Agreed, most people need computers inside, however I think there is a market for people who use laptops outside and in remote locations. I personally use my laptop for Autocad, and often bring my laptop with me for site inspections in remote locations and outdoors. This would be kinda cool, though if the charging rate is correct, not very useful.
I'd rather spend $800 and get a full sized Siemens PV panel.:-))
He likes games. He finds it a refreshing change to play against women instead of just against men, as their psychology of game playing is subltly different. And obviously he includes his wife in all the fun he has, game playing seems to be a shared passion for them.
Now how can playing games and having fun times with the one you love make you a savage? Much of the commentary here is political, but some people here just enjoy women's company, are happy for seeing more women on the net, and ignore the men vs. women controversy that you seem to have been sucked into, judging by that comment.
I actually know a few feminists who would do this. Of course, reasoned debate would be out of the question, so naturally the only thing to do is to silence the opressor! If you want to see it in action, go to http://www.spacemoose.com
I don't know if you're a real feminazi actually wanting this article removed, or if you're a brilliant troll (then hats off to you!) Either way, I couldn't have put it more eloquently how the net will be with more women online.
At first I thought your posting was a troll, but reading your last paragraph, you seem to be merely curious how the masses could benefit from this.
This research has to do with the ultimate survival of the human race. Right now we only live on one rock. If we mess it up by crossing AIDS with the common cold, or some external force like an ice age or falling rock messes it up, we're screwed.
If human race lives on 2 rocks in the solar system, such as moon or mars, then any (one) planet destryoing event would not remove us from the universe.
If any news item or research generates more interest in people to push towards space travel, this is, IMHO, a Good Thing (TM).
Not sure about world hunger, but in the past, space race research has made boxen go faster.:o)
-- Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
Umm... Newton was wrong. Sure he came very close, but his equations look very little like what reality (as far as we know it) really is. Along came Einstein that proved if you do certain things to an object (such as accelerate it to high speeds), Newton's laws break. Einstein's laws helped us understand things much better, and build machines that "violate the laws of physics".
So is Einstein the last word in his department of physics? Or will someone replace him eventually.
We can say for SURE that we don't know everything yet, so I'm putting my bets on someone correcting Einstein, as he corrected Newton. When this person comes along, their proof will probably be convincing in itself, and won't need discussion pages like Slashdot to give it more credibility. That this guy doesn't publish exhaustive proof of his machine working, or doesn't fly by my window in a Starwars style speederbike, I don't think I want to hear another word about this.
That's the whole point... You could mount larger missiles that normally would only be seen on vehicles. It doesn't have to be carried, it could be shoulder mounted, etc, complete with its own radar system. Air power would then have to deal with more than just handheld missiles, in theatres where only infantry and handhelds are expected.
Also, a power-armor'd infantry man could carry recoiless rifles and small calibre cannons as easily as your footsolider carries his M16.
Anyhow, I must agree on that analysis of the pizza. My personal experience is that the deep dish type of pizzas taste best cold.. The thinner types offered by the cut-rate pizza joints tend to dry out too quickly.
A good cold pizza must be moist and juicy in the middle, the thicker the better, along with the hard cheese and crusty anchovies on top. Dry pizza is just yech!
As for the fibres keeping the moisture from seeping into the crust, I think that's not true. In my experience, what happens is that the crust immediately adjacent to the pizza sauce absorbs water, and turns into a dough-type gel, which subsequently prevents further saturation of water deeper into the crust, thus keeping it crusty.
I believe this therory has more scientific relevance than some "fibre" or "lumineferous ether" theories. It also explains observations, because if you've ever had the cheese and sauce layer slide off of your pizza, you'll notice that the top layer of the crust is a soggy membranous material.
My 2 kopecks...
-- Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
..is to build a big robot exoskeleton you can use to crush your enemies... Now this is news for nerds!!
But seriously, robots like this have been science fiction for decades, it's interesting to see respectable institutions taking this seriously. I imagine successful implementation of this technology would again change the face of warfare. With anti-aircraft missles easily mountable on each soilder, perhaps air power will not always be king?
Something to think about... This could be the biggest paradigm shift until they discover a good repulsorlift and make hovertanks.
--
Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
""One little question. Weren't most of those countries more or less following the model of the USSR? And didn't the USSR abandon Communism "temporarily" quite early on in favor of State Capitalism? ""
Yes. Though they would never admit being anything other than communist. They used socialism and communism to further their despotic goals.
