oh if you're willing to change everything else for the sake of solar then you can, otherwise it provides power when you don't need it and doesn't provide when you do need it.
if you had self replicating machines churning out fields of free solar pannels in all the big deserts of the world it might be workable but until then it's a toy source of power.
have you even done the most trivial back of the envelope calculations? it's beyond insane.
For pumped storage to deal with nighttime and winter you'd need to turn a few states into giant raised lakes and you'd be throwing away most of the power you'd be generating on conversion losses.
pumped storage to try to make solar reasonable sounds nice as a talking point until you even look at the math when it becomes clear that it's not just "too expensive" it's utterly utterly unworkable if you expect it to compensate for the problems with solar.
it's only if you follow the link direct with no referal from google that it doesn't show the info, I assume google checks that referals from google still contain the info so the include it but after a page of "subscribe now "crap which people don't bother scrolling past.
lol. I think I figured it out. No browser extension but search for that link in google.
If you follow the link from google then you just have to scroll past all the crap about subscribing and ignore the posts claiming they can only be seen with premium. the posts are still at the bottom of the page. same if you view through the google cache.
I can wait a few seconds, ignore the stuff about "Subscribe now for full access " and then scroll to the bottom to see replies by cmalakar and darovitz
They were ignoring patents for a long time just as the US used to ignore other countries copyrights back when the US was being hurt by them more than helped.
"If they are innovating, where are the new, high-tech consumer gadgets from China?Why aren't people buying Chinese industrial machines or precision tools? "
Where have you been? under a vaguely racist rock?
There's massive amounts of innovation coming out of china, so much so that the government is starting to care about patents because now they mean other countries paying china rather than china paying others. They weren't idiots, they knew damn well that strong IP laws would cripple them when they're trying to innovate fast rather than cash in once they're ahead.
There's probably some kind of formula for how centralised an industry has to be for patents to be an incentive.
In something like car manufacture where there's a handful of monolithic corps patents work because they can afford to have a team of lawyers who do nothing but keep track of the latest patents.
In distributed industries like most of the software industry which is made up largely of small outfits of 1-5 people they're worse than useless.
You mean china which has been experiencing massive economic growth, owns the worlds biggest supercomputer, seems to account for most of the wests grad students and was horribly behind the rest of the world until a few years ago when they went all out on research and technology without bothering too much with the patents side of things. That china?
so you read a patent, 2 years later you invent something fantastic which infringes on it... it has no apparent connection as far as you can see but the the lawyers insist that the meaningless blob of legalese about pluarities of x y and z in fact describe something which makes up part of your invention.
have you ever sat down with a patent and tried to design what it describes? they get intentionally written in such a manner that that's almost impossible.
ding! trebble damages because you " purposefully ignoring it". So you don't ever read patent. now in your system: ding! trebble damages because you "willfully turning a blind eye ".
or perhaps you just didn't read it because you don't have time to read the 700+ new patents per day while also doing useful work. Ding! trebble damages because you "willfully turning a blind eye ".
you only talk about the countries behind the iron curtain which are terrible terrible examples because they didn't just lack IP laws, they lacked real property laws as well.
people innovate extremely well without any patents at all, there are software companies which make tens of millions without any software patents of any kind and innovate like mad.
Your soviet union example only shows that without any profit motive at all then people won't innovate as much. The profit motive still exists even without patents. patents are a terrible way to try to foster innovation, particularly in distributed industries.
" Countries that were behind the Iron Curtain are classic examples of that very thing."
you conflate imaginary property rights and real property rights.
there's a lot of ways to make money without any patent system at all, people were writing remarkable computer code and making money long before patents were expanded to cover code.
the margins just contract and you have to innovate faster to stay ahead of your competition.
You'll probably get pointed at the former soviet union or something.
basically because to a certain kind of person the lack of crazy IP laws is the same thing as the lack of actual property laws and they conflate not being able to get a patent with not being able to make profit in any way shape or form.
I don't know what kind of fuckups you had for parents(or are) but mine never had to beat me/force me and amazingly I still went to school, took reasonably good care of myself and comletely failed to spend my days lying in bed drinking coke and eating crisps.
they were actually competent parents. They treated me like a human being and used reason.
the biggest red flag for an obviously awful parent is the use violence first and the second i the use of the phrase "because I said so" rather than explaining why.
possibly because under the libertarian view you could take the approach that you can't force someone to take care of someone else against their will be they attached to their body or not.
that you own yourself and that merely being attached to someone else does not give them claim on your own flesh even if they depend on it.
surprisingly enough many people are almost the opposite.
If you get too far into the uncanny vally people can be hostile but stay well back and people will relate to machines just fine, they won't relate to them as people but they'll be fine thinking of them like really smart pets/animals.
People are quite ready to treat machines as they would animals, even going so far as to consider something that's happening to a bot to be inhumane.
"The most effective way to find and destroy a land mine is to step on it.
