That they do, a Canon t2i and a merlin steadicam combined with say a zoom H2 recorder and a boom or two, and you can work wonders, all for under a grand.
Well, OK, if some guy with a Wordpress blog says so, I'm convinced!
Being less snide -- I wish these pioneers godspeed; I'd be happy to see big changes. I'm just not sure it'll happen as easily or as quickly as the write-up asserts.
Its a very exciting time, a small band or budding author can publish a wesite and sell their creations for a tiny budget, if you make movies youtube is a godsend, while the social networks offer a readymade marketing platform, which is pretty much the only thing the traditional companies offer. An individual or small group that's well enough plugged in can do wonders, especially in collaboration with other small group, cottage industries are springing up around editing, proofreading, video creation, all of that, its the democratisation effect of advancing technology. You'll get conglomeration of course, and maybe thats not a bad thing, but there will always be room for the little guy on the internet. As long as we maintain net neutrality of course.
The "hoops" for bacteria generated fuel are smaller and fewer than the "hoops" for creating an entirely new infrastructure.
What new infrastructure? Hydrogen would need an entirely new infrastructure, electrics don't. Between trickle charging at home and that you'd need similar power requirements to a large restaurant to open a "gas" station for electrics, I'm not seeing where this new infrastructure would be needed, barring a few HVDC lines.
In addition to the improvements in battery technology and massive new power generation and transmission requirements that you allude to there is also the environmental effects of the mining and transportation of the resources (ex lithium) necessary for all those new batteries and the recycling and waste handling of all the batteries that will be periodically replaced.
The general consensus is that electric vehicles will not add more than a few percentage points to grid load, and in fact might make it easier to control the grid by acting as temporary storage. Have we any indication of the byproducts or industrial processes required to manufacture this new fuel? I'm not saying its a non runner, but you can make electricity out of almost anything. Just how specialised an operation is required to produce the stuff, never mind relative efficiencies of the engine types, is an important question.
Net neutrality takes away the power of private cable companies to censor content, but it does not give the government authority to do so.
And further, this is an example of the government doing exactly what it's meant to - stopping private companies walking all over everyone in the pursuit of profit.
and our approach to include hydro, geo and wind. Gee, you know what... That actually is what I argued for in my initial post. I didn't use some flippant pipe dream about paving over ninety thousand square klicks of dessert and plunking down solar panels, I actually looked at a more realistic and nuanced approach.
The specific part I quoted was saying that these were not a panacea. They are, in fact, a panacea. Lets triple the world's population, and triple their per capita energy demands, look, you only need to cover less than a fifth of the uninhabited Sahara. No, I don't think we should actually do that, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, its an example to underline the point. There is no renewable energy shortage.
Compare the power generated, per kilogram of mass as constructed, between a nuclear power plant and a wind farm, and then consider the useful lifespan of that mass.
Sure, nuclear comes in at three times the cost of wind.
As I've already posted in this discussion, no it won't. 2% of the uninhabited Sahara covered in photovoltaic cells = the entirety of the world's energy requirements.
I'm not recommending that we actually do it, although with HVDC you could make a respectable effort at it, its an example that underlines the point - we are swimming in renewable energy, there are plenty of localised sites that can provide similar benefits.
Solar and wind should be in the mix, but we shouldn't kid ourselves and pretend they're a panacea.
If you covered around two percent of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara with currently available photovoltaic cells, you could supply 100% of the world's energy needs. They could very well be a panacea.
My concern about nuclear is that its pretty expensive. Projects done in the US can come to $9000 per kW, while wind at the outside, after factoring in efficiencies, lands around the $3000 per kW mark. China is building plants equivalent to wind in cost, but they don't bother with all that annoying health and safety, insurance, or capital cost business.
As well as that, in my opinion, if you had to start from scratch with a choice between wind/power cables and say prospecting for, exploring for, drilling for, extracting and refining oil, before shipping it across thousands of miles in huge freighters and/or in sealed pipes, losing more energy when you push it into land based trucks, and then pumping it into fairly inefficient internal combustion engines which create external costs in the form of widespread public pollution, it would be a no-brainer.
Petrofuels have inertia and little else going for them.
The "runaway breeding" the article alludes to is ridiculous — we already have "runaway breeding" of anopheles mosquitoes, and as a result malaria kills a million or more persons per year, mostly in poor countries.
Yes but malaria doesn't create the ravenous walking dead now, does it?
