It's a subsidy, because it costs the nuke corp less than it would cost to get a loan from a commercial bank, if it could even get one. Anything that makes the cost lower is a subsidy.
Alternatives like wind and solar do get subsidies. But this year Bloomberg compared the $43-46B in subsidies to renewables (not including nukes) to the $557B spent subsidizing petrofuels (not including nukes) in 2008. Again, neither of those subsidies account subsidies to nukes. But the point is whether any of these energy industries stand on their own, and nukes do not. Neither do the alternatives, but there are good reasons to subsidize them: they're better, and will cost the public less in the long run once we're converted to using them predominantly.
The pope's right, and he should know. In virtual worlds, porn sends sends sinners to hell. In the real world, raping babies sends coverup managers to the pope's throne.
And it's technology's fault, not some ancient superstition and the global corporation that exploits it.
They're boondoggles, they're risky and dump radioactivity into groundwater, they're huge security risks especially as terrorist targets, they depend on extremely rare fuel that is extremely toxic including in its mining, and are worse in every way than alternatives. They're frequently built by corporations that build them badly. Those "negative subsidies" aren't frivolous, they're the bare minimum required to keep their extreme hazards barely in check.
Geothermal doesn't create toxic water and heavy metals. Its widespread resources are an advantage in making it distributed instead of wastefully centralized.
The government loans are not bank loans. The banks would charge for the actual risk (even though the banks themselves are now completely subsidized by the government). Government loans charge a lower interest rate, and ensure that the money is loaned - and have means of renegotiation that are not available in commercial loans from banks. So the public is subsidizing the nuke plants with these loans.
The nuke plant in my backyard, just outside NYC, keeps "discovering" radioactive leaks into the groundwater - that bathes NYC and dozens of millions of people in the area. Meanwhile, the nukes generate 40% of the region's electricity, but the electric prices are by far the highest in the country. We need better regulation, more regulation, of these boondoggles. Then we'd be building the geothermal plants instead, which are cheaper, more reliable, safer, and better in every way. Except they don't make bombs, so lots of science fiction fans aren't as into them.
Constellation can't reach an agreement with the federal government for the loans it needs to build that reactor.
So even the basic economics are that nuke plants are subsidized by the public with loans, among the many other public subsidies (eg. security, R&D, insurance). These things never are worth the trouble, and are always worse than at least one of the many alternatives.
We should instead build thousands of geothermal generators. They're mostly the same steam turbine electric systems as a nuke reactor, generate the same scale of baseload energy around the clock, and can be put online in a couple-few years, instead of the decade that nukes take because of their complexity and hazards. Geothermal doesn't depend on the rarest, most toxic and geopolitically dangerous elements in the world, either, but instead on very widespread resources that don't pollute at all.
But geothermal's no good for bombs, so we like the shiny nuke plants instead.
Last I checked, the DS and the Wii aren't cellphones. Nor is their respective OS at all qualified to run a cellphone, even if Nintendo made one. Which is why Google with Android would be an excellent partner.
If I thought Google would get Sony to open a jointly developed phone's OS, Android with full access to the phone's HW, I would support such a development. But Sony has proven over and over that it's committed to closing and locking its products as much as possible. The latest stunt with firmware upgrades stealing away Linux/OtherOS from the PS3 is the clincher, but everything Sony does is DRM/closed/locked. Google also does business with China's mafia government, even after making a big noise about quitting the country instead. So I expect it would only drag Google further from being open - and Android isn't even open enough.
Google should team with Nintendo on a totally open Wii phone. Nintendo is the innovative console maker, finally introducing motion detecting controllers to the industry. Meanwhile motion detection and location are some of the biggest drivers of innovation on mobile phones. Nintendo is the only console vendor that doesn't have a phone. A Wii phone/controller/mobile would ratchet Nintendo up another notch. And indeed Nintendo has since 2007 developed ES, an open source OS.
Nintendo's is the sensible path for Google to operate in this space, not Sony's.
