Sorry, we're not really disagreeing, I was just reacting to the phrase "the only real problem with...". It seems to trivialize what are actually large and currently insurmountable problems with renewable energy technologies (other than hydro, for the most part).
All the subsidies and legislation in the world won't overcome these basic issues of availability and reliability for wind and solar. The only thing that would make them viable as stand-alone energy sources is some vast improvements in efficiency and storage technology. I realize people are working on these problems, and best of luck to them, but I honestly don't see a 'magic' answer coming any time in the near future.
I guess I get tired of arguing with people who don't understand the massive technical difficulties and figure we should shut down all the non-renewable power stations now so we can throw everything into renewables, or only approve new energy projects if they're based on renewable sources. I realize that's not what you were saying, which is why my post was waayy off-topic, the phrasing just touched a nerve.
The only real problem with existing renewable energy sources is geographical and temporal availability.
Okay, this made me shake my head. It's like saying 'the only problem with food production in third-world countries is geographical and temporal availability.'
Yes. It is a problem, a major one. It's not the 'only' problem with current renewable-energy technology, but the 'geographical and temporal availability' of food issue hasn't been solved yet, last I heard, and we've been working on that a heck of a lot longer...
While it's true that people can live without 'electricity' a lot easier than they can live without food, I maintain that people also require some sort of consistent energy supply to live (be it supplied via burning dung, natural gas, nuclear power or renewable-energy), especially in regions of the world where cold weather kills.
Energy is a necessity of life. If people can't get it where and when they need it, they suffer, and that is a *real* problem, one that doesn't have to be supported by theoretical computer models, questionable data sets and magic math.
(i know, this post is totally off-topic, sorry about that!)
Eight hours per day, every minute, while he's asleep. That's like 175,000 pictures of a pillow. Wow.
Not to mention the riveting photos of his car's headrest, if he has any kind of a commute (or pics out the window of the subway car, I suppose, if it's NY)
Basically, if there's anything interesting going on in the area, this camera is most likely to be pointed away from the action, if this guy is at all observant of his surroundings...
It's annoying I think to most people in a way that is hard to describe. It's like speaking to a person who always tries to finish your sentences before you're done speaking.
Actually, I think you quite nailed that description, good job! That is exactly what 'the new Google' felt like.
I kept wanting to shout "would you just let me FINISH my question before trying to answer it!?"
The green is extended a bit when the walk-light is used.
Okay, now that makes some sense!
Now I'll have to get out my trusty stopwatch and test some of the lights around here to see if they actually do that, or if the city planners are just f%$*ing with us...
I grew up in Seattle where, once upon a time you actually waited until you had a "walk" signal before crossing the street...But then the light changes, the "walk" signal doesn't come on, and they just cross the intersection anyways while i am forced by habit to wait until the next cycle.
I wonder...could you actually get a jaywalking ticket for crossing without a "walk" signal at one of these intersections, even if the light is in your favour? That seems challenge-able in court, to me...
Where I live, the walk buttons have an effect, but won't alter the flow of traffic. If you don't push the button, the sign will never switch to "walk". However, pushing the button doesn't turn on the "walk" sign any sooner; it just makes sure to turn it on the next time the right light turns green.
Does anyone know what the purpose of this is? Why would anyone implement walk lights/buttons like this? So they can laugh at the people who didn't notice the walk button, or arrived at the corner just after the light turned in their favour?
Why not have the walk light change on every cycle, regardless of button pushes? It evens out wear and tear on the crossing lights, and reduces system complexity...I just don't get it.
I know of a quite a few intersections where pedestrian traffic light won't turn green without the use of a button.
This reminds me of something I have always wondered about...why is it that some walk buttons are set up just to enable the 'walk' light?
The light will change on schedule, regardless of whether I press the button or not, but the little walking-guy symbol won't appear when the light changes unless I have pressed the walk button. The crossing light just stays on the hand / don't walk symbol.
'They should have the "right to be forgotten" when their data is no longer needed or they want their data to be deleted.'"
This makes me wonder: who decides when the data is no longer needed?
"No sir, we need to retain your name, address, social security number, immunization history, telephone number, record of charitable contributions and the name of the woman you just broke up with on Facebook in order to optimize our customer satisfaction and courtesy first program. Yes sir, you are the customer, but sir, that does not necessarily mean you are always right, or even that you are right most of the time. In fact, just let me check our records of your compiled Slashdot comment history...here we go, sir, we have you marked here as being 'right' approximately 32% of the time. Have a nice day!"
