Benefits - how much energy can an orbital solar array produce, relative to the same size solar array on Earth? About twice as much - it's lit for 24 instead of 12 hours.
But doesn't this depend on the orbit? More exactly, doesn't this depend on the distance the orbit is from the earth? The higher your orbit, the less time you have in the earth's shadow. Consider the moon's orbit, which is much higher than we need, but consider how often the moon falls into the earth's shadow. When was the last lunar eclipse you've seen?
No, no I can't. I can, however, look them in the eye and say that removing any amount of genetic material or replacing it can have unexpected results. I'm not a biologist of any sort but we still don't have a full understanding of the human genome. Mapping, sure, but we're largely ignorant of what everything does.
I'm just wondering where the finish line is to this sort of thought process. We don't have a full understanding of the human genome, you say, so when, and by what means, do you think that is going to be accomplished? Or what if we never have a full understanding of the human genome, which is what I think most people who say this sort of thing suspect. But, even with technology that we have totally mastered, like electricity, superconductors, or baking bread, in no case can we say we have a full understanding.
And all of this distracts from the reality that even if no amount of genetic material is removed or replaced, you're still going to have unexpected results. "Nature", as it happens, is full of suprises and some really awful jokes; and we make do. It just surprises me that when we make real progress at being able to control nature, someone pops up thinking that because we don't have godly omniscience that we're just going to make things worse. As if the only thing that human beings and our technology can do is make things worse. It's a very old prejudice, but one that can no longer leave unchallenged.
Nah, I'm not offended. And you may be right, such a scenario would need usability testing, just the sort of thing you're talking about. Compare time-efficiency, user frustration, learning curve, etc.
But also understand that human beings are extremely conservative/resistant to change. So, no matter what idea someone presents, you're going to have a lot of people who will resent it just because it is different. Especially tech people who are perhaps the most invested in prevailing interface principles. For instance, if someone took close window off of Alt F4 you'll probably have a minor riot on your hands.
I'm just saying that the virtual keyboard is actually an attempt to take the old interface and throw in touch technology on top of it. It's very much like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Honestly, I think touch interfaces are neat. But I'd really like interface design to go quite a bit farther. Maybe I'm just being imaginative. Consider my this:
I think the main benefit to a touch interface is the sense that you can manipulate objects on the screen directly. I'd like to see the first screen on a touch device a totally blank screen. There are no controls on the screen until you put them there. Touch once on a the screen and you create a rounded-corner square. At first it is selected. After two seconds it changes color signifying that it is no longer selected. If you continue to tap it while it is selected it changes modes to serve other functions. This way you can cycle through all of it's modes. When it isn't selected, you can drag to different parts of the screen.
You need to combine this with gestures. While a button is selected, strike your finger straight to the right and then slightly down, and it will bring up a menu for that button. Using that menu you can freeze that button so it can't be changed and it is simply a part of the interface. This way you can basically create your own use interface from scratch.
Need to input a number? Put those virtual keyboards away. Click on the control and drag your finger up. The numbers will increment exponentially. Raise your finger and then drag up or down again to increment exponentially from where you first raised your finger. You should be able to reach virtually any number in the real number system in a couple of drags.
I could go on and on. I think what we have now is just the tip of the iceberg, it's still based on the mouse/keyboard paradigms that we've been working with for the past 30 years. I think the main thing is that the virtual keyboards need to become something you basically don't need to use any more. Touch computing should become synonymous with semantic computing, since the system needs to understand the context of what you're trying to do. Even writing text doesn't necessarily need a virtual text, the system should know, grammatically, what sort of words and phrases you can choose from. Use a thesaraus to choose a word with a certain kind of meaning, and then keep tapping that word to cycle through other words that are nearly synonymous. You should be able to add templates for the various sorts of sentences that you tend to use.
Anyway, I know Slashdotters are going to hate this but, hey, at least I'm thinking:)
Nice conspiracy theory you have there. As a liberal, I'm always happy to hear that there is a well-organized liberal machine out there trying to corrupt our way of life. It's so comforting, since the alternative is that we're a wildly divergent group of individuals who can't put on our collective pants without arguing endlessly about it, let alone form a conspiracy.
