Um, no, more gravity would only make it worse... because everything else (except for hydrogen) would also be heavier too. Meaning that the helium would be expelled even faster. (its exponentially dense) You'd need a microgravity environment with some turbidity to keep it well-mixed (around)
The choice to incorporate is not one that the state can require you to do. It is a matter of liability. Anyone who has studied the history corporations know they are 100% about liability. If she wants to blog and generate income, then she does it with her personal liability on the line (for slander, etc)
However, it is generally a good thing to incorporate. She will be able to deduct from her taxes in full or part, the cost of her internet connection, time blogging, etc as un-reimbursed business expenses. So she'll actually make out better because the corporation pays bills first, then pays taxes. Humans pay taxes first, then pay bills. Meaning that her company money will go farther than her personal money in paying for things. About every rich person I know has at least one fiction (a company) in their name. This means, the state will actually lose money. There is a small discrepancy when the cost of the business ($300) exceeds profits, but she can use the corporation for something else as well. She certainly doesn't live on $11/mo
Standard caveats apply, IANAL, IANAA (accountant) , YMMV, etc. I do however have a corp.
The ancient principle of the Anglo-Saxon common law, and Biblical law, is that everyone has a right to make a living at occupations of common right. So then, what is an occupation of common right? It is the right of all men in common to do any work that men might engage one another to do, and that does not exist as a result of some government act or establishment. Occupations of common right were some of those “inalienable rights” the writers of the Declaration of Independence had in mind. At least, that was the US supreme court’s opinion in Butchers Union v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746:
“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated as such under the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence which commenced with the fundamental proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.”
Qt is not a DE. KDE is a DE. Qt is just a library, available on all platforms. So if you have the library compiled for your platform, then you have Qt. Its that simple.
Qt provides the abstraction layer between platforms.
How you can do it without a proxy. Open up one tab of your real destination. And 8 other innocuous tabs. Then generate a volume of traffic on those tabs, occasionally clicking on the first, real one.
You can't "hide" your destination in volume. People don't search that, computers do. If there is a DNS entry resolved, or a host IP used, it can be logged. You're not hiding anything, or even pissing anyone off. You can't even hide your destination in SSL. All they need is a databse of IPS taged with topics, and they can make plenty of guesses about you.
Oh, and I learned my first programming language at 5.:-p (which is impressive for 1981), (TI-99 4A)
Nokia (yeah, remember Nokia?) is working on QTQuick and QML: a Qt/Javascript/CSS fusion language. (Formerly called Kinetic, now called QtQuick, and QML (the JS/CSS language)
It does everything that Flash does and is completely open source. What's more is it is not byte-code interpreted. The QML file is loaded into the QtDeclarativeEngine and evaluates and runs in native code. (Aside from Javascript, but Apple isn't arguing about JavaScript use)
*FULLY* open source, not interpreted (beyond JS), And damn easy to use... It will be a part of Qt 4.7 (next month?)
News for you, no artist is intellectual. Its physiologically impossible. Artists are right-brained, intellectuals are left-brained. Artists use feeling, intellectuals don't want to be bothered by it.
I think what you meant is elitist or snooty, s.a.: pretentious. That is what discerning artists are. *Their* subjectivity is clearly superior to *yours*. Artists would drive a BMW, if they could afford one, because they are snooty. But they can't, because they are artists and can;t have a real job because face it, artists like to suffer. it gives more value to their art. (van Gogh totally nailed it with the earless thing!)
Whereas an intellectuals know that subjectivity is transient, and not really anything of value or concern. However, intellectuals can afford and do drive BMWs, because they have a real job. But they do so, only because they appreciate the engineering, oh and they can afford one...
Seriously, I worked with a team of artists, and they were all very poorly paid, and barely got by. It was like making money from their art and having a comfortable existence would devalue their work. "Sell out" one called it. They needed to suffer to have their art have meaning.
(Not really flame bait, because its true according to my expereince, but I am sure this will be modded as such.)
As a jr. level sw engineer, I abhorred testing. But I wrote the code, made sure it worked and moved on to the next feature. I was merely testing features as I went, until I made a change to the code that affected the code in more than one place.. then I was hunting bugs down everywhere because I had a function that was modified ever so slightly and it broke every thing that relied on one corner case.