I agree with you. And a single browser is easier to ensure is secure from attacks than some ever changing collection of plugins from different developer groups. And it's much more likely that someone will see a hole in Firefox's open source that implements an HTML5 feature, than will see all holes of its kind in each of the plugins that are more likely to contain at least one closed source component.
What features does HTML5 include that let one server access any data other than that created by that server, or by the client user through the HTML GUI sent by that server? Why should any client state be available to the server, except the same kind of client-side feature list of supported media types and browser version that we've had since HTML1.0?
It seems to me that an OS developed by an org that's never made an OS before, by 50 people, that isn't examined by many people around the world in many different contexts and from many different approaches, is going to be less tested and less secure than other OS'es. Not to mention the lack of applications, and the burden of creating all the applications from scratch, and a developer community for them, and again the smallness and isolation of that community and its apps leaving security to a very few very busy people.
If I were responsible for protecting India's IT infrastructure, I might start an Indian state project to create an OS. But I'd just start with Android or Linux, and assign the people I have to investigating its open code for security holes and starting applications needed by essential Indian users. A lot less work, a lot more global partners to use (and many to omit from trust without losing everyone). Leveraging the English speaking skills of educated Indians to partner with people around the world to secure India.
Reading the press, it seems they're really talking about a component in their new line of spy and military satellites. They mention they've got orders from other countries. So probably this venture is not at all calculated on security rissk, but rather on a perceived market opportunity. In which case it is even more likely to totally fail, but not after wasting a lot of time and money better spent on actual Indian security risks.
Probably some general's nephew thinks he can sell some Linux clone to the government, and so the rest of the state and media apparatus starts talking it up.
"Please" is not an argument, Anonymous Teabagger Coward. But it's all you Teabaggers have got: begging for help and special favors, like the handouts that created your entitlement dependencies.
Get out of your Teabagger bubble, and realize that your being wrong is not some conspiracy against you.
I didn't shout you down. I disagreed with you politely, and very politely asked you to be polite yourself.
I linked to the simple Google search that turned up plenty of the science you asked for. You do know how to use Google, don't you? So what if a Google search also includes a few spurious pages that don't give what you're looking for? If a couple of sex sites spammed themselves into the results, would that convince you that the other sites are wrong? All that matters is that there's at least one page with science you accept - it's not the results list that's supposed to educate you, it's up to you to look in the list. You should figure out how to use Google - you could use the enlightenment available, and the skills screening out the distractions.
To the point of how climate change is affecting fungal growth and disease, you found the reputable site in the list, so go look at that yourself. Climate change is indeed all-encompassing, when we're talking about Earth's biology. When a species starts dying out suddenly without obvious cause, climate change is a good suspect, because climate is fundamental to any species' survival, and it's changing, perhaps to one in which the species is unfit. When the specific disease is caused by a species like a fungus that is documented to be spreading, and likely evolving under new conditions itself, then climate change is likely a critical factor.
Against which you are rudely and fallaciously insisting that it cannot be climate change, by mere assertion. Today you say you admit the climate is changing, but from your tone and attitude I'd bet you used to deny it was changing at all, or you used to spin it as "climate has changed in the past, so this is a nonissue now". I wouldn't be surprised if you still say that humans aren't causing the climate change we're seeing now, or that we cannot change to prevent it. Deniers have the convenience of not having to be consistent, among other illogical rhetoric you hope will kill the issue.
You are a classic denial projector: you're in denial, though overwhelming evidence will shift you to deny something slightly different after a while, and you project your own rhetorical deficiencies onto those who confront you with the truth. I'm not really interested in persuading you specifically, since you're just one person who's not actually debating but just denying. I'm interested in putting the truth there against your fallacies, so others reading this public exchange can decide for themselves. People like you we'll just drag along kicking and screaming while we save you from what you insist on doing in harm to our climate. You're welcome.
There is quite a lot of evidence of climate change increasing fungal disease reach in areas where organisms haven't evolved to cope with new fungus that are fit to survive in the new climate. Climate has changed before, and bad shit has happened before. All of which is evidence for the threats from climate change, not some fallacious argument against it.