This has bad results, of course, if you're a human. But not so much if you're a robot and have as many legs as a centipede sticking out from your body. That's why Mark Tilden, a robotics physicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, built something like that. At the Yuma Test Grounds in Arizona, the autonomous robot, 5 feet long and modeled on a stick-insect, strutted out for a live-fire test and worked beautifully, he says. Every time it found a mine, blew it up and lost a limb, it picked itself up and readjusted to move forward on its remaining legs, continuing to clear a path through the minefield.
Finally it was down to one leg. Still, it pulled itself forward. Tilden was ecstatic. The machine was working splendidly.
The human in command of the exercise, however -- an Army colonel -- blew a fuse.
The colonel ordered the test stopped.
Why? asked Tilden. What's wrong?
The colonel just could not stand the pathos of watching the burned, scarred and crippled machine drag itself forward on its last leg.
This test, he charged, was inhumane. "
It might be easier to get people to bond to a machine as they would a guidedog rather than as they would to another human.
The veteran explosives technician looming over Bogosh was visibly upset. He insisted he did not want a new robot. He wanted Scooby-Doo back.
"Sometimes they get a little emotional over it," Bogosh says. "Like having a pet dog. It attacks the IEDs, comes back, and attacks again. It becomes part of the team, gets a name. They get upset when anything happens to one of the team. They identify with the little robot quickly. They count on it a lot in a mission."
I'd disagree: I remember there being schoolyard comments about one of my highschool teachers who had a habit of leaning uncomfortably close to people, particularly pretty girls.
Never heard any stories of actual abuse, he just ended up with a reputation for being the creepy old possible-pedo because he seemed to have no conception of other peoples personal space.
Things which happen outside of school bounds can still warrant actions in school.
If a student physically attacked a teacher outside the school grounds it would be perfectly reasonable to expel them.
Similarly if a student was found to be sending death threats to a teacher or firebombed their house expulsion would only be the least of their worries.
for criminal penalties it absolutely should be a matter for the courts but for penalties within the school like suspension or expulsion not everything has to go through a courts.
Slashdot Mirror
oh if you're willing to change everything else for the sake of solar then you can, otherwise it provides power when you don't need it and doesn't provide when you do need it.
if you had self replicating machines churning out fields of free solar pannels in all the big deserts of the world it might be workable but until then it's a toy source of power.
have you even done the most trivial back of the envelope calculations?
it's beyond insane.
For pumped storage to deal with nighttime and winter you'd need to turn a few states into giant raised lakes and you'd be throwing away most of the power you'd be generating on conversion losses.
pumped storage to try to make solar reasonable sounds nice as a talking point until you even look at the math when it becomes clear that it's not just "too expensive" it's utterly utterly unworkable if you expect it to compensate for the problems with solar.
actually as long as your referer is google it works. you don't even have to use the cache
it's only if you follow the link direct with no referal from google that it doesn't show the info, I assume google checks that referals from google still contain the info so the include it but after a page of "subscribe now "crap which people don't bother scrolling past.
lol. I think I figured it out.
No browser extension but search for that link in google.
If you follow the link from google then you just have to scroll past all the crap about subscribing and ignore the posts claiming they can only be seen with premium. the posts are still at the bottom of the page. same if you view through the google cache.
:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ruCEKzF5wAQJ:www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Languages/Java/Q_26747126.html+http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Languages/Java/Q_26747126.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk
look right at the very bottom of the page.
(just googled "experts exchange java loop" for an example)
I'm nowhere special but if I go to this:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Languages/Java/Q_26747126.html
I can wait a few seconds, ignore the stuff about "Subscribe now for full access " and then scroll to the bottom to see replies by cmalakar and darovitz
Have they changed EE or something? I used to be able to scroll to the bottom of the page to see whatever I needed.
What's with the hate for it? I've never paid a cent to it but I've got a fair bit of decent info off it in the past.
" Dwarf Fortress"
*hits the panic button*
"Security, we've got another one"
I'm afraid you're a few years behind the times.
They were ignoring patents for a long time just as the US used to ignore other countries copyrights back when the US was being hurt by them more than helped.
"If they are innovating, where are the new, high-tech consumer gadgets from China?Why aren't people buying Chinese industrial machines or precision tools? "
Where have you been?
under a vaguely racist rock?
There's massive amounts of innovation coming out of china, so much so that the government is starting to care about patents because now they mean other countries paying china rather than china paying others.
They weren't idiots, they knew damn well that strong IP laws would cripple them when they're trying to innovate fast rather than cash in once they're ahead.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/china-poised-to-lead-world-in-patent-filings/
china has no shortage of incredibly smart and innovative young people.
There's probably some kind of formula for how centralised an industry has to be for patents to be an incentive.
In something like car manufacture where there's a handful of monolithic corps patents work because they can afford to have a team of lawyers who do nothing but keep track of the latest patents.
In distributed industries like most of the software industry which is made up largely of small outfits of 1-5 people they're worse than useless.
You mean china which has been experiencing massive economic growth, owns the worlds biggest supercomputer, seems to account for most of the wests grad students and was horribly behind the rest of the world until a few years ago when they went all out on research and technology without bothering too much with the patents side of things.
That china?
registration system for inventions.
ideas are easy, ideas are trivial, every idiot coming out of a buisness course has a ton of Ideas.
