I'm sorry. Maybe they should just scrap the competition then. It's clearly a total waste and provides no true innovation or inspiration for its corporate sponsors and/or onlookers.
Anytime a scientific story gets posted to slashdot, what annoys me most is when commentors take on the annoying stance of impatiently asking why it isn't functional immediately. It's ridiculous. So I suppose all modern inventions were developed overnight. The first computers were core i7's, right? It's not like we ever started out with punch-cards or anything like that.
Sure, this won't give us an understanding of whether the entire production process for a solar economy is feasible. Let's look at it this way: if we didn't have competitions like this, why would we ever even bother asking?
It's a matter of priority. I think getting green energy is more important at this point.
But in any case, I feel reasonably confident that there are other materials available that can also serve the purpose. It shouldn't have to be PbSe (in theory of course, haha).
I'm no expert, but probably a lot more. Some facilitating factors:
1. PbSe is pretty easy to synthesize as nanorods. TiO2 is even easier. Lower production cost.
2. Higher efficiency (theoretically) than the 40% record achieved using triple junction cells (which have extreme costs and are likely never going to be practical) and the ~25% achievable using single-junction silicon cells (maximum theoretically about 31%).
This should lead to a great increase in the achievable power. The only thing that I'm unsure of is whether you can concentrate the light in nano-confined cells as much as you can in bulk material cells. The (I believe) issue becomes current density saturation either within the material or at the connector interface. Not altogether familiar with the R&D in this area. Since high-efficiency cells can be concentrated efficiently by a factor of ~1000x, this could be a significant effect if nano-confined cells can't be concentrated very much.
I prefer keeping my phone's battery dedicated to the purpose it serves - calling and texting. I'd rather not waste the battery life on some superfluous secondary function, especially when there are better devices dedicated to that purpose.
Which you still can't answer until you know how much you drive each.
So here's another potential problem with the question. We have to know exactly how it was phrased. If the question simply asks which saves more, well it depends on how much you drive them. It's easy to look over flaws like this in the question. We need to see its actual wording to be sure that it's legitimate.
Exactly. Do the companies really think there's that much value in having so many channels? It's not like we can watch more than say, 5 at once (generously assuming you DVR a few and make up the rest in extra boxes). It's a silly model, honestly, considering that I can get whatever I want, whenever I want it through the internet.
If anything, cable companies should work on phasing TV out, rather than trying to save it. But the TV model works out great for them. That'd just be in the customer's interest, that's all.
Seriously? What kind of TV service was available with the internet 10 years ago? I was still on dial-up and stayed there until we got DSL back in 2004 I think.... And even then there wasn't that much available in the way of TV on the internet.
Thankfully that's changed now though. Hope the cable companies learn how to adapt... and not just by raising internet prices/screwing the customers over in some other way. It's fortunate for them that satellite internet is (and probably always will be) so crappy. Don't think they'll ever match FiOS though. Speaking of which, maybe this will make them get cracking on DOCSIS 3?
There's another reason that I would consider Intel: in every benchmark/testing suite that I've seen, it almost always has lower power consumed. It probably amounts to little cost in the short run, but idle power draw actually is significant over long scales (roughly $1 for each watt over the course of a year of on-time). So after say a year of use, you can save about $15 choosing a i3 instead of an Athlon X4. It could be significant, especially if you plan on using your machine for a long time or with a lot of uptime.
Your argument makes sense, but the flaw is that democracy doesn't work that way. Yes, in theory, we could remove any elected official that blocks net neutrality, or any other law that would make sense to any reasonable, moral human being. In truth, all that matters is how much PR you pull, how much the lobbyists bribe you, etc. that wins you an election.
Where everything really gets derailed is in the court's ruling that gave cable companies a monopoly on their lines. If you open up the lines to allow competition, then maybe you'll get a decent service provider (which again falsely assumes that consumers are smart enough to support the right ones).
But if this is what it takes to get net neutrality, well better than nothing I say.
IMHO, the ribbon is only a bad thing to someone intimately familiar with the products already. If you're a new or basic user, it does a VERY good job of getting useful functions in a more accessible location rather than buried 7 levels deep in a menu structure.
And what if you are intimately familiar with it already? Is it really that hard to include an option to revert to the menu bar? It's not like they would be implementing something that wasn't already there. So MS totally sold me out (or would have if I were still using their products in 2007).