It was very easy for them to do this, because socialism and communism at the time generally embraced violent methods. Had communists been virulenty anti-violent from the start, it would have been very difficult for the Russian revolutionists to credibly call themselves communists.
Had nobody believed that Lenin was a communist, nobody would have followed him. (He in fact wasn't, he merely used communism when convenient, and de-facto redefined communism into the terrible monster people understand today.)
Because communists married themselves with violent methods, everything they did became perverted and destroyed.
On your other note, I agree, this is a concern. Once technology becomes sufficiently advanced, the only people who will be able to make money are either the people who own the machinery, or services that still require humans, which will approach zero.
The only way out of this, would be self-sufficiency technology. Enact a bit of socialism, and give everyone a replicator and a portable Mr. Fusion (TM) powerplant, and let them go from there. Once minimum standards are met with accessability to technology, this concern should dissapear.
I am a firm advocate for universal computer ownership and internet access.
""Who, contrary to modern myth, was not the only socialist around at the time. So you hardly establish anything.""
You are right, I am wrong. It is hardly fair to paint all socialists with the same brush.
It is fair to say that a significant, if not major portion of socialists in socialism's early history did embrace violence. At least, enough did to facilitate the violent establishment of plenty of communist countries across the world.
On the other hand, many peaceful socialists have made much positive difference in the world, and if you see in my other posts, I do give them a nod of thanks.
But again... thanks for pointing out my factual inaccuracies.
E
--Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
""Of course there is. There were also British and French laws prohibiting plotting armed insurrection in the 18th century, but that didn't stop the French or American revolutions. My point is, some laws are meant to be broken, and some times, drastic measures must be taken.""
You seemed to be deluded that violence was necessary then. The peaceful loyalists to the north disagreed, and their lot wasn't any better worse. History has shown both rebels and loyalists ended up with very similar nations, numerical differences excepted. Except that the rebels ended up with far more war dead.
Seems that history shows that the revolution was for naught. 25 million happy and peaceful Canadians loyalists prove that you don't have to shoot your way out of every problem. Assuming you're American, I doubt you'd understand that.
So your argument that violence is necessary to achieve some ideological goals still doesn't hold water.
"Imagine nothing to kill or die for." - John Lennon A good quote from a man that knew that ideology was not worth killing for.
Too often I see people in the USA justifying normally unjustifiable actions by saying "Well, the founding fathers would have done it that way." Likening the Russia VS Checnya to the USA Civil War, and universal gun ownership being good exaples...
And of course, we know that the founding fathers were never wrong.;-)
The brothers of the USA (to the north) rejected violence and revolution, in exchange for peacefully changing the system from within. The two countries ended up very similar in terms of freedom, economy, etc. I guess this means that the revolutionaries from the 13 colonies died in vain! That is something that USA'ers have a very hard time looking at, yet peaceful Canada sits right across the border, by it's existence proving to Americans that there could have been a peaceful way.
Hard to look at yourself... Violence is never the solution to anything except violence, and even then sometimes not.
"I'm sorry, but I've yet to meet a violent communist"
Obviously you're not from Eastern Europe. Or Vietnam. Or North Korea. Cuba... I could go on.
In North America (where I assume you are from), communism is more of a fashion statement than a way of life. I strongly recommend you travel to any post-communist country, and walk the back roads there to see the scars.
I have been there. I have seen the graves. I saw the look of fear in peoples eyes at the smallest hint that communism would return. I have personally lost family members to communists. There has been so much harm done by communism that it awes the imagination.
Communism and socialism's failings were not in it's economic reforms, which have yet to be truly tested. It's the acceptance of violence as a good means to an ideological end. This embracing of violence by communism has caused more human suffering than anything else in the twentieth century.
Kaufmann, I sense you are an intelligent and fair minded person. I urge you to expand your horizons and travel the world, to see the works of communists who are more than just posers. Travel the back roads. Don't believe what communists or their opponents tell you. Go see for yourself what embracing violence does.
In Marx's time, how would you set up a dictatorship (by proletarians or otherwise) without the shedding of blood? The concept of peaceful democratic reform at that scale was nearly unheardof, at least at the time. Since Marx was the definition of socialism at the start, it is fair to say that socialism at the beginning embraced violent methods.
