Would you rather we keep ignorantly mining non-renewable materials until there's none left, at which point we'd be forced to go this way anyway?
Seriously. Corn is actually a horrible example as there's a fuckton more efficient crops out there to be used for such a thing, but other than that, I applaud this creative use of stuff that we can grow in a relatively short amount of time.
Old news. This has been known since the late 70s. It's terribly energy intensive. The material costs 30MWh to produce with some methods getting that down to 1MWh but with more complex processes.
I don't see anything that indicates an improvement in the process in that article that would make the material more cost effective or live up to the potentials mentioned in the wikipee article. It looks like the typical article meant to gather research money and it's been picked up because of the presentation made at the chemical groups exposition.
As oil prices keep increasing, alternatives like this (combined with newer tech) become much more cost-effective. My question is: do these plastics degrade faster than petroleum based plastics? I have the giant garbage islands floating in the oceans in mind here.
Yep, it's "my fault" that when I took photos from a public street for the purposes of collecting data on house exterior colors that I caught photos of you jerking off to animal porn because you had the blinds open and just trusted that nobody would look.
Unless of course you happened to be a jaded employee that gets all upset over people deleting him from their contact lists and you have the equivalent of GOD power in terms of access. Yep. Happened at Google.
Did it not occur to you that Google may have WANTED a relatively "harsh" punishment to set precedent specifically so that it might be applied to Facebook as well?
That's a very high possibility, considering other things they wanted to push through. Google's baby is advertising, obviously. They do some location guessing (or, not guessing if you consented and are using a mobile device with GPS) for advertising purposes but I don't believe they use anything else. Facebook's advertising methods are a bit more liberal with your personal info. It'd be beneficial to Google to set a precedent to knock Facebook's advertising revenue back a few paces.
But of course, that's only if you honestly believe they're actually competing with each other for the same advertising dollars.
Not if the city endorses legalized monopolies so that only one company of it's type can use the infrastructure and enter it's markets. Capitalism doesn't work if it isn't Capitalism.
sure, the plants used to make the biofuel take in carbon, and then release it when the processed product -- biofuel -- is consumed..
but there's a lot of processing and transportation to get to that point, nevermind the carbon footprint of growing the stuff -- fertilizers, pesticides, planting and harvesting. all those things output co2 -- all those things consume energy. biofuel really doesn't actually produce much energy, if at all, when you take the totality of the picture into account
If the equipment used to do all that is using biofuels, it's still a zero net increase (besides stuff like engine oil to keep the engines lubed up). As Parent said, the CO2 is already there. You're not adding to it like you are with fossil fuels that are mined from the depths.
I pay for my own service providers like garbage collection and recycling. They are private companies. I also have a choice between providers... some in a different area of the city might have different choices. Therefore, there is no "cost passing". That's the biggest load of bull I've ever heard.
What, is the garbage dump closer to where you live that you assume everything is closer to you? Last I checked they don't keep dumps in the middle of downtown.
If you don't like your city providing services to the people on the outskirts, write a letter to the mayor and request that they stop annexing new areas of development. The outskirts usually start as their own independent cities but then are sucked up into the mix. A lot of the time these smaller communities don't want to be annexed. They don't want to pay for your poor-performing schools and ridiculous labor union benefits (fire, police). Usually when a city decides to annex an area, it's because it's a benefit to them financially. Lots of times this comes from the people with large houses paying ridiculous property taxes, and other times it comes from commercial areas. Either way, an annexation is a financial benefit to the city. Raising your taxes won't have anything to do with people living on the outskirts. Hell, even the people around here that live outside city limits within a certain distance in unclaimed neighborhoods (a few miles) have to pay the city's taxes without receiving any of the benefits. You want to complain about fairness?
Try Seoul. Try Frankfurt. Try Tokyo. Big cities have been done successfully, Americans just don't understand them. The main reason is that the American still includes a house with a picket fence and a yard. Of course that doesn't work after certain population densities are reached. The solution to this is to understand that there's nothing magical about owning a house.
