> That time of sunlight needs to be multiplied by the solar flux to determine the total energy available per year.
>The solar flux (W/m^2) in space is about 1,366 W/m^2. After passing through the atmoshpere at the equator, it's about half that.
Ummm, no. AM1.5, useful for the USA, is generally taken as 1000 W/m^2. That's a lot more than half. Do your homework.
AM1.5 is a test condition for solar cell comparison, not representative of actual earth-based power. It's just a benchmark at 1kW/m^2, which makes it easy to do the math to determine efficiency. Don't believe me? "In practice, no solar cell experiences such conditions...". I've already done my homework;)
> Once you correct for daylight hours and cloud cover
I did, that's 1950 hours of "bright direct sunlight". As in "bright" and "direct" "sunlight".
Then use the numbers on that graph. An average of 150-200 W/m^2, all day every day, in Toronto and Japan to 225-250 W/m^2 in Arizona. Space gets 1,300 W/m^2 all day, every day.
> It's not like you're going to make things worse with SPS.
Unless you wipe out all LEO satellites as a side effect, which is a real possibility.
Maury
Really? They're talking GHz radiation. Is a radiation hardened, chassis grounded space satellite really going to be affected? Not if it was built by a competent Engineer. The chassis will act as a faraday cage, there will be no net current into the electronics. Besides, if electronics absorbed energy easily from these frequencies, Japan wouldn't need such a big receiver to collect the power, would it?
If that is still your concern, it is possible to detect satellites approaching the beam and turn it off during their transit.
Regardless, this is technically feasible right now, as long as someone takes the time to build one. It probably won't be economical, but that should come in time.
Ah, good call. Another case of same technology, different application. Just like military UAVs are used for killing terrorists, civilian UAVs are used for photographing farm fields.
Of course, I can guarantee this system would limit travel speed to the legal speed limit, so this wouldn't catch on with the majority of commuters.
I've seen things when they get busy around here. I'd much rather go 70mph (or even 45mph) than the maybe 10 you can average during congestion.
To say nothing of cities with bigger traffic problems like DC, San Fran, or LA.
That's the other problem. How do you get across 3-4 lanes of stop-and-go DC beltway traffic to the 'fast' train lane (presuming not everyone will have a capable car) to the far left lane which is traveling 70mph and enter safely? Probably will require two lanes, one as a merge lane only during rush hour. But again, good luck convincing city planners to give up 2 lanes, and preventing accidents with manual-drivers interfering with the train.
Do you mean like here in Toronto? We get 1950 hours of bright direct sunlight a year. When you do the math (the subject of my first post on the topic) you'll get about a 20% difference.
That time of sunlight needs to be multiplied by the solar flux to determine the total energy available per year. The solar flux (W/m^2) in space is about 1,366 W/m^2. After passing through the atmoshpere at the equator, it's about half that. As your latitude increases, the light passes through more atmosphere at a sharper angle, meaning that even bright noon sunlight in Toronto has even less power than in Arizona, let alone the equator.
Once you correct for daylight hours and cloud cover (and, the strength of sunlight as the sun rises and sets), you get this neat little graph. Notice Toronto gets about 75% the solar energy of the American Southwest, and about 1/9th that of space.
> might require 4-10x (or more) the panels on earth
So? We're not talking about a lot of land. You can power the entire USA with solar panels taking up 1/2 the area that's been paved. We've done this before.
> Don't forget that Japan has very little available land
Don't forget that in addition to taking up just as much room, rectennas have to be built away from settled areas or flight paths. Solar cells have no such limitations, and can be built on top of existing structures, like my garage roof. Now ask yourself: which of those does Japan have in greater abundance?
Remember, many of those rooftops are also already taken up with other stuff, like golf courses...
Again, no silver bullet, but I think it's worth at least trying. It's not like you're going to make things worse with SPS.
Exactly, this is a quick and dirty optimization for commuters. By just linking up on the fly and on the highway that's already being driven, any properly equipped cars can hop in instantly and follow the route they normally take. Loading onto an actual train takes time on both ends and requires the drivers to board/depart only at train stations, making it more effective for long distance (3-8+ hours). It also allows this to go all along the freeway you travel, rather than just along the rail lines, meaning more people would use a system tied to just the highway.
Of course, I can guarantee this system would limit travel speed to the legal speed limit, so this wouldn't catch on with the majority of commuters. Most cities, if traffic isn't moving 15mph, it's going 15mph faster than the speed limit.
Well considering the internet evolved from a government project I'd say there isn't going to be any heads exploding over this. Especially if it has military applications which it probably does. Reducing fuel expenditure is a tactical advantage and the vast majority of free market types still support the idea of the government fulfilling the role of national defense to some degree.
I doubt the military would use this, at least not overseas. Decreased fuel consumption isn't worth turning a bunch of small targets into one large target. An IED or RPG would go from hitting 1-2 Humvees to 3-6.
The national security benefit from reducing our domestic oil consumption by even 1% is pretty significant, though.
And that's ignoring the space debris issue, the fact that most of this technology doesn't exist, that the rest has a 100% failure rate, and that you're economically better off leaving them on the ground anyway. That last one is vitally important. Space power gets you about 2x the power from the same panel on Earth, once you beam it down.
