Among other things, having connections would allow the pilot to control the displays during stuff like take-offs and landings, like for the mandatory safety briefing.
It used to be dirt easy to feed dozens of TVs - you just needed a roll of coax, a bunch of t-junctions and ends, appropriate tools, and a cable type amplifier box.
Pushing out dozens of copies of an HD stream is much more expensive, so many stores haven't bothered.
Viewing a DVD is 10X as hard as viewing a video Cassette
Say what? A DVD doesn't have rewind, I don't(generally) have fast forward through ten minutes of outdated ads, it's just plop the disc in and hit play.
If you want a DVD that can record, they're sitting on the shelves today. You're just going to end up spending some more money to get one.
I suspect that HD content will require 10X as hard to view as the DVD, which will probably eventually involve a long conversation between the device that is want to play the content and a central server in order to gain authorization to play the content, which part of the content may be played, at a which resolution and with which options.
While that seems to be what the MPAA wants, so far blueray and HDDVD are pretty much as 'difficult' to play as DVD. No central server needed.
As a gun-toting network administrator, I endorse this service!;)
Though generally speaking you're allowed to investigate your own equipment without any problems.
The license would be required if you're going to be snooping in other people's systems, especially without their knowledge.
Call it the difference between a having a photographer taking pictures of your wedding(with your permission) vs hiring a PI to take pictures of your wife cheating(without her permission or knowledge).
Out of curiosity, what are you reasons for not doing illegal drugs?
I've never felt any urge to. I've never felt any urge to smoke in my life(family was nonsmoking, mom forced dad to quit back when they were dating). I've been drunk once in my life, didn't like it and haven't repeated it.
I have nothing against thost that simply 'do' drugs, on the other hand I don't think drugs are an excuse for anything - as far as I'm concerned if you get into a fight while drunk it should be just the same as if you'd gotten into a fight while sober legal wise.
Unless you were drugged without your knowledge/consent, of course.
Actually, speaking as a teetotaler* here, I'd legalize it all. Legalization implies better regulation than decriminalization. I'm not fond of halfway measures. By regulation I'm talking about the sort of stuff that legal commercial drugs have to conform to - pure or cut with safe materials, consistant potency, no selling to minors, etc...
Going by the example of prohibition, problems would decrease significanty as the majority of drug users shift to safer but bulkier drugs, such as shifting from crack back to cocaine, meth use drops almost entirely, and those that don't/can't control their usage eliminate themselves relatively quickly and quietly.
*I don't drink or smoke, much less do illegal drugs.
It's also new technology. Which can also help explain the low resolution. While 'projector' might not be new, 'laser scan projector' is.
Though I'll admit that one of my first thoughts was 'too bad it's not HD'.
I figure that it shouldn't be too hard to make it HD - you'd just have to increase the speed and accuracy that the lasers can scan at(perhaps significantly).
This is a tech where I'd expect to see 1080i before 1080p.
Why yes it does. Viewing angle should be similar to viewing a painted wall - the perceived narrowing of the image would be a problem long before not seeing the light would be. Have a translucent screen and you'd be able to have rear projection.
As for power - it doesn't sound bad. If it's anything like many other conventions I've been to - the ambient light level could be described as 'as bright or brighter than outdoors at noon'. If it's still capable of projecting a 'vibrant' image on an 8.5x11" piece of paper, I'd consider that sufficient for a small projector - in a dim room you'd probably be able to project a ~30" image without trouble, and in a dark room ~40-50" wouldn't be out of reach.
They might also have kicked the power up a bit on the laser diodes for the newest model.
Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community
on
World's Smallest Projector
·
· Score: 2, Informative
for shining a laser into the sky (albeit at a helicopter pilot)
no albeit about it, pointing a laser into the sky isn't a crime, pointing one at an aircraft(much less the pilot) is a felony.
So holding a laser light show into the sky is fine as long as you're not below a regular flight lane. If you're doing a high power laser light show, contacting the FAA might be a good idea.
Relatively high powered lasers are used for star gazing fairly frequently - it allows a director to point stuff out, as the laser is powerful enough to be seen via atmospheric interactions.
I don't know about the earlier one(site is blocked by my work's firewall), but the PK20 is a miniaturized standard projecter - the SHOW uses a currently unique display method.
