While it's a day-old topic, if anyone's still following, this is my reason too.
I have a significant interest in using KDE. My two biggest apps (overall, not just KDE) are Dolphin and Kate.
Dolphin's reseatable tree and files in the tree are features I find it hard to do without. So if KDE didn't actively push me away I'd use it.
However, the idea that you can force a new paradigm on an existing userbase (and by force I mean those who don't switch don't get bugfixes, security patches, new features and, ultimately, end up with incompatibilities with new versions of their OS) is one I oppose. I see it as similar to bait & switch. Also, just because you work for free and/or on free software doesn't mean your work can't end up being a net negative, ultimately costing users more.
Many of the time-wasting negatives from these tools are often overlooked by developers. For example, if my machine becomes less responsive I now have more things I need to check. Did a recent update accidentally re-enable Nepomuk? I've also spent a bit of time searching trying to find why "Desktop Search Services are Active" is being displayed even when it is inactive - a bug that I wouldn't have had to worry about if I didn't have it installed. Further, people now have to remember when installing KDE apps on other DEs to disable Nepomuk. Many may not even know they've just installed it and will not know if Nepomuk reduces their system performance.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with providing users with the option of a semantic desktop. But the right way to do this is to make things modular. Akonadi, Nepomuk etc should be removable packages, and apps that can use them shouldn't depend on them. They should have options enabling or disabling connections to these services. No apps that predate these tools should require them. If an old app now has hard dependencies on these services you've done it wrong.
KDE needs to, sooner rather than later, set up a team to remove the concrete dependencies on these components. I know that's a lot of rework and unenjoyable reversal but IMO it's the only way to save KDE.
One final thing to mention: Even if more people liked the change (which isn't even true here AFAIK), a massive negative for a small number of people can outweigh a minor positive for the majority.
What really bothers me is languages and platforms that provide no ability to work with numbers in a decimal representation.
That isn't where you want to implement decimal math.
For languages, decimal representation and math should be provided by libraries, simply because anything that can be shipped out into a library without significantly reducing efficiency or code readability should be (to reduce unnecessary language complexity).
As for platforms, I'm not sure what you mean. That word has many meanings in computing, but IMHO none of them should care about decimal math.
I am the other way round. What bothers me is architectures that DO provide decimal functionality. It is a total waste of silicon and/or ASM instruction bits to provide something that can be done far faster in binary with no loss of accuracy (compared to native decimal, if done right). Any decent decimal library will internally be binary anyway, not BCD or similar.
Wouldn't encouraging people to buy poor quality furniture that they need to replace often be better, so as to increase CO2 stored in discarded furniture in landfills?
As you say above, make sure it's treated so it doesn't get eaten or degrade quickly in the landfill.
Poor quality furniture is also more likely to be made out of fast-growing wood like pine, which encourages planting.
Re:Nice distro but they messed up the desktop
on
Ubuntu Turns 7
·
· Score: 1
I tried 11.04 a month ago. First unity, which was a serious impediment and barely configurable. Next, classic desktop, which had problems forgetting to redraw windows and panels. Unfortunately, bugs like this are now a low priority. So I'm back on 10.10. My next upgrade will be to a non-default-unity 'nix.
The thing I don't get is why the hell can't the UI elements be independent apps - Instead of having the sidebar or taskbars part of the UI, make them separate applications.
That way, we can customize them at will, and download new ones easily without having to replace the whole UI. Modularity is good.
Cos it's certainly happening when you look at obesity levels, number-of-children-vs-socioeconomic-status graphs, and the number of low-skill unemployed that don't go into study even when it's almost fully subsidized with loans for the rest.
I'm going to be controversial here - perhaps the worst of these people would have failed the test of natural selection in past millennia.
Yes, this time it's different. Every year you don't die... until you do.
The required IQ for the average available job has been rising because machines are getting smarter. It didn't really matter when that IQ was rising from the 60s (eg: grain harvester) to the 80s (eg: retail staff) because very few people were too dumb to stack shelves. But it's creeping around the 90+ level now and it's moving beyond a massive portion of the workforce. It won't stop.
How many jobs exist that your average 90 IQ'er can do that aren't under threat from automation - mostly only the ones that aesthetically require humans (waiters, etc). Not enough for all the 90s. And it only gets worse. I'm not saying they'll be gone next year, it'll take a few decades at least.
Look up the Luddite Fallacy in Wikipedia. Read to the bottom.
Firstly, it's not always a question of "will not work", it's often a question of "no work available". It is certainly ethical to expect to be fed if you can't find work.