That's it, that's the end of the argument right there. Build twice as many panels right here, and you get the same amount of power for 1/100th to 1/1000th the cost. It doesn't make a difference what panels you use or what technology, anything that changes the economics of the panels in space does the same for the panels on Earth. So I'll just buy 100 times as many and deliver 50 times the power. Why the heck would you put them in space? (if you're going to come back with "24 hours" or some other vapid argument, read the other articles first).
Of course, you assume that there is somewhere reasonable to place the panels to maximise their effect. Sure, you don't need SPS in Arizona where it's sunny 85% of the time, but at higher latitudes with greater cloud cover the available solar power is reduced. So, someplace like Japan has different economics, where they might require 4-10x (or more) the panels on earth. Don't forget that Japan has very little available land. Doubling or quadrupling the required footprint of a power plant is not to be taken lightly.
I guarantee the first system will not break even. The second probably won't either. But it's certainly conceivable that it will at some point in the future. Better to start now and learn to make it effective if/when that happens. It's not a silver bullet, but it's still worth a shot.
If the dome is thin enough, and the ambient temperature is above freezing, snow would not collect. it would merely melt and run off.
The snow would melt, in that case, by transferring heat out of the dome. This negates the energy benefit, and will result in a giant ring of ice surrounding the dome. It also assumes that the snow will melt faster than it falls. VT can get a lot of snow all at once, a blizzard would still encase the dome, melted and refrozen ice on the bottom, snow on top.
The bigger problem, I think, is still getting water (for plants) and air into the dome, and pollutants from combustion out. Even if it is structurally possible, the additional logistical costs will outweigh the benefits enough that there is no net gain to a dome.
The researchers in the story ignored all the signs from the last ten years which point to strength training being the most important part of a regimen designed to reduce fat. When you do cardio (especially that slow, "fat-burning" cardio), you burn a few calories, and when you step off the machine, you're done. When you train for strength, you burn fewer calories, but your body spends the next twenty-four hours burning extra calories trying to repair the damage you've done. Doing anaerobic / aerobic intervals on a cardio machine has a similar effect, and when you put the two together, you really shed the fat.
Agreed. I've found that a short stint on the treadmill to raise my heart rate and keeping it high during my strength training is a great way to get the best of both worlds.
Sort of. There is a meaningful statistical correlation behind subscores in IQ tests, and despite the existence and appeal of the multiple intelligences model, the data still tends to support the general intelligence factor model.
I agree that there is a general correlation, but there are too many outliers for it to make sense. The theory of 'g' intelligence says that someone who is intelligent should do roughly equally well in all areas of thought, but this is clearly not the case. While someone who is significantly above average in one area (math, for example) is more likely to be above average in others (language, patterns, spatial), there are almost as many who are great at language yet can't grasp spatial reasoning or math. This is not an education thing either; many people simply only comprehend several of the areas. A common example would be your awkward math geek or literary snob who failed algebra. More extreme examples would be the savant (undeveloped language skills yet can perform nearly instantaneous calculations, for example).
With 'g', the prediction is that if you split the test into parts and plotted the answers on an x/y/z chart, the scores should tightly cluster around the line x=y=z. This isn't what we see, people are better at some types of mental faculties than others. Where you see g influencing all these scores, I see all the individual intelligences raising the IQ test scores. While there may be a correlation between IQ and success in any one of these topics, it's not strong enough to make a prediction. If we can't predict anything from 'g' other than IQ scores, why measure it at all? Remember the mantra: correlation is not causation.
That said, IQ performs well for its intended purpose: identifying underperforming children for remedial help. Above about 80, however, one can't make any worthwhile predictions. The difference between 70 and 80 IQs is falling behind in education. The difference between 100 and 110 could be a propensity for doing crossword puzzles.
Mensa and testing agencies have been making it clear for a couple decades now that IQ only measures your ability to take tests.
IQ tests measure your puzzle solving skills.
More specifically, it measures your skills at solving the puzzles the test writers think are important.
They also group a lot of different categories together (language, pattern solving, mathematics, visual recognition, etc) into one big lump sum, so someone average apart from a large vocabulary and another average person good at math might both get 110. Someone else might have no vocabulary but be fantastic pattern matcher and get 115. The IQ tells nothing of interest about the person, an individual's SAT or ACT scores (by topic, not aggregate) is a better metric of inteligence, but still woefully poor.
There's also the fallacy that IQ measures inteligence rather than education. Practice improves test scores, but the theory behind IQ (which is bunk) says that IQ should remain constant. Assuming IQ (or general intelligence, g) does exist, IQ tests are a poor indicator. IQ is simply held on to as a way for those who already score high on these tests to claim superiority over others.
Let's use a car analogy. There's a toll road that's significantly faster to get to your destination. They charge $20 to use the road for 20 miles, and you think that is unfair and outrageous.
Now, you can either bite the bullet and pay to take the road, or you can choose to take the alternate route. You do not get to take the road without paying the toll just because you think it's too expensive and wouldn't have paid anyway. That is immoral, illegal, and socially unacceptable.
Your analogy doesn't work. You still don't get the "no cost to produce" part. Here's your analogy, only applied to copying files. I come up on a toll road and it costs $20. Since it's faster, I want to take it, but $20 is absurd. I push a button in my car and an identical road appears (lets assume a wormhole into a parallel universe, only in this parallel universe, the road is free to use) and then drive on that identical road that does not cost anything.