The SHOW looks to be a bit bigger than an Ipod, while the PK20 is 4x5x2", much larger. Probably dimmer as well, as it's only 25 ANSI lumens(and the next smallest I remember off the top of my head was 800). Oh, and don't forget that the SHOW also contains a battery sufficient for an hour or two's usage.
Personally, I'd like to see a slightly larger SHOW - drop the batteries, up the resolution to 1080i/p* levels, up the power on the lasers a bit**, provide a standard power slot and interface set(or adapter cables).
Bonus: You'd be able to advertise them as energy star and probably sell boatloads of them to various green companies.
Another thought I had on this is that it gets rid of the whole 'native resolution' issue with LCD/DLP projectors, and, unlike monitors, would be able to 'natively' display both 4:3 and 16:9 screen widths as long as the laser can reach.
*Given that this is a scanning technology much like CRTs, interlaced might actually make sense. **Probably have to add some safety circuitry to make sure the lasers move fast enough to prevent eye damage, and if they can't move, that they shut down.
I don't think there is much public benefit in extending civil liability to executives.
Didn't mention extending civil liability to the executives(though the company could certainly sue the exective if it's his negligence that cost them money).
I was talking about criminal matters. IE your company violates EPA clean air regulations - you and your executives can be tossed into jail for the offense, in addition to fining the company the appropriate amount of money.
Matter of fact, if you go further up to my post before the one you replied to, I said: though they(the company)'d still be liable in civil cases - feel free to sue the company into oblivion if it's bad enough.
So no, they wouldn't be able to pass the buck to some exective to save themselves $5mil. If nothing else, if I'm going to hold an executive financially responsable, I'm going to hit the one in charge of the area that commited the offense, and only for what he or she can pay, with the company picking up the rest.
So your idea would end up costing the company more money - the jury hits the executive with a massive settlement- he defaults, the settlement defaults back to the company, and they still have to pay him the $5mil they agreed to(if there was a contract). Not to mention that settlements such as this generally aren't defaultable by a bankruptcy court - that $5mil payment would end up confiscated for the settlement pot.
Competition. Multiple companies can manufacture and sell tuners eligable for the rebate. You aren't likely to see any receivers below the $40 mark until the rebate program has passed, but I'm sure you'll see a number right at that point given some time.
To have gotten the manufacturers off their butts and started including the features.
People would probably need 2/3rds fewer of these coupons if the sets had been mandated 5 years ago - I think that something like 8 years is the standard expected lifespan of a TV. I'm not just talking about failure leading to replacement, I'm also including upgrades and such. People just tend to buy a new TV every 8 years or so.
Thus, requiring digital tuners in 2007, for a changeover in 2009 would only give you ~25% of TVs being compliant. Require tuners in 2003 for the changeover, and you'd expect to catch ~75% of TVs. Maybe a bit fewer, as some would have ended up replacing their TV twice, while others are hanging onto their TV that has more tubes than the display one.
I'd argue that finding a 'middle class' is rather easy, with the caveat that people's perception of that 'class' can vary widely.
If nothing else, toss people in the top third of income into 'rich', the bottom third into 'poor' and the rest into 'middle class'.
But there's still the confusion between wealth and income - I could have ten million stuffed under my mattress and be considered below the poverty line because I have no income, or make a million dollars a year and still being 'poor' because between my gambling addiction, seven ex wives and 14 children I have to pay child support for I have none of it left and live in a old station wagon. Extreme examples to make a point.
For example, though I'm hardly rich I made about a month's income off my investments last year due to simple demands and good financial management. I'm not hurting for money, so I'd consider myself middle class. I could have that big HDTV if I wanted, but I don't feel like spending the money. I don't have to strictly budget either.
Why would you object to the reality that you murdered another human being, if you really did it for a good reason?
Because, by my definition, murder is always bad. Killing in self-defense isn't bad, so it isn't murder.
If the good reason can't make it "ok" with you that you had to murder someone, then I would question the justice of your action.
By my reasoning, the 'good reason*' makes it not murder.
Sanitizing the language just lowers the moral bar for justifying the action.
I'm not sanitizing the language - I'm just not sensationalizing it. 'Homocide' is a long standing term. Murder has specific components, much like 'execute', 'drown', 'electricute', 'defenestrate', etc...
dictionary.com Murder: 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). 5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. 7. to commit murder.
