Uh... no. VCRs cannot record and play the same tape at the same time. And if you did make one that went by a recording head first and then a playing head, you would still have to be able to dynamically adjust the length of the tape between the two heads when someone paused, fast forward, or rewould their live feed which would be non-trivial. That ability was not available to the average consumer with any tape based device that I know of.
Do you buy your own healthcare on the open market? I do. I did not once go to the doctor or use any healthcare services. My premium still went up 20% at the beginning of this year. Explain to me how this is not a problem and/or sustainable.
I guess you also don't file taxes. On the tax forms you file, you (or an accountant you hire) figure out how much you owe and compare it to how much you paid. The IRS only checks over your tax return to be sure that you aren't short-changing them.
You make a good point, but I believe that as need arises someone will step up to provide the service. If nothing else, the apartment complex will start getting annoyed by the ugly orange cords draped out of everyone's window and put in charging stations so the apartment complex won't look ugly. Also, the power company probably wants your money, so they would also probably be willing to eat some of the cost of putting in a charging station. That is what I meant by my comment about capitalism. If there is real money to be made from a service, it will be provided.
What's really nutty about the whole thing is that, we haven't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like.
Yes, there has already been research done on using gasoline in fuel cells (you basically heat it up to crack it apart and extract its component hydrogen, then feed that through the fuel cell). You can get a little more efficiency, but in the end you are still using gasoline, except you are making the system more complex by converting it to electricity (which needs to be stored, probably in batteries) before using it to produce motion.
I mean, what if you could get gasoline to "burn" but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity, rather than heat?
I won't even start on how wrong this statement was. Just go on wikipedia and educate yourself on what combustion is, what a photon is, and the different methods of producing electricity from fuel and their associated efficiencies.
You make a good point but I have a crazy thought. Maybe the apartment could install charging outlets at their parking spaces. I know, it sounds like an extremely complicated and expensive endeavor, but I think capitalism might just might just be able to work something out.
How about let it compete on price. It would be extremely competitive if we stopped all subsidization of oil. And also recoup all subsidies to oil in the past 20 years. We can start with a tax to recoup the costs of the war in Iraq (I heard a figure of $420 billion but I am sure it is higher by now), and then once that is paid off we can work on others (epa regulation and cleanup costs, increased medical costs from smog, ect).
I know, its hard when your black and white world starts all looking a little grey.
Which still mostly mined in the United States (at least US consumption is). Hence, we would not be dependent on other countries for price stability. Also, most of the charging would probably be done at night, so more of our power plants could operate more efficiently and electricity would become cheaper.
Also, electricity is the only viable means right now of in the future producing sustainable transportation. The two steps to do this would be to make our cars electric and make all our powerplants sustainable. There are a lot of incentives right now for power companies to produce electricity sustainably, so very gradually more of our power grid is becoming sustainable. Are you suggesting that we don't also start the gradual process of switching cars to electricity now?
I didn't RTFA, but I thought the whole point of the summary was that Google is open-sourcing their project. Doesn't that give you complete control over it (if you wanted to put in the effort to fork it)?
And, no one complained when Barack Obama was made to look like a monkey. Do a little research on Google images. Try "George Bush", "Barack Obama", and "Laura Bush". The problem is not that they are attacking a black president. I did not see a single picture of Barack on the first page of results that wasn't a monkey. The problem is that they are racially attacking a first lady, which most Americans think is in bad taste (since she is not elected and has no official power so is not a straight up politician). So, google adjusted the search results to make it return what most Americans want to see when they make the search. (btw, before you cry censorship, google's whole purpose is to tailor their search results to the majority).
The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President.
Bullshit! Look up Barack Obama on google images. You will be hard pressed to find an image of him that is not a monkey. There is no uproar or censoring about that. The issue here is that the first lady is being attacked. Look up Laura Bush and tell me how many photoshopped images you see. You just wanted a reason to bitch about black people and cry "reverse-racism" without actually looking up the facts related to this story.