Look, you probably spent a lot of time denying that the climate was changing, before that went the way of the flat earth. Now you'll spend a lot of time denying each specific effect of climate change. Why don't you channel your energy into helping understand what we've got to cope with, instead of obnoxious attacks you make from ignorance as if you're some kind of expert? Or at least take your own advice and leave off it, please.
Republicans can't run on facts, so they flail against Democrats using censorship. What a shameful way for Republicans to use their power gained by insisting they've got the monopoly on values and freedom.
Anonymous Republican Coward, we are discussing Republican witch hunts, as the story says. If only we could actually pillory Republicans, we'd be putting their Salem, Mass style ideology to work on people who have earned it in modern times.
Of course Democrats are better at governing, as the last 2, 4, 10, 14, 18, 30, 38, 50, 58, 66, 78, 92 years have proven - depending on which Republican catastrophe era you want to compare to Democratic mediocrity surrounding it. But reality has a well-known liberal bias, so you surely don't want to compare anything. You just want to say something meaningless when you grab your turn to speak. That's the Republican ideology in a nutshell.
As the climate changes, fungus and possibly virus infections will reach new populations that previously hadn't evolved immunities. The entire process will be evolution in action, with populations unfit to the new infectious agent footprints dying out, hopefully replaced by descendants of the fraction which randomly possess immunities. I hope species essential to human civilization like honeybees aren't destroyed faster than we can cope with losing them.
The day when all endpoints encrypt all traffic to keep network operators from poking around in what is literally none of their business cannot come too soon. And the more tyrants (the US not excepted) insist on groping our data, the sooner that day will come.
So where's the encrypted VOIP apps for Skype and Facebook, running on Android and/or iPhone?
Murkowski is no longer the Republican running for Alaska's Senate seat, but she woud caucus with them if reelected as that's how she'll have seniority on committees. Since she has joined every Republican filibuster - on any kind of legislation, so long as it obstructed Democrats - there's no reason to believe she won't go along with them, especially since she'll have to make deals with the party to keep her seniority. She might not lead witch hunts, but she will eliminate Social Security and Medicare to give its money to Wall Street, which is the Republican platform as it always has been. The witch hunts of course are just distraction so that real story isn't reported to the people, and to weaken Democrats who would try to stop the heist.
Joe Miller is the Republican. He says Social Security is unconstitutional, clearly his pretext for handing it over to Wall Street. He wants to take away Americans' voting for our senators directly, and says the minimum wage is unconstitutional, despite longstanding Supreme Court decisions supporting them, so his idea of what the Constitution is and is worth is an open question.
McAdams' ad wearing Stevens' tie is obviously a message about bringing Alaska Federal pork just like Stevens was beloved to do, and without which handouts Alaska would shrivel and die. He's not going to witch hunt anyone, because those handouts have been protected by Democrats as well as Republicans.
So yes, your mileage may vary. There are many roads to an Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere. But both Miller and Murkowski are active climate change deniers, even as climate change hits Alaska harder than any other state, as the Arctic is the most sensitive to the changes. Which is why either of them in the Senate will be voting for exactly the kind of witch hunt this story in Virginia is about. The witch hunts where they help impeach the Democratic president for some imaginary nonsense are just the price of admission to the modern Republican caucus they're spending all their time and money fighting to be counted among.
Cuccinelli is the modern Republican. If you're planning to vote Republican next month, you're planning to throw states and the Congress into nothing but witch hunts like these when Republicans have more power. They refuse to govern, and are interested in only witch hunts for more power to protect their cronies. They will impeach Obama for Clinton's blowjob if you elect them.
No, BiggestIgnoramus, I'm not confused. A 2D DLP grid is not a raster - it's a grid. It's pixels, but not raster. You're confused.
But that's totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a DLP TV's projection chamber being suitable for a laser vector display. Which, as I said several times, is something I think could be further developed, which makes whether or not DLPs are increasingly or decreasingly popular now irrelevant. But indeed DLPs are still made and sold. You're confused.