Secondly, those products are becoming less and less products of human effort and more products of automation. If, for example, wheat goes to bread goes to customer's doorstep with virtually no human intervention (we are heading toward this fast) then why demand people do work to receive it.
Is there a halfway - give people enough to live on as long as they seek to improve themselves in both education and health, and adhere to family planning guidelines.
I'm not talking full-time study at facilities, just pass a few extramural courses per year, do say 3 hours of decent exercise per week, and have say three or less children.
Since bottom-end jobs are drying up with no end in sight (due to automation), it's crazy to expect that just tweaking our economy can restore low unemployment long into our future.
(I actually think you've hit the nail on the head, but you'll have a hard time selling that concept directly)
Having no restrictions at all is Fair. It's also Reasonable to charge nothing (at least from an implementer's perspective, which is what counts here). Everybody is charged nothing and not restricted in any way, so it's Non Discriminatory.
So there's nothing actually bad about FRAND compared to nothing, but RF is at least equally as good (from an implementer's perspective).
Is that 100% accurate? (I haven't been following this debate).
I've seen many mistakes and even one alarm go off due only to DST.
The biggest problem with it, IMO, is that not every point in time is represented by a unique DST measurement. Typically, there's two "2 AM"s or similar on the day when the extra hour is squeezed back in.
This could be fixed by using a 25 hour day, although I'm sure that would annoy some other code.
All well and good, but what about the fully foreseen consequences?
Global warming is one part of a two-part catastrophe, the other being ocean acidification. The oceans are taking far, far more hurt than the land. The bottom of the food chain (coral, plankton, etc) that ultimately gives us fish that make up a significant part of our diet (and many jobs) is in severe danger, and seeding the oceans with iron might just cause mass extinction.
We need to fix the CO2, not just the warming, else we devastate ocean life.
If we can do that through advanced science, lets do it. However, AFAICT, the best method we currently have is mass reforestation.
Of course it fails to explain many things. There are numerous other variables in play. "All other things being equal" is generally implied, and is certainly not the case with your examples.
Other planets: Different gasses, vastly different masses of atmosphere, vastly different gravity. Also, don't mistake windspeed for violence / chaos.
Antarctica: There's no foliage or water for friction. It's mostly topographically very flat due to ice build-up. It's at high altitude. Convection is most active at the extremes of a system.
Yes, if you take a simplistic glance at a complex system you're likely to perceive anomalies (the brain's geared toward finding em), but if you mistake your simple glance for something worthy of propping up an opinion (ie, I don't really buy...) that contradicts the vast majority of those (climatologists) that study said system, you're crazy.
What should humanities contribution to global warming be? If we say '0', basically you're asking to kill 6 billion people, destroy every factory, car, power plant ever produced and go back to an 80% mortality rate before we're 5 years old.
Carbon is a zero-sum game. Released minus recaptured.
It is possible (theoretically) for humans to have even a negative effect on global warming (and the ultra-important but media-ignored carbon acidification) while still using many carbon-producing technologies simply by sequestering the carbon (say, in trees). That might just take replanting half the world's forests, but if we wanted too we sure could. It's not unachievable, it'd just take far more than our predominantly lazy selfish culture is willing to give - even if giving would help us (eg: eating less).
Anyway, we wouldn't have to put up with drastic action for too long. We have the silver bullet solution, fusion, becoming viable most likely some time this century (if we supply enough funds for the research, that is).
I couldn't agree more (although I did just look up Gopher and it needs a lot of work to make it suit).
However, I don't see any fast way forward. People are dumb, too accepting and too lazy to actively change to something better en masse.
When more people go to check out your band, your company, etc by way of Wikipedia simply due to its readability and consistency, perhaps things might start to change. Perhaps something like this is the way forward?
Those billion people online are likely to make use of the wheel and fire a great deal. Even the fans and disk platters on their computers are wheels, and said computers are ultimately powered by wheels (which are quite likely to be powered by fire).
And the vast majority of non-internet users use wheels and fire.
One thing I hardly see in official discussions of the debt ceiling is any hint that they know voluntarily defaulting is not just fiscally, but _morally_ wrong.
Nowhere do I read about direct concern for those who have invested in the US. Only, sometimes, indirect concern that they might not take the same risks.
I know it is unlikely that these people wouldn't have been paid, (and I know that many of these people aren't totally deserving of compassion), but isn't refusing to pay people that you owe, when you can, morally wrong, akin to theft?