As for all those functions found in a deep menu structure, well a lot of those functions are gone now too. Oh well - it's fun at the expense of others when they spend hours trying to include a 5.25" title section at the top of their document when it's as easy as \textwidth{width}{text} in Latex. A true victory for the ribbon, right? Just goes to show that you lose lots of basic functionality when you make other functions simpler.
Any word on how they compare for speed? I'd be surprised if Python's speeds are remotely comparable to those of Matlab, which is after all, optimized for numeric calculations.
It's just slightly more complicated than that. They have to consider the extra work find new employees (quality ones, who would probably have a job already), to train them for the new system (which always takes time and slightly lowers efficiency), get extra time from existing employees who are working to fill in the gaps left by absent workers. Yes, there's a flood of cheap labor out there, but don't make it sound like it's that easy to replace people.
And when you think of the costs and headaches, you might as well drop that one-time $800/employee expense if it'll save you that trouble.
It's all pretty convoluted to me. According to the wiki, apparently the Windows version is fully DX10 supported whereas the Mac version uses OpenGL. I'm sure there are good reasons why, but doesn't it make more sense to just use the same OpenGL for both? Less to develop and easier to port between other OSes IMO
Exactly, think of where it could go. Who knows, next they're probably being bribed by spammers or phishers to redirect to sites that will maliciously install spyware and shit. If they're not already. I mean, think about it, what would stop them?
That's great and all, but if I were a consumer, no matter how much they're compensating me, if I really had to make a serious choice of AV software, now I know that I'd probably never choose them. It doesn't matter how much compensation they provide; if something they make is going to disable my computer (which is essentially my life as I use it for all my work, including my thesis) then I'd never use it. The risk is too great and for something serious, you can't afford a flaw like this.
It's a shame, but no measure of compensation is enough to supplant a reliable and secure service.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry. Maybe they should just scrap the competition then. It's clearly a total waste and provides no true innovation or inspiration for its corporate sponsors and/or onlookers.
Anytime a scientific story gets posted to slashdot, what annoys me most is when commentors take on the annoying stance of impatiently asking why it isn't functional immediately. It's ridiculous. So I suppose all modern inventions were developed overnight. The first computers were core i7's, right? It's not like we ever started out with punch-cards or anything like that.
Sure, this won't give us an understanding of whether the entire production process for a solar economy is feasible. Let's look at it this way: if we didn't have competitions like this, why would we ever even bother asking?
But how does this fit in with the practice of making them so difficult to remove? Why then aren't they removed when you reset it?
It's a matter of priority. I think getting green energy is more important at this point.
But in any case, I feel reasonably confident that there are other materials available that can also serve the purpose. It shouldn't have to be PbSe (in theory of course, haha).
I'm no expert, but probably a lot more. Some facilitating factors:
1. PbSe is pretty easy to synthesize as nanorods. TiO2 is even easier. Lower production cost.
2. Higher efficiency (theoretically) than the 40% record achieved using triple junction cells (which have extreme costs and are likely never going to be practical) and the ~25% achievable using single-junction silicon cells (maximum theoretically about 31%).
This should lead to a great increase in the achievable power. The only thing that I'm unsure of is whether you can concentrate the light in nano-confined cells as much as you can in bulk material cells. The (I believe) issue becomes current density saturation either within the material or at the connector interface. Not altogether familiar with the R&D in this area. Since high-efficiency cells can be concentrated efficiently by a factor of ~1000x, this could be a significant effect if nano-confined cells can't be concentrated very much.
I prefer keeping my phone's battery dedicated to the purpose it serves - calling and texting. I'd rather not waste the battery life on some superfluous secondary function, especially when there are better devices dedicated to that purpose.
Which you still can't answer until you know how much you drive each.
So here's another potential problem with the question. We have to know exactly how it was phrased. If the question simply asks which saves more, well it depends on how much you drive them. It's easy to look over flaws like this in the question. We need to see its actual wording to be sure that it's legitimate.
I don't want my PC getting yoofied.
Exactly. Do the companies really think there's that much value in having so many channels? It's not like we can watch more than say, 5 at once (generously assuming you DVR a few and make up the rest in extra boxes). It's a silly model, honestly, considering that I can get whatever I want, whenever I want it through the internet.
If anything, cable companies should work on phasing TV out, rather than trying to save it. But the TV model works out great for them. That'd just be in the customer's interest, that's all.