Communists embraced and extended this philosophy, and converted it into a "workers imperialism" which is what terrorized the world in the 20th century. Whether or not USSR and China truly were communist is irrelevant, communism was their party line, and is what sucked people in to fuel their imperial machine.
Had communism and socialism been anti-violent, no communists or socialists would have given Lenin or Mao the time of day, and the world would have been a better place. QED.
Modern socialists have generally realized the folly of violent overthrow, and have achieved gains in almost every modern democracy in existence. Other than a certain cluelessness when it comes to fiscal responsibility, their effect has been very positive on the world.
There is violence inherent in socialism. My source? Karl Marx.
Karl Marx postulated the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as the necessity of a violent overthrow of the capitalist system. The ideology of communism and socialism has been violent from the start. I don't know how selectively you read Marx, but this was spelled out in all my studies in high school, and post-secondary as well.
Thank goodness that modern socialists in most countries today have sufficiently revised their ideology as to drop the necessity of violence, and have taken to democratic means to achieve their goals. I applaud them, and wish them luck in their endeavours, regardless of my opinions on the merits of their ideology.
I take your comment about my "goodness" as sarcasm... All I am saying is that we should lock up people who are bent on "violent overthrow". I'm sure laws exist on the books prohibiting "plotting armed insurrection". As long as an ideology doesn't advocate violence as the primary means to an end, I believe such people should have the "freedom to" do whatever they wish.
However, if they are violent, as I have been taught communists and early socialists generally are, I believe our "freedom from" them is more important. Even in a democratic society, it is not unreasonable to outlaw such organisations.
A value judgement. I hope you share it.
-- Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
I'm not so sure... They may have labelled him as one, but since I checked last, the main tenet of communism is the *violent* overthrow of capitalist systems, even democratic ones. Somehow I remember Einstein being somewhat of an anti-war type of individual. Maybe it's fairer to say that he was a socialist, or had socialist tendencies, without any of the violence inherent in either.
Somehow I don't think he was into storming washington with rifles, and setting up a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Those of you who claim you are communists... Either you don't know what you are claiming, or you are very frightening individuals who should be locked up.
-- Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
With all these dumb teen women sleeping with dumb men, to make legions of dumb childeren who are then raised by the state, therefore sidestepping evolution's natural pressure to breed smarter humans, we're doomed.
Face it, dumb teen moms will take over the world by out-breeding us smart geeks... and our taxes are paying for their welfare to do so.
Go figure. Hm, perhaps there will still remain an uberclass to run things.
Many good geeks and academics throw their entire lives, heart and soul, into their research in their field of study. For an academic (geek), money is the last thing they want. Just a bit of recognition and appreciation would be nice.
I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard (or would it) to modify the slashdot code to (maybe through a small hyperlink) list the names of other people who submitted the same story, perhaps in chronologial order.
It's a small thing, but to people who's only joy is to help and be a part of the community, recongition can be a very very big thing.
Let's keep this a community, and give some more recognition to the people who try to make it a great place. I think that is all the original poster really wants, and it's not too much to ask.
The problem with electric, or hydrogen, is the storage. The amount of joules/cm^3 and/or joules/gram is what makes a vehicle efficient or not, in addition to the efficency rating of the engine itself. Who cares if I can get a 95% fuel efficency if the fuel weighs my car down so much that I can't even get it rolling, or it only lasts long enought to go down the block.
Not even flywheels have the required energy density that even comes close to deisel and gasoline. Once you factor in the efficiency rating of having to haul huge amounts of fuel or batteries around, you'll realize that electric cars are nowhere near as efficient as gas powered ones. If you were to investigate the theoretical limits (that have yet to be achieved), they too fall short of gasoline. Because you have to create the electricity somehow, the pollution may actually be greater, just not local. Out of sight, out of mind?
It's not PC to say this, but electric cars are just not realistic unless flywheels or ultracapacitors go a long way yet. And you're still left with burning coal at the powerplant.:-)
But hey, global warming is good, because otherwise we'd be due for another ice age.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, most people need computers inside, however I think there is a market for people who use laptops outside and in remote locations. I personally use my laptop for Autocad, and often bring my laptop with me for site inspections in remote locations and outdoors. This would be kinda cool, though if the charging rate is correct, not very useful.
:-))
I'd rather spend $800 and get a full sized Siemens PV panel.
E
Umm, must everything be political?