Do you use Windows Update on your pirated OS? Congrats, there is a minimal (but non-zero) cost to MS for your using it. Similarly, when you drive on a toll road there is a minimal (but non-zero) cost to the operators in the form of wear. The analogy stands.
Sorry, but I'll never grasp the concept of turning down a freebie of something that's too expensive to buy. If someone offered you a free Ferarri, would you turn it down? I doubt it.
I'm running Windows off a free MSDN license through my school. They offered it to me and I accepted. You are taking the software without permission. Can you not see the difference, or is this an intentional straw-man argument?
It's a type of protest, like civil-disobedence back in the 60's. I want to pay money for a good product, but I won't pay an obscene amount just because the company is greedy.
Boycotting the software because it's too expensive would be like civil disobedience. Pirating it anyway is more like violent unrest, with a big helping of hypocrisy.
First, I'll say it for the last jesus-fucking time. Copying a file (otherwise known as "copyright infringement") IS. NOT. GODDAMN. STEALING. Is it illegal? Yup. Are there plenty of unjust laws? Good god, yes! Illegal != immoral.
Let's use a car analogy. There's a toll road that's significantly faster to get to your destination. They charge $20 to use the road for 20 miles, and you think that is unfair and outrageous.
Now, you can either bite the bullet and pay to take the road, or you can choose to take the alternate route. You do not get to take the road without paying the toll just because you think it's too expensive and wouldn't have paid anyway. That is immoral, illegal, and socially unacceptable.
Stop pretending you're entitled to free shit because you don't like the person selling it.
When did I say that I was "entitled" to free anything? Never. I simply pointed out the facts that 1) since I refuse to pay an outrageous fee and 2) MS won't make or lose any money regardless of if I just don't use it or if I pirate it, there is no logical reason not to pirate it. If MS would actually lose money, then yes, it would be wrong and I wouldn't do it. However, they lose nothing if I copy a file, especially a file that I had no intention of purchasing.
You rationalized pirating Windows 7 because you would be better off with it and you didn't want to pay for it. You claimed you could stay with XP, but you want 7 instead. How is that not entitlement? If you didn't feel entitled, you would stick with what you paid for.
It's obviously not socially acceptable, nor is it reasonable. Nobody wants to buy their operating system, but they do because that is the exchange for the value they gain from it. It might be 'logical' if you are a sociopath or have no sense of right from wrong, but it is not acceptable to take what you want just because you want it and don't want to pay.
You said before that I should just use Linux instead
I never said that. I said if you want to use Windows, you have to follow the same rules as the rest of us and pay. If that means sticking with XP/Vista or changing, that's your own problem. Using it anyway without paying is wrong.
If you can't grasp these concepts, you're beyond my help.
I'm not saying MS isn't overcharging, just that you aren't justified in stealing/pirating/using-without-paying-for it. If you feel the need to steal it, do it, but don't act like you aren't doing something illegal or immoral.
You have no moral high ground if you're just as bad as the person you're railing against.
So by your lack of logic, you're arguing that every time anyone walks by an item and doesn't purchase it, everyone who does now has to pay more. This is completely and utterly false. I go to a car lot and buy a Mazda 3 - does the price of a Mazda 3 drop for everyone else? No, it stays the same. Does the price of every other car increase because I bought a Mazda 3? No, they stay the same.
Your lack of logic says that every time you don't purchase something you're "stealing" and harming everyone else. That is not the case. Take a fucking economics class.
No, if you don't buy a car you're not a customer. If you don't buy or use an operating system, you're not a customer. If you use a [insert digital service here] without paying for it, you are a free-loading customer. The third option is not legitimate.
Either buy it and use it, or don't buy it and don't use it. There is no magical third option where you can decide you deserve the product for free and it is justified because others are subsidizing your theft.
Pay for the services you use, and don't use what you don't pay for. Stop pretending you're entitled to free shit because you don't like the person selling it.
Basic game theory is flawed? I think Dr. John Nash would disagree with you...
Game theory isn't flawed, you're just not applying it correctly. This isn't a simple 2-party system, the rules of economics link the company, yourself, and all the other customers.
I love to bi-polar slashdot mentality - if a company makes money, slashdotters bitch that they should give it away for free. If someone gets a product for free without causing the company to lose money, people (like you) bitch that people aren't giving the company money. Pick a side, either companies are free to overcharge and extort to their hearts content or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.
What a fallacy. Slashdot is made up of lots of different people, it's not a hive-mind. Just because someone else here is all about FOSS doesn't mean I think that a company who charges for a product doesn't deserve to get paid, or that it's legal or socially acceptable to use something for free when others are required to pay for it.
If you really feel that MS is overcharging for Windows 7, then don't buy it. But don't pirate it and act like it's alright. Either you're pirating it because it's stealing and you want to stick it to the man, or you don't use it because you don't want to buy it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
MS wants an absurd amount of money for Windows 7. I will not pay such an abusurd amount. I could use XP still, in which case MS makes $X. However, since it costs nothing to make a copy of Windows 7, I could get a copy off of the internet. MS still makes $X (with X being the same number, they did not gain or lose money from this), but now I have Windows 7. MS is just as well off either way, but now I am better off. If you ever took a basic class in game theory, you would realize that since I'm not going to pay an abusurd price and since MS does not lose money due to me copying Windows, the optimal choice is to copy Windows.