Invetions are the hard one, they mean you actually have to go away and do some serious work.
so you read a patent, 2 years later you invent something fantastic which infringes on it... it has no apparent connection as far as you can see but the the lawyers insist that the meaningless blob of legalese about pluarities of x y and z in fact describe something which makes up part of your invention.
have you ever sat down with a patent and tried to design what it describes?
they get intentionally written in such a manner that that's almost impossible.
ding!
trebble damages because you " purposefully ignoring it".
So you don't ever read patent.
now in your system:
ding!
trebble damages because you "willfully turning a blind eye ".
or perhaps you just didn't read it because you don't have time to read the 700+ new patents per day while also doing useful work.
Ding!
trebble damages because you "willfully turning a blind eye ".
you only talk about the countries behind the iron curtain which are terrible terrible examples because they didn't just lack IP laws, they lacked real property laws as well.
people innovate extremely well without any patents at all, there are software companies which make tens of millions without any software patents of any kind and innovate like mad.
Your soviet union example only shows that without any profit motive at all then people won't innovate as much. The profit motive still exists even without patents. patents are a terrible way to try to foster innovation, particularly in distributed industries.
" Countries that were behind the Iron Curtain are classic examples of that very thing."
you conflate imaginary property rights and real property rights.
there's a lot of ways to make money without any patent system at all, people were writing remarkable computer code and making money long before patents were expanded to cover code.
the margins just contract and you have to innovate faster to stay ahead of your competition.
You'll probably get pointed at the former soviet union or something.
basically because to a certain kind of person the lack of crazy IP laws is the same thing as the lack of actual property laws and they conflate not being able to get a patent with not being able to make profit in any way shape or form.
I take it you've read The Light of Other Days .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days
I don't know what kind of fuckups you had for parents(or are) but mine never had to beat me/force me and amazingly I still went to school, took reasonably good care of myself and comletely failed to spend my days lying in bed drinking coke and eating crisps.
they were actually competent parents.
They treated me like a human being and used reason.
the biggest red flag for an obviously awful parent is the use violence first and the second i the use of the phrase "because I said so" rather than explaining why.
ok.... who fed the timecube site into a chatbot ?
ah yes, this was the justification given a while back when a school strip searched a 12 year old girl because another girl claimed she had ibuprofen.
it's really amazing the things such an argument can justify because it basically translates into "you have no rights".
possibly because under the libertarian view you could take the approach that you can't force someone to take care of someone else against their will be they attached to their body or not.
that you own yourself and that merely being attached to someone else does not give them claim on your own flesh even if they depend on it.
surprisingly enough many people are almost the opposite.
If you get too far into the uncanny vally people can be hostile but stay well back and people will relate to machines just fine, they won't relate to them as people but they'll be fine thinking of them like really smart pets/animals.
I came across a lovely article a while back.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050501009_pf.html
People are quite ready to treat machines as they would animals, even going so far as to consider something that's happening to a bot to be inhumane.
"The most effective way to find and destroy a land mine is to step on it.
This has bad results, of course, if you're a human. But not so much if you're a robot and have as many legs as a centipede sticking out from your body. That's why Mark Tilden, a robotics physicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, built something like that. At the Yuma Test Grounds in Arizona, the autonomous robot, 5 feet long and modeled on a stick-insect, strutted out for a live-fire test and worked beautifully, he says. Every time it found a mine, blew it up and lost a limb, it picked itself up and readjusted to move forward on its remaining legs, continuing to clear a path through the minefield.
Finally it was down to one leg. Still, it pulled itself forward. Tilden was ecstatic. The machine was working splendidly.
The human in command of the exercise, however -- an Army colonel -- blew a fuse.
The colonel ordered the test stopped.
Why? asked Tilden. What's wrong?
The colonel just could not stand the pathos of watching the burned, scarred and crippled machine drag itself forward on its last leg.
This test, he charged, was inhumane. "
It might be easier to get people to bond to a machine as they would a guidedog rather than as they would to another human.
The veteran explosives technician looming over Bogosh was visibly upset. He insisted he did not want a new robot. He wanted Scooby-Doo back.
"Sometimes they get a little emotional over it," Bogosh says. "Like having a pet dog. It attacks the IEDs, comes back, and attacks again. It becomes part of the team, gets a name. They get upset when anything happens to one of the team. They identify with the little robot quickly. They count on it a lot in a mission."
I'd disagree:
I remember there being schoolyard comments about one of my highschool teachers who had a habit of leaning uncomfortably close to people, particularly pretty girls.
Never heard any stories of actual abuse, he just ended up with a reputation for being the creepy old possible-pedo because he seemed to have no conception of other peoples personal space.
Things which happen outside of school bounds can still warrant actions in school.
If a student physically attacked a teacher outside the school grounds it would be perfectly reasonable to expel them.
Similarly if a student was found to be sending death threats to a teacher or firebombed their house expulsion would only be the least of their worries.
for criminal penalties it absolutely should be a matter for the courts but for penalties within the school like suspension or expulsion not everything has to go through a courts.
and if it's demonstratively false then the fact that people are so much more willing to believe it's true makes it only more serious.