I'd be more interested to see if sea level rises follow the 67% average acceleration figure, or trend towards the more ambitious 300% that thas been bandied about. Or just stay constant.
You get a lot of refusals to meet doing that though, ostensibly because they might be working on something similar themselves and wouldn't want to jeopardise their own projects. And if they do violate the NDA, what happens when you don't have the money to employ a lawyer to go after them, as in TFA? Its tough trying to innovate or create.
Its this kind of thieving corporate bullshit that really makes my blood boil. I mean how can anyone> with a good idea approach anyone for investment without the risk of it being lifted wholesale? You can't patent an idea, all you can do is show it and pray the mealy mouthed oily headed gordon gekko wannabe MBA across the table from you doesn't know that. Boycott Capcom, let them get that icy sinking feeling in their gut for a change.
i think the most tragic outcomes over the last couple hundred years of history have occurred when power becomes more centralized and the use of force rather than use of currency to pursue values becomes the norm.
Force is invariably utilised in the pursuit of currency however. I do not think that currency alone holds the answers.
Plus we're not a million miles away from being able to culture meat in vats at this point, which need not produce any greenhouse gases at all if set up right. I know a lot of people in developing countries consume insects as a staple form of food, the squirm factor for western audiences would be quite high however.
I'd say twitter might be going down even before facebook, since they haven't really figured out a revenue stream yet. There has been round after round of investment runs, but no actual income, its the dot com bubble all over again. At least facebook is making money.
Ghosts of dead people aren't going to help you pay this month's rent
I daresay they could not only pay this month's rent, but buy you a whole bunch of new houses if you could provide repeatable evidence of their existence.
The rules prohibit anything that might make casinos unprofitable, thats why there are still casinos. Its all a big scam really, keep your money in your pocket and spend it on something worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
even dSLR's do well for most projects.
That they do, a Canon t2i and a merlin steadicam combined with say a zoom H2 recorder and a boom or two, and you can work wonders, all for under a grand.
Well, OK, if some guy with a Wordpress blog says so, I'm convinced!
Being less snide -- I wish these pioneers godspeed; I'd be happy to see big changes. I'm just not sure it'll happen as easily or as quickly as the write-up asserts.
Its a very exciting time, a small band or budding author can publish a wesite and sell their creations for a tiny budget, if you make movies youtube is a godsend, while the social networks offer a readymade marketing platform, which is pretty much the only thing the traditional companies offer. An individual or small group that's well enough plugged in can do wonders, especially in collaboration with other small group, cottage industries are springing up around editing, proofreading, video creation, all of that, its the democratisation effect of advancing technology. You'll get conglomeration of course, and maybe thats not a bad thing, but there will always be room for the little guy on the internet. As long as we maintain net neutrality of course.
The USA has the largest economy
No, Europe's is larger these days.
The "hoops" for bacteria generated fuel are smaller and fewer than the "hoops" for creating an entirely new infrastructure.
What new infrastructure? Hydrogen would need an entirely new infrastructure, electrics don't. Between trickle charging at home and that you'd need similar power requirements to a large restaurant to open a "gas" station for electrics, I'm not seeing where this new infrastructure would be needed, barring a few HVDC lines.
In addition to the improvements in battery technology and massive new power generation and transmission requirements that you allude to there is also the environmental effects of the mining and transportation of the resources (ex lithium) necessary for all those new batteries and the recycling and waste handling of all the batteries that will be periodically replaced.
The general consensus is that electric vehicles will not add more than a few percentage points to grid load, and in fact might make it easier to control the grid by acting as temporary storage. Have we any indication of the byproducts or industrial processes required to manufacture this new fuel? I'm not saying its a non runner, but you can make electricity out of almost anything. Just how specialised an operation is required to produce the stuff, never mind relative efficiencies of the engine types, is an important question.
Firstly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current if you actualy wanted to try it, see also http://www.desertec.org/ and secondly I said "No, I don't think we should actually do that, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, its an example to underline the point."
Net neutrality takes away the power of private cable companies to censor content, but it does not give the government authority to do so.
And further, this is an example of the government doing exactly what it's meant to - stopping private companies walking all over everyone in the pursuit of profit.
and our approach to include hydro, geo and wind. Gee, you know what... That actually is what I argued for in my initial post. I didn't use some flippant pipe dream about paving over ninety thousand square klicks of dessert and plunking down solar panels, I actually looked at a more realistic and nuanced approach.