Defensive much? He didn't say there is a well-organized liberal machine, he didn't even say the word "liberal"!
The Arizona solar power plant has been named Solana, which means "a sunny place" in Spanish, and will be located 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, near Gila Bend, and cover 1,900 acres. The capacity of the power plant has been projected at 280 megawatts -- a capacity which could power 70,000 homes and create 1,500 jobs.
It's an awesome development, one that I approve of highly, even despite the fact that it will take energy subsidies for this plant to be built at all.
And currently the world's largest wind farm, according to Wikipedia has a peak capacity of 735.5 megawatts.
This is just from googling and using Wikipedia. Just looking at the numbers, to get an idea of what is possible with the different sources of energy, if we're really talking about helping as many people as possible without imposing on them a restricted lifestyle, we can't take nuclear power off of the table.
The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.
This is exactly right. We already have a priesthood to tell us the one true way, which makes you wonder why even listen to the scientists at all in making policy decisions.
Don't blame him, it's your own hyperbole that is at fault. You said that the EPA has failed utterly. If it has failed utterly then we might as well get rid of it.
What you're really trying to say is that the EPA isn't perfect and lets some things slip. That is, the EPA hasn't failed utterly, but needs to be improved.
Clarity often improves our ability to communicate and prevents these needless quarrels.
I doubt Apple cares. Last time I checked the iPhone is doing pretty damn well and Apple isn't the kind of company that wants every person on the planet to buy it's stuff.
Yeah, but maybe, in the future, they might find that the convenience of never having to charge your phone is worth more than having the ability to watch TV/videos, browse the web, listen to music, get directions on a map, download ringtones, take pictures, and purchase all kinds of other pointless stuff to do on your phone. We're in a recession afterall, priorities people! Plus I imagine that such a phone would probably be ubersmall and uberlight.
Except all those are actually good points. If someone didn't know anything about the USA then saying "USA is a democracy" will give them a highly distorted view of what the USA is.
The same is true of free software. Like they say, the devil is in the details.
There is an enormous difference between receiving a tax deduction and getting actual money from the government. The former just means you pay less, the latter means that money flows in the other direction.
You're only looking at money. Look at utility instead and your argument can work in reverse instead. She probably works and provides things that you have, in one way or another, benefited from.
But I think what you're missing is that everyone makes mistakes, goes on spending splurges. The only difference is that for poor people those splurges hurt more and are far more likely to blow up in your face. They have a far smaller margin of error in making purchasing decisions.
And honestly, it pisses me off in the pit of my stomach that you somehow feel privileged enough to get to critique a poor person's purchasing decision just because you make more. But I understand it is ignorance.
I think what you say is true about emotions having an effect, but I think the difference between real value and illusionary value is that real value is grounded in real properties of the product. For instance, it's subjective but real value that I like chocolate ice cream. My liking chocolate is subjective, but it is based on the chocolate flavor that is a real property of the ice cream.
But with brands the idea is that the brand, merely a symbol, adds value to a product is absurd to me. Adding an Apple logo to a chair doesn't make it a better chair. Like I said to Uberbah, with marketing the product is the consumer.
That's because there aren't any to single out in the first place. It's like conservative wingnuts who rant and rave about the Democrats being socialists, when the wingnut has never actually seen a real, live socialist in his entire life.
Or because I don't presume to be able to see into a person's soul by reading a couple of their posts on Slashdot. But I do see enough posts that reflect fanboyism, not to mention much of the moderation around here, that it would be incredibly improbable if there wasn't a sizable population of Apple fanboys here.
It's just like if I see a lot of coyote tracks in the desert and I say that there are a lot of coyotes here and you react by demanding that I point out one coyote in the desert. I know there are coyotes here, but that doesn't mean I can hold one up by the tail for you to examine.
Now, was this really worth this lengthy explanation for such a silly point?
Apple uses high quality components than supplier-of-the-week OEM's like HP or Dell
This would require a spec comparison and failure rates of the various components, but if you can demonstrate this then it would signify part of the real value of Apple systems. (Just to ease any potential misunderstandings, I'm not asking you to provide a spec comparison for our discussion here, but I'm just saying what would make your point stronger.) "High quality components" is pretty vague if it isn't backed by what factors are considered high quality.