He likes games. He finds it a refreshing change to play against women instead of just against men, as their psychology of game playing is subltly different. And obviously he includes his wife in all the fun he has, game playing seems to be a shared passion for them.
Now how can playing games and having fun times with the one you love make you a savage? Much of the commentary here is political, but some people here just enjoy women's company, are happy for seeing more women on the net, and ignore the men vs. women controversy that you seem to have been sucked into, judging by that comment.
My thoughts
EDB
You don't come across many trolls like this...!
I actually know a few feminists who would do this. Of course, reasoned debate would be out of the question, so naturally the only thing to do is to silence the opressor! If you want to see it in action, go to http://www.spacemoose.com
I don't know if you're a real feminazi actually wanting this article removed, or if you're a brilliant troll (then hats off to you!) Either way, I couldn't have put it more eloquently how the net will be with more women online.
my 2 kopecks
A quick e-mail, and my mom was walking around the house telling everyone to turn their computers off... Guess it can't have been that bad!
PS No jokes about my mom please.
At first I thought your posting was a troll, but reading your last paragraph, you seem to be merely curious how the masses could benefit from this.
:o)
This research has to do with the ultimate survival of the human race. Right now we only live on one rock. If we mess it up by crossing AIDS with the common cold, or some external force like an ice age or falling rock messes it up, we're screwed.
If human race lives on 2 rocks in the solar system, such as moon or mars, then any (one) planet destryoing event would not remove us from the universe.
If any news item or research generates more interest in people to push towards space travel, this is, IMHO, a Good Thing (TM).
Not sure about world hunger, but in the past, space race research has made boxen go faster.
--
Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
"You need to bone up on Newton's laws of motion."
Umm... Newton was wrong. Sure he came very close, but his equations look very little like what reality (as far as we know it) really is. Along came Einstein that proved if you do certain things to an object (such as accelerate it to high speeds), Newton's laws break. Einstein's laws helped us understand things much better, and build machines that "violate the laws of physics".
So is Einstein the last word in his department of physics? Or will someone replace him eventually.
We can say for SURE that we don't know everything yet, so I'm putting my bets on someone correcting Einstein, as he corrected Newton. When this person comes along, their proof will probably be convincing in itself, and won't need discussion pages like Slashdot to give it more credibility.
That this guy doesn't publish exhaustive proof of his machine working, or doesn't fly by my window in a Starwars style speederbike, I don't think I want to hear another word about this.
Moyi dvi kopiyke.
That's the whole point... You could mount larger missiles that normally would only be seen on vehicles. It doesn't have to be carried, it could be shoulder mounted, etc, complete with its own radar system. Air power would then have to deal with more than just handheld missiles, in theatres where only infantry and handhelds are expected.
Also, a power-armor'd infantry man could carry recoiless rifles and small calibre cannons as easily as your footsolider carries his M16.
Odd that no-one has posted here.
Anyhow, I must agree on that analysis of the pizza. My personal experience is that the deep dish type of pizzas taste best cold.. The thinner types offered by the cut-rate pizza joints tend to dry out too quickly.
A good cold pizza must be moist and juicy in the middle, the thicker the better, along with the hard cheese and crusty anchovies on top. Dry pizza is just yech!
As for the fibres keeping the moisture from seeping into the crust, I think that's not true. In my experience, what happens is that the crust immediately adjacent to the pizza sauce absorbs water, and turns into a dough-type gel, which subsequently prevents further saturation of water deeper into the crust, thus keeping it crusty.
I believe this therory has more scientific relevance than some "fibre" or "lumineferous ether" theories. It also explains observations, because if you've ever had the cheese and sauce layer slide off of your pizza, you'll notice that the top layer of the crust is a soggy membranous material.
My 2 kopecks...
--
Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
If the RIAA put aside $0.05 of every CD, how many full time /. trolls could they hire?
..is to build a big robot exoskeleton you can use to crush your enemies... Now this is news for nerds!!
But seriously, robots like this have been science fiction for decades, it's interesting to see respectable institutions taking this seriously. I imagine successful implementation of this technology would again change the face of warfare. With anti-aircraft missles easily mountable on each soilder, perhaps air power will not always be king?
Something to think about... This could be the biggest paradigm shift until they discover a good repulsorlift and make hovertanks.