Not sure if this has been said before somewhere significant (or even here), maybe it's just chance I haven't seen this said. But it irks me.
TFA says "Clearly what is optimal for a lazy Maths Master is to push the lawnmower the shortest distance possible." and goes on from there.
While an interesting NP problem in itself, the things you're more likely to be trying to minimize are time, fuel, cost. Hence, turning matters significantly.
I know, I've spent lots of time thinking on this but through experience come to the conclusion that using long parallel strips as often as possible is easiest on mind and body because, finally, acceleration is also quite important.
IMO this is the classic case of something getting so big that a superior system can never challenge it.
The web, to me, is a under-functional core with over-functional (read: insecure and often able to do things against the users' wishes) bolt-on additions (eg java), whose security holes are then repeatedly patched up with incomplete fixes. It's inefficient, kludgy, and very badly misused by web authors.
A few of the more annoying parts are:
Some time midway through its history, the idea that content should be adaptable by the user (as was a big initial selling point) got diminished, as you can't adapt scripts or flash. A good example (but only one of a million) is that scripted links usually can't be opened in new tabs.
The biggest problem (as I see it) is that web authors (for example,/.'s) that have sites perfectly capable of being transmitted in the cleaner, more efficient script-less "old" method choose to go with scripts "because they can", or because it sounds better to say (either to the users or to HQ) our site now has here. These scripts routinely perform erroneously on non-standard browser setups.
Compared to an optimal replacement for the web, information takes far, far too long to download, for a number of reasons: 1. Poor caching, especially of "advanced" content. 2. Various protocols and multiple servers meaning that content can't be sent as one big chunk and must instead require multiple establishments of communication channels). 3. Lack of compression of much content, such as text and many images.
IMO, the web is a good pet project suitable for hobbyists and enthusiasts. It's not good enough for prime-time - sad that it's used there.
While semantically correct, hydrogen fuel cells are not what is meant by the colloquial "renewable energy"... That's always about generation. Alternative power storage is an important issue but there's a very large number of important issues and they can only pick a subset.
One question did ask precisely what role government should play in setting school curricula. (From none to complete control).
I agree a finer scale and more options would be beneficial to their attempts to find the best candidate.
However, I agree that it's doomed to fail - unless they can guarantee 1 USAian 1 vote. I could create thousands of profiles here and I'm not even in the US.
Although I would say allowing foreigners in democratic nations to vote in US elections would be a plus:)
Re:No, it doesn't ... at least not for everyeone.
on
3D Hurts Your Eyes
·
· Score: 1
I think there are just certain people that it doesn't bother. The technology can't get better, visually, then polarized glasses (at least not without monitoring eyeballs). It can just get less uncomfortable.
I love 3D and also experience no issues.
The way I see it is, if you like asparagus, I'm not going to tell the stores to stop selling it even thought I hate it. So if I like 3D and you don't, just go see it in 2d and don't complain. Nobody's forcing 3d on you.
As for directors diverting too much effort into 3d effects - that will only last as long as 3d being "new".
1: Fusor in centre radiates neutrons. 2: Neutrons convert N14 to C14 in capsule. 3: The concentration of C14 eventually becomes high enough that it's decay releases useful amounts of energy. 4: The C14 decays back into N14, releasing electrons (-) and (wikipedia) electron antineutrinos. The N14 is short 1 electron (initially, on average) and thus acts as a cathode. 5. The released electrons are captured in an anode. 6: The cathode and anode are used to drive a transforming system that then powers the grid.
Questions:
1: Where is the anode (step 5)? Is this perhaps an outer shell?
Initial thoughts.
1: Won't the vast majority of electrons get re-absorbed by the cathode (any emissions not from the outermost part of the gel or not emitted in the right direction), such that the major ultimate power output of the decay process is thermal. 2: Won't the electrons that do get emitted lose their energy (thermal loss) ploughing through the liquid nitrogen? 3: Any electrons that do strike the anode will still have some kinetic energy which will again be converted to thermal. 4: You have to have enough separation, or low enough voltage, to prevent a short back through your liquid nitrogen.
To me it seems this would produce thermal energy many orders of magnitude higher than direct electrical energy.
However, some version of this electron capture idea might be viable in another form (perhaps create heaps of C14 then reprocess it as ultra-thin shaped sheets with magnetic fields to attempt to focus the emissions with little excess kinetic energy).
Slashdot Mirror
While it's a day-old topic, if anyone's still following, this is my reason too.
I have a significant interest in using KDE. My two biggest apps (overall, not just KDE) are Dolphin and Kate.