Also, if you bothered to ever read any of my comments, I specifically said if they charged a reasonable amount, I would gladly pay it. It's the fact that they want to charge 3-4x more than a reasonable amount that causes me to not pay for it (it's the same reason I do not buy from Apple, despite wanting one of their computers, because they massively overprice them). If they had a tangible product (a car, a book, a computer, etc), then they could get away with this because it would be costly to make a copy of it. However, with software / files, it costs nothing to make a copy, so their costs of production go to pretty much zip after they make the first copy.
Here's the missing piece in your logic: other customers are the third party in the system. Also, companies do not get to "charge whatever they want for a product", at least not if they want to stay in business. Let's assume MS needs a fixed profit to justify their fixed development costs. If it cost $100mil to develop (all inclusive), they might need to sell $150mil in order to beat the rate of return for their other investments and make the product worth developing. If there are 3 million people who want the software, MS needs only charge $50.
Now, assume 50% of those customers are assholes (not you, of course) and will pirate the software. Now MS needs to charge $100 to make an acceptable return on their investment (1.5 million buyers). Now, we get guys like you, who feel that $100 is too much. Rather than just not buying the software, you pirate it as well, further reducing the number of paying customers, say to 1 million. Now, those who actually buy the software need to pay $150. You didn't cost MS any money, you did cost the actual paying customers money.
This, of course, means you are either an asshole or a sociopath. Either way, it is impossible to justify receiving the same service that others pay for by unilaterally deciding to simply copy it with acceptable social behavior. You do whatever you want, but you can't justify it as socially (or legaly) acceptable.
It isn't mentioned if the printing temperature is the same as the melting temperature. I'm assuming that the ink undergoes a chemical reaction after printing so that the printing temperature is lower than the melting point.
As you say, though, it's pretty safe to assume this is not going to produce circuitry for high temperature environments. However, being able to print low-temperature low-power boards is certainly useful. This technology isn't a catch-all that will replace standard PWBs, but for some applications it's just what the doctor (engineer?) ordered.
Replying to myself, I know, but this link states Xerox already has printable semiconductors and dielectrics. This breakthrough was for printable conductors of the same quality, meaning that the entire circuit could be printed: conductors, transistors, diodes, resistors, capacitors, inductors. The only additional components that would be needed would be those that require specialized materials (LEDs, for example).
Components are easy to replace on a PWB, at least the first few times until the pads start to lift. I have done rework on 0402 package (0.04" x 0.02") resistors and capacitors using a hand soldering iron. Even finer and larger components can be repaired with a rework station, using hot air to reflow the solder and suction cups to place/remove components. Of course, this is made simple due to the solder mask, which keeps the solder on the pads and pulls the components with it.
That said, if the PWB itself fails (most likely due to a pad snapping off from rework, maybe through a crack from being flexed and temperature cycled) it's rarely economical to repair. We're talking thicknesses around 0.002-0.008", and the copper and laminates have been baked together. I have never heard of a PWB being repaired by fixing an internal connection.
And if you think today's PWBs are only 7 layers, you're off by a factor of 3-4x.
what it would change from PCB on demand services where i can order anything for few euros?
The ability to easily design and produce your own in secret.
More importantly, PCB on-demand services produce in the standard way, requiring mechanical routing on a large copper-plated board. There's a big setup cost, especially with drilling and tooling. Most PCB builders have a minimum order because of this.
The article only mentions a reduction in silver ink printing temperature allowing for printing on plastics and cardboard, as well as functioning well in open air without being a clean room environment. That tells me it's primarily a PWB printer, no mention of semiconductors for ICs. Of course, it's possible, with enough resolution, to print a resistor or capacitor. However, I believe this technology will just produce the conductors, allowing you to solder any components (hopefully it is able to be soldered to) needed.
My question is if they can make multiple layer circuits. This should be pretty easy, just print a layer of insulator on top, with holes for any connections between layers. Also curious what their resolution and tolerances are. Obviously this isn't going to go into high-performance industrial applications any time soon, but if it's possible to make reasonable reliable circuits with tolerances to the mil (0.001"), DIYers will be able to make (and pay for!) circuits they never dreamed of doing before.
However, if your goal is to indiscriminatingly kill people it is very easy to do with off the shelf components, if you are so inclined.
In general, only non-state actors want to kill people indiscriminately. Nations (Syria included) have to worry about their own people, diplomacy, UN resolutions, etc. If you're a terrorist organization, simple technology can fulfil your requirements. An IED is effective for an insurgency, but not for full-scale war.
However, on the nation-nation level, it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to carry out long-range warfare without comparable technology to your opponent. This stuff doesn't come easy. Sure, a simple radar can be built by anybody, but it won't do you any good against a stealth fighter with an advanced electronic warfare suite. To be effective, your technology must not be easily countered, and hobbyist stuff doesn't fit the bill if you need to perform anything more complex than just exploding.
The best proof of this is that small countries buy military technology from larger countries. If any engineer could build comparable technology, surely these nations would just build their own systems.
But you just named things that don't affect the flight itself. Nor do they affect the reporter/congressmen/businessman's work if they are not allowed to have toothpaste in their carryon. Comparing the backlash of not being able to clip your fingernails to that of not being able to use a laptop is silly.
