Somewhat off topic, and my apologies for that, but why would slashdot of all web pages NOT have a mobile version? I can download a slashdot "app", but all it does is open the full web page when you click on 'read more'. You would think/. of all pages would be more mobile tech friendly?
I love reading slashdot on the go, but it's painful with an iPhone as well.
I think it has more to do with fairness than anything else. Blizzard has always taken a strong stance on balance. If someone produces a UI addon that makes the game easier, but only for those that can afford it, it creates an inbalance which in turn could upset Blizzards financials. If these addons a free, then they are available to anyone with the will to install them.
It makes good business sense that they would attempt to control addons like this.
I actually get better 3G speeds than WiFi speeds. I get typically over 2000kbps over 3g where I get 1000-1500 over wifi using the Speed Test app. I live in a major metropolitan area though. I agree the page loading is much to slow given the link speed. I've never understood that.
Makes me wonder if they open up the pipe for these bandwidth apps while throttling everything else.
This isn't some small scale local building installation we're talking about here. These are bought in bulk in a billion dollar installation. Your also assuming that panels are still prohibitively expensive due to the technology being relatively new, and the shortage of silicon.
It is expensive because it's not large scale. At least not on the scale of adoption that fossil fuels have.
Oil has had a VERY large head start. All technology becomes cheaper as it is adopted by a larger audience. Solar too is also becoming cheaper. So much so that even adoption in the home is becoming a reality.
If the plant generates 100 million a year in revenue, and it costs 1 billion, it will pay for itself and return a profit in 10 years (small change for employee and maintenance aside). Does that mean there would be no costs associated with it? No. Does that mean that it would constantly lose money? No, as it would receive money for the power it sells which offset the costs to maintain it. Once the return on investment is paid, the plant would produce surplus profit.
Your arguing for something that I actually think is a good idea. Clean nuclear fuel would be ideal (see the link I posted above), but the technology isn't quite ready yet. Until then, I don't think it's responsible to abandon solar, wind, and other 'clean' alternatives simply because the immediate return on investment isn't high enough.
Are you referring to the costs of building and maintaining it? The plant will pay for itself. All solar has a return on investment, although some are longer than others. Are you referring to the heat/light energy lost to the desert?
Off the cuff arguments that nothing is free with no real substantive arguments behind them don't really add to a discussion. Can you be more specific?
Yes, but they generate tons of nuclear waste that doesn't go away for thousands of years.
If/when they build a nuclear plant that is more efficient (less waste), then I would think that's a good option. They are already working on fusion methods to 'burn' excess waste but it's not production ready yet.
Check out the link above if you haven't seen it. Very cool stuff. Until then, we should be more responsible as a race and utilize cleaner fuels until we get where we need to be.
Baffled? Surely your friends know that you can send to an e-mail address from their phone? They only need to type in the e-mail address instead of a phone number. Not that difficult in my opinion.
As to your personal attacks, sounds like you should be the one to think before you post, or at least count to 10. I don't deserve a personal attack for posting an opinion that didn't harm you in the slightest.
Sci-Fi has become a joke. I knew it was over when they put Wrestling on there. It's become an impossibly rare Saturday night when you can turn on sci-fi and actually watch a good Sci-Fi flick.
The channel has become a joke. Why don't they show more classic Sci-Fi? I could deal with crap most of the time if they had at least some good stuff some of the time. Instead we get shit like Mansquito. WTF?
I agree. I dropped half a grand for a few copies of Vista Ultimate upgrade. I didn't even hesititate. I wouldn't call myself a Windows fanboy but I was definitely on the MS 'team'. I bought the upgrade version, only to find my 'upgrade' copy actually requires me to install XP so that I can then find out that I CAN'T actually upgrade the XP partition. I then have to install a fresh copy of Vista on an empty partition while keeping the XP partition around to prove I'm upgrading.
Every version of windows before that was just fine with verifying your old media and then installing. What moron thought this was an improvement? Did these guys even TRY the upgrade path? This was my introduction to Vista. It just went downhill from there.
I was then introduced to the joys of Vista. It's flaws have been discussed to death. I can at least say it did two good things for me. It introduced me to Linux again which was a refreshing change from the early 90's, and it prompted me to switch to Mac.
At this point I could care less about Windows 7. Too little, too expensive, too late.
I couldn't agree more. Pages and pages of people saying it's not broken, but they seem to keep forgetting the simple fact that 'joe user' above managed to get easily lost on something they assumed was so simple a caveman could do it.
The truth is there are obvious places the GUI could use more polish and a lot more tweaking to make it more intuitive. Unfortunately the vocal majority of Linux geeks will argue till they are blue in the face that they like it that way and why should they change. They just don't get it. They should spend a month converting technical documents for the PC challenged. It would give them some much needed perspective.
I think a unified installation format and GUI would go a long way. Unfortunately they will argue against that, stating that they like RPM or Tar or whatever and that more choice is good. For the end user, they could care less. They just want something they can click on and it's installed. They don't care if it's tar, deb, rpm, or whatever. They argue about things that in the end, matter little to the typical 'clueless' end user.
