Re:HTML/CSS/JavaScript
on
Hello World!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The problem is, they're all broken. It's far harder than it should be to get anything meaningful done reliably and well in CSS and HTML, even if the specs were implemented properly. Javascript is hamstrung by crappy implementations with crappily pointless differences between them, and a crappy standard library. Don't get me started on the DOM API, that just makes me cry.
Really, the only advantage that HTML/CSS/Javascript has over Python is that every PC has an interpreter present out of the box, but given that if you're doing JS there's few tools better than Firebug, you've got installation to do anyway and you might as well just suck it up.
the market has chosen not to go for ground-based installations of the type you describe yet
You are not serious when you say that, are you? Do you have any idea of how many solar powerplants have been already built, and how many are being built? Here are the Solar thermal powerplants producing a total of 562MW right now. There is 1.5GW of such powerplants under construction, and several GW announced. All of them the kind that the Sahara project is targeting.
That's not the sort of plant you're describing, because the scale is completely off - by a couple of orders of magnitude. The market has not moved in favour of the gigantic plants you argue for upthread. The point stands, I think.
And how much installed power does the satellite gimmick provide?
If the answer to this isn't 200MW, then we have our wires crossed somewhere.
I would also note that the first commercial ground-based solar-thermal power station was a whopping 10MW plant. It might be appropriate for you to stop referring to space-based solar power as a gimmick on the basis of its power output, especially given that the contracted output represents over a third of current *total* ground-based solar operational operational capacity.
But don't let simple logic interfere with your lack thereof. Your debating skills will surely make up for total lack of facts.
I don't understand why you are responding with hostility here. The facts are not at issue. There is room for both space-based solar and ground-based gigaplants, we just seem to be getting one first.
The 200MW this space gimmick will produce is a drop in the ocean compared to what terrestrial mega-plants can produce.
That's because this space gimmick is what is known as a proof of concept.
Besides, we already have oil drilling sites in much less hospitable (both politically as well as environmentally) places, and we have to build thick pipe lines to carry that oil, and the servicing of such infrastructure is way more complex than a solar powerplant of the same energy output. AND in addition to all this, the oil drilling site is temporary - it is exhausted after a while so either we have to build new drilling sites nearby, or if the whole area is exhausted, the whole pipeline is worth shit! And in spite of all this, it's still very profitable to do this.
That's becaue oil has an absurdly high energy density.
I submit to you that it is even more profitable to do the same in case of a gigantic solar plant. The energy harvested is many times more, and it is practically inexhaustible.
It's unlikely to be more profitable. It might still be worthwhile, though. What I will note is that both are in the hands not of people like you and me ranting on a web forum and not getting anything done, but private companies who actually have to work all this stuff out, implement it, and know they'll make a profit. There's room for both gigantic ground-based solar plants and space-based solar in the marketplace.
The economics of space-based solar are quite similar to nuclear, in a lot of respects. High up-front costs, well-known constant output, comparatively low running costs. If anything, space-based solar is more economically attractive than nuclear because the risks and precautions you need to take are lower. Nukes are still being built commercially. Space-based solar looks like it will be. Ground-based solar mega-plants? Not so much. Geopolitics is too much of an unknown.
The developers don't have to show that this is safe. We know it's safe because we've been doing almost exactly the same thing for 50 years, just horizontally rather than vertically. If we weren't good at avoiding atmospheric microwave absorption, microwave telecoms links really wouldn't work that well.
Yeah, but it's kind of nice to hope that the news vendor will add some of their own analysis rather than simply regurgitating a press release. Foolishly optimistic, in most cases, but nice nonetheless.
While you're not wrong, none of your alternatives suggest anything other than that cloning enlarged the crowd - or at least over-emphasised Ahmedinejad's support, which amounts to the same thing. I agree that jumping to premature conclusions would be bad, but given that all of the found tomfoolery boosts Ahmedinejad's apparent support, this is extremely suggestive of partisan connivery,
Since you're in the know, do you mind if I ask a few questions?