What killed vector displays was that they weren't the same tech as the vastly larger TV market, so they didn't achieve economy of scale. As has been noted many times, for their specific application they offered superior rendering compared to raster displays, but their economics weren't as good. They did have some quality problems in some applications, but decades of display R&D have improved all techs involved, and I also mentioned combo vector/raster displays for complementing their uses. There are no unsolvable problems, and there are plenty of very expensive specialized displays. We are entering the era of 3D displays, which have been pronounced "impossible" for decades. Since components of a laser vector display have continued to be developed, notably in picoprojectors, this is an evolutionary challenge, not entirely revolutionary. I never said they're coming back, but it's not because it's impossible or even undesirable. What I said was that vector tech was released before its time, the subject of the story we're discussing. The continuing advance of technologies that could make better vector displays, and the superiority of vector displays for some applications, with the arrival of vector graphics formats that vector displays would suit, shows that vector's time might be more in the future than it was in the past.
You are the one who's confused. On the highest level, you've confused me with someone who's interested in listening to your obnoxious, baselessly condescending posts. Goodbye.
You don't even have to go that far to be cynical about IBM. IBM is buying for a piddling $250,000 an entire school to train new hires for it for however many years IBM wants. That school will cost tens of millions to start up and operate. $250,000 is less than how much IBM spends in HR expenses in a single year finding the number of people it might hire in a single year from that school.
It's a huge subsidy to IBM, for which IBM gets the reputation of "saving NYC schools". Bloomberg is the ultimate corporatist.
You say that, yet the total capacity for manufacturing electric cars is sold out, as it has always been since they've been introduced (and then shut down, then reintroduced). The American consumer isn't as dumb as Marketing 101 likes to say, which is why the weakness in the car industry is in the marketing department, which doesn't know how to sell anything but a wall-climbing tank to people who will never use it that way.
The early adopters are driving down the costs by paying off early R&D including manufacturing optimizations and precisely targeting features from the full palette, as in any industry. By the time the average consumer is ready to buy one (or two), the factories will be producing them at the price they want. That's in Marketing 202, but it's still true.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a subsidy, because it costs the nuke corp less than it would cost to get a loan from a commercial bank, if it could even get one. Anything that makes the cost lower is a subsidy.
Alternatives like wind and solar do get subsidies. But this year Bloomberg compared the $43-46B in subsidies to renewables (not including nukes) to the $557B spent subsidizing petrofuels (not including nukes) in 2008. Again, neither of those subsidies account subsidies to nukes. But the point is whether any of these energy industries stand on their own, and nukes do not. Neither do the alternatives, but there are good reasons to subsidize them: they're better, and will cost the public less in the long run once we're converted to using them predominantly.
The pope's right, and he should know. In virtual worlds, porn sends sends sinners to hell. In the real world, raping babies sends coverup managers to the pope's throne.
And it's technology's fault, not some ancient superstition and the global corporation that exploits it.
They're boondoggles, they're risky and dump radioactivity into groundwater, they're huge security risks especially as terrorist targets, they depend on extremely rare fuel that is extremely toxic including in its mining, and are worse in every way than alternatives. They're frequently built by corporations that build them badly. Those "negative subsidies" aren't frivolous, they're the bare minimum required to keep their extreme hazards barely in check.
Geothermal doesn't create toxic water and heavy metals. Its widespread resources are an advantage in making it distributed instead of wastefully centralized.
The government loans are not bank loans. The banks would charge for the actual risk (even though the banks themselves are now completely subsidized by the government). Government loans charge a lower interest rate, and ensure that the money is loaned - and have means of renegotiation that are not available in commercial loans from banks. So the public is subsidizing the nuke plants with these loans.
The nuke plant in my backyard, just outside NYC, keeps "discovering" radioactive leaks into the groundwater - that bathes NYC and dozens of millions of people in the area. Meanwhile, the nukes generate 40% of the region's electricity, but the electric prices are by far the highest in the country. We need better regulation, more regulation, of these boondoggles. Then we'd be building the geothermal plants instead, which are cheaper, more reliable, safer, and better in every way. Except they don't make bombs, so lots of science fiction fans aren't as into them.
