I still content that rewrites are harmful only when all of these three conditions are met:
a) Your code is your commercial product/livelyhood
b) You need to support legacy systems
c) You are coding for practical results not for the art of programming.
Joel is an insightful guy, but he approaches software exclusively as a deliverable intended to Get The Job Done Now. For a lot of software this is appropriate, but in the case of open source software it is seldom that all of the above conditions are met. There are also a couple of points he doesn't mention that are relevant to open source software:
d) Users of the old code are not left out in the cold - the complete old codebase is available for them to pick up and maintain (or hire someone to maintain - maybe even the original author) if there is sufficient motivation. Open source authors often aren't motivated to maintain steaming piles of turd just for the joy of it, so they are more inclined to do rewrites. If you want them to maintain old stuff, do like everyone else who really wants some service and hire them!
e) The software stack is almost completely free for open source software - there is no "but I can't afford to upgrade to Windows 98 and break everything!" problem. Granted you might run into those problems, but in theory if you care enough they can be solved. (Often NOT true for legacy commercial software.) So open source developers as a whole are a lot less concerned with backwards compatibility. Take KDE for example - the incentive to support KDE2 when coding a KDE app today is virtually nil - there are many very good reasons KDE3 exists, both from a user AND a developer standpoint. If a user really wants the crap handled to deal with old, broken environments they shouldn't expect to get something for free. The point, again, is that they CAN hire someone to do what they want, because the code is available to be updated.
Now, that said, I would agree that OpenOffice is too critical to the free software world to rush off and be headstrong about. It might be a case where a Netscape type move would be a bad idea. But I like the enlightenment project, even if they have treated violating Joel's rules like a pro sport. They are creating something artistic, advanced, and with the intent of "doing it right". If you look at enlightenment as not a continuation of the old e16, but instead as a totally new product, then it takes on a different light - they are actually doing prototypes, designing and testing, etc. BEFORE they release it in the wild and invite support headaches. Now, as usual first to market wins, but in open source losers don't always die and can sometimes come back from the grave. Rosegarden is an example of an application that is good because they explored their options and found a good one, even with and partially because of their experience on previous iterations of the code. They didn't do it "the Joel way" but they did it in the end and they did well.
I think there is another "zen" of programming, that we are getting closer to reaching - the "OK, we have discovered the features we want and use, now let's code it all up so we never have to do it again" level. There is little that is surprising in spreadsheets, databases, word processors, etc. - they are mature applications from a "user expected featureset" point of view. So now I propose we do, not just a rewrite, but a reimplimentation using the most advanced tools we have to create Perfect software. Proof logic, careful design, theorm provers, etc. etc. etc. We know, in many cases, what program/feature/OS behavior/etc. we want. Let's formalize things as much as humanly possible, and make a bulletproof system where talking about rewrites makes no sense, because everything has provably been done the Right Way. (Yes, I'm watching the coyotos project - they've got the right attitude, and they might determine if it is possible.)
I want to see how the FCC answered them. It sounds like a good way to see if the FCC is in fact of the opinion that all copying of commercial copyrighted content should be prevented.
"If you think it should be otherwise, I challenge you to examine the basis for that opinion. I suspect you will find it is because you think or know that you could create a patented piece of software yourself without using anyone else's code because you have the necessary skills. In that case, you are no different from the skilled artisan in any other field."
The incremental cost of software duplication is near zero, which makes software engineering unique. All other cases I am aware of, the use of a patent also entails some expendature of physical resource required to create the (physical) product. Blueprints for a bridge are of no value unless the bridge (or some bridge) is actually built. Circuit diagrams are of no real impact unless someone actually builds a circuit. But in the case of software, the expression of the knowledge and the application of it are one and the same.
Now, please consider the PURPOSE of patents - the original purpose for creating the patent system. It was to reward inventors in order to encourage them to invent further and thus allow society to progress. This is the only legitimate reason the patent system has to exist. So, the question now becomes - in the case of software, which produces useful products without needing to physically duplicate them, does society benefit more from the controlling of those ideas or the free distribution of them? Does the patent system provide a net gain or net loss to society (NOT, please note, to the business community alone.)
I don't know the answer, not for sure. But the zero cost of software duplication is a fundamental difference between this and other fields. I am not prepared to argue the point as to whether matters in software would stand where they are today without patents - I suspect they would, personally, since so much of the key work was academic in nature, but I have no hard facts - so you are free to disagree. But remember that even the patent system itself is secondary to the best interests of society, however little we might remember that today. A new situation requires re-examination of fundamental assumptions, and software is a new situation.
Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't this be something E would benefit from? E doesn't replace X, it lives on top of it - so wouldn't this just make it easier to do the cool stuff in E?
So is (or was) http://reaper3d.sourceforge.net. flightgear is striving to become an extremely accurate flight simulator, if memory serves, so it's a bit lacking in gameplay unless virtually flying around looking at stuff or maintaining schedules is your thing. reaper3d was a no-nonsense fly around and blast stuff game. Unfortunately it seems there hasn't been any active development in a while. I'll have to take another look at it. I remember being sad it didn't attract more game developers, since what was there showed potential. It had wide open ranges and combat simulation:-) (Come to think of it I guess it was the closest thing I found in open source to the original Starsiege Tribes, or at least the flying around in a scout part.)
I think the biggest asset to open source gaming would be for that open specs video acceleration card to become widely used. Sure, it won't get high frame rates on the very latest commercial games, but if it can do tuxracer, bzflag, and other such games with GOOD drivers there will be a lot of happy linux game fans (myself included.) And perhaps if the first card succeeds future versions will be state of the art. If crystal space tunes for it, and somebody ports the genesis3d engine to run on Linux, perhaps we could see real interesting developments.
I like bzflag, and find it as interesting as Quake nowadays. But my graphics card is so old it's not up to proper display of 2.0 without turning off a lot of stuff. So I'm hoping the open graphics card becomes real, since it's time to upgrade anyway. I think good, consistent, stable support of a decent, open spec card would be a big, big asset to Linux gaming. Then we can all quit fooling around with nvidia kernel modules, slap in the open spec card and start playing.
Indeed. In some sense this charts the rise of the internet as the work of human beings, rather than just technical steps.
Implicit in this statement is the (vaild) observation that much human thought which has only ever existed as digital records will not retain the personal, tangible quality physical records have.
Also interesting is the potential that, if our society ever self destructs, a truly staggering body of knowledge will be lost. I know, no one thinks this is likely. They probably thought the same thing at every stage of civilization capable of leaving written records. I would like to see some effort made to preserve the core of our technological knowledge and perhaps our history, although the latter is fraught with political trouble. Time capsules may someday serve the future very well indeed.