Then a few years ago, I got my first taste of XP (Extreme programming) It was a completely new experience and I hated it. Agile, pair programming, writing unit tests... all new things. I no longer do XP, but I am better for having done it. What I learned was my test cases are insurance against future breakage. What I have discovered is that those unit tests are invaluable. A few weeks ago, I had to modify a core function because I identified a timing assumption that won't be a valid assumption in the next release of the code. I changed two core functions, added another, and could only pass it based on limited testing because there were no unit tests. If I had unit tests, I could see that prior concerns would pass or fail. Because that's what unit tests are: they are the validation of assumption and concerns. Any tricky code path can be replicated in a test case, so you know it still works (or doesn't). But you need that unit test infrastructure set up.
However system level testing - beyond engineering test - needs to be done by a non-engineering team, and a that team can only have minimal contact. Else leakage of assumptions and what not will happen. You want your testing team to be most user-like, but smart enough to break your code and report on your defects.
Unit testing doesn't have to suck. there Are frameworks out there. NUnit (.Net), and QtTest (C++) make it easy. (The Qt stuff is trivial)
There are two additional benefits of having good unit test infrastructure: 1. it can also be automated. Your nightly build system can also run the tests after building. 2. writing unit-testable code forces you to not put everything into GUI event handlers, but rather, develop an independent controller (as in MVC) which makes abstracting the interface easier if say, you want a local and web GUI. It also serves to keep the GUI issues out of the actual application logic. And that means, you'll get a script-able version of your application... not just for testing!
So has any of this made it more "fun"? No, but it has made me more confident about making changes. And it's made my code better. And it has shortened our time to market. (Fewer bugs make it out of engineering, system testing cycle is shorter, but oddly, we're not spending much more time in engineering (beyond getting the testing infrastructure set up)
In 1960, even 1980, most everything on a vehicle was metal. Now days, so much of the vehicle is plastic. Plastic saves weight, while having some rigidity and performance. My glove box interior was actually cardboard, something that would be plastic today, due to the water-imperiousness, rigidity and what not (I am guessing weight is the same).
Meanwhile engineering advances have lead us to extract more HP from fuel. A 350cuin engine in 1980got 180HP and 300 ftlb of tq. Now they are about 300/300. With multiple valves per cylinder, the Volumetric Efficiency went up. Multi port fuel injection was an improvement in throttle body fuel injection, which replaced the collaborator. And electronically controlled timing delivered even more power at lower RPMs. So engines could be made smaller, or sold into markets for larger engines.
I fail to see how you can take all that into account and still have a reliable statistic. Because we just don't know where we'd be had we not come up with all those advances (pun unintentional)
Well in Star Trek, they refer to phasers as "colonizing energy"
Here's my take. In SW, is an anti-matter particle beam. The glow you see is antimatter atoms reacting with the interstellar medium, which is less than total vacuum. Hence, you get some reactions (and losses) en route. This is what you see. It is also the only medium to generate that violent a reaction that quickly. A laser would simply heat it. And the problem with lasers if you have to be able to dissipate your inefficiencies. So if you have a 33% efficient laser of 1MW, you have to be able to dissipate 2MW yourself. This means everyone on the Death Star would cook, and it would blow itself up twice as fast as Alderan. (Assuming Alderan's the DS's thermal properties are the same, etc)
You can also explain the beam consolidation as simple vector math, as well as the slow propigation to target.
This does leave a problem of how light sabers work without blowing up the user the second it cuts something made of matter.
Re:A Gnome user that wants to give this a try...
on
KDE 4.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
Well then the cures for cancer we have today are: 1. A low-carb diet (this starves the cancer cells of the necessary sugars they need for metabolism.) 2. Anti-oxidants. (this prevents (lessons) DNA damage by chemicals.) 3. Get the right amount of radiation exposure for you. (Oddly, Denver with 3x the radiation (from the mountains) has over-all lower cancer rates) 4. Limit exposure to toxins and VOCs.
Cancer isn't a solvable problem. It is the result of three gene mutations: 1) cell death gene turns off 2) a gene controlling cell metabolism changes so it can process blood sugar 3) I forget. It escapes me right now.
But cancer is nothing more than three mutations combined. With only two you won't have cancer. The genes flip for various reasons: toxins (chemical), radiation, biological (viral). The solutions are: don't over-expose yourself (though a minimum level of exposure is required to keep the repair systems functioning), and eat lots of antioxidants which limit free radicals. Everyone who lives long enough will get cancer, some people seem to be born with poor genetic health, meaning DNA is easily damaged or not repaired effectively. These people get it earlier than others. DNA is always being damaged. it is always bring repaired. But some people seem to repair better than others.