Actually, I think that the issue is not so much of protecting her, but more that the majority of americans do not want to see that picture as the first result to a search of her. If you search for Barack Obama on google images, it is hard to find a picture of him that is not a monkey. There is no uproar about it. Same for George Bush. But, try looking for Laura Bush. Most of the top pictures of her are not offensive (I don't think, though they do look a little scary).
I think that the difference is that Michelle Obama is not an elected official. So, people expect more respect for her than a straight up politician. And, google's job is to tailor search results to what people want to see. I think most people think that picture is in bad taste because it is probably meant to be an attack on the President through his wife. And that is just dick. Most people don't want to see that, so google was correct in adjusting their search results.
Uhh... If you are going to answer my question, then be straightforward about it. The only way I can interpret your answer is "Yes, google is the people so if congress passes a law that limits what they can post on their search reasults, then they should close down all of their servers and services in the US and move shop to Europe." If that is what you are trying to say, then say it. If not, then your reply was mostly useless and I cannot give a response to it.
And, I am not proposing that you break US law to change things. You should go out on election day and vote for representatives that will support your view. Google does not have a vote (yet), so unless you are in favor of the leaving the US in protest thing, then I do not know how you would propose for them to affect US policy in any way different then how they have tried to affect it in China. I await a response of substance. If you do not have the ability to do that then let this thread die.
If Congress passes a law requiring google to censor the internet, then google would do it. I would not expect anything less. They would probably put a lot of money into trying to have the law repealed, but they would follow it while it was legitimate.
Are you saying that if Congress passed a law requiring censorship (which is not a very far-fetched idea. Maybe not to the extent that China does, but I would not be surprised if there were some sort of law passed in the next 20 years that required something to be censored) then google should refuse to provide Americans with a search engine? It is not Google's job to control the american congress. That is the job of the people. Just as it is not Google's job to try to change china. If the people really had a problem with this censorship (and no censorship is perfect, if people in china want to find something they probably can), then they should force their government to change.
Do you buy chinese goods? Every dollar you send to china promotes their government by allowing their economy to grow. If you had a big problem with them then you would refuse to buy chinese goods. But, you are not going to do that because things from china are cheap (who is selling out?). It is very easy to get up on your high horse and say google should ignore a market of billions of people and call them a sellout. It is much harder when it is your money, not someone else's that is at risk.
I don't see how allowing a COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT to censor is evil. Whether or not the censorship is ethical is a different question. What if the china turned into a fully legitimate and people mandated democracy and still decided that they wanted the censorship? Should the google that you want still not operate in china? Because, that would be discriminating against a people and a culture, which in America we believe is wrong (or evil?).
Google is not a political group, it is a company. And, I do not want it to be a political group. A company should not define a people's morality. That should happen from the people through the government. I think google should do everything they can to be open and free, but it is not their job to fight the chinese government.
Also, how anti-censorship are you? Search for "child pornography" on google images and you don't see any naked 8 year olds. Search "pornography" on google images and you see plenty of naked people. Do I think this is wrong? No. Do you? If not, then your problem is not censorship, but just that YOU THINK china censors too much. Who are you (or the United States in general) to decide for another country what they should and should not censor. What would you think if google refused to do business in the United States because we do not allow gay marriage? While I am in support of gay marriage, I would be pissed off because I would not want any company dictating the US's morality. Open your eyes. Google claims to try not to be evil, not to fix all of the world's problems. Especially since meddling in other countries problems is the road to becoming "evil".
I don't see how allowing a COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT to censor is evil. Whether or not the censorship is ethical is a different question. What if the china turned into a fully legitimate and people mandated democracy and still decided that they wanted the censorship? Should the google that you want still not operate in china? Because, that would be discriminating against a people and a culture, which in America we believe is wrong (or evil?).
Google is not a political group, it is a company. And, I do not want it to be a political group. A company should not define a people's morality. That should happen from the people through the government. I think google should do everything they can to be open and free, but it is not their job to fight the chinese government.