Slashdot Mirror
> That time of sunlight needs to be multiplied by the solar flux to determine the total energy available per year. >The solar flux (W/m^2) in space is about 1,366 W/m^2. After passing through the atmoshpere at the equator, it's about half that.
Ummm, no. AM1.5, useful for the USA, is generally taken as 1000 W/m^2. That's a lot more than half. Do your homework.
AM1.5 is a test condition for solar cell comparison, not representative of actual earth-based power. It's just a benchmark at 1kW/m^2, which makes it easy to do the math to determine efficiency. Don't believe me? "In practice, no solar cell experiences such conditions...". I've already done my homework ;)
> Once you correct for daylight hours and cloud cover
I did, that's 1950 hours of "bright direct sunlight". As in "bright" and "direct" "sunlight".
Then use the numbers on that graph. An average of 150-200 W/m^2, all day every day, in Toronto and Japan to 225-250 W/m^2 in Arizona. Space gets 1,300 W/m^2 all day, every day.
> It's not like you're going to make things worse with SPS.
Unless you wipe out all LEO satellites as a side effect, which is a real possibility.
Maury
Really? They're talking GHz radiation. Is a radiation hardened, chassis grounded space satellite really going to be affected? Not if it was built by a competent Engineer. The chassis will act as a faraday cage, there will be no net current into the electronics. Besides, if electronics absorbed energy easily from these frequencies, Japan wouldn't need such a big receiver to collect the power, would it?
If that is still your concern, it is possible to detect satellites approaching the beam and turn it off during their transit.
Regardless, this is technically feasible right now, as long as someone takes the time to build one. It probably won't be economical, but that should come in time.
Ah, good call. Another case of same technology, different application. Just like military UAVs are used for killing terrorists, civilian UAVs are used for photographing farm fields.
I've seen things when they get busy around here. I'd much rather go 70mph (or even 45mph) than the maybe 10 you can average during congestion.
To say nothing of cities with bigger traffic problems like DC, San Fran, or LA.
That's the other problem. How do you get across 3-4 lanes of stop-and-go DC beltway traffic to the 'fast' train lane (presuming not everyone will have a capable car) to the far left lane which is traveling 70mph and enter safely? Probably will require two lanes, one as a merge lane only during rush hour. But again, good luck convincing city planners to give up 2 lanes, and preventing accidents with manual-drivers interfering with the train.
Use pumped storage hydro and only release power to the grid during peak hours. Problem solved.
> but at higher latitudes
Do you mean like here in Toronto? We get 1950 hours of bright direct sunlight a year. When you do the math (the subject of my first post on the topic) you'll get about a 20% difference.
That time of sunlight needs to be multiplied by the solar flux to determine the total energy available per year. The solar flux (W/m^2) in space is about 1,366 W/m^2. After passing through the atmoshpere at the equator, it's about half that. As your latitude increases, the light passes through more atmosphere at a sharper angle, meaning that even bright noon sunlight in Toronto has even less power than in Arizona, let alone the equator.
Once you correct for daylight hours and cloud cover (and, the strength of sunlight as the sun rises and sets), you get this neat little graph. Notice Toronto gets about 75% the solar energy of the American Southwest, and about 1/9th that of space.
> might require 4-10x (or more) the panels on earth
So? We're not talking about a lot of land. You can power the entire USA with solar panels taking up 1/2 the area that's been paved. We've done this before.
> Don't forget that Japan has very little available land
Don't forget that in addition to taking up just as much room, rectennas have to be built away from settled areas or flight paths. Solar cells have no such limitations, and can be built on top of existing structures, like my garage roof. Now ask yourself: which of those does Japan have in greater abundance?
Remember, many of those rooftops are also already taken up with other stuff, like golf courses...
Again, no silver bullet, but I think it's worth at least trying. It's not like you're going to make things worse with SPS.
Exactly, this is a quick and dirty optimization for commuters. By just linking up on the fly and on the highway that's already being driven, any properly equipped cars can hop in instantly and follow the route they normally take. Loading onto an actual train takes time on both ends and requires the drivers to board/depart only at train stations, making it more effective for long distance (3-8+ hours). It also allows this to go all along the freeway you travel, rather than just along the rail lines, meaning more people would use a system tied to just the highway.
Of course, I can guarantee this system would limit travel speed to the legal speed limit, so this wouldn't catch on with the majority of commuters. Most cities, if traffic isn't moving 15mph, it's going 15mph faster than the speed limit.
Well considering the internet evolved from a government project I'd say there isn't going to be any heads exploding over this. Especially if it has military applications which it probably does. Reducing fuel expenditure is a tactical advantage and the vast majority of free market types still support the idea of the government fulfilling the role of national defense to some degree.
I doubt the military would use this, at least not overseas. Decreased fuel consumption isn't worth turning a bunch of small targets into one large target. An IED or RPG would go from hitting 1-2 Humvees to 3-6.
The national security benefit from reducing our domestic oil consumption by even 1% is pretty significant, though.
And that's ignoring the space debris issue, the fact that most of this technology doesn't exist, that the rest has a 100% failure rate, and that you're economically better off leaving them on the ground anyway. That last one is vitally important. Space power gets you about 2x the power from the same panel on Earth, once you beam it down.