Apple is routinely at or near the top of quality and customer satisfaction surveys
That could be due to advertising though. There's certainly a network effect though; Apple has been smart enough to know that what other people think of a device is just as, if not more, important than what the actual purchaser thinks of it.
OS X has a vastly better security record than XP and is vastly more usable than Vista (cancel or allow?)
Is the security record due to low distribution of Apple computers or intrinsic security features?
Apple machines retain their resale value very well - you might not be able to get a new Apple laptop for $600, but selling your old Macbook Pro for half what you paid for it will help make up the difference
How exactly does this counter any of my arguments?
If you don't like Macs, don't frikkin buy one. No one is holding a gun to your head.
If you like your Mac, then enjoy it. I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy your own property. If the Mac aura gives you thrills and shiver at the keyboard, then all the power to you. It's just like the placebo effect, if it works then go for it. If chewing on ginger roots relieves your ADHD, who am I to judge that? But I disagree when this is held as evidence that ginger roots really does relieve your ADHD. Just like I don't think Apple advocates are particularly objective when comparing computer systems.
I think the main thing is that you, and others here, haven't even come close to saying what you need to say to convince me that you aren't Apple fanboys. I'm not assuming you are, of course, but I would have loved to hear, "Well, I was going to go for a Dell model P but the feature Q of Apple model R really sold me." You know, something of that kind of character.
Anyway, I'm just giving you my argument. Take it or leave it. And just so you know, I don't hate Macs, I don't hate Apple. I think OS X, from what I've heard, is a good move. The Mighty Mouse sounds like an interesting idea. I've played with a couple Macs and I think it's a neat system, I've even recommended one to my folks as an option. But I'm priced out of the market, not a member of the upper-middle class which is their intended market. And so most of their marketing tactics fall flat on me, and that's probably the only reason I'm not another Apple fanboy.
Okay, I don't visit Slashdot often enough to single people out. It's in the posts where I step back and wonder, "Wow." A lot of the replies to this article are like that, and that's one of the ones that I replied to.
The problem with Max Romantschuk's OP was that he took on a highly naive view of the free market: that because people will pay quite a bit of money for a product therefore the product possesses an amount of value that justifies the price. But the "Mac aura", as I've called it, deflates this view. The Mac aura is nothing other than the illusionary value that the Mac is supposed to possess over and beyond it's real subjective value, and this aura is what props up the price beyond what it's real price would be.
Now I'll respond to legitimate criticism or discussion, but if you continue to ignore my central points I'll have to drop out of our conversation.
Sure they do. It's called anti-consumerism, check it out sometime. I just notice a lot more Apple fanboys on Slashdot so I try to raise their consciousness.
And the problem isn't liking a company's product, but liking a product because of the company who produces it and believes in all sorts of intangible properties of the product because of marketing. Hence, the "Mac aura".
Look, Apple spends a lot of money on advertising and that money isn't wasted. It "works" and works rather well. Forget the Mac, you're the product; Apple has to produce people who love the Mac.
Except that the amount of thought that goes into a system doesn't necessarily translate into the utility of the system. Of course, it depends on your own needs and desires. I'd just prefer that people base their decisions on the actual properties of the system and not imagined properties that arise from a marketing campaign.
But all the power to you. However, a computer is still just a computer:)
The truth. I can take worse things than being called a snob. But it's amazing how much resistance there is from the Apple camp to the idea that a computer is just a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Another industry gonna show up in the bailout line for some soup? Think of the jobs!
Benefits - how much energy can an orbital solar array produce, relative to the same size solar array on Earth? About twice as much - it's lit for 24 instead of 12 hours.
But doesn't this depend on the orbit? More exactly, doesn't this depend on the distance the orbit is from the earth? The higher your orbit, the less time you have in the earth's shadow. Consider the moon's orbit, which is much higher than we need, but consider how often the moon falls into the earth's shadow. When was the last lunar eclipse you've seen?