Also, how anti-censorship are you? Search for "child pornography" on google images and you don't see any naked 8 year olds. Search "pornography" on google images and you see plenty of naked people. Do I think this is wrong? No. Do you? If not, then your problem is not censorship, but just that YOU THINK china censors too much. Who are you (or the United States in general) to decide for another country what they should and should not censor. What would you think if google refused to do business in the United States because we do not allow gay marriage? While I am in support of gay marriage, I would be pissed off because I would not want any company dictating the US's morality. Open your eyes. Google claims to try not to be evil, not to fix all of the world's problems. Especially since meddling in other countries problems is the road to becoming "evil".
Sorry. Meant to say different number of protons than electrons. Quick posts lead to stupid mistakes. My point still stands, though. The article used the term "ion" correctly.
You do not know what you are talking about. An ion is an atom (or group of atoms) that have more protons than electrons. Maybe you should spend a few hours on wikipedia boning up on your basic chemistry.
You seem to have been asleep for the past 50 years, so I will let you in on a little secret. Transistors were big too when they were first invented. They got smaller as there was more investment and research into them. I would not expect the first form of something in the lab to be at the pinnacle of its efficiency.
Some religious sects do encourage questioning of the bible. Some don't believe the (King James version of the, lol) bible is the actual word of god, but instead a document written by humans. While it is still the basis of the faith, it is understood that it is written for people in the 1st century BC and therefore should be interpreted through that lens. You shouldn't stereotype over such a diverse range of people like that. It just makes you sound ignorant and reactionary.
the problem most people have with trades is in the last 5 years they have become arrogant and jacked up prices beyond a joke, but my haven't the chickens come home to roost....
Its all supply and demand. People think that those jobs are below them, so they go get a useless college degree and assume they will make a lot of money. They then have to then go collect cans off the street to afford to pay the ridiculous cost of getting a plumber to come out, because he is the only one in town who would pursue such a "lowly" (and in demand -> high paying) job.
They are probably starting out with retailers to handle all the licensing problem negotiations and such and to conglomerate everything (less people to deal and negotiate with). Eventually, you will probably have the publishers become the publishers/retailers, but google might not want to have to handle each individual publisher when they are initially launching their system.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... no. VCRs cannot record and play the same tape at the same time. And if you did make one that went by a recording head first and then a playing head, you would still have to be able to dynamically adjust the length of the tape between the two heads when someone paused, fast forward, or rewould their live feed which would be non-trivial. That ability was not available to the average consumer with any tape based device that I know of.
Do you buy your own healthcare on the open market? I do. I did not once go to the doctor or use any healthcare services. My premium still went up 20% at the beginning of this year. Explain to me how this is not a problem and/or sustainable.
I guess you also don't file taxes. On the tax forms you file, you (or an accountant you hire) figure out how much you owe and compare it to how much you paid. The IRS only checks over your tax return to be sure that you aren't short-changing them.
They are talking about "google" being a misspelling of googol which is equal to 1e100. Just thought you would like to know.
You make a good point, but I believe that as need arises someone will step up to provide the service. If nothing else, the apartment complex will start getting annoyed by the ugly orange cords draped out of everyone's window and put in charging stations so the apartment complex won't look ugly. Also, the power company probably wants your money, so they would also probably be willing to eat some of the cost of putting in a charging station. That is what I meant by my comment about capitalism. If there is real money to be made from a service, it will be provided.
What's really nutty about the whole thing is that, we haven't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like.
Yes, there has already been research done on using gasoline in fuel cells (you basically heat it up to crack it apart and extract its component hydrogen, then feed that through the fuel cell). You can get a little more efficiency, but in the end you are still using gasoline, except you are making the system more complex by converting it to electricity (which needs to be stored, probably in batteries) before using it to produce motion.
I mean, what if you could get gasoline to "burn" but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity, rather than heat?
I won't even start on how wrong this statement was. Just go on wikipedia and educate yourself on what combustion is, what a photon is, and the different methods of producing electricity from fuel and their associated efficiencies.
You make a good point but I have a crazy thought. Maybe the apartment could install charging outlets at their parking spaces. I know, it sounds like an extremely complicated and expensive endeavor, but I think capitalism might just might just be able to work something out.