--
Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
"Communism is the political AIDS of the 20th century: it infects many, leaves few alive and none well." Wonderful quote, mind if I use it? :-)
""One little question. Weren't most of those countries more or less following the model of the USSR? And didn't the USSR abandon Communism "temporarily" quite early on in favor of State Capitalism? ""
Yes. Though they would never admit being anything other than communist. They used socialism and communism to further their despotic goals.
It was very easy for them to do this, because socialism and communism at the time generally embraced violent methods. Had communists been virulenty anti-violent from the start, it would have been very difficult for the Russian revolutionists to credibly call themselves communists.
Had nobody believed that Lenin was a communist, nobody would have followed him. (He in fact wasn't, he merely used communism when convenient, and de-facto redefined communism into the terrible monster people understand today.)
Because communists married themselves with violent methods, everything they did became perverted and destroyed.
On your other note, I agree, this is a concern. Once technology becomes sufficiently advanced, the only people who will be able to make money are either the people who own the machinery, or services that still require humans, which will approach zero.
The only way out of this, would be self-sufficiency technology. Enact a bit of socialism, and give everyone a replicator and a portable Mr. Fusion (TM) powerplant, and let them go from there. Once minimum standards are met with accessability to technology, this concern should dissapear.
I am a firm advocate for universal computer ownership and internet access.
""Who, contrary to modern myth, was not the only socialist around at the time. So you hardly establish anything.""
You are right, I am wrong. It is hardly fair to paint all socialists with the same brush.
It is fair to say that a significant, if not major portion of socialists in socialism's early history did embrace violence. At least, enough did to facilitate the violent establishment of plenty of communist countries across the world.
On the other hand, many peaceful socialists have made much positive difference in the world, and if you see in my other posts, I do give them a nod of thanks.
But again... thanks for pointing out my factual inaccuracies.
E
--Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
""Of course there is. There were also British and French laws prohibiting plotting armed insurrection in the 18th century, but that didn't stop the French or American revolutions. My point is, some laws are meant to be broken, and some times, drastic measures must be taken.""
You seemed to be deluded that violence was necessary then. The peaceful loyalists to the north disagreed, and their lot wasn't any better worse. History has shown both rebels and loyalists ended up with very similar nations, numerical differences excepted. Except that the rebels ended up with far more war dead.
Seems that history shows that the revolution was for naught. 25 million happy and peaceful Canadians loyalists prove that you don't have to shoot your way out of every problem. Assuming you're American, I doubt you'd understand that.
So your argument that violence is necessary to achieve some ideological goals still doesn't hold water.
"Imagine nothing to kill or die for." - John Lennon
A good quote from a man that knew that ideology was not worth killing for.
Thanks for the clarification.
;-)
Too often I see people in the USA justifying normally unjustifiable actions by saying "Well, the founding fathers would have done it that way." Likening the Russia VS Checnya to the USA Civil War, and universal gun ownership being good exaples...
And of course, we know that the founding fathers were never wrong.
Don't you wish it was the 50's?
What does that mean? That violence was good?
The brothers of the USA (to the north) rejected violence and revolution, in exchange for peacefully changing the system from within. The two countries ended up very similar in terms of freedom, economy, etc. I guess this means that the revolutionaries from the 13 colonies died in vain! That is something that USA'ers have a very hard time looking at, yet peaceful Canada sits right across the border, by it's existence proving to Americans that there could have been a peaceful way.
Hard to look at yourself...
Violence is never the solution to anything except violence, and even then sometimes not.
"I'm sorry, but I've yet to meet a violent communist"
Obviously you're not from Eastern Europe. Or Vietnam. Or North Korea. Cuba... I could go on.
In North America (where I assume you are from), communism is more of a fashion statement than a way of life. I strongly recommend you travel to any post-communist country, and walk the back roads there to see the scars.
I have been there. I have seen the graves. I saw the look of fear in peoples eyes at the smallest hint that communism would return. I have personally lost family members to communists. There has been so much harm done by communism that it awes the imagination.
Communism and socialism's failings were not in it's economic reforms, which have yet to be truly tested. It's the acceptance of violence as a good means to an ideological end. This embracing of violence by communism has caused more human suffering than anything else in the twentieth century.
Kaufmann, I sense you are an intelligent and fair minded person. I urge you to expand your horizons and travel the world, to see the works of communists who are more than just posers. Travel the back roads. Don't believe what communists or their opponents tell you. Go see for yourself what embracing violence does.
It will change you forever.