That's it, that's the end of the argument right there. Build twice as many panels right here, and you get the same amount of power for 1/100th to 1/1000th the cost. It doesn't make a difference what panels you use or what technology, anything that changes the economics of the panels in space does the same for the panels on Earth. So I'll just buy 100 times as many and deliver 50 times the power. Why the heck would you put them in space? (if you're going to come back with "24 hours" or some other vapid argument, read the other articles first).
Of course, you assume that there is somewhere reasonable to place the panels to maximise their effect. Sure, you don't need SPS in Arizona where it's sunny 85% of the time, but at higher latitudes with greater cloud cover the available solar power is reduced. So, someplace like Japan has different economics, where they might require 4-10x (or more) the panels on earth. Don't forget that Japan has very little available land. Doubling or quadrupling the required footprint of a power plant is not to be taken lightly.
I guarantee the first system will not break even. The second probably won't either. But it's certainly conceivable that it will at some point in the future. Better to start now and learn to make it effective if/when that happens. It's not a silver bullet, but it's still worth a shot.
If the dome is thin enough, and the ambient temperature is above freezing, snow would not collect. it would merely melt and run off.
The snow would melt, in that case, by transferring heat out of the dome. This negates the energy benefit, and will result in a giant ring of ice surrounding the dome. It also assumes that the snow will melt faster than it falls. VT can get a lot of snow all at once, a blizzard would still encase the dome, melted and refrozen ice on the bottom, snow on top.
The bigger problem, I think, is still getting water (for plants) and air into the dome, and pollutants from combustion out. Even if it is structurally possible, the additional logistical costs will outweigh the benefits enough that there is no net gain to a dome.
The researchers in the story ignored all the signs from the last ten years which point to strength training being the most important part of a regimen designed to reduce fat. When you do cardio (especially that slow, "fat-burning" cardio), you burn a few calories, and when you step off the machine, you're done. When you train for strength, you burn fewer calories, but your body spends the next twenty-four hours burning extra calories trying to repair the damage you've done. Doing anaerobic / aerobic intervals on a cardio machine has a similar effect, and when you put the two together, you really shed the fat.
Agreed. I've found that a short stint on the treadmill to raise my heart rate and keeping it high during my strength training is a great way to get the best of both worlds.
Sort of. There is a meaningful statistical correlation behind subscores in IQ tests, and despite the existence and appeal of the multiple intelligences model, the data still tends to support the general intelligence factor model.
I agree that there is a general correlation, but there are too many outliers for it to make sense. The theory of 'g' intelligence says that someone who is intelligent should do roughly equally well in all areas of thought, but this is clearly not the case. While someone who is significantly above average in one area (math, for example) is more likely to be above average in others (language, patterns, spatial), there are almost as many who are great at language yet can't grasp spatial reasoning or math. This is not an education thing either; many people simply only comprehend several of the areas. A common example would be your awkward math geek or literary snob who failed algebra. More extreme examples would be the savant (undeveloped language skills yet can perform nearly instantaneous calculations, for example).
With 'g', the prediction is that if you split the test into parts and plotted the answers on an x/y/z chart, the scores should tightly cluster around the line x=y=z. This isn't what we see, people are better at some types of mental faculties than others. Where you see g influencing all these scores, I see all the individual intelligences raising the IQ test scores. While there may be a correlation between IQ and success in any one of these topics, it's not strong enough to make a prediction. If we can't predict anything from 'g' other than IQ scores, why measure it at all? Remember the mantra: correlation is not causation.
That said, IQ performs well for its intended purpose: identifying underperforming children for remedial help. Above about 80, however, one can't make any worthwhile predictions. The difference between 70 and 80 IQs is falling behind in education. The difference between 100 and 110 could be a propensity for doing crossword puzzles.
Mensa and testing agencies have been making it clear for a couple decades now that IQ only measures your ability to take tests.
IQ tests measure your puzzle solving skills.
More specifically, it measures your skills at solving the puzzles the test writers think are important.
They also group a lot of different categories together (language, pattern solving, mathematics, visual recognition, etc) into one big lump sum, so someone average apart from a large vocabulary and another average person good at math might both get 110. Someone else might have no vocabulary but be fantastic pattern matcher and get 115. The IQ tells nothing of interest about the person, an individual's SAT or ACT scores (by topic, not aggregate) is a better metric of inteligence, but still woefully poor.
There's also the fallacy that IQ measures inteligence rather than education. Practice improves test scores, but the theory behind IQ (which is bunk) says that IQ should remain constant. Assuming IQ (or general intelligence, g) does exist, IQ tests are a poor indicator. IQ is simply held on to as a way for those who already score high on these tests to claim superiority over others.
Let's use a car analogy. There's a toll road that's significantly faster to get to your destination. They charge $20 to use the road for 20 miles, and you think that is unfair and outrageous. Now, you can either bite the bullet and pay to take the road, or you can choose to take the alternate route. You do not get to take the road without paying the toll just because you think it's too expensive and wouldn't have paid anyway. That is immoral, illegal, and socially unacceptable.
Your analogy doesn't work. You still don't get the "no cost to produce" part. Here's your analogy, only applied to copying files. I come up on a toll road and it costs $20. Since it's faster, I want to take it, but $20 is absurd. I push a button in my car and an identical road appears (lets assume a wormhole into a parallel universe, only in this parallel universe, the road is free to use) and then drive on that identical road that does not cost anything.