No, no I can't. I can, however, look them in the eye and say that removing any amount of genetic material or replacing it can have unexpected results. I'm not a biologist of any sort but we still don't have a full understanding of the human genome. Mapping, sure, but we're largely ignorant of what everything does.
I'm just wondering where the finish line is to this sort of thought process. We don't have a full understanding of the human genome, you say, so when, and by what means, do you think that is going to be accomplished? Or what if we never have a full understanding of the human genome, which is what I think most people who say this sort of thing suspect. But, even with technology that we have totally mastered, like electricity, superconductors, or baking bread, in no case can we say we have a full understanding.
And all of this distracts from the reality that even if no amount of genetic material is removed or replaced, you're still going to have unexpected results. "Nature", as it happens, is full of suprises and some really awful jokes; and we make do. It just surprises me that when we make real progress at being able to control nature, someone pops up thinking that because we don't have godly omniscience that we're just going to make things worse. As if the only thing that human beings and our technology can do is make things worse. It's a very old prejudice, but one that can no longer leave unchallenged.
Nah, I'm not offended. And you may be right, such a scenario would need usability testing, just the sort of thing you're talking about. Compare time-efficiency, user frustration, learning curve, etc.
But also understand that human beings are extremely conservative/resistant to change. So, no matter what idea someone presents, you're going to have a lot of people who will resent it just because it is different. Especially tech people who are perhaps the most invested in prevailing interface principles. For instance, if someone took close window off of Alt F4 you'll probably have a minor riot on your hands.
I'm just saying that the virtual keyboard is actually an attempt to take the old interface and throw in touch technology on top of it. It's very much like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Honestly, I think touch interfaces are neat. But I'd really like interface design to go quite a bit farther. Maybe I'm just being imaginative. Consider my this:
I think the main benefit to a touch interface is the sense that you can manipulate objects on the screen directly. I'd like to see the first screen on a touch device a totally blank screen. There are no controls on the screen until you put them there. Touch once on a the screen and you create a rounded-corner square. At first it is selected. After two seconds it changes color signifying that it is no longer selected. If you continue to tap it while it is selected it changes modes to serve other functions. This way you can cycle through all of it's modes. When it isn't selected, you can drag to different parts of the screen.
You need to combine this with gestures. While a button is selected, strike your finger straight to the right and then slightly down, and it will bring up a menu for that button. Using that menu you can freeze that button so it can't be changed and it is simply a part of the interface. This way you can basically create your own use interface from scratch.
Need to input a number? Put those virtual keyboards away. Click on the control and drag your finger up. The numbers will increment exponentially. Raise your finger and then drag up or down again to increment exponentially from where you first raised your finger. You should be able to reach virtually any number in the real number system in a couple of drags.
I could go on and on. I think what we have now is just the tip of the iceberg, it's still based on the mouse/keyboard paradigms that we've been working with for the past 30 years. I think the main thing is that the virtual keyboards need to become something you basically don't need to use any more. Touch computing should become synonymous with semantic computing, since the system needs to understand the context of what you're trying to do. Even writing text doesn't necessarily need a virtual text, the system should know, grammatically, what sort of words and phrases you can choose from. Use a thesaraus to choose a word with a certain kind of meaning, and then keep tapping that word to cycle through other words that are nearly synonymous. You should be able to add templates for the various sorts of sentences that you tend to use.
Anyway, I know Slashdotters are going to hate this but, hey, at least I'm thinking :)
Nice conspiracy theory you have there. As a liberal, I'm always happy to hear that there is a well-organized liberal machine out there trying to corrupt our way of life. It's so comforting, since the alternative is that we're a wildly divergent group of individuals who can't put on our collective pants without arguing endlessly about it, let alone form a conspiracy.
Defensive much? He didn't say there is a well-organized liberal machine, he didn't even say the word "liberal"!
Take another look at his post, ignore the jabs if you must. That is the only thing anything is going to happen. But look at this about about the proposed, largest solar power plant in the world:
The Arizona solar power plant has been named Solana, which means "a sunny place" in Spanish, and will be located 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, near Gila Bend, and cover 1,900 acres. The capacity of the power plant has been projected at 280 megawatts -- a capacity which could power 70,000 homes and create 1,500 jobs.