Mr. Stallman doesn't seem upset with Sun so much as with the whole problem of software patents (which is a much more sensible position.)
Let me say it again for those who won't read the article - IT DOESN'T MATTER whether or not Sun releases these patents. ANYBODY with a patent and no sense of ethics can do incalcuable damage to the free software movement. Even if sun broadened it's release to include all open source licenses, 1,600 is just a few leaves in a forest. And personally I wouldn't consider Sun's hands to be the most dangerous. Suppose Microsoft hires itself a few proxies with big patent portfoilos to sue every small to medium size open source project they can find, and all users they can track down? Sun's patent release doesn't do ANYTHING about that problem, and that is the real problem here.
Sun is unlikely to do anything so rash - they don't dominate the market and can't affort to become the next SCO in public relations. Microsoft can, and it can even more so afford for hired flunkie companies to be reviled.
Patents are far and away the most dangerous threat to open source software. But, to be a bit fatalistic, I think if the large corporations get serious about killing open source, nothing will save it. If nothing else, they could try to buy some laws making giving away software for free illegal, because it is unfair competition. The biggest problem with enemies is that they are your enemy. They will not stop until you are dead, and how you die is of no importance. The specifics don't matter - the fact someone wants you dead is enough to seal your fate unless you can either change their minds or force them to back off. I don't know how open source can do either, at least in the US, where money is everything.
This may not be a strictly relevant point, but I'll bring it up anyway:
What are the odds that, of those 1,600 patents, NONE of them are violated by Linux in its current form? (I'm assuming near zero, since both Solaris and Linux are unix like operating systems. Has anybody with sufficient knowledge actually looked at the patents in question?)
If Sun were worried about killing Linux or other open source software, I don't think they would need to resort to trying to get people to suck in their code and then sue them. In most cases they don't need to waste their time - a simple filing of a patent case, even of no merit whatsoever, is enough to torpedo most open source programs. The options are a) pay up or b) break the patent. Either one takes $$. So why try a bait and switch approach when all they need to do is swing a flyswatter?
The Linux kernel and a few other programs might be able to mount some kind of defense, but if you want to kill the open source movement you don't need to kill the Linux kernel. You just hit the wealth of small, non-funded private projects that make Linux and friends worth using. A kernel is pretty useless by itself. Even if the big projects could survive, open source as such would still die.
Maybe I'm blind, but I just don't see how the CDDL and the patent "release" does anything except highlight a problem that has always been there and is still there. Twenty useless, indefensible, overly broad patents could conceivably be enough to sink 10,000 open source projects in the wrong hands. And if they go after users it's The End, regardless. Maybe Sun is trying to bait a booby trap here, but I just can't see it. If Sun has those patents, they are a potential headache for Linux no matter what, if they cover things that people might want to include in the kernel. If Sun wants to be a bad guy there is nothing stopping them even without the CDDL. So the upshot is, they're exactly the same problem they were to begin with. Maybe it would be easier to prove patent violation if CDDL code were used, but if matters reach that stage for most open source projects it's already far too late.
If I understand what they are doing correctly, this is the path that must be taken if we are to have a truly robust computing world.
Human beings make mistakes, which are iteratively corrected. This is OK, but it turns out when it comes to computers a DEVELOPER correction does not translate into a USER correction 100% of the time. People do not update systems. And systems are so complex nowadays that often times fixing one problem will break other software, mission critical software. This is unacceptable, but it is a fact of life. So if we want a clean, non-virus ridden network that is also worldwide, we have to Get It Right The First Time.
Coyotos is a possible solution to the statement "if we built houses the way we build computers/networks/OSs/software, the first woodpecker would destroy civilization." From the ground up, if we do it RIGHT with the best tools we can bring to bear (i.e. formal proof) we can stop worrying so much about woodpeckers.
There is no such thing as 100%, of course. Proofs are checked either by computers programmed by humans, or by humans. Both are fallible. But this is as close as we are going to get to a perfect system, and with any luck it will raise the barrior of entry for black hats so high they won't even bother.
It's a lot of work to create, and far more work to re-educate all the programmers out there. But there is NO easy solution. The thinking represented by Coyotos, in my opinion, represents the only POSSIBLE solution. So let's hope in 20 years universities are teaching BitC as the default language. Computer programmers and developers have been solving the same basic problems over and over and over for the past few decades. Thanks to open source, a new philosophy can and needs to emerge - express the logic of your feature to the computer once, completely, and be done forever. Then we can build to greater things.
True, but what are the odds they would do so? I'm guessing if they wanted to they could slap Linux with patent lawsuits anyway, regardless.
Sun cannot be so stupid. There is no money to be made in the long run with Linux patent lawsuits - all you will do is kill Linux. And probably open source itself. Sun is not Microsoft - they cannot scorn all allies and hope to survive.
Really, I don't think much of this whole patent thing in general - releasing 1000 or 10000 isn't enough to remove the threat - a lawsuit over 1 weak patent is still enough to sink most open source projects. IBM's move was good because they stated openly that Linux was part of the patent standoff, but I think that's more or less implicit for most of the software industry anyway. The Linux kernel happens to have both powerful champions and major enemies, but EVEN THERE the patent demon has yet to seriously rear its head, when it is probably the single effective way to kill Linux. It's MAD in a true sense, because if patents ever become offensive weapons in the software world there's going to be nothing left of the US IT industry but a smoking crater full of radioactive legal slime, and the first bomb blowing up over open source would be unlikely to change that in the long run. I bet the release was just an attempt to keep the trolls from claiming the CDDL was an attempted lawsuit mousetrap.
Incredible. It's actually happening. WAY TO GO SUN!
Now, the great question in open source will be whether the GPL3 and CDDL can be made to be mutually compatible. If this can happen, OpenSolaris and Linux could conceivably combine all their strengths and change the face of computing.
Solaris is Proven and an Industry Tool. Linux has more "street smarts" and some better designed parts (IIRC the scheduler might be an example here?). If I understand matters right now, CDDL code could go into GPL code but not vice versa. Which is a shame in some ways, because I think the Solaris name is a coin that open source could make good use of.
I'm not a huge gamer. bzflag is about the limit of my occasional forays into games these days. If it can:
- accelerate all the eye candy I enjoy - make things like alpha transparency and video rendering fast and smooth and not impact system performance - allow me to manipulate 3D plots or complex CAD objects in three space in real time smoothly
then it does what I need from a graphics card. If it can make bzflag run smoothly, so much the better. And I suspect a middling card with excellent drivers will stack up OK for normal worka against a really fast card with iffy drivers. Plus, if this is a success they might make better cards in the future.