OTOH, people being able to call up and get data deleted whenever they want, without proper safeguards, could be somewhat iffy as well (although much better than the way it is now!)
"Hello ma'am, yes, this is the customer hotline for Facebook . Yes, we do have your profile in our servers, and it shows that you are quite active, thank you for your business. Oh, you'd like us to remove your profile completely? Including the 5,145 photos in your albums? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you over the background noise, could you please ask that woman to stop yelling about the b$*ch who stole her boyfriend? Thank you. Now, can I ask you for some identifying identification, such as your birthday? Thank you, 'my slut of a mother spat me out sometime in June' is close enough for our requirements. Yes ma'am, consider it done, and let me say that we are very sorry to lose your business. Have a nice day."
ahhh...reductio ad absurdum and a coffee on a Friday...good times.
Now, I steal A and buy B. B won. Therefore, since I stole A, B benefited....For A, its a loss.
Unless I liked A so much I went out and bought a bunch of copies for Christmas/birthday gifts...
Seriously, you can't equate 'user downloaded a copy of A' with 'a loss for A', since if push comes to shove and the user only has money for A or B, A has an even-odds chance of never being exposed to the user at all.
In the real world, it's more like the user has money for one or two of A(001) through Z(999). If they've listened to (and liked) A at all, regardless of how they were exposed to it, they may opt for the newest album, A(002), when they're browsing the racks.
Projecting light onto a plastic film is a LONG way from creating a hologram in the air and it is probably moving in the wrong direction even to try.
I have to disagree with you there. True, this is not the way to produce a 'true' three-dimensional light construct, at least not the way you or I imagine it, but anything that helps suspend disbelief and brings the environment closer to the user is worth pursuing.
Just because this needs a solid surface to work from doesn't mean it is without worth. Line a room with these films and *poof*, instant 'teleportation' to wherever you feel like going. Can you imagine the benefits to the mobility challenged? A chance to see the pyramids, dive with the dolphins, or even just have dinner with the grandparents from halfway across the globe?
(okay, okay, it also brings a new 'dimension' to feelie booths. ick.)
If they feel they can do something with it, I say fly at 'er!
True that. Plus, I'd imagine watching this would provide even more headaches/accessibility problems than dear old 3D does now...so it'll probably be relegated to a niche market.
That being said, way back when not many people expected this whole 'home computing' thing to take off, either...so who knows? If only my time machine weren't on the fritz again...and me fresh out of flux capacitors, too!
movies are already good enough in dvd format (upscaled) so that the tech issues do not stand in the way of the story or the entertainment
Hear hear.
Look at it this way: switching from VHS to DVD made sense because: 1) smaller form factor 2) simpler navigation (at least, as long as the menu designers weren't morons) 3) 'special' features 4) significantly enhanced video and sound quality compared to VHS, even over 'older' equipment 5) language and caption selection 6) no more rewinding!
Benefits of switching from DVD to BD: 1) significantly 'sharper' picture over DVD, as long as you have the hardware to display it 2) somewhat 'enhanced' sound over DVD, again, as long as you have the equipment to play it 3) ability to see the menu while watching the main feature (instead of having to stop the film to change the captions or something...don't think I've ever even used this 'feature') 4) some enhanced networking capabilities...again, as long as you have the equipment to support it, and it doesn't violate the labyrinthine DRM hardware traps 5) more room on the disc for 'special' features (IMHO, it seems like they just put on more adverts instead and make them unskippable, which drives me crazy)
(not a fan of BD, obviously, so apologies if there are other 'benefits' that I missed)
The cost vs benefit between the two format changes should be clear: there was a great usability and enjoyment benefit for switching your old VHS movies to DVD. The increase in usability and enjoyment for switching from DVD to BD is basically negligible, except to HD fanbois and audiophiles...
I'm curious. If they put up a sign that says they have the right to search your bag, do they actually have that right?
I would imagine they don't actually have the right to search you or your belongings, however they do have the right to refuse admittance to anyone who doesn't 'voluntarily' submit to such a search...
That's one movie I was actually glad that I caught in the theater, because the 3D was subtle enough not to intrude, yet enhanced the overall film.