There's a reason that Apple and Windows use a simple repeatable method for installing apps. It's not that someone couldn't start writing 100 different open source ways to install an app on those platforms. They use it because it works and it's easy. Of course people will start spewing that they got this error or that error when they installed on Windows. Those are app issues, but you can bet they knew how to start the install without breaking out a manual.
You get what you pay for. I've had digital cable for years, and HD for 2, and I experience some pixelation maybe once a month on some oddball channel, and those are either transitory 'few second' glitches or actual technical problems that force me to drop back to the standard definition channel which invariable looks fine.
You get what you pay for. If it's Over the Air (OTA) broadcasts, what did you expect?
There is nothing stopping you from watching Hulu on your MediaPC directly from the web browser. Boxbee just made the interface easier. I do it all the time with mine. I have a 3-D gyration mouse which makes navigating websites as easy as using Boxbee. I have actually watched video's via the 'fullscreen' option on Hulu. Granted, you don't get some of the filtering benefits for scaling and such, but it's not that drastic a difference for a decent quality feed.
This is just stupid, and THAT's how the content providers apparently roll...
I haven't had a single crash using the plugin (V3.1b2) on OS X 10.5.6. There is no delay opening PDF files, although I used to see that issue on my Windows box. So much so that I disabled PDF's in the browser and just used the Adobe reader to open them. It is a non-issue for me on my Mac.
Conversely, I couldn't keep the Chrome browser running more than a few minutes without crashing on my Windows box. I didn't even have to browse somewhere. Just opening the Bookmark organizer and trying to import crashed it every time. I wasn't impressed. It was far less stable than the usual Google 'beta'.
The only item of interest with Chrome for me is the tabbed browsing and distinct URL's per tab.
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhat off topic, and my apologies for that, but why would slashdot of all web pages NOT have a mobile version? I can download a slashdot "app", but all it does is open the full web page when you click on 'read more'. You would think /. of all pages would be more mobile tech friendly?
I love reading slashdot on the go, but it's painful with an iPhone as well.
I think it has more to do with fairness than anything else. Blizzard has always taken a strong stance on balance. If someone produces a UI addon that makes the game easier, but only for those that can afford it, it creates an inbalance which in turn could upset Blizzards financials. If these addons a free, then they are available to anyone with the will to install them. It makes good business sense that they would attempt to control addons like this.
I equate Creationism to the Chewbacca Defense...
I actually get better 3G speeds than WiFi speeds. I get typically over 2000kbps over 3g where I get 1000-1500 over wifi using the Speed Test app. I live in a major metropolitan area though. I agree the page loading is much to slow given the link speed. I've never understood that.
Makes me wonder if they open up the pipe for these bandwidth apps while throttling everything else.
Do you consider oil a cleaner alternative? There is always a negative factor when it comes to manufacturing technology.
This isn't some small scale local building installation we're talking about here. These are bought in bulk in a billion dollar installation. Your also assuming that panels are still prohibitively expensive due to the technology being relatively new, and the shortage of silicon.
Both are becoming non-issues.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/20702/
http://earth2tech.com/2009/02/23/solar-prices-drop-deeper-discounts-expected/
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009478.html
Any new technology is expensive when it's new. As adoption increases, production costs go down as does the time it takes for return on investment.
Latest estimates show panel prices dropping by 40-50%. What was not cost effective in 2000 is easily becoming so in 2009.
I said it was not responsible to abandon solar, wind, etc. Remember the topic of this discussion (Shell)? ;)
It is expensive because it's not large scale. At least not on the scale of adoption that fossil fuels have.
Oil has had a VERY large head start. All technology becomes cheaper as it is adopted by a larger audience. Solar too is also becoming cheaper. So much so that even adoption in the home is becoming a reality.
If the plant generates 100 million a year in revenue, and it costs 1 billion, it will pay for itself and return a profit in 10 years (small change for employee and maintenance aside). Does that mean there would be no costs associated with it? No. Does that mean that it would constantly lose money? No, as it would receive money for the power it sells which offset the costs to maintain it. Once the return on investment is paid, the plant would produce surplus profit.
Your arguing for something that I actually think is a good idea. Clean nuclear fuel would be ideal (see the link I posted above), but the technology isn't quite ready yet. Until then, I don't think it's responsible to abandon solar, wind, and other 'clean' alternatives simply because the immediate return on investment isn't high enough.
Are you referring to the costs of building and maintaining it? The plant will pay for itself. All solar has a return on investment, although some are longer than others. Are you referring to the heat/light energy lost to the desert?
Off the cuff arguments that nothing is free with no real substantive arguments behind them don't really add to a discussion. Can you be more specific?
Yes, but they generate tons of nuclear waste that doesn't go away for thousands of years.
If/when they build a nuclear plant that is more efficient (less waste), then I would think that's a good option. They are already working on fusion methods to 'burn' excess waste but it's not production ready yet.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127131654.htm
Check out the link above if you haven't seen it. Very cool stuff. Until then, we should be more responsible as a race and utilize cleaner fuels until we get where we need to be.