Dolphin's reseatable tree and files in the tree are features I find it hard to do without. So if KDE didn't actively push me away I'd use it.
However, the idea that you can force a new paradigm on an existing userbase (and by force I mean those who don't switch don't get bugfixes, security patches, new features and, ultimately, end up with incompatibilities with new versions of their OS) is one I oppose. I see it as similar to bait & switch. Also, just because you work for free and/or on free software doesn't mean your work can't end up being a net negative, ultimately costing users more.
Many of the time-wasting negatives from these tools are often overlooked by developers. For example, if my machine becomes less responsive I now have more things I need to check. Did a recent update accidentally re-enable Nepomuk? I've also spent a bit of time searching trying to find why "Desktop Search Services are Active" is being displayed even when it is inactive - a bug that I wouldn't have had to worry about if I didn't have it installed. Further, people now have to remember when installing KDE apps on other DEs to disable Nepomuk. Many may not even know they've just installed it and will not know if Nepomuk reduces their system performance.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with providing users with the option of a semantic desktop. But the right way to do this is to make things modular. Akonadi, Nepomuk etc should be removable packages, and apps that can use them shouldn't depend on them. They should have options enabling or disabling connections to these services.
No apps that predate these tools should require them. If an old app now has hard dependencies on these services you've done it wrong.
KDE needs to, sooner rather than later, set up a team to remove the concrete dependencies on these components. I know that's a lot of rework and unenjoyable reversal but IMO it's the only way to save KDE.
One final thing to mention: Even if more people liked the change (which isn't even true here AFAIK), a massive negative for a small number of people can outweigh a minor positive for the majority.
That isn't where you want to implement decimal math. For languages, decimal representation and math should be provided by libraries, simply because anything that can be shipped out into a library without significantly reducing efficiency or code readability should be (to reduce unnecessary language complexity).
As for platforms, I'm not sure what you mean. That word has many meanings in computing, but IMHO none of them should care about decimal math.
I am the other way round. What bothers me is architectures that DO provide decimal functionality. It is a total waste of silicon and/or ASM instruction bits to provide something that can be done far faster in binary with no loss of accuracy (compared to native decimal, if done right). Any decent decimal library will internally be binary anyway, not BCD or similar.
Wouldn't encouraging people to buy poor quality furniture that they need to replace often be better, so as to increase CO2 stored in discarded furniture in landfills?
As you say above, make sure it's treated so it doesn't get eaten or degrade quickly in the landfill.
Poor quality furniture is also more likely to be made out of fast-growing wood like pine, which encourages planting.
I tried 11.04 a month ago.
First unity, which was a serious impediment and barely configurable.
Next, classic desktop, which had problems forgetting to redraw windows and panels. Unfortunately, bugs like this are now a low priority.
So I'm back on 10.10.
My next upgrade will be to a non-default-unity 'nix.
The thing I don't get is why the hell can't the UI elements be independent apps - Instead of having the sidebar or taskbars part of the UI, make them separate applications.
That way, we can customize them at will, and download new ones easily without having to replace the whole UI. Modularity is good.
Now that every (ex)fan has had a decent taste of Activision-Blizzard, It will be interesting to see how well their next few products do.
Do consumers actually pay attention to corporate ethics any more? Time to find out.
Force people to use this? No.
Allow this as an option? Absolutely.
Make it default - probably a bad idea.
Ensure continuing support for page-less mode? Mandatory.
You're puzzled by the idea or why it's happening?
Cos it's certainly happening when you look at obesity levels, number-of-children-vs-socioeconomic-status graphs, and the number of low-skill unemployed that don't go into study even when it's almost fully subsidized with loans for the rest.
I'm going to be controversial here - perhaps the worst of these people would have failed the test of natural selection in past millennia.
Yes, this time it's different. Every year you don't die... until you do.
The required IQ for the average available job has been rising because machines are getting smarter. It didn't really matter when that IQ was rising from the 60s (eg: grain harvester) to the 80s (eg: retail staff) because very few people were too dumb to stack shelves. But it's creeping around the 90+ level now and it's moving beyond a massive portion of the workforce. It won't stop.
How many jobs exist that your average 90 IQ'er can do that aren't under threat from automation - mostly only the ones that aesthetically require humans (waiters, etc). Not enough for all the 90s. And it only gets worse. I'm not saying they'll be gone next year, it'll take a few decades at least.
Look up the Luddite Fallacy in Wikipedia. Read to the bottom.
Firstly, it's not always a question of "will not work", it's often a question of "no work available". It is certainly ethical to expect to be fed if you can't find work.