Homicide: 1. the killing of one human being by another.
See the difference?
In short, I would call any killing of people with knowledge and intent (either individually, or by initiating action you know will result in deaths) murder. The only remaining arguement after that was whether it was ok to murder or not. Legal terms have no interest to me, and Murder predates any modern legal system by a good long measure. I'm much more interested in the underlying morality of it, which legal categories completely fail to address in any meaningful way.
Well, when I listed my personal definition of 'murder', I didn't address it in legal terms. By my definition, if it's justified(ok), then while it's still homicide, it's not murder. Like I said, if I'm ever forced to kill somebody in self defense, and you call me a murderer I'm going to get upset.
Quite right. I remember reading about a moderately sized city that had a 'moderate' leak in their water systems - they were losing over a million gallons a day from it, but didn't feel the need to fix it.
So the city, by fixing that leak, could easily afford the water to fill the road piping system.
Especially on the education angle. Education is good, but we have far too many 4 year college graduates being shift supervisor at McD's(or their competitor's equivalents). That can be handled by a good HS graduate or 2 year degreed individual.
I think that we need to re-emphasize technical schools, and go back towards teaching practical skills in HS, not have HS be almost universally college prep.
It might sound odd, but many plumbers and electricians today make more money than degreed computer science workers.
although childcare's so astronomically expensive sometimes I think they'd have more money if mother stayed at home, to say nothing of the benefits it would bring for the children, but I digress.
You are not incorrect. My mother is an accountant, and occasionally does financial reviews of people's household finances and budgets. Call it a personallized financial management session.
More than once her advice has been for the mother to quit - by the time you added up the cost of work clothes, commuting&vehicle cost, daycare, additional income taxes, etc... It often costs more money for the mother to be working than not working. Part of the reason that I normally object to government subsidized daycare - it doesn't make financial sense. In one case she recommended the father quit to take care of the kids. In other cases, such as when the kids are in school, a part time job can make sense - drop kids off at school, go to work, pick up kids on way home.
As for your housing situation - part of the problem is increased population levels. From what I've read, the UK is in a serious housing shortage - which will lead to the increased prices you describe. That and a similar 'values always go up!' attitude much like what prevailed in the USA for such a long time.
You are drawing a distinction where there is none. Factory workers were the FIRST to be affected by "offshoring", only then it was called "foreign imports". And by and large they DIDN'T retrain for another high paying job. Some survived better than others, but a great most didn't do it by "retraining".
By and large though, our manufacturing sector still builds an amazing array of items, thus factory workers would end up having to find another factory job, learning by OJT their new duties.
Our unemployment isn't high enough to say that they're still unemployed.
As for the American dream, you missed my point in my original post - it never really existed! at least for most.
I'd argue that the 'american dream' is a stereotype. Some people are happier living in an apartment(no maintenance to worry about!), living close enough to great restraunts and services that they don't need a car, etc...
Even so, home ownership is at a all time high, even with the current situation with the housing market we aren't likely to lose much ground there.
As for disruptions - get used to it. It's always occured in some form or another. At least today such disruptions don't generally result in fatalities. Nobody weeps for the buggy whip makers, after all.
They actually wouldn't necessarily need to be close to the surface - the deeper you go, sure it takes longer to reach the pipes, but you have to remember that you have all year. So by placing them deep you get a more even heat.
Interestingly enough, it might increase the lifespan of the road by keeping it at a more constant temperature.
b) so don't use drinking water then. Rain water will suffice just as well. Oh, and in the Netherlands, there's a lot of rain _and_ water.
Actually, I'd think that they'd prefer to use distilled water with antifreeze agents added. Keeps the system from crudding up.
But I think that the point remains - despite water shortages, a system that you only have to fill up once isn't that big of a deal.
Most shortages are only during certain periods and in limited areas - while fairly expensive you could truck this water in from areas with a surplus. Or just wait until there's a surplus to start filling the pipes.
Slashdot Mirror
Among other things, having connections would allow the pilot to control the displays during stuff like take-offs and landings, like for the mandatory safety briefing.
That's why I said generally. I know there's a few out there.
I even returned one because of that. They didn't like it, but I managed to complain enough.