I would say that 70,000 homes is pretty large scale, and the energy is completely free.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/02/25/world%E2%80%99s-largest-solar-power-plant-coming-to-arizona-in-2011/
The entire midwest is ideal for Solar. Death Valley? Thousands of acres sitting empty. Who'd want to live there? Solar...
Just because something hasn't been done doesn't mean that it can't be or shouldn't be.
Baffled? Surely your friends know that you can send to an e-mail address from their phone? They only need to type in the e-mail address instead of a phone number. Not that difficult in my opinion.
As to your personal attacks, sounds like you should be the one to think before you post, or at least count to 10. I don't deserve a personal attack for posting an opinion that didn't harm you in the slightest.
. Grow up.
I for one am looking forward to the updates although I get along fine without them. Even MMS is kind of pointless with an email enabled device.
Why would you need spam filtering on the device? The account holder can do hat now (Google, AOL, Yahoo, etc).
Sci-Fi has become a joke. I knew it was over when they put Wrestling on there. It's become an impossibly rare Saturday night when you can turn on sci-fi and actually watch a good Sci-Fi flick.
The channel has become a joke. Why don't they show more classic Sci-Fi? I could deal with crap most of the time if they had at least some good stuff some of the time. Instead we get shit like Mansquito. WTF?
Does this mean the plot to use humans as batteries can finally begin?
I didn't say I did no research. I specifically bought vista for the remote capabilities.
As to hardware, it was a Core 2 Duo 2.5 Ghz with 4 GB of Ram and a 7200 RPM Sata 2 drive.
Spare me your attempts to make Vista the victim.
I agree. I dropped half a grand for a few copies of Vista Ultimate upgrade. I didn't even hesititate. I wouldn't call myself a Windows fanboy but I was definitely on the MS 'team'. I bought the upgrade version, only to find my 'upgrade' copy actually requires me to install XP so that I can then find out that I CAN'T actually upgrade the XP partition. I then have to install a fresh copy of Vista on an empty partition while keeping the XP partition around to prove I'm upgrading.
Every version of windows before that was just fine with verifying your old media and then installing. What moron thought this was an improvement? Did these guys even TRY the upgrade path? This was my introduction to Vista. It just went downhill from there.
I was then introduced to the joys of Vista. It's flaws have been discussed to death. I can at least say it did two good things for me. It introduced me to Linux again which was a refreshing change from the early 90's, and it prompted me to switch to Mac.
At this point I could care less about Windows 7. Too little, too expensive, too late.
It's kind of like the Anti-Chewbacca defense.
I couldn't agree more. Pages and pages of people saying it's not broken, but they seem to keep forgetting the simple fact that 'joe user' above managed to get easily lost on something they assumed was so simple a caveman could do it.
The truth is there are obvious places the GUI could use more polish and a lot more tweaking to make it more intuitive. Unfortunately the vocal majority of Linux geeks will argue till they are blue in the face that they like it that way and why should they change. They just don't get it. They should spend a month converting technical documents for the PC challenged. It would give them some much needed perspective.
I think a unified installation format and GUI would go a long way. Unfortunately they will argue against that, stating that they like RPM or Tar or whatever and that more choice is good. For the end user, they could care less. They just want something they can click on and it's installed. They don't care if it's tar, deb, rpm, or whatever. They argue about things that in the end, matter little to the typical 'clueless' end user.
There's a reason that Apple and Windows use a simple repeatable method for installing apps. It's not that someone couldn't start writing 100 different open source ways to install an app on those platforms. They use it because it works and it's easy. Of course people will start spewing that they got this error or that error when they installed on Windows. Those are app issues, but you can bet they knew how to start the install without breaking out a manual.
Agreed. Most users just hit the power button which works just as well.
You get what you pay for. I've had digital cable for years, and HD for 2, and I experience some pixelation maybe once a month on some oddball channel, and those are either transitory 'few second' glitches or actual technical problems that force me to drop back to the standard definition channel which invariable looks fine. You get what you pay for. If it's Over the Air (OTA) broadcasts, what did you expect?
There is nothing stopping you from watching Hulu on your MediaPC directly from the web browser. Boxbee just made the interface easier. I do it all the time with mine. I have a 3-D gyration mouse which makes navigating websites as easy as using Boxbee. I have actually watched video's via the 'fullscreen' option on Hulu. Granted, you don't get some of the filtering benefits for scaling and such, but it's not that drastic a difference for a decent quality feed.
This is just stupid, and THAT's how the content providers apparently roll...
I haven't had a single crash using the plugin (V3.1b2) on OS X 10.5.6. There is no delay opening PDF files, although I used to see that issue on my Windows box. So much so that I disabled PDF's in the browser and just used the Adobe reader to open them. It is a non-issue for me on my Mac.
Conversely, I couldn't keep the Chrome browser running more than a few minutes without crashing on my Windows box. I didn't even have to browse somewhere. Just opening the Bookmark organizer and trying to import crashed it every time. I wasn't impressed. It was far less stable than the usual Google 'beta'.
The only item of interest with Chrome for me is the tabbed browsing and distinct URL's per tab.