Secondly, those products are becoming less and less products of human effort and more products of automation. If, for example, wheat goes to bread goes to customer's doorstep with virtually no human intervention (we are heading toward this fast) then why demand people do work to receive it.
Is there a halfway - give people enough to live on as long as they seek to improve themselves in both education and health, and adhere to family planning guidelines.
I'm not talking full-time study at facilities, just pass a few extramural courses per year, do say 3 hours of decent exercise per week, and have say three or less children.
Since bottom-end jobs are drying up with no end in sight (due to automation), it's crazy to expect that just tweaking our economy can restore low unemployment long into our future.
(I actually think you've hit the nail on the head, but you'll have a hard time selling that concept directly)
Does RF imply FRAND?
Having no restrictions at all is Fair.
It's also Reasonable to charge nothing (at least from an implementer's perspective, which is what counts here).
Everybody is charged nothing and not restricted in any way, so it's Non Discriminatory.
So there's nothing actually bad about FRAND compared to nothing, but RF is at least equally as good (from an implementer's perspective).
Is that 100% accurate? (I haven't been following this debate).
You don't have to remake coal or oil. You can use lower-energy storage forms, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
I've seen many mistakes and even one alarm go off due only to DST.
The biggest problem with it, IMO, is that not every point in time is represented by a unique DST measurement. Typically, there's two "2 AM"s or similar on the day when the extra hour is squeezed back in.
This could be fixed by using a 25 hour day, although I'm sure that would annoy some other code.
Do you have links for those patents?
I'm just working on something related to one of those items.
All well and good, but what about the fully foreseen consequences?
Global warming is one part of a two-part catastrophe, the other being ocean acidification. The oceans are taking far, far more hurt than the land. The bottom of the food chain (coral, plankton, etc) that ultimately gives us fish that make up a significant part of our diet (and many jobs) is in severe danger, and seeding the oceans with iron might just cause mass extinction.
We need to fix the CO2, not just the warming, else we devastate ocean life.
If we can do that through advanced science, lets do it. However, AFAICT, the best method we currently have is mass reforestation.
Of course it fails to explain many things. There are numerous other variables in play. "All other things being equal" is generally implied, and is certainly not the case with your examples.
Other planets: Different gasses, vastly different masses of atmosphere, vastly different gravity. Also, don't mistake windspeed for violence / chaos.
Antarctica: There's no foliage or water for friction. It's mostly topographically very flat due to ice build-up. It's at high altitude. Convection is most active at the extremes of a system.
Yes, if you take a simplistic glance at a complex system you're likely to perceive anomalies (the brain's geared toward finding em), but if you mistake your simple glance for something worthy of propping up an opinion (ie, I don't really buy...) that contradicts the vast majority of those (climatologists) that study said system, you're crazy.
What should humanities contribution to global warming be? If we say '0', basically you're asking to kill 6 billion people, destroy every factory, car, power plant ever produced and go back to an 80% mortality rate before we're 5 years old.
Carbon is a zero-sum game. Released minus recaptured.
It is possible (theoretically) for humans to have even a negative effect on global warming (and the ultra-important but media-ignored carbon acidification) while still using many carbon-producing technologies simply by sequestering the carbon (say, in trees).
That might just take replanting half the world's forests, but if we wanted too we sure could. It's not unachievable, it'd just take far more than our predominantly lazy selfish culture is willing to give - even if giving would help us (eg: eating less).
Anyway, we wouldn't have to put up with drastic action for too long. We have the silver bullet solution, fusion, becoming viable most likely some time this century (if we supply enough funds for the research, that is).
I couldn't agree more (although I did just look up Gopher and it needs a lot of work to make it suit).
However, I don't see any fast way forward. People are dumb, too accepting and too lazy to actively change to something better en masse.
When more people go to check out your band, your company, etc by way of Wikipedia simply due to its readability and consistency, perhaps things might start to change. Perhaps something like this is the way forward?
Those billion people online are likely to make use of the wheel and fire a great deal. Even the fans and disk platters on their computers are wheels, and said computers are ultimately powered by wheels (which are quite likely to be powered by fire).
And the vast majority of non-internet users use wheels and fire.
One thing I hardly see in official discussions of the debt ceiling is any hint that they know voluntarily defaulting is not just fiscally, but _morally_ wrong.
Nowhere do I read about direct concern for those who have invested in the US. Only, sometimes, indirect concern that they might not take the same risks.
