After extensive psychological screening, accept the super balanced and respectful individuals who are comfortable with a couple-swapping scenario, a collective zero G free love kinda thing.
Sure - once someone develops a psychological screening system that actually works with small populations and individuals. (They'll probably also get a Nobel along with a NASA contract.)
Death in space. That's gonna be nasty. They'll likely never allow jettisoning the body into space, as it's the body of a hero that deserves the full honors. Remember, the US makes an extra effort to pull the bodies of KIA soldiers from combat zones. A friend of mine is an astrophysicist and participated in the great neutrino hunt a couple of decades ago in a mine shaft in Alaska during the winter. One of the colleagues died, but they were shut in until weather allowed for a helicopter pickup, so they ended up storing the colleague in the meat freezer. My friend still has occasional nightmares about it, almost twenty years on.
It's all about attitude and preperation. A friend of mine had a crewmate who died shortly after his submarine deployed, the put the body into a bodybag and stowed it in the freezer. Today, he doesn't even remember it unless you remind him.
Right. Married couples never have sexual issues within the relationship, never get jealous when one of the other pays what might be seen as excessive attention to another... (Not to mention extramarital affairs...)
Seems simple when you think about it...
No, it only seems simple when you don't think about it. When you actually do think about it, it no longer appears to be a fool proof solution.
I've been a/. member for 10 years now, and these "cheaper, more efficient" solar panel techniques have popped up at least a two or three times a year. When the hell can I go shopping for consumer grade panels and find something substantially below $4/Watt?
I've been watching solar power issues for thirty years - and "cheaper, more efficient" solar cells have been "coming Real Soon Now because of this Cool Discovery" about every six months all that time.
Mercury is bad yes, but this is a non-issue...there was no out-cry over the tube flouros.
At first there wasn't an extensive outcry, no. But that was back in the bad old days when you had lead in paint and could buy various extremely toxic substances at the hardware store. (Most of which would end up in the enviroment.) But eventually there was an outcry, which is why we don't have old school flourescent tubes anymore.
1. Solar power has already dropped in price 16 fold since 1976. It's as reasonable an assumption as in 10 years, computers will be at least 16-32 times faster. Not a given, but I would put money on it.
The fact that is has dropped isn't as important that the fact that it hasn't dropped anywhere near the rate consistently predicted, and the fact that it remains very expensive despite the drop. I wouldn't put my money on it based on the historical record.
2. That's pathetically easy. 2 hydroelectric dams, one lower than the other. Pump water from the lower lake to the upper one in the daytime. Let it drain to the lower one at night. May I have my Nobel, please?
Don't plan that trip to Stockholm just yet. The scheme you propose above requires either a) no power generation during the the day or, b) doubling the size of the proposed plant. Furthermore, I invite you to compare the size of current hydroelectric capacity in the US to the total power demands of the US. That should give you an idea of how many trillions of additional dollars your scheme will require to get the pumped storage approved and built. (And you should plan on at least a decade in the courts while the Greens keep you tied up.)
3. Google earth shows there is a big enough chunk of the state, which is mostly wasteland, to fit the array. This was an EXAMPLE : in reality, such an array would be distributed in lots of places. I just wanted to show conclusively that there IS enough land.
In other words, you _assume_ the land in Arizona is wasteland, and you _assume_ that many square miles can be located. (In fact, more square miles if you locate any of them outside of Arizona or New Mexico - a square mile here near Seattle will generate much less power on an annual basis than a square mile near Phoenix.)
But think about it for a moment : in the long run (as in next 10-20 years), what form of energy is subject to the biggest reduction in costs?
Nobody really knows.
Solar : You make the panels. As soon as the technology stabilizes and we finally agree on a dirt cheap, efficient form of panel (there's about 20 different methods talked about)
That's an assumption - not a given. Cheap, clean solar (panel) technology has been 'a few years away' for about fifty years now.
As for land : I calculated that at 10% net efficiency, we would need a 200x200 mile area of Arizona to power the entire United States. That includes all the energy used for transportation, and losses used in spinning up energy accumulator devices.