Guys, let's make this the standard card for non-gaming open source boxes. Especially if it's a quality piece of work. That counts for quite a lot, too - solid hardware is a blessing if you don't have the $$ to casually replace it.
Hopefully whoever buys Windows products in Europe for the next few years, since they're the ones who'll really pay it.
To me it looks like a rather indirect form of taxing the European population, unless we really think Microsoft is just going to take a chunk out of profits.
This is the second time you've mentioned ClearChannel in this thread, and I can't resist but bite this time. I don't think that there is a regulatory problem with conglomerates owning more than one station in a city. You're coming off sounding like someone who feels intellectually elite, as the only one who can differentiate between viewpoints. The average person is smarter than that, and if/when there is a problem, the market will react.
Apologies. That wasn't my intention. As a matter of fact, I'm quite guilty of not doing my job in looking for the truth and/or different viewpoints - I tend to read cnn.com for an overview of the news. However, the fact that I too am devoting insufficient attention to the problem does not make it less of one. I am not intellectually elite in any sense - I am quite sure most people would concede that a broad, unchallenged voice holds tremendous power, which they can (and probably will) try to abuse. But I disagree the market will react, and that's the scary part. I think that people ARE smart but, like me, they would be unlikely to try and do anything about it (or pay serious attention to it) unless it directly impacts their personal comfort.
In fact, I believe that the owners and management of terrestrial radio are running scared of what sattelite radio will provide to consumers, who will in turn jump ship for pay services.
Possibly. However, I would have to see it to be convinced that statistically significant numbers of people would abandon a free service for a paying one. Also, if people are paying for it they may very well be doing so for entertainment rather than expanded information. I know I would be more likely to pay for entertainment than better news, although I'm not proud of that. I'm sure the land based stations are reacting, but whether to percieved or real threat will be shown only by the event.
...it is conceviable that a company could monopolize a market and just play their opinions and views. However, I have yet to see it happen -- the closest thing I saw to it thus far was so heavily protested the offenders had to change to avoid losing vast markets.
Then they weren't very subtle about it, most likely. Twisting public opinion directly won't work. What you do is re-enforce what people want to think, are comfortable thinking, and think they already know. Then use that for your own ends. An example of subtle re-enforcement of social trends would be the fashion industry. Who decides what the "in" color is for clothing/purses/whatever each year? There always seems to be an "in" color, and I know I didn't pick it. People buying it because it's "in" didn't start the trend - they're the intended result. Who did? I'm betting they're making a heck of a lot of money off of the choice. What happens if the media starts using their (similar) influence towards similar ends in the political realm? IIRC a survey done of various news service viewers showed that FOX news viewers were under the impression that WMDs HAD been found in Iraq. Anybody who wanted to dig would have had a hard time finding the proof, but they didn't dig - it fit with their image of the war, so they believe it. Now, if FOX uses its skills to deliberately and subtly re-enforce that image support for the war would get stronger, without the detail of actual evidence. The people who are really good at this are masters of spin, and they can be very subtle and selective when they want. It's their business, particularly when you treat news as entertainment. I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone of falling for it, but I don't like that they can do it.
Personally, I could care less about "public importance" -- I prefer entertainment.
Sadly, most people would agree with you. I myself am forced to concede that my behavior pattern indicates I feel the same way. Which is why it is all the more useful for the press to be skeptical seekers after truth, not capitalists out for advertising $$. If
What you mean to say is that ABC, NBC, and CBS used to do that. The media predates TV by some years.
Yes, true. I tend to think of television because it is (IMHO) the most influencial of our current information distribution channels.
There is not a centralized media system in the US. That is such a bogus statement. There are now, at this time, more viewpoints, more sources of raw information, and more sources of opinions than at any time in US history.
The viewpoints, raw information, etc. only MEAN anything if they reach people. Look at the major media outlets across this country - how different are the reporting styles of the major TV networks, for example? ClearChannel has flattened radio diversity almost to nothing. The internet is diverse, but again that only works if you go somewhere else than cnn.com or msnbc.com. Diverse doesn't mean different owners of media companies that all present similar views. Maybe the situation is not as grim as I see it - indeed I hope it is not - but I would be surprised if I'm too far wrong about the net result.
Close, but not quite. It doesnt have to actively made available - pushed - to voters. It has to be *available* for seeking. Everything a voter needs to make an informed choice is available.
Right but wrong. What you say is true in a situation of crisis, because then people will seek out the information. But for non-critical issues, where people tend to accept the facts as provided, the system will fail. People have to be mad to seek, and if they don't seek it doesn't work. As long as people are comfortable, they are unlikely to get mad.
I've described this type of thing before as the Point of No Return. If you can keep the population happy, and control enough of the media outlets to influence enough of a majority successfully, you essentially own the country as long as there isn't a major crisis that disrupts your control of the news and/or starts people thinking critically about you.
We have non-profit news. It's very widespread. Not only is there NPR, but a number of local outlets in any given area. It's worth noting that non-profit does not mean perfect, or even ncessarily better than for profit. The BBC is not-for-profit, yet, it has it's share of problems, correct?
Of course, non-profit news exists. This is true, and it does have its faults. But if I ever want what I consider good news coverage, I will tune in to PBS or NPR programming. However, it comes back to statistics again - and IIRC, as a percentage of this country, PBS and NPR customers are a small component.
I'm not denying that there are individual components that are working. What I'm saying is that it's not enough for JUST those components to be working.
I sense an undertone of unhappiness with the situation at hand. Like you feel like if the electorate had just a little bit better, or more, or different information a different result would have occurred in the recent election. Is that the case?
Yes and no. Let's just say I am indeed unhappy with the situation at hand, but as to whether I think better, more, or different information would have changed anything - no, not really. I guess I hope that more coverage of the issues might have changed something, but I don't really believe it. Which points to a deeper problem, but that's another post.
"There are few very issues with objectively correct or incorrect answers or solutions."
There are, however, quite a number that do have "correct" answers if you are willing to postulate that the commercial interests of a small number of people should not be more important than the good of the community.
This is true at local, state, national, and world scales.
The media used to regard the news as public service, and not so much a source of profit. This changed when they noticed two facts - their news hours have very high viewership by people who earn and spend money, and that even more people tuned in for senational news. I saw a history of TV with regards to that point, and IIRC there were three or four major scandals that got national coverage which were the beginning of the end. So yes it's never been great, but I think it is worse now. Any time news is treated as a money maker, you can forget about hearing about important issues from ANY viewpoint. It's too much like work to listen to important issues.