It used to be dirt easy to feed dozens of TVs - you just needed a roll of coax, a bunch of t-junctions and ends, appropriate tools, and a cable type amplifier box.
Pushing out dozens of copies of an HD stream is much more expensive, so many stores haven't bothered.
Viewing a DVD is 10X as hard as viewing a video Cassette
Say what? A DVD doesn't have rewind, I don't(generally) have fast forward through ten minutes of outdated ads, it's just plop the disc in and hit play.
If you want a DVD that can record, they're sitting on the shelves today. You're just going to end up spending some more money to get one.
I suspect that HD content will require 10X as hard to view as the DVD, which will probably eventually involve a long conversation between the device that is want to play the content and a central server in order to gain authorization to play the content, which part of the content may be played, at a which resolution and with which options.
While that seems to be what the MPAA wants, so far blueray and HDDVD are pretty much as 'difficult' to play as DVD. No central server needed.
As a gun-toting network administrator, I endorse this service! ;)
Though generally speaking you're allowed to investigate your own equipment without any problems.
The license would be required if you're going to be snooping in other people's systems, especially without their knowledge.
Call it the difference between a having a photographer taking pictures of your wedding(with your permission) vs hiring a PI to take pictures of your wife cheating(without her permission or knowledge).
I say we get ahold of the list, start up a charity to hire 200 hits.
vigilante justice FTW!
I hate spam not in a can.
Out of curiosity, what are you reasons for not doing illegal drugs?
I've never felt any urge to. I've never felt any urge to smoke in my life(family was nonsmoking, mom forced dad to quit back when they were dating). I've been drunk once in my life, didn't like it and haven't repeated it.
I have nothing against thost that simply 'do' drugs, on the other hand I don't think drugs are an excuse for anything - as far as I'm concerned if you get into a fight while drunk it should be just the same as if you'd gotten into a fight while sober legal wise.
Unless you were drugged without your knowledge/consent, of course.
Actually, speaking as a teetotaler* here, I'd legalize it all. Legalization implies better regulation than decriminalization. I'm not fond of halfway measures. By regulation I'm talking about the sort of stuff that legal commercial drugs have to conform to - pure or cut with safe materials, consistant potency, no selling to minors, etc...
Going by the example of prohibition, problems would decrease significanty as the majority of drug users shift to safer but bulkier drugs, such as shifting from crack back to cocaine, meth use drops almost entirely, and those that don't/can't control their usage eliminate themselves relatively quickly and quietly.
*I don't drink or smoke, much less do illegal drugs.
It's also new technology. Which can also help explain the low resolution. While 'projector' might not be new, 'laser scan projector' is.
Though I'll admit that one of my first thoughts was 'too bad it's not HD'.
I figure that it shouldn't be too hard to make it HD - you'd just have to increase the speed and accuracy that the lasers can scan at(perhaps significantly).
This is a tech where I'd expect to see 1080i before 1080p.
Why yes it does. Viewing angle should be similar to viewing a painted wall - the perceived narrowing of the image would be a problem long before not seeing the light would be. Have a translucent screen and you'd be able to have rear projection.
As for power - it doesn't sound bad. If it's anything like many other conventions I've been to - the ambient light level could be described as 'as bright or brighter than outdoors at noon'. If it's still capable of projecting a 'vibrant' image on an 8.5x11" piece of paper, I'd consider that sufficient for a small projector - in a dim room you'd probably be able to project a ~30" image without trouble, and in a dark room ~40-50" wouldn't be out of reach.
They might also have kicked the power up a bit on the laser diodes for the newest model.
for shining a laser into the sky (albeit at a helicopter pilot)
no albeit about it, pointing a laser into the sky isn't a crime, pointing one at an aircraft(much less the pilot) is a felony.
So holding a laser light show into the sky is fine as long as you're not below a regular flight lane. If you're doing a high power laser light show, contacting the FAA might be a good idea.
Relatively high powered lasers are used for star gazing fairly frequently - it allows a director to point stuff out, as the laser is powerful enough to be seen via atmospheric interactions.
Good luck, hope you get a big one. I hear they grow up to 14 Centimeters!
I don't know about the earlier one(site is blocked by my work's firewall), but the PK20 is a miniaturized standard projecter - the SHOW uses a currently unique display method.
The SHOW looks to be a bit bigger than an Ipod, while the PK20 is 4x5x2", much larger. Probably dimmer as well, as it's only 25 ANSI lumens(and the next smallest I remember off the top of my head was 800). Oh, and don't forget that the SHOW also contains a battery sufficient for an hour or two's usage.
Personally, I'd like to see a slightly larger SHOW - drop the batteries, up the resolution to 1080i/p* levels, up the power on the lasers a bit**, provide a standard power slot and interface set(or adapter cables).
Bonus: You'd be able to advertise them as energy star and probably sell boatloads of them to various green companies.
Another thought I had on this is that it gets rid of the whole 'native resolution' issue with LCD/DLP projectors, and, unlike monitors, would be able to 'natively' display both 4:3 and 16:9 screen widths as long as the laser can reach.
*Given that this is a scanning technology much like CRTs, interlaced might actually make sense.
**Probably have to add some safety circuitry to make sure the lasers move fast enough to prevent eye damage, and if they can't move, that they shut down.
I don't think there is much public benefit in extending civil liability to executives.
Didn't mention extending civil liability to the executives(though the company could certainly sue the exective if it's his negligence that cost them money).
I was talking about criminal matters. IE your company violates EPA clean air regulations - you and your executives can be tossed into jail for the offense, in addition to fining the company the appropriate amount of money.
Matter of fact, if you go further up to my post before the one you replied to, I said: though they(the company)'d still be liable in civil cases - feel free to sue the company into oblivion if it's bad enough.
So no, they wouldn't be able to pass the buck to some exective to save themselves $5mil. If nothing else, if I'm going to hold an executive financially responsable, I'm going to hit the one in charge of the area that commited the offense, and only for what he or she can pay, with the company picking up the rest.
So your idea would end up costing the company more money - the jury hits the executive with a massive settlement- he defaults, the settlement defaults back to the company, and they still have to pay him the $5mil they agreed to(if there was a contract). Not to mention that settlements such as this generally aren't defaultable by a bankruptcy court - that $5mil payment would end up confiscated for the settlement pot.
Competition. Multiple companies can manufacture and sell tuners eligable for the rebate. You aren't likely to see any receivers below the $40 mark until the rebate program has passed, but I'm sure you'll see a number right at that point given some time.
To have gotten the manufacturers off their butts and started including the features.
People would probably need 2/3rds fewer of these coupons if the sets had been mandated 5 years ago - I think that something like 8 years is the standard expected lifespan of a TV. I'm not just talking about failure leading to replacement, I'm also including upgrades and such. People just tend to buy a new TV every 8 years or so.
Thus, requiring digital tuners in 2007, for a changeover in 2009 would only give you ~25% of TVs being compliant. Require tuners in 2003 for the changeover, and you'd expect to catch ~75% of TVs. Maybe a bit fewer, as some would have ended up replacing their TV twice, while others are hanging onto their TV that has more tubes than the display one.
I'd argue that finding a 'middle class' is rather easy, with the caveat that people's perception of that 'class' can vary widely.
If nothing else, toss people in the top third of income into 'rich', the bottom third into 'poor' and the rest into 'middle class'.
But there's still the confusion between wealth and income - I could have ten million stuffed under my mattress and be considered below the poverty line because I have no income, or make a million dollars a year and still being 'poor' because between my gambling addiction, seven ex wives and 14 children I have to pay child support for I have none of it left and live in a old station wagon. Extreme examples to make a point.
For example, though I'm hardly rich I made about a month's income off my investments last year due to simple demands and good financial management. I'm not hurting for money, so I'd consider myself middle class. I could have that big HDTV if I wanted, but I don't feel like spending the money. I don't have to strictly budget either.
Why would you object to the reality that you murdered another human being, if you really did it for a good reason?
Because, by my definition, murder is always bad. Killing in self-defense isn't bad, so it isn't murder.
If the good reason can't make it "ok" with you that you had to murder someone, then I would question the justice of your action.
By my reasoning, the 'good reason*' makes it not murder.
Sanitizing the language just lowers the moral bar for justifying the action.
I'm not sanitizing the language - I'm just not sensationalizing it. 'Homocide' is a long standing term. Murder has specific components, much like 'execute', 'drown', 'electricute', 'defenestrate', etc...
dictionary.com
Murder:
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
7. to commit murder.
