Firstly, you are probably right. We cannot possibly generate the same amount we do at the moment if we use just wind and solar power.
The arguments for solar power though are not about replacing the current methods we have, they are about supplementing them. You mention transmission lines in your post when talking about building them, but you do not need to with wind and solar as they can be used at the point electricity is used to supplement the national grid. Transmission lines are the least efficient part of our current power grid.
There is a large part of the US that could spend a few THOUSAND dollars on solar panels and a small wind turbine for their roof and then vastly cut down on their own electric bill. They might not reduce it to zero but they could reduce it by a large margin. Also, over here in the UK when people do this they can sell their surplus (day rate, more expensive) electricity to the grid when they are not using it and then use that as a credit against the cheaper night time electricity they actually use.
Solar and wind power might never replace all our current nuclear power plants, but they are not meant to. Instead they can be used to supplement it, and as energy prices go up and up it makes more and more economic sense.
it is. wikipedia started out with that motto. the wiki on wikipedia says:
Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic of knowledge covered encyclopedically in one article. Since it has virtually unlimited disk space it can have far more topics than can be covered by any conventional print encyclopedias.
you can download the whole english language wiki text as a 6gb file. let's say images take 500 times more space. so the total for english wikipedia is 306gb. lets say all the other languages take up 5 times the space. the grand total turns out to be ~1.8tb. let's just double it for fun, bringing us to 3.6tb. are you seriously saying that wikipedia does not have enough space for this? and the murray article was original eork, not copy-pasted from someplace else.
i download songs directly to my phone. it has an 8gb microsd in it. i can store ~1000 256kbps mp3s. i dont wanna reduce that to ~300. also, the music player app that supports flac sucks up lotsa battery. another reason is that i don't really pick up improvements in flac over 256kbps mp3.
so this is why ipad2 is so cheap. tiny 512mb ram. and shitty cameras. no wonder samsung is finding it difficult to compete with its 1gb ram tablet with a 2mp front cam and an 8mp rear cam, 1080p recording, dual core graphics, dual core cpu. only steve jobs suck-ups can call 512mb ample.
i think nuclear power is the future. if not for nuclear-fearing cowards the world is full of, we'd all be living in some kind of an energy utopia world.
also, ipad is completely shit when you compare hard specs with galaxy tab. when people buy an ipad they don't care about features and specs. but the person who is buying an android tablet will carefully go over all the specs. so apple can sell ipad with a shitty camera and shitty sound, but samsung can't. it has to have the best camera. it has to have the best sound. it has to have dual core cpu and dual core graphics.
Seriously, instead of chasing iPad, is it really impossible for Samsung to maybe ask some prospective customers who haven't already bought iPads what features they want and "compete" based on that?
the problem with that approach is that samsung's tablet is superior in every way (except for a few mms, i suppose). people will just buy apple's tablet 'ipad'. they buy it purely on brand value. there is no technical, rational explanation. what do you suggest samsung add to their tab to make people buy it over an ipad?
we have ridiculously cheap rates here in india too. my prepaid sim cost me inr 20. (divide by 45 to get usd) i can send 200 texts to anyone in the country daily for free. i can call local numbers at inr 0.01 per second. i can call long distance at inr 0.02 per second. 3.5g data at inr 0.01 per 20kb. (you can also pay inr 750 for 2gb and such plans go upto 15gb) and i need to recharge it when the balance gets to zero.
i dont think you need to lobby your representatives or anything. just adopt policies that encourage a freer market.
ok, that sounds something completely different from whatever i've used till now. and it sound good:) the kind of management you describe really does not need minimize buttons or titlebars.
Just out of curiousity, do you actually use the minimize icon? Or do you use one of the key-combinations?
i use the icon. i use key shortcuts for many things, but not for minimize, cause its got its own button!
Second, why do you use minimize?
so that i can hide away the windows i don't wanna see right now, but i think i will need to in the near future. i think minimizing is much more efficient than switching between virtual desktops (i assume that's what you mean by workspaces?).
and how is "right-click, move to workspace down" or "or zoom out to activity view, drag the screen from one screen to another" better than a single click on a button placed on the titlebar? one that every single desktop has had for as long as i've been using computers?
i think ubuntu is doing their own set of mindless ui overhauls. moving titlebar buttons to the left, no tooltips on the battery icon, etc.changes like this add nothing and remove functionality/increase the number of clicks for something that used to be simple. all that for the sake of 'consistency'. a ui does NOT need to be perfectly consistent to be good. it has to be good to be good.
and your point is? gp says that windows' and osx's uis are better than gnome 3 because they have lotsa money, and gnome guys work essentially on their own time. so why do you wanna drag in a pointless debate on the way we measure the size of a company?
as far as i know, apple does not remove useful buttons just because "They don’t make sense within the current shell design. There’s nothing to minimize to, like a dock or window list, and it’s potentially confusing, since users will not know where their windows have gone." my advice to mr allan who wrote tfa: if minimize does not make sense in the current design and you dont have anything to minimize to, your ui sure needs a lot more work!
Slashdot Mirror
ie9 is also pretty fast at js now, at least in synthetic benchmarks like sunspider etc.
and if you leave ff4 open for a day or so, it will start sucking up ~20% cpu continuously. this annoys me. almost enough to push me over to ie9.
Lets not forget MS didn't invent it, they wrapped in a package and sold it. I don't think they could really have a hope stopping any API.
What corporation would go after a completely home brown API package for a physical device?
sony?