What is the dollar price per installed MW plate rating once you factor in said roads, underground cabling and ancillary niceties? I've seen figures of about $7/W, is that even the right order of magnitude?
What proportion of the plate rating do you actually get out of a wind farm? Again, I've seen figures saying that 30% power output is average; is that high, low, or about right?
Are there any serious engineering proposals to install energy storage facilities at the wind farm itself to help with the intermittent supply problem?
He's probably talking about this. It does actually look really promising. It's technically simple, and flexible enough to be tuned to specific required hydrocarbons.
Unfortunately it suffers from the same problem as all biofuel proposals: an upper energy density limit of 100W/m2 of photosynthesisable sunlight, before tackling the problem of putting energy into the biomass to get your product out. You still need an absurd amount of installed capacity to even begin making a dent in any country's energy requirement with it. That being said, it looks orders of magnitude better than almost any other biofuel proposal.
Re:Duct Tape is a Bad Idea--Use Magnets!
on
Best eSATA JBOD?
·
· Score: 1
Wow. That's the first time a comment has actually made me facepalm in a while.
Not really. Unless there are tax implications, it ought to be in their interest to take all the money up front rather than as a monthly subscription because they get to claim interest on it. Then again, I don't know how likely it is that someone who pays up front will extend the contract as compared to someone who pays monthly.
That's my impression too. They've really not got anything to lose by doing it right, and judging by just how hackable the root image is, I think at least the engineers know they can make a lot of hackers *very* happy with the Pre as long as marketing don't screw it up.
A week ago I was torn between an iPhone and the Pre. Having read through the precentral thread, there's just no contest. As soon as it gets to the UK, I'm ditching my provider ahd getting a Pre. There not being a public SDK was previously an issue, now it's not.
And if they decide not to, I'm sure the FSF will have a nice quiet chat with them. They've even made it easy for them by listing in the Open Source Information pdf every single open source (be that GPL, Apache, AFL, MIT, BSD, whatever) licensed software they're distributing, along with the license text for that software.
To me it looks like they've done their homework and will publish in time; I wouldn't be surprised if source code came in the public SDK when it lands. Until then, the GPL at least can be satisfied on demand.
Just following up here, the image contains/usr/lib/ossinfo/Open Source Information.pdf, which contains the following:
For instructions on how to obtain a copy of any source code being made publicly available by Palm, Inc. (âoePalmâ) related to software used in this Palm mobile device ("Device"), you should send your request in writing to: Palm Inc. Attention: Open Source Compliance 950 W. Maude Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94085 USA
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, they're all broken. It's far harder than it should be to get anything meaningful done reliably and well in CSS and HTML, even if the specs were implemented properly. Javascript is hamstrung by crappy implementations with crappily pointless differences between them, and a crappy standard library. Don't get me started on the DOM API, that just makes me cry.
Really, the only advantage that HTML/CSS/Javascript has over Python is that every PC has an interpreter present out of the box, but given that if you're doing JS there's few tools better than Firebug, you've got installation to do anyway and you might as well just suck it up.
No, actually I don't.
That's not the sort of plant you're describing, because the scale is completely off - by a couple of orders of magnitude. The market has not moved in favour of the gigantic plants you argue for upthread. The point stands, I think.
If the answer to this isn't 200MW, then we have our wires crossed somewhere.
I would also note that the first commercial ground-based solar-thermal power station was a whopping 10MW plant. It might be appropriate for you to stop referring to space-based solar power as a gimmick on the basis of its power output, especially given that the contracted output represents over a third of current *total* ground-based solar operational operational capacity.
I don't understand why you are responding with hostility here. The facts are not at issue. There is room for both space-based solar and ground-based gigaplants, we just seem to be getting one first.
You're the one who brought up the Sahara.
Again, there's room for both, and the market has chosen not to go for ground-based installations of the type you describe yet.
If individual rights were fairly balanced with responsibility, then you would.
That's because this space gimmick is what is known as a proof of concept.
That's becaue oil has an absurdly high energy density.