In Marx's time, how would you set up a dictatorship (by proletarians or otherwise) without the shedding of blood? The concept of peaceful democratic reform at that scale was nearly unheardof, at least at the time. Since Marx was the definition of socialism at the start, it is fair to say that socialism at the beginning embraced violent methods.
Communists embraced and extended this philosophy, and converted it into a "workers imperialism" which is what terrorized the world in the 20th century. Whether or not USSR and China truly were communist is irrelevant, communism was their party line, and is what sucked people in to fuel their imperial machine.
Had communism and socialism been anti-violent, no communists or socialists would have given Lenin or Mao the time of day, and the world would have been a better place. QED.
Modern socialists have generally realized the folly of violent overthrow, and have achieved gains in almost every modern democracy in existence. Other than a certain cluelessness when it comes to fiscal responsibility, their effect has been very positive on the world.
my 2 kopecks
E
There is violence inherent in socialism. My source? Karl Marx.
Karl Marx postulated the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as the necessity of a violent overthrow of the capitalist system. The ideology of communism and socialism has been violent from the start. I don't know how selectively you read Marx, but this was spelled out in all my studies in high school, and post-secondary as well.
Thank goodness that modern socialists in most countries today have sufficiently revised their ideology as to drop the necessity of violence, and have taken to democratic means to achieve their goals. I applaud them, and wish them luck in their endeavours, regardless of my opinions on the merits of their ideology.
I take your comment about my "goodness" as sarcasm... All I am saying is that we should lock up people who are bent on "violent overthrow". I'm sure laws exist on the books prohibiting "plotting armed insurrection". As long as an ideology doesn't advocate violence as the primary means to an end, I believe such people should have the "freedom to" do whatever they wish.
However, if they are violent, as I have been taught communists and early socialists generally are, I believe our "freedom from" them is more important. Even in a democratic society, it is not unreasonable to outlaw such organisations.
A value judgement. I hope you share it.
-- Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
I'm not so sure... They may have labelled him as one, but since I checked last, the main tenet of communism is the *violent* overthrow of capitalist systems, even democratic ones. Somehow I remember Einstein being somewhat of an anti-war type of individual. Maybe it's fairer to say that he was a socialist, or had socialist tendencies, without any of the violence inherent in either.
Somehow I don't think he was into storming washington with rifles, and setting up a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Those of you who claim you are communists... Either you don't know what you are claiming, or you are very frightening individuals who should be locked up.
-- Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?
With all these dumb teen women sleeping with dumb men, to make legions of dumb childeren who are then raised by the state, therefore sidestepping evolution's natural pressure to breed smarter humans, we're doomed.
Face it, dumb teen moms will take over the world by out-breeding us smart geeks... and our taxes are paying for their welfare to do so.
Go figure.
Hm, perhaps there will still remain an uberclass to run things.
Many good geeks and academics throw their entire lives, heart and soul, into their research in their field of study. For an academic (geek), money is the last thing they want. Just a bit of recognition and appreciation would be nice.
I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard (or would it) to modify the slashdot code to (maybe through a small hyperlink) list the names of other people who submitted the same story, perhaps in chronologial order.
It's a small thing, but to people who's only joy is to help and be a part of the community, recongition can be a very very big thing.
Let's keep this a community, and give some more recognition to the people who try to make it a great place. I think that is all the original poster really wants, and it's not too much to ask.
/me steps off soapbox.
The problem with electric, or hydrogen, is the storage. The amount of joules/cm^3 and/or joules/gram is what makes a vehicle efficient or not, in addition to the efficency rating of the engine itself. Who cares if I can get a 95% fuel efficency if the fuel weighs my car down so much that I can't even get it rolling, or it only lasts long enought to go down the block.
:-)
Not even flywheels have the required energy density that even comes close to deisel and gasoline. Once you factor in the efficiency rating of having to haul huge amounts of fuel or batteries around, you'll realize that electric cars are nowhere near as efficient as gas powered ones. If you were to investigate the theoretical limits (that have yet to be achieved), they too fall short of gasoline. Because you have to create the electricity somehow, the pollution may actually be greater, just not local. Out of sight, out of mind?
It's not PC to say this, but electric cars are just not realistic unless flywheels or ultracapacitors go a long way yet. And you're still left with burning coal at the powerplant.
But hey, global warming is good, because otherwise we'd be due for another ice age.
Umm.. what is NAT?
Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics?