I should have clarified: Google is not destroying part of the Earth with it's data collection. I don't know why everyone assumed I meant the whole Earth. Your post makes it sound like this oil leak is not worth mentioning. Large oil spills have happened before so this one is okay? I'd like to think this man-made disaster could be considered important without getting emotional. So you don't get alarmed unless the entire Earth is going to be destroyed?
The Gulf is actually quite small compared to the Earth
That's like saying you're town is quite small compared to the rest of the Earth. No harm in nuking it. The subjectivity of the word large is not important in the scheme of this conversation. This oil leak is not a natural occurrence. History does not change this fact.
You're stretching my words. Surely you don't think I meant one oil leak is going to cause the apocalypse. Anyone who wasn't trying to be an ass would have read this as Google is not causing significant environmental impact with their data collection. The parent tried to imply how similar BP and Google's mistakes were. I was trying to say the impacts are very different. If Google deletes the information they collected (which was being freely transmitted), then all is well. BP's mess will be around for a while.
It is an archaic system based on naíve economic ideas. It is time to fix it.
Counterpoint: Average Joe invents something. Corporation X sees invention and masses produces it for less than Average Joe can. Corporation makes millions. Average Joe sees no profits from his invention.
Haven't you seen Flash of Genius about the invention of windshield wipers? The system definitely has flaws, but doing without is not a good idea.
You have just foreseen our demise. Aliens will not destroy us; it will be creatures of our own creation. Synthetic life will evolve on Mars and come back to eradicate us. These Synths must be stopped before it's too late!
Sexual reproduction has a limited input genome. Nature cannot create anything that does not already exist in the parents, save deviation due to mutation. The idea behind synthetic life is that you can produce any genome and therefore create lifeforms which could not occur naturally. The issue is whether or not you can patent a specific genome so that others cannot use it freely.
Home charging stations are available for the Roadster that run off your home 240V service. It can also be plugged in to a typical 110V outlet. You could also get some solar panels+wind turbine for your home and skip the whole power station argument.
It's physics, in every step of the process there is loss of energy. It's more efficient to have the fuel directly produce kinetic energy in the engine.
So the fuel is magically transported into your engine at no energy cost? To say it's physics does not validate your point. You haven't done the math. You should research the efficiency of a modern internal combustion engine, various types of power plants, transmission lines, and electric motors. Regardless, there are renewable ways of generating electricity. Mass produced renewable gasoline is not yet an option (E85 can only take us so far).
To reflect your post, how is it more efficient to manufacture a drilling rig in the middle of the ocean, pump all that nonrenewable oil out of the Earth, transport that oil via tanker, refine that oil into gasoline, transport that gasoline via diesel truck, and burn that fuel in an internal combustion engine?
One more thing- you can recharge your electric car with a solar panel at home.
How many times do we have to hear this argument? Central production of electricity at a power plant is more efficient than millions of cars producing it in internal combustion engines. Shifting the pollution away from where cars drive should be a benefit (i.e. breathing less smog in LA). Then there's the effect of burning fuel to transport fuel to all the gas stations when we already have an electrical infrastructure to deliver energy to electric cars. I agree that not all power plants are green, but compared to burning fuel in our cars, it's greener. And once demand for electricity goes up, maybe we'll finally get the push we need to expand renewable energy generation. There's no instant solution but there is progress.
Tesla has been working on this sedan concept for years. The $100,000 Roadster was their entry into the electric car market. The S sedan is the "more affordable" step toward their ultimate goal of a $35,000 car for the common person. Whether or not they achieve this goal, I support their vision. The state of the economy has shifted the perspective on the value of Tesla, but I'm still looking forward to owning one some day.
Next we create the neo-sapien race to perform our labor. Genetically superior to humans, but unhappy with their sub-human status, they rise against us and we have to use our exo-frames to squash the rebellion. Who's old enough to remember that?
I agree with you here. I understand Cross wanted to make herself identifiable for business reasons. But "geekgirl" is obviously not unique enough and she should concede. I seriously doubt she can lay claim to being the geekgirl above all others.
Now that the designs have been revealed the teams are awaiting news in the next few months of which designs will receive funding to go on to the second phase of the program.
You have to start somewhere. You can't just go around funding every breakthrough concept and building real-world prototypes with the necessary instrumentation to measure impact. But I agree. This would be more newsworthy if MIT had actually been chosen to receive further funding.
That doesn't make sense (not saying it didn't happen that way). If Evans did in fact sexually harass a coworker, then his probation should be for such. Instead he is on probation for sharing a scientific article. If there was something else offensive taking place which was prompted by the sharing of the article, that should have been stated as the reason for the probation. Sounds like they can't get him for what he actually did, so they're arbitrarily penalizing him for something barely related. Sounds like shenanigans to me.
everyone on the planet explodes into a pool of blood
You say that like it's a bad thing. You obviously missed the point of the human instrumentality project. It was meant to bring us together. When we all lose our AT fields, you have to stay in the kiddie pool.
Patents are supposed to protect the little guy. Imagine you invent the best thing since sliced bread. Being a/.er, you don't have the funds to mass produce and market this invention on your own. You seek outside help. A bigger business sees your idea and puts it in the market. Not only that, they have the resources to make produce it for pennies (in China) so even if you do get your product out there, competition has already made you obsolete. Without patent protection, they rake in the millions and you're just a loser who came up with a great idea. Patents do serve a purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
I should have clarified: Google is not destroying part of the Earth with it's data collection. I don't know why everyone assumed I meant the whole Earth. Your post makes it sound like this oil leak is not worth mentioning. Large oil spills have happened before so this one is okay? I'd like to think this man-made disaster could be considered important without getting emotional. So you don't get alarmed unless the entire Earth is going to be destroyed?
The Gulf is actually quite small compared to the Earth
That's like saying you're town is quite small compared to the rest of the Earth. No harm in nuking it. The subjectivity of the word large is not important in the scheme of this conversation. This oil leak is not a natural occurrence. History does not change this fact.
You're stretching my words. Surely you don't think I meant one oil leak is going to cause the apocalypse. Anyone who wasn't trying to be an ass would have read this as Google is not causing significant environmental impact with their data collection. The parent tried to imply how similar BP and Google's mistakes were. I was trying to say the impacts are very different. If Google deletes the information they collected (which was being freely transmitted), then all is well. BP's mess will be around for a while.
I think the consequences are a little different. Google's data gathering isn't destroying the Earth.
It is an archaic system based on naíve economic ideas. It is time to fix it.
Counterpoint: Average Joe invents something. Corporation X sees invention and masses produces it for less than Average Joe can. Corporation makes millions. Average Joe sees no profits from his invention. Haven't you seen Flash of Genius about the invention of windshield wipers? The system definitely has flaws, but doing without is not a good idea.
You have just foreseen our demise. Aliens will not destroy us; it will be creatures of our own creation. Synthetic life will evolve on Mars and come back to eradicate us. These Synths must be stopped before it's too late!
Sexual reproduction has a limited input genome. Nature cannot create anything that does not already exist in the parents, save deviation due to mutation. The idea behind synthetic life is that you can produce any genome and therefore create lifeforms which could not occur naturally. The issue is whether or not you can patent a specific genome so that others cannot use it freely.
Home charging stations are available for the Roadster that run off your home 240V service. It can also be plugged in to a typical 110V outlet. You could also get some solar panels+wind turbine for your home and skip the whole power station argument.
It's physics, in every step of the process there is loss of energy. It's more efficient to have the fuel directly produce kinetic energy in the engine.
So the fuel is magically transported into your engine at no energy cost? To say it's physics does not validate your point. You haven't done the math. You should research the efficiency of a modern internal combustion engine, various types of power plants, transmission lines, and electric motors. Regardless, there are renewable ways of generating electricity. Mass produced renewable gasoline is not yet an option (E85 can only take us so far).
To reflect your post, how is it more efficient to manufacture a drilling rig in the middle of the ocean, pump all that nonrenewable oil out of the Earth, transport that oil via tanker, refine that oil into gasoline, transport that gasoline via diesel truck, and burn that fuel in an internal combustion engine?
One more thing- you can recharge your electric car with a solar panel at home.
How many times do we have to hear this argument? Central production of electricity at a power plant is more efficient than millions of cars producing it in internal combustion engines. Shifting the pollution away from where cars drive should be a benefit (i.e. breathing less smog in LA). Then there's the effect of burning fuel to transport fuel to all the gas stations when we already have an electrical infrastructure to deliver energy to electric cars. I agree that not all power plants are green, but compared to burning fuel in our cars, it's greener. And once demand for electricity goes up, maybe we'll finally get the push we need to expand renewable energy generation. There's no instant solution but there is progress.
Tesla has been working on this sedan concept for years. The $100,000 Roadster was their entry into the electric car market. The S sedan is the "more affordable" step toward their ultimate goal of a $35,000 car for the common person. Whether or not they achieve this goal, I support their vision. The state of the economy has shifted the perspective on the value of Tesla, but I'm still looking forward to owning one some day.
The question a rational person asks is "what is the risk vs possible return."
The typical American asks "What is the possible return" and ignores the risk in pursuit of personal gain.
Next we create the neo-sapien race to perform our labor. Genetically superior to humans, but unhappy with their sub-human status, they rise against us and we have to use our exo-frames to squash the rebellion. Who's old enough to remember that?
I finally learn how to count and now they tell me it's useless. What's next, I learn how to type and I find out nobody is reading what I write?
He is the only recorded male in his family tree. All women in his family were artificially inseminated. All the sperm donors were virgins.
I agree with you here. I understand Cross wanted to make herself identifiable for business reasons. But "geekgirl" is obviously not unique enough and she should concede. I seriously doubt she can lay claim to being the geekgirl above all others.
As if cell phone radiation wasn't a concern already.
US vs EU
Haven't you seen Idiocracy? It just doesn't work that way.
Greed.
Apple is gearing up for the move to Verizon.
Now that the designs have been revealed the teams are awaiting news in the next few months of which designs will receive funding to go on to the second phase of the program.
You have to start somewhere. You can't just go around funding every breakthrough concept and building real-world prototypes with the necessary instrumentation to measure impact. But I agree. This would be more newsworthy if MIT had actually been chosen to receive further funding.
That doesn't make sense (not saying it didn't happen that way). If Evans did in fact sexually harass a coworker, then his probation should be for such. Instead he is on probation for sharing a scientific article. If there was something else offensive taking place which was prompted by the sharing of the article, that should have been stated as the reason for the probation. Sounds like they can't get him for what he actually did, so they're arbitrarily penalizing him for something barely related. Sounds like shenanigans to me.
everyone on the planet explodes into a pool of blood
You say that like it's a bad thing. You obviously missed the point of the human instrumentality project. It was meant to bring us together. When we all lose our AT fields, you have to stay in the kiddie pool.
Patents are supposed to protect the little guy. Imagine you invent the best thing since sliced bread. Being a /.er, you don't have the funds to mass produce and market this invention on your own. You seek outside help. A bigger business sees your idea and puts it in the market. Not only that, they have the resources to make produce it for pennies (in China) so even if you do get your product out there, competition has already made you obsolete. Without patent protection, they rake in the millions and you're just a loser who came up with a great idea. Patents do serve a purpose.