So you're going to go prancing around telling people what they want in life? Awesome. What if people like houses? There's nothing magical to you about owning a house. It doesn't mean that preference is universal.... "if they could only see my way" is a stupid argument.
Oracle is being whiny because they're not making money off it. They have no legal ground to stand on. The licenses are clear; Oracle is just trying to dip in sticky fingers.
And web developers can ensure a more uniform and high-quality experience for their web applications... if they're lazy enough to develop for only a single version of a single browser.
Fantastic. But it doesn't make it more appealing to anybody but a lazy developer, nor does it make it superior.
if you like doing that, dev for IE8 only and shut down everybody else using another browser. Sure, it makes it easier, uniform, etc but good luck holding any market share by doing that, even if it's really slick and entertaining.
Oh, sales per device per quarter? Does it really matter? It's not Google's fault that Apple decided to close themselves off so much. Comparing device-to-device when talking about Apple vs. Google is like talking apples to oranges. It'd be more accurate to compare manufacturer sales at that point, in which case RIM is still leading Apple (among others, but they're more alike). I've always said that Apple is their own worst enemy sometimes, because they have so much potential just to stampede everyone over and keep it that way, but they continue to opt for a closed-everything market with all their products tying into themselves almost exclusively.
Speaking towards the future, Samsung is expecting to sell 50 million smart phones in 2011, and gleaning from some quick info that they expect approx. 20 million of those to be running Bada, which still leaves 30 million for Android since they'll mostly all be running one or the other. I don't know how much Apple expects to grow by that time, but assuming Samsung gets close to that number and Apple sees significant growth, at the very least they would be very close to compare on a per-manufacturer basis with a single OS. I'm kind of skeptical that Samsung will see that many smart phone sales, but I guess that's based off of the trend of going from dumb phones to smart phones, and since they already dominate the market with that, I think they're counting on upgrades bumping up that smart phone number. I guess we'll see what happens.
Isn't it beating it by a handy margin now - even with iPads?
No. Only in the US.
Nope. They grew by well over 1,000% in the number of units sold in the last year (I believe back in Aug. it was ~880% from the prior year). They now clearly lead in the UK as well for smartphone OSs. In Australia and Italy iOS and Android are neck and neck (with Android steadily growing) and everywhere else listed on that page, Android is winning over iOS. Android isn't always the winner as Symbian and RIM sometimes take the cake, but I'm just pointing out the current trends. Hell, as of the time of that article it claims over 50% of the US market.
What'd you think would happen on an OS that can be had on any device and any carrier?
LOL losing it's mojo? Based on what exactly? For one, they're still practically brand new. Two, they've taken the entire market in an extremely short amount of time, and that's with 3-4 other major OSs already occupying the space and they're not showing signs of slowing down. Three, everybody receives legal threats. It just shows you're competition.
Try leaving your bias aside and recognize what's going on. Like it or not, Android has proven it's worth to many manufacturers and it's nothing to scoff at. I think it'll be a tougher decision than to whimsically move everything to W7.
I know this is/. and all, but RTFA for a change and you'll understand why they're questioning him. Apple isn't being forced to support another company's product. They're being asked about updates to iTunes and iPods that rendered competitors' products useless... a classic antitrust move if you are a major player in that market. Also, they force you to use their iPods if you buy Fairplay'd music off of iTunes by blocking competitors. That's a required product tie-in. They're forcing consumers to use only their products for those files. Also a classic antitrust move.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Triply-relevant context
Would you rather we keep ignorantly mining non-renewable materials until there's none left, at which point we'd be forced to go this way anyway?
Seriously. Corn is actually a horrible example as there's a fuckton more efficient crops out there to be used for such a thing, but other than that, I applaud this creative use of stuff that we can grow in a relatively short amount of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanocellulose
Old news. This has been known since the late 70s. It's terribly energy intensive. The material costs 30MWh to produce with some methods getting that down to 1MWh but with more complex processes.