It's an awesome development, one that I approve of highly, even despite the fact that it will take energy subsidies for this plant to be built at all.
And currently the world's largest wind farm, according to Wikipedia has a peak capacity of 735.5 megawatts.
In comparison, the largest nuclear power plant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant, has a capacity of 8212 megawatts.
This is just from googling and using Wikipedia. Just looking at the numbers, to get an idea of what is possible with the different sources of energy, if we're really talking about helping as many people as possible without imposing on them a restricted lifestyle, we can't take nuclear power off of the table.
The Woosh thing was funny on slashdot, only once. Now everyone is using it and it sounds really lame.
*Whoosh*
There. Is it dead yet? :)
The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.
This is exactly right. We already have a priesthood to tell us the one true way, which makes you wonder why even listen to the scientists at all in making policy decisions.
Oh wait, we don't.
Don't blame him, it's your own hyperbole that is at fault. You said that the EPA has failed utterly. If it has failed utterly then we might as well get rid of it.
What you're really trying to say is that the EPA isn't perfect and lets some things slip. That is, the EPA hasn't failed utterly, but needs to be improved.
Clarity often improves our ability to communicate and prevents these needless quarrels.
Check out social darwinism sometime. Not a good idea. be placated go
Count me in. I assume it's a followup of some sort to Half Life?
Not at all. It's the reciprequel.
Sorry, I know. But sometimes, if it's a math joke, it doesn't matter how lame it is.
Thank you :)
I don't really understand this. Do "natural" crops ever get tested? What about when a new mutation/breed emerges on it's own?
What's the difference?
Design asceticism? Must I also fast?
I doubt Apple cares. Last time I checked the iPhone is doing pretty damn well and Apple isn't the kind of company that wants every person on the planet to buy it's stuff.
Because if everyone's special, then no one is.
Yeah, but maybe, in the future, they might find that the convenience of never having to charge your phone is worth more than having the ability to watch TV/videos, browse the web, listen to music, get directions on a map, download ringtones, take pictures, and purchase all kinds of other pointless stuff to do on your phone. We're in a recession afterall, priorities people! Plus I imagine that such a phone would probably be ubersmall and uberlight.
Except all those are actually good points. If someone didn't know anything about the USA then saying "USA is a democracy" will give them a highly distorted view of what the USA is.
The same is true of free software. Like they say, the devil is in the details.
There is an enormous difference between receiving a tax deduction and getting actual money from the government. The former just means you pay less, the latter means that money flows in the other direction.
You're only looking at money. Look at utility instead and your argument can work in reverse instead. She probably works and provides things that you have, in one way or another, benefited from.
But I think what you're missing is that everyone makes mistakes, goes on spending splurges. The only difference is that for poor people those splurges hurt more and are far more likely to blow up in your face. They have a far smaller margin of error in making purchasing decisions.
And honestly, it pisses me off in the pit of my stomach that you somehow feel privileged enough to get to critique a poor person's purchasing decision just because you make more. But I understand it is ignorance.
I think what you say is true about emotions having an effect, but I think the difference between real value and illusionary value is that real value is grounded in real properties of the product. For instance, it's subjective but real value that I like chocolate ice cream. My liking chocolate is subjective, but it is based on the chocolate flavor that is a real property of the ice cream.
But with brands the idea is that the brand, merely a symbol, adds value to a product is absurd to me. Adding an Apple logo to a chair doesn't make it a better chair. Like I said to Uberbah, with marketing the product is the consumer.
That's because there aren't any to single out in the first place. It's like conservative wingnuts who rant and rave about the Democrats being socialists, when the wingnut has never actually seen a real, live socialist in his entire life.
Or because I don't presume to be able to see into a person's soul by reading a couple of their posts on Slashdot. But I do see enough posts that reflect fanboyism, not to mention much of the moderation around here, that it would be incredibly improbable if there wasn't a sizable population of Apple fanboys here.
It's just like if I see a lot of coyote tracks in the desert and I say that there are a lot of coyotes here and you react by demanding that I point out one coyote in the desert. I know there are coyotes here, but that doesn't mean I can hold one up by the tail for you to examine.