It's unlikely to be more profitable. It might still be worthwhile, though. What I will note is that both are in the hands not of people like you and me ranting on a web forum and not getting anything done, but private companies who actually have to work all this stuff out, implement it, and know they'll make a profit. There's room for both gigantic ground-based solar plants and space-based solar in the marketplace.
The economics of space-based solar are quite similar to nuclear, in a lot of respects. High up-front costs, well-known constant output, comparatively low running costs. If anything, space-based solar is more economically attractive than nuclear because the risks and precautions you need to take are lower. Nukes are still being built commercially. Space-based solar looks like it will be. Ground-based solar mega-plants? Not so much. Geopolitics is too much of an unknown.
Fast-moving lumps of metal = weaponising space. We already do that perfectly happily.
The risk of accidents is minimal, unless you know something about beam-forming that 50 years of radar development haven't revealed.
The developers don't have to show that this is safe. We know it's safe because we've been doing almost exactly the same thing for 50 years, just horizontally rather than vertically. If we weren't good at avoiding atmospheric microwave absorption, microwave telecoms links really wouldn't work that well.
In addition, nuclear is one of the few forms of energy we have ready access to that *doesn't* come, directly or indirectly, from the Sun.
Yeah, but it's kind of nice to hope that the news vendor will add some of their own analysis rather than simply regurgitating a press release. Foolishly optimistic, in most cases, but nice nonetheless.
While you're not wrong, none of your alternatives suggest anything other than that cloning enlarged the crowd - or at least over-emphasised Ahmedinejad's support, which amounts to the same thing. I agree that jumping to premature conclusions would be bad, but given that all of the found tomfoolery boosts Ahmedinejad's apparent support, this is extremely suggestive of partisan connivery,
Unfortunately it's mixed up with "Polish Shopping Trolley" and "Sicilian Concrete Overshoe," which makes extraction a little tricky.
Since you're in the know, do you mind if I ask a few questions?
He's probably talking about this. It does actually look really promising. It's technically simple, and flexible enough to be tuned to specific required hydrocarbons.
Unfortunately it suffers from the same problem as all biofuel proposals: an upper energy density limit of 100W/m2 of photosynthesisable sunlight, before tackling the problem of putting energy into the biomass to get your product out. You still need an absurd amount of installed capacity to even begin making a dent in any country's energy requirement with it. That being said, it looks orders of magnitude better than almost any other biofuel proposal.
Wow. That's the first time a comment has actually made me facepalm in a while.
Not really. Unless there are tax implications, it ought to be in their interest to take all the money up front rather than as a monthly subscription because they get to claim interest on it. Then again, I don't know how likely it is that someone who pays up front will extend the contract as compared to someone who pays monthly.
Nudes? Please, have some ambition!
That's my impression too. They've really not got anything to lose by doing it right, and judging by just how hackable the root image is, I think at least the engineers know they can make a lot of hackers *very* happy with the Pre as long as marketing don't screw it up.
A week ago I was torn between an iPhone and the Pre. Having read through the precentral thread, there's just no contest. As soon as it gets to the UK, I'm ditching my provider ahd getting a Pre. There not being a public SDK was previously an issue, now it's not.
And if they decide not to, I'm sure the FSF will have a nice quiet chat with them. They've even made it easy for them by listing in the Open Source Information pdf every single open source (be that GPL, Apache, AFL, MIT, BSD, whatever) licensed software they're distributing, along with the license text for that software.
To me it looks like they've done their homework and will publish in time; I wouldn't be surprised if source code came in the public SDK when it lands. Until then, the GPL at least can be satisfied on demand.
You might also want to try opensourcequestions@palm.com as listed here.
I refer you to a comment I made downthread.
Just following up here, the image contains /usr/lib/ossinfo/Open Source Information.pdf, which contains the following:
Not necessarily. The GPL says that source can be provided on demand. I wonder if anyone's asked them?
In theory, I think UDF should work for this. I've not had much luck in my brief attempts, though.
Where can I find a Mac Mini Express?