthetic does not in any way imply that it is primitive or whatever ridiculous idea you have in your head.
Not everybody wants to live like a gerbil in a cage, packed in with hundreds of other gerbils.
Many small, compact cities are rather cozy with easy access to the outdoors.
The reason that people buy big houses with lawns and SUV's is that it's a more enjoyable lifestyle.
It is? I found it to be a mind numbingly empty and shallow lifestyle. It has a lot more to do with culture than some objective measure of what is more enjoyable.
I'm sure the number of people calling a large company evil "simply because it's be successful" is pretty small. And it isn't limited to environmentalists. There are nuts in every group.
So? You say that as a criticism. It makes sense to be more suspicious of organizations that have the potential for greatest impact. Don't you get more suspicious of government the larger it gets no matter how many good things it does? The number of good deads a large corporation does is irrelevant and is not indicative of how "good" it is. As soon as it becomes beneficial to cause damage (so long as they can get away with it), they will. Why shouldn't people be suspicious of large corporations? They have at least as much impact on our lives as government.
Less/efficient resource consumption != better resource consumption. For example, If I can polute the environment using more potent materials costing less money, thus using less resources, is that better for the environment? Not that Walmart in particular is necessarily doing this. I am just pointing out the obvious flaw in your reasoning.
Actually, my observation is exactly the opposite. I seem to hear more sympathy for packing everyone together than for spreading them out in the modern environmentalist rhetoric. That's why "sprawl" has become a cuss-word among this bunch.
That is because suburban sprawl is not the same as the supposed environmental aesthetic of "loving villages." Far from it. Suburban sprawl is "spreading out" in all the wrong ways. It consumes land inefficiently and expands the footprint of existing urban areas indefinitly such that it becomes very difficult for people to enjoy nature when they want. I think the "ideal" situation would be many more, smaller, compact cities versus a few large, sprawling metro areas like LA or Chicago. Europe is much closer to this ideal than the US. (call me a Euro-loving anti-American if you want, I don't really care. This is my observation having lived in the US and traveled Europe extensively)
For another example, look at the current opinion of Walmart. Just today I heard an NPR story about Walmart that criticized them for their environmental impact (pollution and rainwater runoff from their parking lots, plus the extra air pollution from people driving there, I guess).
A good example of spreading out in all the wrong ways. Although I don't know that I would place the blame on Walmart. Americans in general seem to like being forced to drive several miles and park in huge lots every time they want to leave their home and do something such as shop.
I guess my point is that the "environmental movement" is a little conflicted; they apparently either like or dislike centralization and efficiencies of scale, depending on the context.
Of course. Context is extremely important. Would you prefer blanket generalizations?
As if Windows didn't thrash the disk enough during regular use! Windows multitasking is so bad though, I don't know if they will be able to pull it off.
the ability to have files in more than one folder simultaneously
Like... umm.... errr. hardlinks in unix? How innovative of them.:-P They never really did figure out how to make symlinks (shortcuts?) work the way they are supposed to. I wonder if they will get this link type right. Now tracking down and removing Windows filesystem cruft is going to be more fun than ever.
and the new ad campaign Microsoft is running to get people excited about Windows.
Where was this exactly? A 70 foot wave on the east coast wouldn't go unnoticed by land dwellers. That would be a pretty big deal. Why did it only affect a cruise ship?
It is just like the Love Boat... 'cept without the love. I mean, 600 software enigneers? ANyone care to guess how many of them would be women? I hope they at least understand the English phrase: "don't drop the soap?"
From my experience it works that way now. X runs with above average privaledge and manages the vid card but crash leaves the machine breathing.
Apparently you don't own an NVIDIA card. Man, the binary driver is like 2.5MB in RAM. And trust me, when X freezes, it takes down the machine. But this has only happened with particular driver versions and settings. In general it is solid.
What X.org/XFree86 really need to do is separate the graphical and interface device layers from the desktop interface layer. i.e. It should be possible for any system program to be able to ask for exclusive video card access, even when the Desktop is not running. Currently, you have to chose between running X11 or using the external SuperVGA library.
Are you kidding me? Who even uses the SuperVGA libraries? I haven't used svgalib in YEARS. I don't see why I would want to. There is no hardware acceleration. Seems to me that X, more than any other graphical environment, splits the desktop from the graphics layer pretty good. And that seems to be the major complaint people have about it! That GNOME, for example, is not integrated with the graphics server. Who cares if you can do graphics outside of X?
You'll note that this is how the X server functions on systems like Sun Sparcs. On my UltraSparc, the system is ALWAYS in graphics mode. Running X just makes the X-Server take over the graphical screen. Very modular, very flexible. Not to mention that it places the graphics card support back in the OS drivers where it belongs, and not in a server with a focused purpose. Remember, the Unix philosophy is to keep everything in simple, bite sized chunks.
What use is the graphics mode on a Sun outside of X? I'm not a regular Sun user, so maybe I am missing some amazing abilities, but last I checked all it does is make scrolling text on the console really fucking slow. What's more annoying is when you hit an invalid key and the console "blinks." I swear, you can see it paint the screen.
Really, if you just want a bare graphics console with no desktop, just run X without starting any window manager or use twm or something. Sheesh.
Most ultralights are designed to be flown by unlicenced pilots. Nothing new. What is new is VTOL. But I hardly see how it warrants a discussion on flying cars. If you can't get people in general to drive small, fuel efficient cars to work, they are not going to fly an ultralight to work. Wake me up when they invent an SUV with VTOL that flies itself.
Right, but your comparing a typical vehical on the one hand with a MPG optimized vehicle on the other.
No, I was comparing an atypical vehicle on both hands. That is, a high performance small aircraft (15-25mpg) with a diesel hybrid.
A typical private plane is no worse than the typical family SUV.
A typical private plane IS much worse than a typical family SUV as far as fuel efficiency. I've flown private planes and they are damn expensive to keep fueled. Partially due to the fact that aircraft fuel is more expensive, but also due to the fact that they are less efficient.
A small diesel hybrid is no better than an ultralight.
You've got to be kidding me. A small diesel hybrid is MUCH better than an ultralight in both functionality and fuel efficiency. I can take the hybrid to the store, carry passengers, drive it to work, etc, etc. The only real advantage an ultralight has is that it is more fun.
If you have an airstrip at your home and destination, flying is just darn efficient - easy to move diagonaly across a grid, no idling in traffic, etc.
But how many people have this arrangement? What do you do when you have no strip at you're destination (99% of the time)? You drive.
Compared to a ground vehicle with similar functionality (gets you from point A to B with very little carry capacity or comfort) it is terrible. Compare 15mpg to 80+ mpg for a small diesel hybrid automobile.
The point is that ultralight aircraft will never replace the automobile as a general form of transportation forreasons not limited to fuel economy.
Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about the SkyCar as pictured in the left hand side of the article. I thought we were talking about something that your average person might actually fly to work. I see that the "airscooter" is much different and much more like an ultralight aircraft than a car. Of course an ultralight is going to get decent fuel economy. It is little more than a frame, a motor, and a person! What is so special about this thing? It is just an ultralight. Seen them before.
Compared to a common private automobile, the fuel economy of a common private plane is terrible. But that isn't the point. A common private plane just doesn't compare to an automobile in functionality.
"have to be configured?" What are you talking about? Firefox works just great "out of the box." I don't really understand what you are criticizing. There are so many different extensions, I doubt you would want them all installed in a big bundle.
It isn't like extensions are hard to install.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Gigantic space orbitals using nonexistent technology and already stretched resources. You're a kook and a half.
-matthew
ROFL! Been reading much sci-fi lately? Maybe an episode of Futurama?
Cities just can't do that.
Where are the oribals that can? Wake up.
The other thing orbital space habitats buy you, aside from a place for technological civilization outside Earth's natural habitats, is time for humans to learn enough about themselves to humanely evolve themselves to a different mode of life entirely. Cramming humans into cities with our current ignorance of human biodiversity and nature is hubris.
ROFL!
Worse, those who are most in a position to influence public policy are most adapted to urban environments...
And I suppose YOU are adapted to a space orbital environment?
Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.
-matthew
You think cities are inhumane because people aren't adapted to them and you want to put populations of people in SPACE? What the fuck?
-matthew
That is the Amish, not environmentalists. The village vs. city *aesthetic* was not to be taken literally. To say that something has a village aesthetic does not in any way imply that it is primitive or whatever ridiculous idea you have in your head.
Not everybody wants to live like a gerbil in a cage, packed in with hundreds of other gerbils.
Many small, compact cities are rather cozy with easy access to the outdoors.
The reason that people buy big houses with lawns and SUV's is that it's a more enjoyable lifestyle.
It is? I found it to be a mind numbingly empty and shallow lifestyle. It has a lot more to do with culture than some objective measure of what is more enjoyable.
-matthew
It's gonna happen sooner or later...
Slow the rate of bredding? Did you even RTFA?
I'm sure the number of people calling a large company evil "simply because it's be successful" is pretty small. And it isn't limited to environmentalists. There are nuts in every group.
-matthew
-matthew
Less/efficient resource consumption != better resource consumption. For example, If I can polute the environment using more potent materials costing less money, thus using less resources, is that better for the environment? Not that Walmart in particular is necessarily doing this. I am just pointing out the obvious flaw in your reasoning.
That is because suburban sprawl is not the same as the supposed environmental aesthetic of "loving villages." Far from it. Suburban sprawl is "spreading out" in all the wrong ways. It consumes land inefficiently and expands the footprint of existing urban areas indefinitly such that it becomes very difficult for people to enjoy nature when they want. I think the "ideal" situation would be many more, smaller, compact cities versus a few large, sprawling metro areas like LA or Chicago. Europe is much closer to this ideal than the US. (call me a Euro-loving anti-American if you want, I don't really care. This is my observation having lived in the US and traveled Europe extensively)
For another example, look at the current opinion of Walmart. Just today I heard an NPR story about Walmart that criticized them for their environmental impact (pollution and rainwater runoff from their parking lots, plus the extra air pollution from people driving there, I guess).