Do you use Windows Update on your pirated OS? Congrats, there is a minimal (but non-zero) cost to MS for your using it. Similarly, when you drive on a toll road there is a minimal (but non-zero) cost to the operators in the form of wear. The analogy stands.
Sorry, but I'll never grasp the concept of turning down a freebie of something that's too expensive to buy. If someone offered you a free Ferarri, would you turn it down? I doubt it.
I'm running Windows off a free MSDN license through my school. They offered it to me and I accepted. You are taking the software without permission. Can you not see the difference, or is this an intentional straw-man argument?
It's a type of protest, like civil-disobedence back in the 60's. I want to pay money for a good product, but I won't pay an obscene amount just because the company is greedy.
Boycotting the software because it's too expensive would be like civil disobedience. Pirating it anyway is more like violent unrest, with a big helping of hypocrisy.
First, I'll say it for the last jesus-fucking time. Copying a file (otherwise known as "copyright infringement") IS. NOT. GODDAMN. STEALING. Is it illegal? Yup. Are there plenty of unjust laws? Good god, yes! Illegal != immoral.
Let's use a car analogy. There's a toll road that's significantly faster to get to your destination. They charge $20 to use the road for 20 miles, and you think that is unfair and outrageous.
Now, you can either bite the bullet and pay to take the road, or you can choose to take the alternate route. You do not get to take the road without paying the toll just because you think it's too expensive and wouldn't have paid anyway. That is immoral, illegal, and socially unacceptable.
Stop pretending you're entitled to free shit because you don't like the person selling it.
When did I say that I was "entitled" to free anything? Never. I simply pointed out the facts that 1) since I refuse to pay an outrageous fee and 2) MS won't make or lose any money regardless of if I just don't use it or if I pirate it, there is no logical reason not to pirate it. If MS would actually lose money, then yes, it would be wrong and I wouldn't do it. However, they lose nothing if I copy a file, especially a file that I had no intention of purchasing.
You rationalized pirating Windows 7 because you would be better off with it and you didn't want to pay for it. You claimed you could stay with XP, but you want 7 instead. How is that not entitlement? If you didn't feel entitled, you would stick with what you paid for.
It's obviously not socially acceptable, nor is it reasonable. Nobody wants to buy their operating system, but they do because that is the exchange for the value they gain from it. It might be 'logical' if you are a sociopath or have no sense of right from wrong, but it is not acceptable to take what you want just because you want it and don't want to pay.
You said before that I should just use Linux instead
I never said that. I said if you want to use Windows, you have to follow the same rules as the rest of us and pay. If that means sticking with XP/Vista or changing, that's your own problem. Using it anyway without paying is wrong.
If you can't grasp these concepts, you're beyond my help.
I'm not saying MS isn't overcharging, just that you aren't justified in stealing/pirating/using-without-paying-for it. If you feel the need to steal it, do it, but don't act like you aren't doing something illegal or immoral.
You have no moral high ground if you're just as bad as the person you're railing against.
So by your lack of logic, you're arguing that every time anyone walks by an item and doesn't purchase it, everyone who does now has to pay more. This is completely and utterly false. I go to a car lot and buy a Mazda 3 - does the price of a Mazda 3 drop for everyone else? No, it stays the same. Does the price of every other car increase because I bought a Mazda 3? No, they stay the same.
Your lack of logic says that every time you don't purchase something you're "stealing" and harming everyone else. That is not the case. Take a fucking economics class.
No, if you don't buy a car you're not a customer. If you don't buy or use an operating system, you're not a customer. If you use a [insert digital service here] without paying for it, you are a free-loading customer. The third option is not legitimate.
Either buy it and use it, or don't buy it and don't use it. There is no magical third option where you can decide you deserve the product for free and it is justified because others are subsidizing your theft.
Pay for the services you use, and don't use what you don't pay for. Stop pretending you're entitled to free shit because you don't like the person selling it.
Basic game theory is flawed? I think Dr. John Nash would disagree with you...
Game theory isn't flawed, you're just not applying it correctly. This isn't a simple 2-party system, the rules of economics link the company, yourself, and all the other customers.
I love to bi-polar slashdot mentality - if a company makes money, slashdotters bitch that they should give it away for free. If someone gets a product for free without causing the company to lose money, people (like you) bitch that people aren't giving the company money. Pick a side, either companies are free to overcharge and extort to their hearts content or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.
What a fallacy. Slashdot is made up of lots of different people, it's not a hive-mind. Just because someone else here is all about FOSS doesn't mean I think that a company who charges for a product doesn't deserve to get paid, or that it's legal or socially acceptable to use something for free when others are required to pay for it.
If you really feel that MS is overcharging for Windows 7, then don't buy it. But don't pirate it and act like it's alright. Either you're pirating it because it's stealing and you want to stick it to the man, or you don't use it because you don't want to buy it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
MS wants an absurd amount of money for Windows 7. I will not pay such an abusurd amount. I could use XP still, in which case MS makes $X. However, since it costs nothing to make a copy of Windows 7, I could get a copy off of the internet. MS still makes $X (with X being the same number, they did not gain or lose money from this), but now I have Windows 7. MS is just as well off either way, but now I am better off. If you ever took a basic class in game theory, you would realize that since I'm not going to pay an abusurd price and since MS does not lose money due to me copying Windows, the optimal choice is to copy Windows.