The specific part I quoted was saying that these were not a panacea. They are, in fact, a panacea. Lets triple the world's population, and triple their per capita energy demands, look, you only need to cover less than a fifth of the uninhabited Sahara. No, I don't think we should actually do that, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, its an example to underline the point. There is no renewable energy shortage.
Compare the power generated, per kilogram of mass as constructed, between a nuclear power plant and a wind farm, and then consider the useful lifespan of that mass.
Sure, nuclear comes in at three times the cost of wind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
This will leave a power deficit
As I've already posted in this discussion, no it won't. 2% of the uninhabited Sahara covered in photovoltaic cells = the entirety of the world's energy requirements.
I'm not recommending that we actually do it, although with HVDC you could make a respectable effort at it, its an example that underlines the point - we are swimming in renewable energy, there are plenty of localised sites that can provide similar benefits.
Solar and wind should be in the mix, but we shouldn't kid ourselves and pretend they're a panacea.
If you covered around two percent of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara with currently available photovoltaic cells, you could supply 100% of the world's energy needs. They could very well be a panacea.
My concern about nuclear is that its pretty expensive. Projects done in the US can come to $9000 per kW, while wind at the outside, after factoring in efficiencies, lands around the $3000 per kW mark. China is building plants equivalent to wind in cost, but they don't bother with all that annoying health and safety, insurance, or capital cost business.
As well as that, in my opinion, if you had to start from scratch with a choice between wind/power cables and say prospecting for, exploring for, drilling for, extracting and refining oil, before shipping it across thousands of miles in huge freighters and/or in sealed pipes, losing more energy when you push it into land based trucks, and then pumping it into fairly inefficient internal combustion engines which create external costs in the form of widespread public pollution, it would be a no-brainer.
Petrofuels have inertia and little else going for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
Bear in mind that these businesses have arisen after China have opened up their markets
But China hasn't opened up its markets?
The "runaway breeding" the article alludes to is ridiculous — we already have "runaway breeding" of anopheles mosquitoes, and as a result malaria kills a million or more persons per year, mostly in poor countries.
Yes but malaria doesn't create the ravenous walking dead now, does it?
I'd be more interested to see if sea level rises follow the 67% average acceleration figure, or trend towards the more ambitious 300% that thas been bandied about. Or just stay constant.
You get a lot of refusals to meet doing that though, ostensibly because they might be working on something similar themselves and wouldn't want to jeopardise their own projects. And if they do violate the NDA, what happens when you don't have the money to employ a lawyer to go after them, as in TFA? Its tough trying to innovate or create.
Its this kind of thieving corporate bullshit that really makes my blood boil. I mean how can anyone> with a good idea approach anyone for investment without the risk of it being lifted wholesale? You can't patent an idea, all you can do is show it and pray the mealy mouthed oily headed gordon gekko wannabe MBA across the table from you doesn't know that. Boycott Capcom, let them get that icy sinking feeling in their gut for a change.
Yes, I know whereof I speak.
I think it wouldn't have been too much to add this to the entry.
It was a test of slashdot chops, anyone who clicked the link before posting was IP banned.
We have standards to maintain, you know.
i think the most tragic outcomes over the last couple hundred years of history have occurred when power becomes more centralized and the use of force rather than use of currency to pursue values becomes the norm.
Force is invariably utilised in the pursuit of currency however. I do not think that currency alone holds the answers.
"They" are not just starting, "they" have been doing it for quite a while, at least here in Germany.
'If those guys over there can't handle the environment, then it's our right, no, our duty to invade them and make them care'.
For goodness sake can you Germans for once come up with a plan that doesn't involve invading someone?
:-p
I keed, I keed.
Plus we're not a million miles away from being able to culture meat in vats at this point, which need not produce any greenhouse gases at all if set up right. I know a lot of people in developing countries consume insects as a staple form of food, the squirm factor for western audiences would be quite high however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat
It's a shame, if not altogether ironic that the government feels the need to legislate ethics.
Is that not basically what all legislation is?
I'd say twitter might be going down even before facebook, since they haven't really figured out a revenue stream yet. There has been round after round of investment runs, but no actual income, its the dot com bubble all over again. At least facebook is making money.
Ghosts of dead people aren't going to help you pay this month's rent
I daresay they could not only pay this month's rent, but buy you a whole bunch of new houses if you could provide repeatable evidence of their existence.
The rules prohibit anything that might make casinos unprofitable, thats why there are still casinos. Its all a big scam really, keep your money in your pocket and spend it on something worthwhile.