Firstly, you are probably right. We cannot possibly generate the same amount we do at the moment if we use just wind and solar power.
The arguments for solar power though are not about replacing the current methods we have, they are about supplementing them. You mention transmission lines in your post when talking about building them, but you do not need to with wind and solar as they can be used at the point electricity is used to supplement the national grid. Transmission lines are the least efficient part of our current power grid.
There is a large part of the US that could spend a few THOUSAND dollars on solar panels and a small wind turbine for their roof and then vastly cut down on their own electric bill. They might not reduce it to zero but they could reduce it by a large margin. Also, over here in the UK when people do this they can sell their surplus (day rate, more expensive) electricity to the grid when they are not using it and then use that as a credit against the cheaper night time electricity they actually use.
Solar and wind power might never replace all our current nuclear power plants, but they are not meant to. Instead they can be used to supplement it, and as energy prices go up and up it makes more and more economic sense.
ftfy.
if this is a 'planned failure mode', i doubt there exist idiots bigger than the engineers who designed the fukushima plant.
momentum.
it is conserved across all dimensions.
it is. wikipedia started out with that motto.
the wiki on wikipedia says:
Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic of knowledge covered encyclopedically in one article. Since it has virtually unlimited disk space it can have far more topics than can be covered by any conventional print encyclopedias.
you can download the whole english language wiki text as a 6gb file. let's say images take 500 times more space. so the total for english wikipedia is 306gb. lets say all the other languages take up 5 times the space. the grand total turns out to be ~1.8tb. let's just double it for fun, bringing us to 3.6tb.
are you seriously saying that wikipedia does not have enough space for this? and the murray article was original eork, not copy-pasted from someplace else.
Apple has just designed a better tablet at a better price that people are willing to buy.
i doubt that. its just the massive hype generation that propels shitty products like ipad, iphone to heights that they currently are at.
i download songs directly to my phone. it has an 8gb microsd in it. i can store ~1000 256kbps mp3s. i dont wanna reduce that to ~300. also, the music player app that supports flac sucks up lotsa battery.
another reason is that i don't really pick up improvements in flac over 256kbps mp3.
so this is why ipad2 is so cheap. tiny 512mb ram. and shitty cameras. no wonder samsung is finding it difficult to compete with its 1gb ram tablet with a 2mp front cam and an 8mp rear cam, 1080p recording, dual core graphics, dual core cpu.
only steve jobs suck-ups can call 512mb ample.
i think nuclear power is the future. if not for nuclear-fearing cowards the world is full of, we'd all be living in some kind of an energy utopia world.
the world is full of idiots.
also, ipad is completely shit when you compare hard specs with galaxy tab. when people buy an ipad they don't care about features and specs. but the person who is buying an android tablet will carefully go over all the specs. so apple can sell ipad with a shitty camera and shitty sound, but samsung can't. it has to have the best camera. it has to have the best sound. it has to have dual core cpu and dual core graphics.
no.
Seriously, instead of chasing iPad, is it really impossible for Samsung to maybe ask some prospective customers who haven't already bought iPads what features they want and "compete" based on that?
the problem with that approach is that samsung's tablet is superior in every way (except for a few mms, i suppose). people will just buy apple's tablet 'ipad'. they buy it purely on brand value. there is no technical, rational explanation. what do you suggest samsung add to their tab to make people buy it over an ipad?
we have ridiculously cheap rates here in india too.
my prepaid sim cost me inr 20. (divide by 45 to get usd)
i can send 200 texts to anyone in the country daily for free.
i can call local numbers at inr 0.01 per second.
i can call long distance at inr 0.02 per second.
3.5g data at inr 0.01 per 20kb. (you can also pay inr 750 for 2gb and such plans go upto 15gb)
and i need to recharge it when the balance gets to zero.
i dont think you need to lobby your representatives or anything. just adopt policies that encourage a freer market.
ok, that sounds something completely different from whatever i've used till now. and it sound good :)
the kind of management you describe really does not need minimize buttons or titlebars.
and how is dragging>clicking a button?
Just out of curiousity, do you actually use the minimize icon? Or do you use one of the key-combinations?
i use the icon. i use key shortcuts for many things, but not for minimize, cause its got its own button!
Second, why do you use minimize?
so that i can hide away the windows i don't wanna see right now, but i think i will need to in the near future. i think minimizing is much more efficient than switching between virtual desktops (i assume that's what you mean by workspaces?).
there's no taskbar to speak of in gnome 3, as i gather. windows have nowhere to minimize to.
and how is "right-click, move to workspace down" or "or zoom out to activity view, drag the screen from one screen to another" better than a single click on a button placed on the titlebar? one that every single desktop has had for as long as i've been using computers?
i think ubuntu is doing their own set of mindless ui overhauls. moving titlebar buttons to the left, no tooltips on the battery icon, etc.changes like this add nothing and remove functionality/increase the number of clicks for something that used to be simple. all that for the sake of 'consistency'.
a ui does NOT need to be perfectly consistent to be good. it has to be good to be good.
and your point is?
gp says that windows' and osx's uis are better than gnome 3 because they have lotsa money, and gnome guys work essentially on their own time. so why do you wanna drag in a pointless debate on the way we measure the size of a company?
as far as i know, apple does not remove useful buttons just because "They don’t make sense within the current shell design. There’s nothing to minimize to, like a dock or window list, and it’s potentially confusing, since users will not know where their windows have gone."
my advice to mr allan who wrote tfa: if minimize does not make sense in the current design and you dont have anything to minimize to, your ui sure needs a lot more work!