We also have treatments for cancer. I think the problem is these are currently relatively barbaric, in how we target cells with these mutations. Eventually we'll be able to infect them with a virus that will restore the right genes, but the battle against genetic mutations will be on-going.
One of the assumptions we deal with, or rather fail to deal with, is we assume the government has "better things to do". We may be small fry, but there is an enabling going on. You're only small fry until you've pissed someone off for whatever lawful reason. (Disagreements happen even when both parties are being lawful).
Out west, they think "Washington is so far away" but really they aren't anymore. We think GPS-tracking is based on public information....
But all these ideas are based on the assumption that the government has better people to go after. Having a limited resource like man power, assures the biggest offenders are handled first, and on down the line to the jay-walker. But as computers can work 24/7/365, and never forgets, and technology gets cheaper, the force of the law gets more prevalent.
Given enough information, you can identify a person at a crosswalk, using the intersection cameras and mail them a fine. If it gets in the mail soon enough, it'll be at their house before they get home.
So historically speaking there is a notion of "scope" or "reach" (as typified by "long arm of the law"). As we get more technology, it becomes easier to become a victim of government. Even if they don't act on what they know about you (cost-benefit) they can still use it at a later date. Most of us I am sure have some unflattering FBI files, collected opportunistically. Drunken Facebook postings and blog posts, its all there to be compiled and added to your dossier...
I was going to write something halfway intelligent about how they need to use mini LCDs over your eyes and track your focal point and run that back through the computer so everyone gets their own frame tailored to their focal point. Or, more cheaply, several possible focal points that are pre-rendered and then stitched together based on your focal point. It would go along way to make it more immersive. I hate the fact that the director controls the focal point. "Look at this now!", the fascist art director orders me. "You will look a this, or you will see blur!" I personally like looking around the background.
Ah, yes, but 500,000 soldiers and support personnel would come back to this country unemployed. Better to keep them employed abroad than to: 1) Hike unemployment above 10% (politically damaging) 2) Pay them on unemployment to do nothing. (Where they don't make defense contractors any money) (economically damaging to families and industry) 3) Shut down the military industrial complex that allows their deployment possible (and hike unemployment above 12%)
They aren't going to Afghanistan anyway. They are headed to IraN.
Just like WWII was what ended the depression, our boys aren't coming home until we're out of this one. Sad but true.
I wouldn't be so dismissive. You can readthis report
Basically, what happens when you make the base of the mountains unable to trap moisture. You get less snow, which is undoubtedly less protection for the glacier. It may even manifest as increased melt, but it is not a temperature-induced melt. It all stems from environment becoming drier, and less water product deposited and even more transported away.
To say the glaciers are shrinking because of temperature increase (melt) is to completely ignore the nature of glaciers and reduce it to one thing: temperature. Glaciers are also made of water.
The problem is everyone sees ice loss, and assumes melt. It's not melt, it is sublimation.
Sublimation - when solid goes directly to gas is to blame. This is like water ice on Mars evaporating (not melting) into the martian atmosphere. Here on Earth the increased sublimation is caused by land use changes. What was once moist forest at the feet of the mountains, has become drier farm land. This drier air then travels over the mountain and picks up moisture directly from the ice.
How else can you explain ice loss at below-freezing temperatures? You can't just say the "ice melted" unless you show that it is warmer at the peak. These pictures are proof that man is modifying the environment, but only locally, and has nothing to do with temperature.
Is that evolution has selected for a very efficient biological machine. If you are going to harness energy from movement, then you're going to require additional energy, in for the form of biological consumables, which have to be stored, transported an prepared. By extracting energy from the organism, you have to make the assertion that the organism can obtain its own fuel easier than you can. At 100w/sqm, and efficiency rates of 14%, You're looking at 3.5w per backpack of solar collection. Can your body output 3 watts? In nearly every example, its better to give the electronics their own source.