Seriously? What kind of TV service was available with the internet 10 years ago? I was still on dial-up and stayed there until we got DSL back in 2004 I think.... And even then there wasn't that much available in the way of TV on the internet.
Thankfully that's changed now though. Hope the cable companies learn how to adapt... and not just by raising internet prices/screwing the customers over in some other way. It's fortunate for them that satellite internet is (and probably always will be) so crappy. Don't think they'll ever match FiOS though. Speaking of which, maybe this will make them get cracking on DOCSIS 3?
I'm officially obsolete now. Last system I ever ran and now it's done.
Damn it feels good.
Way back when I had Win98, installing WinME borked **my** machine. Had to do a full reinstall - and buy a toupee.
Just sayin'
For math:
from __future__ import division
There's another reason that I would consider Intel: in every benchmark/testing suite that I've seen, it almost always has lower power consumed. It probably amounts to little cost in the short run, but idle power draw actually is significant over long scales (roughly $1 for each watt over the course of a year of on-time). So after say a year of use, you can save about $15 choosing a i3 instead of an Athlon X4. It could be significant, especially if you plan on using your machine for a long time or with a lot of uptime.
Jeez. I was just gonna suggest that this could disrupt marine life... but you... bravo! -gasps-
Not if they're single or married....
Your argument makes sense, but the flaw is that democracy doesn't work that way. Yes, in theory, we could remove any elected official that blocks net neutrality, or any other law that would make sense to any reasonable, moral human being. In truth, all that matters is how much PR you pull, how much the lobbyists bribe you, etc. that wins you an election.
Where everything really gets derailed is in the court's ruling that gave cable companies a monopoly on their lines. If you open up the lines to allow competition, then maybe you'll get a decent service provider (which again falsely assumes that consumers are smart enough to support the right ones).
But if this is what it takes to get net neutrality, well better than nothing I say.
IMHO, the ribbon is only a bad thing to someone intimately familiar with the products already. If you're a new or basic user, it does a VERY good job of getting useful functions in a more accessible location rather than buried 7 levels deep in a menu structure.
And what if you are intimately familiar with it already? Is it really that hard to include an option to revert to the menu bar? It's not like they would be implementing something that wasn't already there. So MS totally sold me out (or would have if I were still using their products in 2007).
As for all those functions found in a deep menu structure, well a lot of those functions are gone now too. Oh well - it's fun at the expense of others when they spend hours trying to include a 5.25" title section at the top of their document when it's as easy as \textwidth{width}{text} in Latex. A true victory for the ribbon, right? Just goes to show that you lose lots of basic functionality when you make other functions simpler.
I recently forced my sister and her husband on to Opera because they kept getting new spyware every month.
Methinks the problem is not their browser.
PEBKAC. Problem solved - time to upgrade.
How about subtraction?
Any word on how they compare for speed? I'd be surprised if Python's speeds are remotely comparable to those of Matlab, which is after all, optimized for numeric calculations.
Anyone that wants to know about the real dangers of computer precision just needs to watch Office Space!
It's just slightly more complicated than that. They have to consider the extra work find new employees (quality ones, who would probably have a job already), to train them for the new system (which always takes time and slightly lowers efficiency), get extra time from existing employees who are working to fill in the gaps left by absent workers. Yes, there's a flood of cheap labor out there, but don't make it sound like it's that easy to replace people.
And when you think of the costs and headaches, you might as well drop that one-time $800/employee expense if it'll save you that trouble.
It's all pretty convoluted to me. According to the wiki, apparently the Windows version is fully DX10 supported whereas the Mac version uses OpenGL. I'm sure there are good reasons why, but doesn't it make more sense to just use the same OpenGL for both? Less to develop and easier to port between other OSes IMO
Exactly, think of where it could go. Who knows, next they're probably being bribed by spammers or phishers to redirect to sites that will maliciously install spyware and shit. If they're not already. I mean, think about it, what would stop them?
That's great and all, but if I were a consumer, no matter how much they're compensating me, if I really had to make a serious choice of AV software, now I know that I'd probably never choose them. It doesn't matter how much compensation they provide; if something they make is going to disable my computer (which is essentially my life as I use it for all my work, including my thesis) then I'd never use it. The risk is too great and for something serious, you can't afford a flaw like this.
It's a shame, but no measure of compensation is enough to supplant a reliable and secure service.