Homicide:
1. the killing of one human being by another.
See the difference?
In short, I would call any killing of people with knowledge and intent (either individually, or by initiating action you know will result in deaths) murder. The only remaining arguement after that was whether it was ok to murder or not. Legal terms have no interest to me, and Murder predates any modern legal system by a good long measure. I'm much more interested in the underlying morality of it, which legal categories completely fail to address in any meaningful way.
Well, when I listed my personal definition of 'murder', I didn't address it in legal terms. By my definition, if it's justified(ok), then while it's still homicide, it's not murder. Like I said, if I'm ever forced to kill somebody in self defense, and you call me a murderer I'm going to get upset.
*And it better be bloody good.
Quite right. I remember reading about a moderately sized city that had a 'moderate' leak in their water systems - they were losing over a million gallons a day from it, but didn't feel the need to fix it.
So the city, by fixing that leak, could easily afford the water to fill the road piping system.
I have to agree with you.
Especially on the education angle. Education is good, but we have far too many 4 year college graduates being shift supervisor at McD's(or their competitor's equivalents). That can be handled by a good HS graduate or 2 year degreed individual.
I think that we need to re-emphasize technical schools, and go back towards teaching practical skills in HS, not have HS be almost universally college prep.
It might sound odd, but many plumbers and electricians today make more money than degreed computer science workers.
although childcare's so astronomically expensive sometimes I think they'd have more money if mother stayed at home, to say nothing of the benefits it would bring for the children, but I digress.
You are not incorrect. My mother is an accountant, and occasionally does financial reviews of people's household finances and budgets. Call it a personallized financial management session.
More than once her advice has been for the mother to quit - by the time you added up the cost of work clothes, commuting&vehicle cost, daycare, additional income taxes, etc... It often costs more money for the mother to be working than not working. Part of the reason that I normally object to government subsidized daycare - it doesn't make financial sense. In one case she recommended the father quit to take care of the kids. In other cases, such as when the kids are in school, a part time job can make sense - drop kids off at school, go to work, pick up kids on way home.
As for your housing situation - part of the problem is increased population levels. From what I've read, the UK is in a serious housing shortage - which will lead to the increased prices you describe. That and a similar 'values always go up!' attitude much like what prevailed in the USA for such a long time.
You are drawing a distinction where there is none. Factory workers were the FIRST to be affected by "offshoring", only then it was called "foreign imports". And by and large they DIDN'T retrain for another high paying job. Some survived better than others, but a great most didn't do it by "retraining".
By and large though, our manufacturing sector still builds an amazing array of items, thus factory workers would end up having to find another factory job, learning by OJT their new duties.
Our unemployment isn't high enough to say that they're still unemployed.
As for the American dream, you missed my point in my original post - it never really existed! at least for most.
I'd argue that the 'american dream' is a stereotype. Some people are happier living in an apartment(no maintenance to worry about!), living close enough to great restraunts and services that they don't need a car, etc...
Even so, home ownership is at a all time high, even with the current situation with the housing market we aren't likely to lose much ground there.
As for disruptions - get used to it. It's always occured in some form or another. At least today such disruptions don't generally result in fatalities. Nobody weeps for the buggy whip makers, after all.
they only believe it for a highly technical definition of "rational."
Not to mention only on average, as well.
They actually wouldn't necessarily need to be close to the surface - the deeper you go, sure it takes longer to reach the pipes, but you have to remember that you have all year. So by placing them deep you get a more even heat.
Interestingly enough, it might increase the lifespan of the road by keeping it at a more constant temperature.
b) so don't use drinking water then. Rain water will suffice just as well. Oh, and in the Netherlands, there's a lot of rain _and_ water.
Actually, I'd think that they'd prefer to use distilled water with antifreeze agents added. Keeps the system from crudding up.
But I think that the point remains - despite water shortages, a system that you only have to fill up once isn't that big of a deal.
Most shortages are only during certain periods and in limited areas - while fairly expensive you could truck this water in from areas with a surplus. Or just wait until there's a surplus to start filling the pipes.
And a power hog possibly even over that of a CRT.
We used to have a status screen setup at work that used 4 plasmas - if you were cold you just had to stand in front of them.