That being said, would it make me buy a 3D home theater set? No. From the demo models I have checked out, the 'home version' is neither convincing nor convenient enough for me. I don't want to have to set my furniture up in a specific pattern, or hunt down the (probably completely discharged) glasses every time I want to watch a movie with friends or family...and if I'm skipping that hassle by switching to the 2D version anyways, then what's the point of getting the 3D at all?
I've never understood why government and businesses don't just change their operating hours... people would adjust to the schedule as well. It seems simpler to have summer and winter hours without messing with setting the clocks.
Because, everything else around us won't change.
We still have to schedule everything else with the world around us...
Right, just like everyone around us doesn't change via DST...or wait, some of us change, some don't, according to regional preference...much like it would be if operating hours shifted instead of clocks...so what's your argument again?
... and, quite frankly, I don't want to feel like I'm getting up at 5am to go to work.
So...the number shown on a clock immediately convinces you that it's later than what your body thinks it is? Seriously?
We mostly view your suggestion of change the working hours as a dumb idea.
It has been scientifically proven that when seeing certain ads multiple times, even not consciously, can result in people having a positive opinion on a product.
Yes. Except those sham-wow commercials. I'm sorry, but that guy is just too f*&$ing annoying to sell anything to me, no matter how many times they play it.
And by the way, those Red Lobster commercials should be friggin banned, especially at suppertime...
Slashdot Mirror
You can easily make robots and computers do what you want. Does that make them smarter too?
Likewise, I wonder how well you'd have been able to train Einstein to jump over fences and run through tubes on your command.
Dogs are stupid lol.
Why was this modded troll? Other than that last comment (okay, that was a bit inflammatory, and not really justified) this AC brings up a good point.
Ability or desire to follow orders <> intelligence
Point taken. 10,000 'friends' on FB really doesn't translate to 'real life' all that well...
Okay, so how about the socialites and constant club-hoppers? Is Paris Hilton a better example for you?
I weep...but keep polishing my shotgun.
Agreed. By this logic, Facebook and Twitter users are the cream of the intellectual crop.
I weep for mankind...
Sorry, we're not really disagreeing, I was just reacting to the phrase "the only real problem with...". It seems to trivialize what are actually large and currently insurmountable problems with renewable energy technologies (other than hydro, for the most part).
All the subsidies and legislation in the world won't overcome these basic issues of availability and reliability for wind and solar. The only thing that would make them viable as stand-alone energy sources is some vast improvements in efficiency and storage technology. I realize people are working on these problems, and best of luck to them, but I honestly don't see a 'magic' answer coming any time in the near future.
I guess I get tired of arguing with people who don't understand the massive technical difficulties and figure we should shut down all the non-renewable power stations now so we can throw everything into renewables, or only approve new energy projects if they're based on renewable sources. I realize that's not what you were saying, which is why my post was waayy off-topic, the phrasing just touched a nerve.
Thanks for putting up with my rant ;)
The only real problem with existing renewable energy sources is geographical and temporal availability.
Okay, this made me shake my head. It's like saying 'the only problem with food production in third-world countries is geographical and temporal availability.'
Yes. It is a problem, a major one. It's not the 'only' problem with current renewable-energy technology, but the 'geographical and temporal availability' of food issue hasn't been solved yet, last I heard, and we've been working on that a heck of a lot longer...
While it's true that people can live without 'electricity' a lot easier than they can live without food, I maintain that people also require some sort of consistent energy supply to live (be it supplied via burning dung, natural gas, nuclear power or renewable-energy), especially in regions of the world where cold weather kills.
Energy is a necessity of life. If people can't get it where and when they need it, they suffer, and that is a *real* problem, one that doesn't have to be supported by theoretical computer models, questionable data sets and magic math.
(i know, this post is totally off-topic, sorry about that!)
Eight hours per day, every minute, while he's asleep. That's like 175,000 pictures of a pillow. Wow.
Not to mention the riveting photos of his car's headrest, if he has any kind of a commute (or pics out the window of the subway car, I suppose, if it's NY)
Basically, if there's anything interesting going on in the area, this camera is most likely to be pointed away from the action, if this guy is at all observant of his surroundings...
I think what matter more is that that was modded Informative rather than Funny . . .