So even the basic economics are that nuke plants are subsidized by the public with loans, among the many other public subsidies (eg. security, R&D, insurance). These things never are worth the trouble, and are always worse than at least one of the many alternatives.
We should instead build thousands of geothermal generators. They're mostly the same steam turbine electric systems as a nuke reactor, generate the same scale of baseload energy around the clock, and can be put online in a couple-few years, instead of the decade that nukes take because of their complexity and hazards. Geothermal doesn't depend on the rarest, most toxic and geopolitically dangerous elements in the world, either, but instead on very widespread resources that don't pollute at all.
But geothermal's no good for bombs, so we like the shiny nuke plants instead.
Last I checked, the DS and the Wii aren't cellphones. Nor is their respective OS at all qualified to run a cellphone, even if Nintendo made one. Which is why Google with Android would be an excellent partner.
If I thought Google would get Sony to open a jointly developed phone's OS, Android with full access to the phone's HW, I would support such a development. But Sony has proven over and over that it's committed to closing and locking its products as much as possible. The latest stunt with firmware upgrades stealing away Linux/OtherOS from the PS3 is the clincher, but everything Sony does is DRM/closed/locked. Google also does business with China's mafia government, even after making a big noise about quitting the country instead. So I expect it would only drag Google further from being open - and Android isn't even open enough.
Google should team with Nintendo on a totally open Wii phone. Nintendo is the innovative console maker, finally introducing motion detecting controllers to the industry. Meanwhile motion detection and location are some of the biggest drivers of innovation on mobile phones. Nintendo is the only console vendor that doesn't have a phone. A Wii phone/controller/mobile would ratchet Nintendo up another notch. And indeed Nintendo has since 2007 developed ES, an open source OS.
Nintendo's is the sensible path for Google to operate in this space, not Sony's.
No different from cookies since HTTP1.1 in practice.
There seems to be absolutely no legitimate concern over any actual HTML5 features risking privacy. It's just the usual FUD.
I agree with you. And a single browser is easier to ensure is secure from attacks than some ever changing collection of plugins from different developer groups. And it's much more likely that someone will see a hole in Firefox's open source that implements an HTML5 feature, than will see all holes of its kind in each of the plugins that are more likely to contain at least one closed source component.
None of that has anything to do with HTML5.
What features does HTML5 include that let one server access any data other than that created by that server, or by the client user through the HTML GUI sent by that server? Why should any client state be available to the server, except the same kind of client-side feature list of supported media types and browser version that we've had since HTML1.0?
It seems to me that an OS developed by an org that's never made an OS before, by 50 people, that isn't examined by many people around the world in many different contexts and from many different approaches, is going to be less tested and less secure than other OS'es. Not to mention the lack of applications, and the burden of creating all the applications from scratch, and a developer community for them, and again the smallness and isolation of that community and its apps leaving security to a very few very busy people.
If I were responsible for protecting India's IT infrastructure, I might start an Indian state project to create an OS. But I'd just start with Android or Linux, and assign the people I have to investigating its open code for security holes and starting applications needed by essential Indian users. A lot less work, a lot more global partners to use (and many to omit from trust without losing everyone). Leveraging the English speaking skills of educated Indians to partner with people around the world to secure India.
Reading the press, it seems they're really talking about a component in their new line of spy and military satellites. They mention they've got orders from other countries. So probably this venture is not at all calculated on security rissk, but rather on a perceived market opportunity. In which case it is even more likely to totally fail, but not after wasting a lot of time and money better spent on actual Indian security risks.
Probably some general's nephew thinks he can sell some Linux clone to the government, and so the rest of the state and media apparatus starts talking it up.
Thanks for the sanity beam :).
"Please" is not an argument, Anonymous Teabagger Coward. But it's all you Teabaggers have got: begging for help and special favors, like the handouts that created your entitlement dependencies.
Get out of your Teabagger bubble, and realize that your being wrong is not some conspiracy against you.
I didn't shout you down. I disagreed with you politely, and very politely asked you to be polite yourself.