I agree censorship is a bad idea, but the problem with a pervasive, persuasive and centralized media (e.g. ClearChannel) in a democracy is that without a critically thinking population the system becomes unstable. A functioning democracy is a self correcting system, but a hidden dependancy of that system is that accurate, verifiable information is provided to the people who must make the decisions. I.e., the voters. It's usually AVAILABLE, granted, but if they don't have it and settle for what they are told by an organized media the end result is EXACTLY the same as if they don't have it. If you can get statistically large numbers of them to dance to your tune, you have effectively taken over the country. The key question is, do enough people engage critical thinking to avoid the electorate being systematically manipulated by misinformation?
Not that I advocate changing the system, except perhaps to compel news programs to function on a non-profit basis. People get the government they deserve in a democracy, that's pretty much the rule. So it's up to them, and if they want to throw it away they can.
Because a lot of people simply won't plan ahead. Then, when they reach that stage of their lives, society will either have to take care of them or watch them die. Since we are a caring society (on some level at least) we are generally opposed to letting people rot in the gutters. Since there is some large percentage of people that will not take care of themselves, particularly when so much long term thinking is required, we create institutions like Social Security to attempt to cover the costs we know are coming.
The problem is, health (particularly in the later years) is an open ended expense. I doubt we could give all the treatments available for all illnesses to all the people who need them, even if our entire civilization were to put its every resource into the task. Which we don't. So the question becomes, when do we say "we can't afford it" to keep someone alive?
As a compassionate society, we want to say "there is no limit," particularly when a family member is involved. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - in fact, I'd hate to live in a place where it wasn't true - but it simply is impossible to do on as matters now stand.
I'm almost positive what would happen with social security is too many people wouldn't save, would spend everything they have as soon as they get it, and in the end would drag society down by being a huge burden.
There are definitely some things that could help the problem, one being to stop treating any form of medicine as a for-profit affair, including the pill makers. Nationalize it, pay the researchers the same salaries they're getting now, and work for the benefit of people instead of gouging them. Try to lower the fundamental costs of health care, rather than figuring out "how to pay for it." Also, reduce available benefits for people who don't take proper care of themselves, or at least put them lower on the priority list. Limit laywer rewards for medical cases to some fixed $$ amount, so they don't have the incentive to stick it to people so hard. Up the pay for nurses and other caregivers. Tax junk food like we tax smoking.
Fundamentally, the problem is fairly unsolvable unless someone figures out how to make human beings less fragile - we're pretty much either going to break down, or break ourselves down. Which doesn't mean we don't do the best we can. But for the love of $DEITY, quit trying to make large profits off of health products. Health is too important to let capitalism in on it.
Almost all humans, male or female, suck at math. Particularly in the US, if standardized tests mean anything. And I don't care where you're from or who you are, the high level math of college can ensure that EVERYBODY sucks at it;-). Guys or girls doesn't matter much in my experience. Two of our brightest physics undergrads (both a heck of a lot smarter than me) were female. Our best math student in Differential Equations was female. So if it's not obvious by now to anyone that sterotypes are a waste of time, it's because they're not paying attention. Clearly, in general a lot of people uses biases to internally justify assuming power over others, and so I understand and agree that these trends need to be squashed.
Another problem though, and a less malicious one, is that people also want to generalize things because it's a lot easier than the correct approach of dealing with each person on an individual basis. Note this is different from doing studies of the human body/brain/animal. That type of research, in my opinion, should have no impact on our social system. That's not what it's for. Or at least, ideally that's not what it's for. But people want to be lazy when dealing with other people, and so they use statistical studies of gender based trends (which, if caused by nature, are the result of circumstances wildly unlike modern life in an evolutionary sense) and try to draw conclusions about people they don't know. That's dangerous, but also hard to stop.
Here's a point I would like to see more study given to - are some trends of gender bias a consequence of the mind trying to reduce the burden of dealing with many, many more individuals over the course of a lifetime than most of our ancestors did over the course of our evolutionary history? For most of the history of the human (and precursors) species, we operated in small groups where everyone knew everyone else, and any outsiders were regarded as competition. That trend is still obvious today (nations anybody?) but the emotional, personal scale of these groups is now so vast that we spend a large part of our time surrounded by people we have no time to get to know well. My hypothesis would be we do a LOT of categorization based on superficial characteristics (weight, height, clothing style, car, and even gender) simply because we have neither the time nor the comfort level to get to know EVERYONE around us well, but our instincts tell us we should know about the individuals we "group" with. After all, in small groups everyone knows everything about everyone, and the isolation caused by our current HUGE populations and lack of tightly nit groups must have SOME impact on us. I would be curious if our tendancy towards "snap judgements" and biases is an attempt to cope with not being surrounded by the traditional "pack".
Note, that is NOT an excuse for such behavior, just a proposed reason for it. Being thinking beings, we can (and should) deal with individuals and not preconceptions.
Of course, that's probably psychology 101 - any psyc guys or gals out there who know?
Correct. There are a lot of practical limits to a solar cell's efficiency that a number like 25% doesn't begin to express. Unfortunately most people's attention span isn't long enough to look past the marketing. Think CPU clock speed vs. total system performance.
However, as for lost land, that's not an issue if you use rooftops, parking lot canopys, and other covers over urban areas. Plus, in those areas power transmission losses are minimal. I don't think land loss for solar generation will be an issue, or at least any more of an issue than urban sprawl itself is.
Ultimately, when humans use electricity we are either removing energy from the environment, tapping stored (and finite) fossil fuel reserves, or using nuclear/thermal sources. You don't do any that without impacting the environment. Period.
1) Right. That's why you need multijunction to do well - recombination always kills some of what you collect, and you want to use the high energy photons as efficiently as possible. But multijunction devices are difficult to produce - first you need an efficient wide band gap cell, then you need to be able to deposite said cell without frying the cell under it.
2) I'm not real familiar with quantum dot technologies, but they do sound interesting. What are some good introductory papers about them?
There are other ideas, and it's one of my favorite areas for thinking about in terms of problem solving. I mention batteries because as of today they are the only really practical solution in the "go out and buy it" sense. My personal favorite idea is a large flywheel (or flywheels) suspended on magnetic/superconductive bearings, and buried in the back yard. As power comes in, the disks are spun up faster and faster. In a vacuum, with magnetic bearings, in theory they should be able to store a lot of power for a long period of time. (And most likely they wouldn't need to store it for a real long period - cloudy days aren't that uncommon in most parts of the US.)
There are limits to this technology, of course, but I've often wondered if it could be made practical if it were installed on a large scale.
Slashdot Mirror
I still content that rewrites are harmful only when all of these three conditions are met:
a) Your code is your commercial product/livelyhood
b) You need to support legacy systems
c) You are coding for practical results not for the art of programming.