My thoughts exactly!
I can just see several /.-ers mentally revising their shark/laser-beam blueprints now...I know mine'll need an update...
It's annoying I think to most people in a way that is hard to describe. It's like speaking to a person who always tries to finish your sentences before you're done speaking.
Actually, I think you quite nailed that description, good job! That is exactly what 'the new Google' felt like.
I kept wanting to shout "would you just let me FINISH my question before trying to answer it!?"
Good thing there are other options...
"No, no, I was just trying to do 'Rocketman'!"
The green is extended a bit when the walk-light is used.
Okay, now that makes some sense!
Now I'll have to get out my trusty stopwatch and test some of the lights around here to see if they actually do that, or if the city planners are just f%$*ing with us...
Thanks!
I grew up in Seattle where, once upon a time you actually waited until you had a "walk" signal before crossing the street...But then the light changes, the "walk" signal doesn't come on, and they just cross the intersection anyways while i am forced by habit to wait until the next cycle.
I wonder...could you actually get a jaywalking ticket for crossing without a "walk" signal at one of these intersections, even if the light is in your favour? That seems challenge-able in court, to me...
Where I live, the walk buttons have an effect, but won't alter the flow of traffic. If you don't push the button, the sign will never switch to "walk". However, pushing the button doesn't turn on the "walk" sign any sooner; it just makes sure to turn it on the next time the right light turns green.
Does anyone know what the purpose of this is? Why would anyone implement walk lights/buttons like this? So they can laugh at the people who didn't notice the walk button, or arrived at the corner just after the light turned in their favour?
Why not have the walk light change on every cycle, regardless of button pushes? It evens out wear and tear on the crossing lights, and reduces system complexity...I just don't get it.
I know of a quite a few intersections where pedestrian traffic light won't turn green without the use of a button.
This reminds me of something I have always wondered about...why is it that some walk buttons are set up just to enable the 'walk' light?
The light will change on schedule, regardless of whether I press the button or not, but the little walking-guy symbol won't appear when the light changes unless I have pressed the walk button. The crossing light just stays on the hand / don't walk symbol.
WTF?
'They should have the "right to be forgotten" when their data is no longer needed or they want their data to be deleted.'"
This makes me wonder: who decides when the data is no longer needed?
"No sir, we need to retain your name, address, social security number, immunization history, telephone number, record of charitable contributions and the name of the woman you just broke up with on Facebook in order to optimize our customer satisfaction and courtesy first program. Yes sir, you are the customer, but sir, that does not necessarily mean you are always right, or even that you are right most of the time. In fact, just let me check our records of your compiled Slashdot comment history...here we go, sir, we have you marked here as being 'right' approximately 32% of the time. Have a nice day!"
OTOH, people being able to call up and get data deleted whenever they want, without proper safeguards, could be somewhat iffy as well (although much better than the way it is now!)
"Hello ma'am, yes, this is the customer hotline for Facebook . Yes, we do have your profile in our servers, and it shows that you are quite active, thank you for your business. Oh, you'd like us to remove your profile completely? Including the 5,145 photos in your albums? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you over the background noise, could you please ask that woman to stop yelling about the b$*ch who stole her boyfriend? Thank you. Now, can I ask you for some identifying identification, such as your birthday? Thank you, 'my slut of a mother spat me out sometime in June' is close enough for our requirements. Yes ma'am, consider it done, and let me say that we are very sorry to lose your business. Have a nice day."
ahhh...reductio ad absurdum and a coffee on a Friday...good times.
Now, I steal A and buy B. B won. Therefore, since I stole A, B benefited. ...For A, its a loss.
Unless I liked A so much I went out and bought a bunch of copies for Christmas/birthday gifts...
Seriously, you can't equate 'user downloaded a copy of A' with 'a loss for A', since if push comes to shove and the user only has money for A or B, A has an even-odds chance of never being exposed to the user at all.
In the real world, it's more like the user has money for one or two of A(001) through Z(999). If they've listened to (and liked) A at all, regardless of how they were exposed to it, they may opt for the newest album, A(002), when they're browsing the racks.
Projecting light onto a plastic film is a LONG way from creating a hologram in the air and it is probably moving in the wrong direction even to try.