Now, was this really worth this lengthy explanation for such a silly point?
Apple uses high quality components than supplier-of-the-week OEM's like HP or Dell
This would require a spec comparison and failure rates of the various components, but if you can demonstrate this then it would signify part of the real value of Apple systems. (Just to ease any potential misunderstandings, I'm not asking you to provide a spec comparison for our discussion here, but I'm just saying what would make your point stronger.) "High quality components" is pretty vague if it isn't backed by what factors are considered high quality.
Apple is routinely at or near the top of quality and customer satisfaction surveys
That could be due to advertising though. There's certainly a network effect though; Apple has been smart enough to know that what other people think of a device is just as, if not more, important than what the actual purchaser thinks of it.
OS X has a vastly better security record than XP and is vastly more usable than Vista (cancel or allow?)
Is the security record due to low distribution of Apple computers or intrinsic security features?
Apple machines retain their resale value very well - you might not be able to get a new Apple laptop for $600, but selling your old Macbook Pro for half what you paid for it will help make up the difference
How exactly does this counter any of my arguments?
If you don't like Macs, don't frikkin buy one. No one is holding a gun to your head.
If you like your Mac, then enjoy it. I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy your own property. If the Mac aura gives you thrills and shiver at the keyboard, then all the power to you. It's just like the placebo effect, if it works then go for it. If chewing on ginger roots relieves your ADHD, who am I to judge that? But I disagree when this is held as evidence that ginger roots really does relieve your ADHD. Just like I don't think Apple advocates are particularly objective when comparing computer systems.
I think the main thing is that you, and others here, haven't even come close to saying what you need to say to convince me that you aren't Apple fanboys. I'm not assuming you are, of course, but I would have loved to hear, "Well, I was going to go for a Dell model P but the feature Q of Apple model R really sold me." You know, something of that kind of character.
Anyway, I'm just giving you my argument. Take it or leave it. And just so you know, I don't hate Macs, I don't hate Apple. I think OS X, from what I've heard, is a good move. The Mighty Mouse sounds like an interesting idea. I've played with a couple Macs and I think it's a neat system, I've even recommended one to my folks as an option. But I'm priced out of the market, not a member of the upper-middle class which is their intended market. And so most of their marketing tactics fall flat on me, and that's probably the only reason I'm not another Apple fanboy.
Apple is really good at marketing.
Perhaps its time these "artists" stopped reading comic books reconnected with the real world.
And you should add that this was said by some dork on Slashdot.
Okay, I don't visit Slashdot often enough to single people out. It's in the posts where I step back and wonder, "Wow." A lot of the replies to this article are like that, and that's one of the ones that I replied to.
The problem with Max Romantschuk's OP was that he took on a highly naive view of the free market: that because people will pay quite a bit of money for a product therefore the product possesses an amount of value that justifies the price. But the "Mac aura", as I've called it, deflates this view. The Mac aura is nothing other than the illusionary value that the Mac is supposed to possess over and beyond it's real subjective value, and this aura is what props up the price beyond what it's real price would be.
Now I'll respond to legitimate criticism or discussion, but if you continue to ignore my central points I'll have to drop out of our conversation.
Sure they do. It's called anti-consumerism, check it out sometime. I just notice a lot more Apple fanboys on Slashdot so I try to raise their consciousness.
And the problem isn't liking a company's product, but liking a product because of the company who produces it and believes in all sorts of intangible properties of the product because of marketing. Hence, the "Mac aura".
Look, Apple spends a lot of money on advertising and that money isn't wasted. It "works" and works rather well. Forget the Mac, you're the product; Apple has to produce people who love the Mac.
Except that the amount of thought that goes into a system doesn't necessarily translate into the utility of the system. Of course, it depends on your own needs and desires. I'd just prefer that people base their decisions on the actual properties of the system and not imagined properties that arise from a marketing campaign.
But all the power to you. However, a computer is still just a computer :)
What is the marginal utility of your snob aura?
The truth. I can take worse things than being called a snob. But it's amazing how much resistance there is from the Apple camp to the idea that a computer is just a computer.