Also, if you bothered to ever read any of my comments, I specifically said if they charged a reasonable amount, I would gladly pay it. It's the fact that they want to charge 3-4x more than a reasonable amount that causes me to not pay for it (it's the same reason I do not buy from Apple, despite wanting one of their computers, because they massively overprice them). If they had a tangible product (a car, a book, a computer, etc), then they could get away with this because it would be costly to make a copy of it. However, with software / files, it costs nothing to make a copy, so their costs of production go to pretty much zip after they make the first copy.
Here's the missing piece in your logic: other customers are the third party in the system. Also, companies do not get to "charge whatever they want for a product", at least not if they want to stay in business. Let's assume MS needs a fixed profit to justify their fixed development costs. If it cost $100mil to develop (all inclusive), they might need to sell $150mil in order to beat the rate of return for their other investments and make the product worth developing. If there are 3 million people who want the software, MS needs only charge $50.
Now, assume 50% of those customers are assholes (not you, of course) and will pirate the software. Now MS needs to charge $100 to make an acceptable return on their investment (1.5 million buyers). Now, we get guys like you, who feel that $100 is too much. Rather than just not buying the software, you pirate it as well, further reducing the number of paying customers, say to 1 million. Now, those who actually buy the software need to pay $150. You didn't cost MS any money, you did cost the actual paying customers money.
This, of course, means you are either an asshole or a sociopath. Either way, it is impossible to justify receiving the same service that others pay for by unilaterally deciding to simply copy it with acceptable social behavior. You do whatever you want, but you can't justify it as socially (or legaly) acceptable.
It isn't mentioned if the printing temperature is the same as the melting temperature. I'm assuming that the ink undergoes a chemical reaction after printing so that the printing temperature is lower than the melting point.
As you say, though, it's pretty safe to assume this is not going to produce circuitry for high temperature environments. However, being able to print low-temperature low-power boards is certainly useful. This technology isn't a catch-all that will replace standard PWBs, but for some applications it's just what the doctor (engineer?) ordered.
Replying to myself, I know, but this link states Xerox already has printable semiconductors and dielectrics. This breakthrough was for printable conductors of the same quality, meaning that the entire circuit could be printed: conductors, transistors, diodes, resistors, capacitors, inductors. The only additional components that would be needed would be those that require specialized materials (LEDs, for example).
Components are easy to replace on a PWB, at least the first few times until the pads start to lift. I have done rework on 0402 package (0.04" x 0.02") resistors and capacitors using a hand soldering iron. Even finer and larger components can be repaired with a rework station, using hot air to reflow the solder and suction cups to place/remove components. Of course, this is made simple due to the solder mask, which keeps the solder on the pads and pulls the components with it.
That said, if the PWB itself fails (most likely due to a pad snapping off from rework, maybe through a crack from being flexed and temperature cycled) it's rarely economical to repair. We're talking thicknesses around 0.002-0.008", and the copper and laminates have been baked together. I have never heard of a PWB being repaired by fixing an internal connection.
And if you think today's PWBs are only 7 layers, you're off by a factor of 3-4x.
what it would change from PCB on demand services where i can order anything for few euros?
The ability to easily design and produce your own in secret.
More importantly, PCB on-demand services produce in the standard way, requiring mechanical routing on a large copper-plated board. There's a big setup cost, especially with drilling and tooling. Most PCB builders have a minimum order because of this.
The article only mentions a reduction in silver ink printing temperature allowing for printing on plastics and cardboard, as well as functioning well in open air without being a clean room environment. That tells me it's primarily a PWB printer, no mention of semiconductors for ICs. Of course, it's possible, with enough resolution, to print a resistor or capacitor. However, I believe this technology will just produce the conductors, allowing you to solder any components (hopefully it is able to be soldered to) needed.
My question is if they can make multiple layer circuits. This should be pretty easy, just print a layer of insulator on top, with holes for any connections between layers. Also curious what their resolution and tolerances are. Obviously this isn't going to go into high-performance industrial applications any time soon, but if it's possible to make reasonable reliable circuits with tolerances to the mil (0.001"), DIYers will be able to make (and pay for!) circuits they never dreamed of doing before.
However, if your goal is to indiscriminatingly kill people it is very easy to do with off the shelf components, if you are so inclined.
In general, only non-state actors want to kill people indiscriminately. Nations (Syria included) have to worry about their own people, diplomacy, UN resolutions, etc. If you're a terrorist organization, simple technology can fulfil your requirements. An IED is effective for an insurgency, but not for full-scale war.
However, on the nation-nation level, it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to carry out long-range warfare without comparable technology to your opponent. This stuff doesn't come easy. Sure, a simple radar can be built by anybody, but it won't do you any good against a stealth fighter with an advanced electronic warfare suite. To be effective, your technology must not be easily countered, and hobbyist stuff doesn't fit the bill if you need to perform anything more complex than just exploding.
The best proof of this is that small countries buy military technology from larger countries. If any engineer could build comparable technology, surely these nations would just build their own systems.
But you just named things that don't affect the flight itself. Nor do they affect the reporter/congressmen/businessman's work if they are not allowed to have toothpaste in their carryon. Comparing the backlash of not being able to clip your fingernails to that of not being able to use a laptop is silly.