I don't see anything that indicates an improvement in the process in that article that would make the material more cost effective or live up to the potentials mentioned in the wikipee article. It looks like the typical article meant to gather research money and it's been picked up because of the presentation made at the chemical groups exposition.
As oil prices keep increasing, alternatives like this (combined with newer tech) become much more cost-effective. My question is: do these plastics degrade faster than petroleum based plastics? I have the giant garbage islands floating in the oceans in mind here.
Yep, it's "my fault" that when I took photos from a public street for the purposes of collecting data on house exterior colors that I caught photos of you jerking off to animal porn because you had the blinds open and just trusted that nobody would look.
Unless of course you happened to be a jaded employee that gets all upset over people deleting him from their contact lists and you have the equivalent of GOD power in terms of access. Yep. Happened at Google.
Well, none of that will matter since the world is ending in a bit under 2 years now.
Did it not occur to you that Google may have WANTED a relatively "harsh" punishment to set precedent specifically so that it might be applied to Facebook as well?
That's a very high possibility, considering other things they wanted to push through. Google's baby is advertising, obviously. They do some location guessing (or, not guessing if you consented and are using a mobile device with GPS) for advertising purposes but I don't believe they use anything else. Facebook's advertising methods are a bit more liberal with your personal info. It'd be beneficial to Google to set a precedent to knock Facebook's advertising revenue back a few paces.
But of course, that's only if you honestly believe they're actually competing with each other for the same advertising dollars.
I'm going to side with the argument that Google hasn't paid them enough or given them what they wanted.
The US Government isn't exactly a huge privacy advocate. Oh, unless it pertains to their own bullshit.
Not if the city endorses legalized monopolies so that only one company of it's type can use the infrastructure and enter it's markets. Capitalism doesn't work if it isn't Capitalism.
Damnit! For the last time, people, stop throwing bananas into the seawater!
WEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLL not exactly
sure, the plants used to make the biofuel take in carbon, and then release it when the processed product -- biofuel -- is consumed..
but there's a lot of processing and transportation to get to that point, nevermind the carbon footprint of growing the stuff -- fertilizers, pesticides, planting and harvesting. all those things output co2 -- all those things consume energy. biofuel really doesn't actually produce much energy, if at all, when you take the totality of the picture into account
If the equipment used to do all that is using biofuels, it's still a zero net increase (besides stuff like engine oil to keep the engines lubed up). As Parent said, the CO2 is already there. You're not adding to it like you are with fossil fuels that are mined from the depths.
New York is the exception, not the standard.
Maybe they move to the suburbs to get away from snub assholes like you who like to make assumptions.
I pay for my own service providers like garbage collection and recycling. They are private companies. I also have a choice between providers... some in a different area of the city might have different choices. Therefore, there is no "cost passing". That's the biggest load of bull I've ever heard.
What, is the garbage dump closer to where you live that you assume everything is closer to you? Last I checked they don't keep dumps in the middle of downtown.
If you don't like your city providing services to the people on the outskirts, write a letter to the mayor and request that they stop annexing new areas of development. The outskirts usually start as their own independent cities but then are sucked up into the mix. A lot of the time these smaller communities don't want to be annexed. They don't want to pay for your poor-performing schools and ridiculous labor union benefits (fire, police). Usually when a city decides to annex an area, it's because it's a benefit to them financially. Lots of times this comes from the people with large houses paying ridiculous property taxes, and other times it comes from commercial areas. Either way, an annexation is a financial benefit to the city. Raising your taxes won't have anything to do with people living on the outskirts. Hell, even the people around here that live outside city limits within a certain distance in unclaimed neighborhoods (a few miles) have to pay the city's taxes without receiving any of the benefits. You want to complain about fairness?
Try Seoul. Try Frankfurt. Try Tokyo. Big cities have been done successfully, Americans just don't understand them. The main reason is that the American still includes a house with a picket fence and a yard. Of course that doesn't work after certain population densities are reached. The solution to this is to understand that there's nothing magical about owning a house.