I know, its hard when your black and white world starts all looking a little grey.
Today, it probably WOULD come from COAL.
Which still mostly mined in the United States (at least US consumption is). Hence, we would not be dependent on other countries for price stability. Also, most of the charging would probably be done at night, so more of our power plants could operate more efficiently and electricity would become cheaper.
Also, electricity is the only viable means right now of in the future producing sustainable transportation. The two steps to do this would be to make our cars electric and make all our powerplants sustainable. There are a lot of incentives right now for power companies to produce electricity sustainably, so very gradually more of our power grid is becoming sustainable. Are you suggesting that we don't also start the gradual process of switching cars to electricity now?
What do you consider "cash for clunkers" if not a subsidy for the car market?
</sarcasm>
I didn't RTFA, but I thought the whole point of the summary was that Google is open-sourcing their project. Doesn't that give you complete control over it (if you wanted to put in the effort to fork it)?
And, no one complained when Barack Obama was made to look like a monkey. Do a little research on Google images. Try "George Bush", "Barack Obama", and "Laura Bush". The problem is not that they are attacking a black president. I did not see a single picture of Barack on the first page of results that wasn't a monkey. The problem is that they are racially attacking a first lady, which most Americans think is in bad taste (since she is not elected and has no official power so is not a straight up politician). So, google adjusted the search results to make it return what most Americans want to see when they make the search. (btw, before you cry censorship, google's whole purpose is to tailor their search results to the majority).
The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President.
Bullshit! Look up Barack Obama on google images. You will be hard pressed to find an image of him that is not a monkey. There is no uproar or censoring about that. The issue here is that the first lady is being attacked. Look up Laura Bush and tell me how many photoshopped images you see. You just wanted a reason to bitch about black people and cry "reverse-racism" without actually looking up the facts related to this story.
Actually, I think that the issue is not so much of protecting her, but more that the majority of americans do not want to see that picture as the first result to a search of her. If you search for Barack Obama on google images, it is hard to find a picture of him that is not a monkey. There is no uproar about it. Same for George Bush. But, try looking for Laura Bush. Most of the top pictures of her are not offensive (I don't think, though they do look a little scary).
I think that the difference is that Michelle Obama is not an elected official. So, people expect more respect for her than a straight up politician. And, google's job is to tailor search results to what people want to see. I think most people think that picture is in bad taste because it is probably meant to be an attack on the President through his wife. And that is just dick. Most people don't want to see that, so google was correct in adjusting their search results.
Uhh... If you are going to answer my question, then be straightforward about it. The only way I can interpret your answer is "Yes, google is the people so if congress passes a law that limits what they can post on their search reasults, then they should close down all of their servers and services in the US and move shop to Europe." If that is what you are trying to say, then say it. If not, then your reply was mostly useless and I cannot give a response to it.
And, I am not proposing that you break US law to change things. You should go out on election day and vote for representatives that will support your view. Google does not have a vote (yet), so unless you are in favor of the leaving the US in protest thing, then I do not know how you would propose for them to affect US policy in any way different then how they have tried to affect it in China. I await a response of substance. If you do not have the ability to do that then let this thread die.
If Congress passes a law requiring google to censor the internet, then google would do it. I would not expect anything less. They would probably put a lot of money into trying to have the law repealed, but they would follow it while it was legitimate.
Are you saying that if Congress passed a law requiring censorship (which is not a very far-fetched idea. Maybe not to the extent that China does, but I would not be surprised if there were some sort of law passed in the next 20 years that required something to be censored) then google should refuse to provide Americans with a search engine? It is not Google's job to control the american congress. That is the job of the people. Just as it is not Google's job to try to change china. If the people really had a problem with this censorship (and no censorship is perfect, if people in china want to find something they probably can), then they should force their government to change.
Do you buy chinese goods? Every dollar you send to china promotes their government by allowing their economy to grow. If you had a big problem with them then you would refuse to buy chinese goods. But, you are not going to do that because things from china are cheap (who is selling out?). It is very easy to get up on your high horse and say google should ignore a market of billions of people and call them a sellout. It is much harder when it is your money, not someone else's that is at risk.