It is important to note that enery isn't "wasted" it is expended. And to put anything on yourself to collect it, is going to up your expenditure of energy. DARPA is essentially trying to strap windmills onto aircraft... (which doesn't work, because they add weight and drag)
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no, more gravity would only make it worse... because everything else (except for hydrogen) would also be heavier too. Meaning that the helium would be expelled even faster. (its exponentially dense) You'd need a microgravity environment with some turbidity to keep it well-mixed (around)
The choice to incorporate is not one that the state can require you to do. It is a matter of liability. Anyone who has studied the history corporations know they are 100% about liability. If she wants to blog and generate income, then she does it with her personal liability on the line (for slander, etc)
However, it is generally a good thing to incorporate. She will be able to deduct from her taxes in full or part, the cost of her internet connection, time blogging, etc as un-reimbursed business expenses. So she'll actually make out better because the corporation pays bills first, then pays taxes. Humans pay taxes first, then pay bills. Meaning that her company money will go farther than her personal money in paying for things. About every rich person I know has at least one fiction (a company) in their name. This means, the state will actually lose money. There is a small discrepancy when the cost of the business ($300) exceeds profits, but she can use the corporation for something else as well. She certainly doesn't live on $11/mo
Standard caveats apply, IANAL, IANAA (accountant) , YMMV, etc. I do however have a corp.
The ancient principle of the Anglo-Saxon common law, and Biblical law, is that everyone has a right to make a living at occupations of common right. So then, what is an occupation of common right? It is the right of all men in common to do any work that men might engage one another to do, and that does not exist as a result of some government act or establishment. Occupations of common right were some of those “inalienable rights” the writers of the Declaration of Independence had in mind. At least, that was the US supreme court’s opinion in Butchers Union v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746:
“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated as such under the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence which commenced with the fundamental proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.”
Qt is not a DE. KDE is a DE. Qt is just a library, available on all platforms. So if you have the library compiled for your platform, then you have Qt. Its that simple.
Qt provides the abstraction layer between platforms.
And someone mod him up.
How you can do it without a proxy. Open up one tab of your real destination. And 8 other innocuous tabs. Then generate a volume of traffic on those tabs, occasionally clicking on the first, real one.
You can't "hide" your destination in volume. People don't search that, computers do. If there is a DNS entry resolved, or a host IP used, it can be logged. You're not hiding anything, or even pissing anyone off. You can't even hide your destination in SSL. All they need is a databse of IPS taged with topics, and they can make plenty of guesses about you.
Oh, and I learned my first programming language at 5. :-p (which is impressive for 1981), (TI-99 4A)
Nokia (yeah, remember Nokia?) is working on QTQuick and QML: a Qt/Javascript/CSS fusion language. (Formerly called Kinetic, now called QtQuick, and QML (the JS/CSS language)
It does everything that Flash does and is completely open source. What's more is it is not byte-code interpreted. The QML file is loaded into the QtDeclarativeEngine and evaluates and runs in native code. (Aside from Javascript, but Apple isn't arguing about JavaScript use)
*FULLY* open source, not interpreted (beyond JS), And damn easy to use... It will be a part of Qt 4.7 (next month?)
News for you, no artist is intellectual. Its physiologically impossible. Artists are right-brained, intellectuals are left-brained. Artists use feeling, intellectuals don't want to be bothered by it.
I think what you meant is elitist or snooty, s.a.: pretentious. That is what discerning artists are. *Their* subjectivity is clearly superior to *yours*. Artists would drive a BMW, if they could afford one, because they are snooty. But they can't, because they are artists and can;t have a real job because face it, artists like to suffer. it gives more value to their art. (van Gogh totally nailed it with the earless thing!)
Whereas an intellectuals know that subjectivity is transient, and not really anything of value or concern. However, intellectuals can afford and do drive BMWs, because they have a real job. But they do so, only because they appreciate the engineering, oh and they can afford one...
Seriously, I worked with a team of artists, and they were all very poorly paid, and barely got by. It was like making money from their art and having a comfortable existence would devalue their work. "Sell out" one called it. They needed to suffer to have their art have meaning.
(Not really flame bait, because its true according to my expereince, but I am sure this will be modded as such.)
As a jr. level sw engineer, I abhorred testing. But I wrote the code, made sure it worked and moved on to the next feature. I was merely testing features as I went, until I made a change to the code that affected the code in more than one place.. then I was hunting bugs down everywhere because I had a function that was modified ever so slightly and it broke every thing that relied on one corner case.
Then a few years ago, I got my first taste of XP (Extreme programming) It was a completely new experience and I hated it. Agile, pair programming, writing unit tests... all new things. I no longer do XP, but I am better for having done it. What I learned was my test cases are insurance against future breakage. What I have discovered is that those unit tests are invaluable. A few weeks ago, I had to modify a core function because I identified a timing assumption that won't be a valid assumption in the next release of the code. I changed two core functions, added another, and could only pass it based on limited testing because there were no unit tests. If I had unit tests, I could see that prior concerns would pass or fail. Because that's what unit tests are: they are the validation of assumption and concerns. Any tricky code path can be replicated in a test case, so you know it still works (or doesn't). But you need that unit test infrastructure set up.