Joel is an insightful guy, but he approaches software exclusively as a deliverable intended to Get The Job Done Now. For a lot of software this is appropriate, but in the case of open source software it is seldom that all of the above conditions are met. There are also a couple of points he doesn't mention that are relevant to open source software:
d) Users of the old code are not left out in the cold - the complete old codebase is available for them to pick up and maintain (or hire someone to maintain - maybe even the original author) if there is sufficient motivation. Open source authors often aren't motivated to maintain steaming piles of turd just for the joy of it, so they are more inclined to do rewrites. If you want them to maintain old stuff, do like everyone else who really wants some service and hire them!
e) The software stack is almost completely free for open source software - there is no "but I can't afford to upgrade to Windows 98 and break everything!" problem. Granted you might run into those problems, but in theory if you care enough they can be solved. (Often NOT true for legacy commercial software.) So open source developers as a whole are a lot less concerned with backwards compatibility. Take KDE for example - the incentive to support KDE2 when coding a KDE app today is virtually nil - there are many very good reasons KDE3 exists, both from a user AND a developer standpoint. If a user really wants the crap handled to deal with old, broken environments they shouldn't expect to get something for free. The point, again, is that they CAN hire someone to do what they want, because the code is available to be updated.
Now, that said, I would agree that OpenOffice is too critical to the free software world to rush off and be headstrong about. It might be a case where a Netscape type move would be a bad idea. But I like the enlightenment project, even if they have treated violating Joel's rules like a pro sport. They are creating something artistic, advanced, and with the intent of "doing it right". If you look at enlightenment as not a continuation of the old e16, but instead as a totally new product, then it takes on a different light - they are actually doing prototypes, designing and testing, etc. BEFORE they release it in the wild and invite support headaches. Now, as usual first to market wins, but in open source losers don't always die and can sometimes come back from the grave. Rosegarden is an example of an application that is good because they explored their options and found a good one, even with and partially because of their experience on previous iterations of the code. They didn't do it "the Joel way" but they did it in the end and they did well.
I think there is another "zen" of programming, that we are getting closer to reaching - the "OK, we have discovered the features we want and use, now let's code it all up so we never have to do it again" level. There is little that is surprising in spreadsheets, databases, word processors, etc. - they are mature applications from a "user expected featureset" point of view. So now I propose we do, not just a rewrite, but a reimplimentation using the most advanced tools we have to create Perfect software. Proof logic, careful design, theorm provers, etc. etc. etc. We know, in many cases, what program/feature/OS behavior/etc. we want. Let's formalize things as much as humanly possible, and make a bulletproof system where talking about rewrites makes no sense, because everything has provably been done the Right Way. (Yes, I'm watching the coyotos project - they've got the right attitude, and they might determine if it is possible.)
Are transcripts of this available anywhere?
I want to see how the FCC answered them. It sounds like a good way to see if the FCC is in fact of the opinion that all copying of commercial copyrighted content should be prevented.
"If you think it should be otherwise, I challenge you to examine the basis for that opinion. I suspect you will find it is because you think or know that you could create a patented piece of software yourself without using anyone else's code because you have the necessary skills. In that case, you are no different from the skilled artisan in any other field."
The incremental cost of software duplication is near zero, which makes software engineering unique. All other cases I am aware of, the use of a patent also entails some expendature of physical resource required to create the (physical) product. Blueprints for a bridge are of no value unless the bridge (or some bridge) is actually built. Circuit diagrams are of no real impact unless someone actually builds a circuit. But in the case of software, the expression of the knowledge and the application of it are one and the same.
Now, please consider the PURPOSE of patents - the original purpose for creating the patent system. It was to reward inventors in order to encourage them to invent further and thus allow society to progress. This is the only legitimate reason the patent system has to exist. So, the question now becomes - in the case of software, which produces useful products without needing to physically duplicate them, does society benefit more from the controlling of those ideas or the free distribution of them? Does the patent system provide a net gain or net loss to society (NOT, please note, to the business community alone.)
I don't know the answer, not for sure. But the zero cost of software duplication is a fundamental difference between this and other fields. I am not prepared to argue the point as to whether matters in software would stand where they are today without patents - I suspect they would, personally, since so much of the key work was academic in nature, but I have no hard facts - so you are free to disagree. But remember that even the patent system itself is secondary to the best interests of society, however little we might remember that today. A new situation requires re-examination of fundamental assumptions, and software is a new situation.
Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't this be something E would benefit from? E doesn't replace X, it lives on top of it - so wouldn't this just make it easier to do the cool stuff in E?
How can we help Microsoft come up with a foolproof way to prevent all piracy of their software?
Seriously. I can't think of a better thing to do for Linux, and apparently it is something Microsoft thinks it wants. Let's do it, ASAP.
So is (or was) http://reaper3d.sourceforge.net. flightgear is striving to become an extremely accurate flight simulator, if memory serves, so it's a bit lacking in gameplay unless virtually flying around looking at stuff or maintaining schedules is your thing. reaper3d was a no-nonsense fly around and blast stuff game. Unfortunately it seems there hasn't been any active development in a while. I'll have to take another look at it. I remember being sad it didn't attract more game developers, since what was there showed potential. It had wide open ranges and combat simulation :-) (Come to think of it I guess it was the closest thing I found in open source to the original Starsiege Tribes, or at least the flying around in a scout part.)
I think the biggest asset to open source gaming would be for that open specs video acceleration card to become widely used. Sure, it won't get high frame rates on the very latest commercial games, but if it can do tuxracer, bzflag, and other such games with GOOD drivers there will be a lot of happy linux game fans (myself included.) And perhaps if the first card succeeds future versions will be state of the art. If crystal space tunes for it, and somebody ports the genesis3d engine to run on Linux, perhaps we could see real interesting developments.
I like bzflag, and find it as interesting as Quake nowadays. But my graphics card is so old it's not up to proper display of 2.0 without turning off a lot of stuff. So I'm hoping the open graphics card becomes real, since it's time to upgrade anyway. I think good, consistent, stable support of a decent, open spec card would be a big, big asset to Linux gaming. Then we can all quit fooling around with nvidia kernel modules, slap in the open spec card and start playing.
Indeed. In some sense this charts the rise of the internet as the work of human beings, rather than just technical steps.
Implicit in this statement is the (vaild) observation that much human thought which has only ever existed as digital records will not retain the personal, tangible quality physical records have.