I have to disagree with you there. True, this is not the way to produce a 'true' three-dimensional light construct, at least not the way you or I imagine it, but anything that helps suspend disbelief and brings the environment closer to the user is worth pursuing.
Just because this needs a solid surface to work from doesn't mean it is without worth. Line a room with these films and *poof*, instant 'teleportation' to wherever you feel like going. Can you imagine the benefits to the mobility challenged? A chance to see the pyramids, dive with the dolphins, or even just have dinner with the grandparents from halfway across the globe?
(okay, okay, it also brings a new 'dimension' to feelie booths. ick.)
If they feel they can do something with it, I say fly at 'er!
True that. Plus, I'd imagine watching this would provide even more headaches/accessibility problems than dear old 3D does now...so it'll probably be relegated to a niche market.
That being said, way back when not many people expected this whole 'home computing' thing to take off, either...so who knows? If only my time machine weren't on the fritz again...and me fresh out of flux capacitors, too!
Why on earth would I want that? I have a hard enough time taking everything in with 3D movies!
just think of the gaming possibilities...talk about a first person shooter!
I live in a dessert so I may go to a movie on only the hottest days during the summer.
Hmmm...you should consider relocating to a sherbet, then, or maybe a nice Baked Alaska.
Sorry, couldn't resist ;)
movies are already good enough in dvd format (upscaled) so that the tech issues do not stand in the way of the story or the entertainment
Hear hear.
Look at it this way: switching from VHS to DVD made sense because:
1) smaller form factor
2) simpler navigation (at least, as long as the menu designers weren't morons)
3) 'special' features
4) significantly enhanced video and sound quality compared to VHS, even over 'older' equipment
5) language and caption selection
6) no more rewinding!
Benefits of switching from DVD to BD:
1) significantly 'sharper' picture over DVD, as long as you have the hardware to display it
2) somewhat 'enhanced' sound over DVD, again, as long as you have the equipment to play it
3) ability to see the menu while watching the main feature (instead of having to stop the film to change the captions or something...don't think I've ever even used this 'feature')
4) some enhanced networking capabilities...again, as long as you have the equipment to support it, and it doesn't violate the labyrinthine DRM hardware traps
5) more room on the disc for 'special' features (IMHO, it seems like they just put on more adverts instead and make them unskippable, which drives me crazy)
(not a fan of BD, obviously, so apologies if there are other 'benefits' that I missed)
The cost vs benefit between the two format changes should be clear: there was a great usability and enjoyment benefit for switching your old VHS movies to DVD. The increase in usability and enjoyment for switching from DVD to BD is basically negligible, except to HD fanbois and audiophiles...
my $0.02
I'm curious. If they put up a sign that says they have the right to search your bag, do they actually have that right?
I would imagine they don't actually have the right to search you or your belongings, however they do have the right to refuse admittance to anyone who doesn't 'voluntarily' submit to such a search...
...while I dust off my 'surprised' face...
0 0
<O>
there we go.
Absolutely.
That's one movie I was actually glad that I caught in the theater, because the 3D was subtle enough not to intrude, yet enhanced the overall film.
That being said, would it make me buy a 3D home theater set? No. From the demo models I have checked out, the 'home version' is neither convincing nor convenient enough for me. I don't want to have to set my furniture up in a specific pattern, or hunt down the (probably completely discharged) glasses every time I want to watch a movie with friends or family...and if I'm skipping that hassle by switching to the 2D version anyways, then what's the point of getting the 3D at all?
Because, everything else around us won't change.
We still have to schedule everything else with the world around us...
Right, just like everyone around us doesn't change via DST...or wait, some of us change, some don't, according to regional preference...much like it would be if operating hours shifted instead of clocks...so what's your argument again?
... and, quite frankly, I don't want to feel like I'm getting up at 5am to go to work.
So...the number shown on a clock immediately convinces you that it's later than what your body thinks it is? Seriously?
We mostly view your suggestion of change the working hours as a dumb idea.
Ditto to 'your' DST idea.
It has been scientifically proven that when seeing certain ads multiple times, even not consciously, can result in people having a positive opinion on a product.
Yes. Except those sham-wow commercials. I'm sorry, but that guy is just too f*&$ing annoying to sell anything to me, no matter how many times they play it.
And by the way, those Red Lobster commercials should be friggin banned, especially at suppertime...
mmm...butter...crab...butter...shrimp...butter...