However system level testing - beyond engineering test - needs to be done by a non-engineering team, and a that team can only have minimal contact. Else leakage of assumptions and what not will happen. You want your testing team to be most user-like, but smart enough to break your code and report on your defects.
Unit testing doesn't have to suck. there Are frameworks out there. NUnit (.Net), and QtTest (C++) make it easy. (The Qt stuff is trivial)
There are two additional benefits of having good unit test infrastructure:
1. it can also be automated. Your nightly build system can also run the tests after building.
2. writing unit-testable code forces you to not put everything into GUI event handlers, but rather, develop an independent controller (as in MVC) which makes abstracting the interface easier if say, you want a local and web GUI. It also serves to keep the GUI issues out of the actual application logic. And that means, you'll get a script-able version of your application... not just for testing!
So has any of this made it more "fun"? No, but it has made me more confident about making changes. And it's made my code better. And it has shortened our time to market. (Fewer bugs make it out of engineering, system testing cycle is shorter, but oddly, we're not spending much more time in engineering (beyond getting the testing infrastructure set up)
In 1960, even 1980, most everything on a vehicle was metal. Now days, so much of the vehicle is plastic. Plastic saves weight, while having some rigidity and performance. My glove box interior was actually cardboard, something that would be plastic today, due to the water-imperiousness, rigidity and what not (I am guessing weight is the same).
Meanwhile engineering advances have lead us to extract more HP from fuel. A 350cuin engine in 1980got 180HP and 300 ftlb of tq. Now they are about 300/300. With multiple valves per cylinder, the Volumetric Efficiency went up. Multi port fuel injection was an improvement in throttle body fuel injection, which replaced the collaborator. And electronically controlled timing delivered even more power at lower RPMs. So engines could be made smaller, or sold into markets for larger engines.
I fail to see how you can take all that into account and still have a reliable statistic. Because we just don't know where we'd be had we not come up with all those advances (pun unintentional)
Well in Star Trek, they refer to phasers as "colonizing energy"
Here's my take. In SW, is an anti-matter particle beam. The glow you see is antimatter atoms reacting with the interstellar medium, which is less than total vacuum. Hence, you get some reactions (and losses) en route. This is what you see. It is also the only medium to generate that violent a reaction that quickly. A laser would simply heat it. And the problem with lasers if you have to be able to dissipate your inefficiencies. So if you have a 33% efficient laser of 1MW, you have to be able to dissipate 2MW yourself. This means everyone on the Death Star would cook, and it would blow itself up twice as fast as Alderan. (Assuming Alderan's the DS's thermal properties are the same, etc)
You can also explain the beam consolidation as simple vector math, as well as the slow propigation to target.
This does leave a problem of how light sabers work without blowing up the user the second it cuts something made of matter.
SUSE is the champion.
The vaccine is for HPV, which can cause cervical cancer. The vaccine is not for cervical cancer.
Well then the cures for cancer we have today are:
1. A low-carb diet (this starves the cancer cells of the necessary sugars they need for metabolism.)
2. Anti-oxidants. (this prevents (lessons) DNA damage by chemicals.)
3. Get the right amount of radiation exposure for you. (Oddly, Denver with 3x the radiation (from the mountains) has over-all lower cancer rates)
4. Limit exposure to toxins and VOCs.
Cancer isn't a solvable problem. It is the result of three gene mutations:
1) cell death gene turns off
2) a gene controlling cell metabolism changes so it can process blood sugar
3) I forget. It escapes me right now.
But cancer is nothing more than three mutations combined. With only two you won't have cancer. The genes flip for various reasons: toxins (chemical), radiation, biological (viral). The solutions are: don't over-expose yourself (though a minimum level of exposure is required to keep the repair systems functioning), and eat lots of antioxidants which limit free radicals. Everyone who lives long enough will get cancer, some people seem to be born with poor genetic health, meaning DNA is easily damaged or not repaired effectively. These people get it earlier than others. DNA is always being damaged. it is always bring repaired. But some people seem to repair better than others.
We also have treatments for cancer. I think the problem is these are currently relatively barbaric, in how we target cells with these mutations. Eventually we'll be able to infect them with a virus that will restore the right genes, but the battle against genetic mutations will be on-going.