I linked to the simple Google search that turned up plenty of the science you asked for. You do know how to use Google, don't you? So what if a Google search also includes a few spurious pages that don't give what you're looking for? If a couple of sex sites spammed themselves into the results, would that convince you that the other sites are wrong? All that matters is that there's at least one page with science you accept - it's not the results list that's supposed to educate you, it's up to you to look in the list. You should figure out how to use Google - you could use the enlightenment available, and the skills screening out the distractions.
To the point of how climate change is affecting fungal growth and disease, you found the reputable site in the list, so go look at that yourself. Climate change is indeed all-encompassing, when we're talking about Earth's biology. When a species starts dying out suddenly without obvious cause, climate change is a good suspect, because climate is fundamental to any species' survival, and it's changing, perhaps to one in which the species is unfit. When the specific disease is caused by a species like a fungus that is documented to be spreading, and likely evolving under new conditions itself, then climate change is likely a critical factor.
Against which you are rudely and fallaciously insisting that it cannot be climate change, by mere assertion. Today you say you admit the climate is changing, but from your tone and attitude I'd bet you used to deny it was changing at all, or you used to spin it as "climate has changed in the past, so this is a nonissue now". I wouldn't be surprised if you still say that humans aren't causing the climate change we're seeing now, or that we cannot change to prevent it. Deniers have the convenience of not having to be consistent, among other illogical rhetoric you hope will kill the issue.
You are a classic denial projector: you're in denial, though overwhelming evidence will shift you to deny something slightly different after a while, and you project your own rhetorical deficiencies onto those who confront you with the truth. I'm not really interested in persuading you specifically, since you're just one person who's not actually debating but just denying. I'm interested in putting the truth there against your fallacies, so others reading this public exchange can decide for themselves. People like you we'll just drag along kicking and screaming while we save you from what you insist on doing in harm to our climate. You're welcome.
And goodbye.
There is quite a lot of evidence of climate change increasing fungal disease reach in areas where organisms haven't evolved to cope with new fungus that are fit to survive in the new climate. Climate has changed before, and bad shit has happened before. All of which is evidence for the threats from climate change, not some fallacious argument against it.
Look, you probably spent a lot of time denying that the climate was changing, before that went the way of the flat earth. Now you'll spend a lot of time denying each specific effect of climate change. Why don't you channel your energy into helping understand what we've got to cope with, instead of obnoxious attacks you make from ignorance as if you're some kind of expert? Or at least take your own advice and leave off it, please.
Republicans can't run on facts, so they flail against Democrats using censorship. What a shameful way for Republicans to use their power gained by insisting they've got the monopoly on values and freedom.
Anonymous Republican Coward, we are discussing Republican witch hunts, as the story says. If only we could actually pillory Republicans, we'd be putting their Salem, Mass style ideology to work on people who have earned it in modern times.
Of course Democrats are better at governing, as the last 2, 4, 10, 14, 18, 30, 38, 50, 58, 66, 78, 92 years have proven - depending on which Republican catastrophe era you want to compare to Democratic mediocrity surrounding it. But reality has a well-known liberal bias, so you surely don't want to compare anything. You just want to say something meaningless when you grab your turn to speak. That's the Republican ideology in a nutshell.
As the climate changes, fungus and possibly virus infections will reach new populations that previously hadn't evolved immunities. The entire process will be evolution in action, with populations unfit to the new infectious agent footprints dying out, hopefully replaced by descendants of the fraction which randomly possess immunities. I hope species essential to human civilization like honeybees aren't destroyed faster than we can cope with losing them.
The day when all endpoints encrypt all traffic to keep network operators from poking around in what is literally none of their business cannot come too soon. And the more tyrants (the US not excepted) insist on groping our data, the sooner that day will come.
So where's the encrypted VOIP apps for Skype and Facebook, running on Android and/or iPhone?
Murkowski is no longer the Republican running for Alaska's Senate seat, but she woud caucus with them if reelected as that's how she'll have seniority on committees. Since she has joined every Republican filibuster - on any kind of legislation, so long as it obstructed Democrats - there's no reason to believe she won't go along with them, especially since she'll have to make deals with the party to keep her seniority. She might not lead witch hunts, but she will eliminate Social Security and Medicare to give its money to Wall Street, which is the Republican platform as it always has been. The witch hunts of course are just distraction so that real story isn't reported to the people, and to weaken Democrats who would try to stop the heist.