I know it is unlikely that these people wouldn't have been paid, (and I know that many of these people aren't totally deserving of compassion), but isn't refusing to pay people that you owe, when you can, morally wrong, akin to theft?
Not sure if this has been said before somewhere significant (or even here), maybe it's just chance I haven't seen this said. But it irks me.
TFA says "Clearly what is optimal for a lazy Maths Master is to push the lawnmower the shortest distance possible." and goes on from there.
While an interesting NP problem in itself, the things you're more likely to be trying to minimize are time, fuel, cost. Hence, turning matters significantly.
I know, I've spent lots of time thinking on this but through experience come to the conclusion that using long parallel strips as often as possible is easiest on mind and body because, finally, acceleration is also quite important.
IMO this is the classic case of something getting so big that a superior system can never challenge it.
The web, to me, is a under-functional core with over-functional (read: insecure and often able to do things against the users' wishes) bolt-on additions (eg java), whose security holes are then repeatedly patched up with incomplete fixes. It's inefficient, kludgy, and very badly misused by web authors.
A few of the more annoying parts are:
Some time midway through its history, the idea that content should be adaptable by the user (as was a big initial selling point) got diminished, as you can't adapt scripts or flash. A good example (but only one of a million) is that scripted links usually can't be opened in new tabs.
The biggest problem (as I see it) is that web authors (for example, /.'s) that have sites perfectly capable of being transmitted in the cleaner, more efficient script-less "old" method choose to go with scripts "because they can", or because it sounds better to say (either to the users or to HQ) our site now has here. These scripts routinely perform erroneously on non-standard browser setups.
Compared to an optimal replacement for the web, information takes far, far too long to download, for a number of reasons:
1. Poor caching, especially of "advanced" content.
2. Various protocols and multiple servers meaning that content can't be sent as one big chunk and must instead require multiple establishments of communication channels).
3. Lack of compression of much content, such as text and many images.
IMO, the web is a good pet project suitable for hobbyists and enthusiasts. It's not good enough for prime-time - sad that it's used there.
While semantically correct, hydrogen fuel cells are not what is meant by the colloquial "renewable energy"... That's always about generation.
Alternative power storage is an important issue but there's a very large number of important issues and they can only pick a subset.
One question did ask precisely what role government should play in setting school curricula. (From none to complete control).
I agree a finer scale and more options would be beneficial to their attempts to find the best candidate.
However, I agree that it's doomed to fail - unless they can guarantee 1 USAian 1 vote. I could create thousands of profiles here and I'm not even in the US.
Although I would say allowing foreigners in democratic nations to vote in US elections would be a plus :)
I think there are just certain people that it doesn't bother. The technology can't get better, visually, then polarized glasses (at least not without monitoring eyeballs). It can just get less uncomfortable.
I love 3D and also experience no issues.
The way I see it is, if you like asparagus, I'm not going to tell the stores to stop selling it even thought I hate it. So if I like 3D and you don't, just go see it in 2d and don't complain. Nobody's forcing 3d on you.
As for directors diverting too much effort into 3d effects - that will only last as long as 3d being "new".
The only downside is special effects budgets.
Disclaimer: IANANS
Is this what you mean?
1: Fusor in centre radiates neutrons.
2: Neutrons convert N14 to C14 in capsule.
3: The concentration of C14 eventually becomes high enough that it's decay releases useful amounts of energy.
4: The C14 decays back into N14, releasing electrons (-) and (wikipedia) electron antineutrinos. The N14 is short 1 electron (initially, on average) and thus acts as a cathode.
5. The released electrons are captured in an anode.
6: The cathode and anode are used to drive a transforming system that then powers the grid.
Questions:
1: Where is the anode (step 5)? Is this perhaps an outer shell?
Initial thoughts.
1: Won't the vast majority of electrons get re-absorbed by the cathode (any emissions not from the outermost part of the gel or not emitted in the right direction), such that the major ultimate power output of the decay process is thermal.
2: Won't the electrons that do get emitted lose their energy (thermal loss) ploughing through the liquid nitrogen?
3: Any electrons that do strike the anode will still have some kinetic energy which will again be converted to thermal.
4: You have to have enough separation, or low enough voltage, to prevent a short back through your liquid nitrogen.
To me it seems this would produce thermal energy many orders of magnitude higher than direct electrical energy.
However, some version of this electron capture idea might be viable in another form (perhaps create heaps of C14 then reprocess it as ultra-thin shaped sheets with magnetic fields to attempt to focus the emissions with little excess kinetic energy).
Once again, IANANS.