Also interesting is the potential that, if our society ever self destructs, a truly staggering body of knowledge will be lost. I know, no one thinks this is likely. They probably thought the same thing at every stage of civilization capable of leaving written records. I would like to see some effort made to preserve the core of our technological knowledge and perhaps our history, although the latter is fraught with political trouble. Time capsules may someday serve the future very well indeed.
Mr. Stallman doesn't seem upset with Sun so much as with the whole problem of software patents (which is a much more sensible position.)
Let me say it again for those who won't read the article - IT DOESN'T MATTER whether or not Sun releases these patents. ANYBODY with a patent and no sense of ethics can do incalcuable damage to the free software movement. Even if sun broadened it's release to include all open source licenses, 1,600 is just a few leaves in a forest. And personally I wouldn't consider Sun's hands to be the most dangerous. Suppose Microsoft hires itself a few proxies with big patent portfoilos to sue every small to medium size open source project they can find, and all users they can track down? Sun's patent release doesn't do ANYTHING about that problem, and that is the real problem here.
Sun is unlikely to do anything so rash - they don't dominate the market and can't affort to become the next SCO in public relations. Microsoft can, and it can even more so afford for hired flunkie companies to be reviled.
Patents are far and away the most dangerous threat to open source software. But, to be a bit fatalistic, I think if the large corporations get serious about killing open source, nothing will save it. If nothing else, they could try to buy some laws making giving away software for free illegal, because it is unfair competition. The biggest problem with enemies is that they are your enemy. They will not stop until you are dead, and how you die is of no importance. The specifics don't matter - the fact someone wants you dead is enough to seal your fate unless you can either change their minds or force them to back off. I don't know how open source can do either, at least in the US, where money is everything.
This may not be a strictly relevant point, but I'll bring it up anyway:
What are the odds that, of those 1,600 patents, NONE of them are violated by Linux in its current form? (I'm assuming near zero, since both Solaris and Linux are unix like operating systems. Has anybody with sufficient knowledge actually looked at the patents in question?)
If Sun were worried about killing Linux or other open source software, I don't think they would need to resort to trying to get people to suck in their code and then sue them. In most cases they don't need to waste their time - a simple filing of a patent case, even of no merit whatsoever, is enough to torpedo most open source programs. The options are a) pay up or b) break the patent. Either one takes $$. So why try a bait and switch approach when all they need to do is swing a flyswatter?
The Linux kernel and a few other programs might be able to mount some kind of defense, but if you want to kill the open source movement you don't need to kill the Linux kernel. You just hit the wealth of small, non-funded private projects that make Linux and friends worth using. A kernel is pretty useless by itself. Even if the big projects could survive, open source as such would still die.
Maybe I'm blind, but I just don't see how the CDDL and the patent "release" does anything except highlight a problem that has always been there and is still there. Twenty useless, indefensible, overly broad patents could conceivably be enough to sink 10,000 open source projects in the wrong hands. And if they go after users it's The End, regardless. Maybe Sun is trying to bait a booby trap here, but I just can't see it. If Sun has those patents, they are a potential headache for Linux no matter what, if they cover things that people might want to include in the kernel. If Sun wants to be a bad guy there is nothing stopping them even without the CDDL. So the upshot is, they're exactly the same problem they were to begin with. Maybe it would be easier to prove patent violation if CDDL code were used, but if matters reach that stage for most open source projects it's already far too late.
If I understand what they are doing correctly, this is the path that must be taken if we are to have a truly robust computing world.
Human beings make mistakes, which are iteratively corrected. This is OK, but it turns out when it comes to computers a DEVELOPER correction does not translate into a USER correction 100% of the time. People do not update systems. And systems are so complex nowadays that often times fixing one problem will break other software, mission critical software. This is unacceptable, but it is a fact of life. So if we want a clean, non-virus ridden network that is also worldwide, we have to Get It Right The First Time.
Coyotos is a possible solution to the statement "if we built houses the way we build computers/networks/OSs/software, the first woodpecker would destroy civilization." From the ground up, if we do it RIGHT with the best tools we can bring to bear (i.e. formal proof) we can stop worrying so much about woodpeckers.
There is no such thing as 100%, of course. Proofs are checked either by computers programmed by humans, or by humans. Both are fallible. But this is as close as we are going to get to a perfect system, and with any luck it will raise the barrior of entry for black hats so high they won't even bother.
It's a lot of work to create, and far more work to re-educate all the programmers out there. But there is NO easy solution. The thinking represented by Coyotos, in my opinion, represents the only POSSIBLE solution. So let's hope in 20 years universities are teaching BitC as the default language. Computer programmers and developers have been solving the same basic problems over and over and over for the past few decades. Thanks to open source, a new philosophy can and needs to emerge - express the logic of your feature to the computer once, completely, and be done forever. Then we can build to greater things.
True, but what are the odds they would do so? I'm guessing if they wanted to they could slap Linux with patent lawsuits anyway, regardless.
Sun cannot be so stupid. There is no money to be made in the long run with Linux patent lawsuits - all you will do is kill Linux. And probably open source itself. Sun is not Microsoft - they cannot scorn all allies and hope to survive.
Really, I don't think much of this whole patent thing in general - releasing 1000 or 10000 isn't enough to remove the threat - a lawsuit over 1 weak patent is still enough to sink most open source projects. IBM's move was good because they stated openly that Linux was part of the patent standoff, but I think that's more or less implicit for most of the software industry anyway. The Linux kernel happens to have both powerful champions and major enemies, but EVEN THERE the patent demon has yet to seriously rear its head, when it is probably the single effective way to kill Linux. It's MAD in a true sense, because if patents ever become offensive weapons in the software world there's going to be nothing left of the US IT industry but a smoking crater full of radioactive legal slime, and the first bomb blowing up over open source would be unlikely to change that in the long run. I bet the release was just an attempt to keep the trolls from claiming the CDDL was an attempted lawsuit mousetrap.
Incredible. It's actually happening. WAY TO GO SUN!
Now, the great question in open source will be whether the GPL3 and CDDL can be made to be mutually compatible. If this can happen, OpenSolaris and Linux could conceivably combine all their strengths and change the face of computing.
Solaris is Proven and an Industry Tool. Linux has more "street smarts" and some better designed parts (IIRC the scheduler might be an example here?). If I understand matters right now, CDDL code could go into GPL code but not vice versa. Which is a shame in some ways, because I think the Solaris name is a coin that open source could make good use of.
I'm not a huge gamer. bzflag is about the limit of my occasional forays into games these days. If it can:
- accelerate all the eye candy I enjoy
- make things like alpha transparency and video rendering fast and smooth and not impact system performance
- allow me to manipulate 3D plots or complex CAD objects in three space in real time smoothly
then it does what I need from a graphics card. If it can make bzflag run smoothly, so much the better. And I suspect a middling card with excellent drivers will stack up OK for normal worka against a really fast card with iffy drivers. Plus, if this is a success they might make better cards in the future.