One of the assumptions we deal with, or rather fail to deal with, is we assume the government has "better things to do". We may be small fry, but there is an enabling going on. You're only small fry until you've pissed someone off for whatever lawful reason. (Disagreements happen even when both parties are being lawful).
Out west, they think "Washington is so far away" but really they aren't anymore.
We think GPS-tracking is based on public information....
But all these ideas are based on the assumption that the government has better people to go after. Having a limited resource like man power, assures the biggest offenders are handled first, and on down the line to the jay-walker. But as computers can work 24/7/365, and never forgets, and technology gets cheaper, the force of the law gets more prevalent.
Given enough information, you can identify a person at a crosswalk, using the intersection cameras and mail them a fine. If it gets in the mail soon enough, it'll be at their house before they get home.
So historically speaking there is a notion of "scope" or "reach" (as typified by "long arm of the law"). As we get more technology, it becomes easier to become a victim of government. Even if they don't act on what they know about you (cost-benefit) they can still use it at a later date. Most of us I am sure have some unflattering FBI files, collected opportunistically. Drunken Facebook postings and blog posts, its all there to be compiled and added to your dossier...
Seriously, they require your computer to go everywhere you do. Web email is the way to go.
Plus all the thunderbird users are annoying because they send messages every coupe years about their email changing because they changed ISPs.
One web-based email account fan fix all that.
If your internet is out -either at the provider or your house, then what good is email anyway?
The phone will be dubbed the "Blackberry Flashlight 9800" for UK owners
Go outside, do some body.
No movie can compare to being in your own movie.
I was going to write something halfway intelligent about how they need to use mini LCDs over your eyes and track your focal point and run that back through the computer so everyone gets their own frame tailored to their focal point. Or, more cheaply, several possible focal points that are pre-rendered and then stitched together based on your focal point. It would go along way to make it more immersive. I hate the fact that the director controls the focal point. "Look at this now!", the fascist art director orders me. "You will look a this, or you will see blur!" I personally like looking around the background.
Ah, yes, but 500,000 soldiers and support personnel would come back to this country unemployed. Better to keep them employed abroad than to:
1) Hike unemployment above 10% (politically damaging)
2) Pay them on unemployment to do nothing. (Where they don't make defense contractors any money) (economically damaging to families and industry)
3) Shut down the military industrial complex that allows their deployment possible (and hike unemployment above 12%)
They aren't going to Afghanistan anyway. They are headed to IraN.
Just like WWII was what ended the depression, our boys aren't coming home until we're out of this one. Sad but true.
I hope not, because he'd be wrong. They are more likely to be redeployed in IraN
A sudden jailbreak of common sense.
Fixed that for you.
Completely true. But there is a difference between "drier" and "hotter".
I wouldn't be so dismissive. You can readthis report
Basically, what happens when you make the base of the mountains unable to trap moisture. You get less snow, which is undoubtedly less protection for the glacier. It may even manifest as increased melt, but it is not a temperature-induced melt. It all stems from environment becoming drier, and less water product deposited and even more transported away.
To say the glaciers are shrinking because of temperature increase (melt) is to completely ignore the nature of glaciers and reduce it to one thing: temperature. Glaciers are also made of water.
Also see this, not pay-walled
The problem is everyone sees ice loss, and assumes melt. It's not melt, it is sublimation.
Sublimation - when solid goes directly to gas is to blame. This is like water ice on Mars evaporating (not melting) into the martian atmosphere. Here on Earth the increased sublimation is caused by land use changes. What was once moist forest at the feet of the mountains, has become drier farm land. This drier air then travels over the mountain and picks up moisture directly from the ice.
How else can you explain ice loss at below-freezing temperatures? You can't just say the "ice melted" unless you show that it is warmer at the peak. These pictures are proof that man is modifying the environment, but only locally, and has nothing to do with temperature.
Is that evolution has selected for a very efficient biological machine. If you are going to harness energy from movement, then you're going to require additional energy, in for the form of biological consumables, which have to be stored, transported an prepared. By extracting energy from the organism, you have to make the assertion that the organism can obtain its own fuel easier than you can. At 100w/sqm, and efficiency rates of 14%, You're looking at 3.5w per backpack of solar collection. Can your body output 3 watts? In nearly every example, its better to give the electronics their own source.
It is important to note that enery isn't "wasted" it is expended. And to put anything on yourself to collect it, is going to up your expenditure of energy. DARPA is essentially trying to strap windmills onto aircraft... (which doesn't work, because they add weight and drag)