I don't see how allowing a COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT to censor is evil. Whether or not the censorship is ethical is a different question. What if the china turned into a fully legitimate and people mandated democracy and still decided that they wanted the censorship? Should the google that you want still not operate in china? Because, that would be discriminating against a people and a culture, which in America we believe is wrong (or evil?).
Google is not a political group, it is a company. And, I do not want it to be a political group. A company should not define a people's morality. That should happen from the people through the government. I think google should do everything they can to be open and free, but it is not their job to fight the chinese government.
Also, how anti-censorship are you? Search for "child pornography" on google images and you don't see any naked 8 year olds. Search "pornography" on google images and you see plenty of naked people. Do I think this is wrong? No. Do you? If not, then your problem is not censorship, but just that YOU THINK china censors too much. Who are you (or the United States in general) to decide for another country what they should and should not censor. What would you think if google refused to do business in the United States because we do not allow gay marriage? While I am in support of gay marriage, I would be pissed off because I would not want any company dictating the US's morality. Open your eyes. Google claims to try not to be evil, not to fix all of the world's problems. Especially since meddling in other countries problems is the road to becoming "evil".
I don't see how allowing a COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT to censor is evil. Whether or not the censorship is ethical is a different question. What if the china turned into a fully legitimate and people mandated democracy and still decided that they wanted the censorship? Should the google that you want still not operate in china? Because, that would be discriminating against a people and a culture, which in America we believe is wrong (or evil?).
Google is not a political group, it is a company. And, I do not want it to be a political group. A company should not define a people's morality. That should happen from the people through the government. I think google should do everything they can to be open and free, but it is not their job to fight the chinese government.
Also, how anti-censorship are you? Search for "child pornography" on google images and you don't see any naked 8 year olds. Search "pornography" on google images and you see plenty of naked people. Do I think this is wrong? No. Do you? If not, then your problem is not censorship, but just that YOU THINK china censors too much. Who are you (or the United States in general) to decide for another country what they should and should not censor. What would you think if google refused to do business in the United States because we do not allow gay marriage? While I am in support of gay marriage, I would be pissed off because I would not want any company dictating the US's morality. Open your eyes. Google claims to try not to be evil, not to fix all of the world's problems. Especially since meddling in other countries problems is the road to becoming "evil".
Sorry. Meant to say different number of protons than electrons. Quick posts lead to stupid mistakes. My point still stands, though. The article used the term "ion" correctly.
You do not know what you are talking about. An ion is an atom (or group of atoms) that have more protons than electrons. Maybe you should spend a few hours on wikipedia boning up on your basic chemistry.
You seem to have been asleep for the past 50 years, so I will let you in on a little secret. Transistors were big too when they were first invented. They got smaller as there was more investment and research into them. I would not expect the first form of something in the lab to be at the pinnacle of its efficiency.
Some religious sects do encourage questioning of the bible. Some don't believe the (King James version of the, lol) bible is the actual word of god, but instead a document written by humans. While it is still the basis of the faith, it is understood that it is written for people in the 1st century BC and therefore should be interpreted through that lens. You shouldn't stereotype over such a diverse range of people like that. It just makes you sound ignorant and reactionary.
the problem most people have with trades is in the last 5 years they have become arrogant and jacked up prices beyond a joke, but my haven't the chickens come home to roost....
Its all supply and demand. People think that those jobs are below them, so they go get a useless college degree and assume they will make a lot of money. They then have to then go collect cans off the street to afford to pay the ridiculous cost of getting a plumber to come out, because he is the only one in town who would pursue such a "lowly" (and in demand -> high paying) job.
They are probably starting out with retailers to handle all the licensing problem negotiations and such and to conglomerate everything (less people to deal and negotiate with). Eventually, you will probably have the publishers become the publishers/retailers, but google might not want to have to handle each individual publisher when they are initially launching their system.