Guys, let's make this the standard card for non-gaming open source boxes. Especially if it's a quality piece of work. That counts for quite a lot, too - solid hardware is a blessing if you don't have the $$ to casually replace it.
Hopefully whoever buys Windows products in Europe for the next few years, since they're the ones who'll really pay it.
To me it looks like a rather indirect form of taxing the European population, unless we really think Microsoft is just going to take a chunk out of profits.
This is the second time you've mentioned ClearChannel in this thread, and I can't resist but bite this time. I don't think that there is a regulatory problem with conglomerates owning more than one station in a city. You're coming off sounding like someone who feels intellectually elite, as the only one who can differentiate between viewpoints. The average person is smarter than that, and if/when there is a problem, the market will react.
Apologies. That wasn't my intention. As a matter of fact, I'm quite guilty of not doing my job in looking for the truth and/or different viewpoints - I tend to read cnn.com for an overview of the news. However, the fact that I too am devoting insufficient attention to the problem does not make it less of one. I am not intellectually elite in any sense - I am quite sure most people would concede that a broad, unchallenged voice holds tremendous power, which they can (and probably will) try to abuse. But I disagree the market will react, and that's the scary part. I think that people ARE smart but, like me, they would be unlikely to try and do anything about it (or pay serious attention to it) unless it directly impacts their personal comfort.
In fact, I believe that the owners and management of terrestrial radio are running scared of what sattelite radio will provide to consumers, who will in turn jump ship for pay services.
Possibly. However, I would have to see it to be convinced that statistically significant numbers of people would abandon a free service for a paying one. Also, if people are paying for it they may very well be doing so for entertainment rather than expanded information. I know I would be more likely to pay for entertainment than better news, although I'm not proud of that. I'm sure the land based stations are reacting, but whether to percieved or real threat will be shown only by the event.
Then they weren't very subtle about it, most likely. Twisting public opinion directly won't work. What you do is re-enforce what people want to think, are comfortable thinking, and think they already know. Then use that for your own ends. An example of subtle re-enforcement of social trends would be the fashion industry. Who decides what the "in" color is for clothing/purses/whatever each year? There always seems to be an "in" color, and I know I didn't pick it. People buying it because it's "in" didn't start the trend - they're the intended result. Who did? I'm betting they're making a heck of a lot of money off of the choice. What happens if the media starts using their (similar) influence towards similar ends in the political realm? IIRC a survey done of various news service viewers showed that FOX news viewers were under the impression that WMDs HAD been found in Iraq. Anybody who wanted to dig would have had a hard time finding the proof, but they didn't dig - it fit with their image of the war, so they believe it. Now, if FOX uses its skills to deliberately and subtly re-enforce that image support for the war would get stronger, without the detail of actual evidence. The people who are really good at this are masters of spin, and they can be very subtle and selective when they want. It's their business, particularly when you treat news as entertainment. I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone of falling for it, but I don't like that they can do it.
Personally, I could care less about "public importance" -- I prefer entertainment.
Sadly, most people would agree with you. I myself am forced to concede that my behavior pattern indicates I feel the same way. Which is why it is all the more useful for the press to be skeptical seekers after truth, not capitalists out for advertising $$. If
Perhaps it could be better worded as:
In a Democracy, People get the Government they Earn.
I think that is the real meaning of that statement.
What you mean to say is that ABC, NBC, and CBS used to do that. The media predates TV by some years.
Yes, true. I tend to think of television because it is (IMHO) the most influencial of our current information distribution channels.
There is not a centralized media system in the US. That is such a bogus statement. There are now, at this time, more viewpoints, more sources of raw information, and more sources of opinions than at any time in US history.
The viewpoints, raw information, etc. only MEAN anything if they reach people. Look at the major media outlets across this country - how different are the reporting styles of the major TV networks, for example? ClearChannel has flattened radio diversity almost to nothing. The internet is diverse, but again that only works if you go somewhere else than cnn.com or msnbc.com. Diverse doesn't mean different owners of media companies that all present similar views. Maybe the situation is not as grim as I see it - indeed I hope it is not - but I would be surprised if I'm too far wrong about the net result.
Close, but not quite. It doesnt have to actively made available - pushed - to voters. It has to be *available* for seeking. Everything a voter needs to make an informed choice is available.
Right but wrong. What you say is true in a situation of crisis, because then people will seek out the information. But for non-critical issues, where people tend to accept the facts as provided, the system will fail. People have to be mad to seek, and if they don't seek it doesn't work. As long as people are comfortable, they are unlikely to get mad.
I've described this type of thing before as the Point of No Return. If you can keep the population happy, and control enough of the media outlets to influence enough of a majority successfully, you essentially own the country as long as there isn't a major crisis that disrupts your control of the news and/or starts people thinking critically about you.
We have non-profit news. It's very widespread. Not only is there NPR, but a number of local outlets in any given area. It's worth noting that non-profit does not mean perfect, or even ncessarily better than for profit. The BBC is not-for-profit, yet, it has it's share of problems, correct?
Of course, non-profit news exists. This is true, and it does have its faults. But if I ever want what I consider good news coverage, I will tune in to PBS or NPR programming. However, it comes back to statistics again - and IIRC, as a percentage of this country, PBS and NPR customers are a small component.
I'm not denying that there are individual components that are working. What I'm saying is that it's not enough for JUST those components to be working.
I sense an undertone of unhappiness with the situation at hand. Like you feel like if the electorate had just a little bit better, or more, or different information a different result would have occurred in the recent election. Is that the case?
Yes and no. Let's just say I am indeed unhappy with the situation at hand, but as to whether I think better, more, or different information would have changed anything - no, not really. I guess I hope that more coverage of the issues might have changed something, but I don't really believe it. Which points to a deeper problem, but that's another post.
"There are few very issues with objectively correct or incorrect answers or solutions."
There are, however, quite a number that do have "correct" answers if you are willing to postulate that the commercial interests of a small number of people should not be more important than the good of the community.
This is true at local, state, national, and world scales.
The media used to regard the news as public service, and not so much a source of profit. This changed when they noticed two facts - their news hours have very high viewership by people who earn and spend money, and that even more people tuned in for senational news. I saw a history of TV with regards to that point, and IIRC there were three or four major scandals that got national coverage which were the beginning of the end. So yes it's never been great, but I think it is worse now. Any time news is treated as a money maker, you can forget about hearing about important issues from ANY viewpoint. It's too much like work to listen to important issues.