A good example of spreading out in all the wrong ways. Although I don't know that I would place the blame on Walmart. Americans in general seem to like being forced to drive several miles and park in huge lots every time they want to leave their home and do something such as shop.
I guess my point is that the "environmental movement" is a little conflicted; they apparently either like or dislike centralization and efficiencies of scale, depending on the context.
Of course. Context is extremely important. Would you prefer blanket generalizations?
-matthew
See my sig. ;-)
As if Windows didn't thrash the disk enough during regular use! Windows multitasking is so bad though, I don't know if they will be able to pull it off.
the ability to have files in more than one folder simultaneously
Like... umm.... errr. hardlinks in unix? How innovative of them. :-P They never really did figure out how to make symlinks (shortcuts?) work the way they are supposed to. I wonder if they will get this link type right. Now tracking down and removing Windows filesystem cruft is going to be more fun than ever.
and the new ad campaign Microsoft is running to get people excited about Windows.
Microsoft: Innovations in Marketing
-matthew
Where was this exactly? A 70 foot wave on the east coast wouldn't go unnoticed by land dwellers. That would be a pretty big deal. Why did it only affect a cruise ship?
-matthew
I'm pretty sure they would be pretty safe that far out. They'd only notice a swell. The wave doesn't break until it gets to shore or shallow water.
-matthew
-matthew
Apparently you don't own an NVIDIA card. Man, the binary driver is like 2.5MB in RAM. And trust me, when X freezes, it takes down the machine. But this has only happened with particular driver versions and settings. In general it is solid.
-matthew
Are you kidding me? Who even uses the SuperVGA libraries? I haven't used svgalib in YEARS. I don't see why I would want to. There is no hardware acceleration. Seems to me that X, more than any other graphical environment, splits the desktop from the graphics layer pretty good. And that seems to be the major complaint people have about it! That GNOME, for example, is not integrated with the graphics server. Who cares if you can do graphics outside of X?
You'll note that this is how the X server functions on systems like Sun Sparcs. On my UltraSparc, the system is ALWAYS in graphics mode. Running X just makes the X-Server take over the graphical screen. Very modular, very flexible. Not to mention that it places the graphics card support back in the OS drivers where it belongs, and not in a server with a focused purpose. Remember, the Unix philosophy is to keep everything in simple, bite sized chunks.
What use is the graphics mode on a Sun outside of X? I'm not a regular Sun user, so maybe I am missing some amazing abilities, but last I checked all it does is make scrolling text on the console really fucking slow. What's more annoying is when you hit an invalid key and the console "blinks." I swear, you can see it paint the screen.
Really, if you just want a bare graphics console with no desktop, just run X without starting any window manager or use twm or something. Sheesh.
-matthew
If this car's a rockin'... don't look at my webcam pictures uploaded every five minutes!
-matthew
Umm, nscd only caches local lookups, not a DNS server. I'm sure you are not using nscd as your network DNS cache.
-matthew
Most ultralights are designed to be flown by unlicenced pilots. Nothing new. What is new is VTOL. But I hardly see how it warrants a discussion on flying cars. If you can't get people in general to drive small, fuel efficient cars to work, they are not going to fly an ultralight to work. Wake me up when they invent an SUV with VTOL that flies itself.
-matthew
No, I was comparing an atypical vehicle on both hands. That is, a high performance small aircraft (15-25mpg) with a diesel hybrid.
A typical private plane is no worse than the typical family SUV.
A typical private plane IS much worse than a typical family SUV as far as fuel efficiency. I've flown private planes and they are damn expensive to keep fueled. Partially due to the fact that aircraft fuel is more expensive, but also due to the fact that they are less efficient.
A small diesel hybrid is no better than an ultralight.
You've got to be kidding me. A small diesel hybrid is MUCH better than an ultralight in both functionality and fuel efficiency. I can take the hybrid to the store, carry passengers, drive it to work, etc, etc. The only real advantage an ultralight has is that it is more fun.
If you have an airstrip at your home and destination, flying is just darn efficient - easy to move diagonaly across a grid, no idling in traffic, etc.
But how many people have this arrangement? What do you do when you have no strip at you're destination (99% of the time)? You drive.
-matthew
Compared to a ground vehicle with similar functionality (gets you from point A to B with very little carry capacity or comfort) it is terrible. Compare 15mpg to 80+ mpg for a small diesel hybrid automobile.
The point is that ultralight aircraft will never replace the automobile as a general form of transportation forreasons not limited to fuel economy.
-matthew
Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about the SkyCar as pictured in the left hand side of the article. I thought we were talking about something that your average person might actually fly to work. I see that the "airscooter" is much different and much more like an ultralight aircraft than a car. Of course an ultralight is going to get decent fuel economy. It is little more than a frame, a motor, and a person! What is so special about this thing? It is just an ultralight. Seen them before.
What a pointless article and discussion.
-matthew
Compared to a common private automobile, the fuel economy of a common private plane is terrible. But that isn't the point. A common private plane just doesn't compare to an automobile in functionality.
-matthew
-matthew