So you're going to go prancing around telling people what they want in life? Awesome. What if people like houses? There's nothing magical to you about owning a house. It doesn't mean that preference is universal.... "if they could only see my way" is a stupid argument.
Oracle is being whiny because they're not making money off it. They have no legal ground to stand on. The licenses are clear; Oracle is just trying to dip in sticky fingers.
And web developers can ensure a more uniform and high-quality experience for their web applications... if they're lazy enough to develop for only a single version of a single browser.
Fantastic. But it doesn't make it more appealing to anybody but a lazy developer, nor does it make it superior.
if you like doing that, dev for IE8 only and shut down everybody else using another browser. Sure, it makes it easier, uniform, etc but good luck holding any market share by doing that, even if it's really slick and entertaining.
LOL... hold on....
This article shows that in Europe alone, Android shipped 7.9 million units in the last quarter of 2010. You know, as in just a few months ago. It grew by an amazing 1,580% in that market year-to-year. In all of 2010, Symbian took #1, Android #2, then RIM and Apple respectively. Although note that in Q4, Android did overtake Symbian as well.
Wecome back to reality.
Oh, sales per device per quarter? Does it really matter? It's not Google's fault that Apple decided to close themselves off so much. Comparing device-to-device when talking about Apple vs. Google is like talking apples to oranges. It'd be more accurate to compare manufacturer sales at that point, in which case RIM is still leading Apple (among others, but they're more alike). I've always said that Apple is their own worst enemy sometimes, because they have so much potential just to stampede everyone over and keep it that way, but they continue to opt for a closed-everything market with all their products tying into themselves almost exclusively.
Speaking towards the future, Samsung is expecting to sell 50 million smart phones in 2011, and gleaning from some quick info that they expect approx. 20 million of those to be running Bada, which still leaves 30 million for Android since they'll mostly all be running one or the other. I don't know how much Apple expects to grow by that time, but assuming Samsung gets close to that number and Apple sees significant growth, at the very least they would be very close to compare on a per-manufacturer basis with a single OS. I'm kind of skeptical that Samsung will see that many smart phone sales, but I guess that's based off of the trend of going from dumb phones to smart phones, and since they already dominate the market with that, I think they're counting on upgrades bumping up that smart phone number. I guess we'll see what happens.
Just wanted to correct you that sometimes they charge for upgrades. Never on phones though. Only their iPod touches.
Isn't it beating it by a handy margin now - even with iPads?
No. Only in the US.
Nope. They grew by well over 1,000% in the number of units sold in the last year (I believe back in Aug. it was ~880% from the prior year). They now clearly lead in the UK as well for smartphone OSs. In Australia and Italy iOS and Android are neck and neck (with Android steadily growing) and everywhere else listed on that page, Android is winning over iOS. Android isn't always the winner as Symbian and RIM sometimes take the cake, but I'm just pointing out the current trends. Hell, as of the time of that article it claims over 50% of the US market.
What'd you think would happen on an OS that can be had on any device and any carrier?
LOL losing it's mojo? Based on what exactly? For one, they're still practically brand new. Two, they've taken the entire market in an extremely short amount of time, and that's with 3-4 other major OSs already occupying the space and they're not showing signs of slowing down. Three, everybody receives legal threats. It just shows you're competition.
Try leaving your bias aside and recognize what's going on. Like it or not, Android has proven it's worth to many manufacturers and it's nothing to scoff at. I think it'll be a tougher decision than to whimsically move everything to W7.
Well played!
I know this is /. and all, but RTFA for a change and you'll understand why they're questioning him. Apple isn't being forced to support another company's product. They're being asked about updates to iTunes and iPods that rendered competitors' products useless... a classic antitrust move if you are a major player in that market. Also, they force you to use their iPods if you buy Fairplay'd music off of iTunes by blocking competitors. That's a required product tie-in. They're forcing consumers to use only their products for those files. Also a classic antitrust move.
$5 each.
There are certain geological ingredients required to create a volcano. Simply drilling a little hole won't do it.