I agree censorship is a bad idea, but the problem with a pervasive, persuasive and centralized media (e.g. ClearChannel) in a democracy is that without a critically thinking population the system becomes unstable. A functioning democracy is a self correcting system, but a hidden dependancy of that system is that accurate, verifiable information is provided to the people who must make the decisions. I.e., the voters. It's usually AVAILABLE, granted, but if they don't have it and settle for what they are told by an organized media the end result is EXACTLY the same as if they don't have it. If you can get statistically large numbers of them to dance to your tune, you have effectively taken over the country. The key question is, do enough people engage critical thinking to avoid the electorate being systematically manipulated by misinformation?
Not that I advocate changing the system, except perhaps to compel news programs to function on a non-profit basis. People get the government they deserve in a democracy, that's pretty much the rule. So it's up to them, and if they want to throw it away they can.
Because a lot of people simply won't plan ahead. Then, when they reach that stage of their lives, society will either have to take care of them or watch them die. Since we are a caring society (on some level at least) we are generally opposed to letting people rot in the gutters. Since there is some large percentage of people that will not take care of themselves, particularly when so much long term thinking is required, we create institutions like Social Security to attempt to cover the costs we know are coming.
The problem is, health (particularly in the later years) is an open ended expense. I doubt we could give all the treatments available for all illnesses to all the people who need them, even if our entire civilization were to put its every resource into the task. Which we don't. So the question becomes, when do we say "we can't afford it" to keep someone alive?
As a compassionate society, we want to say "there is no limit," particularly when a family member is involved. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - in fact, I'd hate to live in a place where it wasn't true - but it simply is impossible to do on as matters now stand.
I'm almost positive what would happen with social security is too many people wouldn't save, would spend everything they have as soon as they get it, and in the end would drag society down by being a huge burden.
There are definitely some things that could help the problem, one being to stop treating any form of medicine as a for-profit affair, including the pill makers. Nationalize it, pay the researchers the same salaries they're getting now, and work for the benefit of people instead of gouging them. Try to lower the fundamental costs of health care, rather than figuring out "how to pay for it." Also, reduce available benefits for people who don't take proper care of themselves, or at least put them lower on the priority list. Limit laywer rewards for medical cases to some fixed $$ amount, so they don't have the incentive to stick it to people so hard. Up the pay for nurses and other caregivers. Tax junk food like we tax smoking.
Fundamentally, the problem is fairly unsolvable unless someone figures out how to make human beings less fragile - we're pretty much either going to break down, or break ourselves down. Which doesn't mean we don't do the best we can. But for the love of $DEITY, quit trying to make large profits off of health products. Health is too important to let capitalism in on it.
Almost all humans, male or female, suck at math. Particularly in the US, if standardized tests mean anything. And I don't care where you're from or who you are, the high level math of college can ensure that EVERYBODY sucks at it ;-). Guys or girls doesn't matter much in my experience. Two of our brightest physics undergrads (both a heck of a lot smarter than me) were female. Our best math student in Differential Equations was female. So if it's not obvious by now to anyone that sterotypes are a waste of time, it's because they're not paying attention. Clearly, in general a lot of people uses biases to internally justify assuming power over others, and so I understand and agree that these trends need to be squashed.
Another problem though, and a less malicious one, is that people also want to generalize things because it's a lot easier than the correct approach of dealing with each person on an individual basis. Note this is different from doing studies of the human body/brain/animal. That type of research, in my opinion, should have no impact on our social system. That's not what it's for. Or at least, ideally that's not what it's for. But people want to be lazy when dealing with other people, and so they use statistical studies of gender based trends (which, if caused by nature, are the result of circumstances wildly unlike modern life in an evolutionary sense) and try to draw conclusions about people they don't know. That's dangerous, but also hard to stop.
Here's a point I would like to see more study given to - are some trends of gender bias a consequence of the mind trying to reduce the burden of dealing with many, many more individuals over the course of a lifetime than most of our ancestors did over the course of our evolutionary history? For most of the history of the human (and precursors) species, we operated in small groups where everyone knew everyone else, and any outsiders were regarded as competition. That trend is still obvious today (nations anybody?) but the emotional, personal scale of these groups is now so vast that we spend a large part of our time surrounded by people we have no time to get to know well. My hypothesis would be we do a LOT of categorization based on superficial characteristics (weight, height, clothing style, car, and even gender) simply because we have neither the time nor the comfort level to get to know EVERYONE around us well, but our instincts tell us we should know about the individuals we "group" with. After all, in small groups everyone knows everything about everyone, and the isolation caused by our current HUGE populations and lack of tightly nit groups must have SOME impact on us. I would be curious if our tendancy towards "snap judgements" and biases is an attempt to cope with not being surrounded by the traditional "pack".
Note, that is NOT an excuse for such behavior, just a proposed reason for it. Being thinking beings, we can (and should) deal with individuals and not preconceptions.
Of course, that's probably psychology 101 - any psyc guys or gals out there who know?
First practical use of the slashdot effect!
Correct. There are a lot of practical limits to a solar cell's efficiency that a number like 25% doesn't begin to express. Unfortunately most people's attention span isn't long enough to look past the marketing. Think CPU clock speed vs. total system performance.
However, as for lost land, that's not an issue if you use rooftops, parking lot canopys, and other covers over urban areas. Plus, in those areas power transmission losses are minimal. I don't think land loss for solar generation will be an issue, or at least any more of an issue than urban sprawl itself is.
Ultimately, when humans use electricity we are either removing energy from the environment, tapping stored (and finite) fossil fuel reserves, or using nuclear/thermal sources. You don't do any that without impacting the environment. Period.
1) Right. That's why you need multijunction to do well - recombination always kills some of what you collect, and you want to use the high energy photons as efficiently as possible. But multijunction devices are difficult to produce - first you need an efficient wide band gap cell, then you need to be able to deposite said cell without frying the cell under it.
2) I'm not real familiar with quantum dot technologies, but they do sound interesting. What are some good introductory papers about them?
There are other ideas, and it's one of my favorite areas for thinking about in terms of problem solving. I mention batteries because as of today they are the only really practical solution in the "go out and buy it" sense. My personal favorite idea is a large flywheel (or flywheels) suspended on magnetic/superconductive bearings, and buried in the back yard. As power comes in, the disks are spun up faster and faster. In a vacuum, with magnetic bearings, in theory they should be able to store a lot of power for a long period of time. (And most likely they wouldn't need to store it for a real long period - cloudy days aren't that uncommon in most parts of the US.)
There are limits to this technology, of course, but I've often wondered if it could be made practical if it were installed on a large scale.