Joe Miller is the Republican. He says Social Security is unconstitutional, clearly his pretext for handing it over to Wall Street. He wants to take away Americans' voting for our senators directly, and says the minimum wage is unconstitutional, despite longstanding Supreme Court decisions supporting them, so his idea of what the Constitution is and is worth is an open question.
McAdams' ad wearing Stevens' tie is obviously a message about bringing Alaska Federal pork just like Stevens was beloved to do, and without which handouts Alaska would shrivel and die. He's not going to witch hunt anyone, because those handouts have been protected by Democrats as well as Republicans.
So yes, your mileage may vary. There are many roads to an Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere. But both Miller and Murkowski are active climate change deniers, even as climate change hits Alaska harder than any other state, as the Arctic is the most sensitive to the changes. Which is why either of them in the Senate will be voting for exactly the kind of witch hunt this story in Virginia is about. The witch hunts where they help impeach the Democratic president for some imaginary nonsense are just the price of admission to the modern Republican caucus they're spending all their time and money fighting to be counted among.
Cuccinelli is the modern Republican. If you're planning to vote Republican next month, you're planning to throw states and the Congress into nothing but witch hunts like these when Republicans have more power. They refuse to govern, and are interested in only witch hunts for more power to protect their cronies. They will impeach Obama for Clinton's blowjob if you elect them.
No, BiggestIgnoramus, I'm not confused. A 2D DLP grid is not a raster - it's a grid. It's pixels, but not raster. You're confused.
But that's totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a DLP TV's projection chamber being suitable for a laser vector display. Which, as I said several times, is something I think could be further developed, which makes whether or not DLPs are increasingly or decreasingly popular now irrelevant. But indeed DLPs are still made and sold. You're confused.
What killed vector displays was that they weren't the same tech as the vastly larger TV market, so they didn't achieve economy of scale. As has been noted many times, for their specific application they offered superior rendering compared to raster displays, but their economics weren't as good. They did have some quality problems in some applications, but decades of display R&D have improved all techs involved, and I also mentioned combo vector/raster displays for complementing their uses. There are no unsolvable problems, and there are plenty of very expensive specialized displays. We are entering the era of 3D displays, which have been pronounced "impossible" for decades. Since components of a laser vector display have continued to be developed, notably in picoprojectors, this is an evolutionary challenge, not entirely revolutionary. I never said they're coming back, but it's not because it's impossible or even undesirable. What I said was that vector tech was released before its time, the subject of the story we're discussing. The continuing advance of technologies that could make better vector displays, and the superiority of vector displays for some applications, with the arrival of vector graphics formats that vector displays would suit, shows that vector's time might be more in the future than it was in the past.
You are the one who's confused. On the highest level, you've confused me with someone who's interested in listening to your obnoxious, baselessly condescending posts. Goodbye.
You don't even have to go that far to be cynical about IBM. IBM is buying for a piddling $250,000 an entire school to train new hires for it for however many years IBM wants. That school will cost tens of millions to start up and operate. $250,000 is less than how much IBM spends in HR expenses in a single year finding the number of people it might hire in a single year from that school.
It's a huge subsidy to IBM, for which IBM gets the reputation of "saving NYC schools". Bloomberg is the ultimate corporatist.
You say that, yet the total capacity for manufacturing electric cars is sold out, as it has always been since they've been introduced (and then shut down, then reintroduced). The American consumer isn't as dumb as Marketing 101 likes to say, which is why the weakness in the car industry is in the marketing department, which doesn't know how to sell anything but a wall-climbing tank to people who will never use it that way.
The early adopters are driving down the costs by paying off early R&D including manufacturing optimizations and precisely targeting features from the full palette, as in any industry. By the time the average consumer is ready to buy one (or two), the factories will be producing them at the price they want. That's in Marketing 202, but it's still true.