If you have a [workable] idea for storing enough energy to supply the entire United States while the array is in darkness - a Nobel Prize awaits you. That's one of the big problems with solar, one that green power enthusiasts don't want people thinking too hard about - because its virtually a deal breaker.
That land currently sits idle, and while is a lot of area, there's still plenty of Arizona left (I used google earth to check this)
Google Earth showed the land to be virtually flat (any significant deviation from flat means you need more area), and free of any existing usage which conflict with your plans? (Like mines, endangered species, etc... etc..) Further more, out in the desert - where does the water for your cleaning robots come from?
Anything is possible when you are just handwaving - but the devil is in the details.
Projects like this one will create jobs, which is a net increase for the Province when it comes to overall tax collections.
It'll create a couple of dozen or so jobs at the max - most of them verging on the unskilled. (I.E. the guys who mow the grass and the clean the collectors. Assuming they don't contract those functions out.) *Yawn*. The 'job creation' will be higher during construction - but virtually all of those jobs will be done by people who would have building something else somewhere else if they weren't employed on this job.
As seen in the blackout of August 2003 (and I was living in Ontario at the time, and remember it quite well), Ontario's electricity grid and system of lots of large, distant power plants makes failure really easy. One of the potential solutions to mitigate the effects from such things occurring again is to have a lot more regional microgeneration plants.
Yah, this plant will be incredibly helpful - so long as the sun is shining.
Anyone who has thought about this for more than half a second, or has looked at anything more than just their backyard would realise that it is cobbled together from various sources.
Not only that, but the article strongly implies that Google itself is obtaining the imagery - which is not the case. They buy (or license) imagery from a wide variety of sources. (The folks who take these images tend to retain the rights to them - and resell the imagery as many times as possible.)
Because (AFAIK) digital cameras don't exist in the large format form factor that [film] cameras for aerial photography uses. Even if they did, from typical aerial photography altitudes digital camera are inferior in resolution to existing films.
Try actually reading and thinking my message rather than repeating something you've read elsewhere and seem to lack the wit to understand. You'll find I said exactly what you did.
Many of the arguments we use to - justly - defend security researchers seem like they may not apply in this case.
Slashdot defense of 'security researchers' is pretty much a knee jerk reaction, no critical thinking involved. "I was just researching security" acts on the average Slashdotter like "think of the children" seems to among the general public - it makes them blind to the facts.
A couple of years later my father testified in front of my State's legislature regarding a new "computer crime" bill they were shopping around. It was one of those ridiculous "zero tolerance" laws that make the lawmakers look "tough on crime" but end up shafting a lot of people that don't deserve it. Dad pointed out to these idiots that, if passed, their brain-child would immediately criminalize 90% of the best and brightest students in our engineering and computer science curricula. They backed off in a hurry and came back with a more reasonable bill, which never got passed anyway.
I find it pretty sad that they backed off actually, because being among the 'best and brightest' shouldn't be a 'get out of jail free' card.
That was then. Nowadays, I don't think our lawmakers would bat an eye if they put half our smartest engineering students in jail. They're just engineers, after all, and... who the fuck needs those.
Engineering students are pretty bright - after a few got jailed the rest would wise up and learn that there are things that you may not do. (Which they should have learned from their parents.)
Also, it is not clear that it "violates university policy" to write such a program, if you're a computer major, and your class work involves looking at vulnerabilities in software - which is what he learned in class. Then again, those who can, do - those who can't - teach.
The problem is - he wasn't looking at vulnerabilities in software. He was actively bypassing security software, an entirely different ball of wax. 'Looking at security' is something you do for a day or two. Running a program for six months is breaking security.
[rant] I swear - "I was just looking at security" is the Slashdot equivalent of "think of the children". Every time someone is caught like this individual, they play that card and the hivemind goes into full on apologist mode. [/rant]
Before that day a new record was set by a young man. By a young a man who had submitted stories and plays that disturbed his teachers but who took no action. What if they had?
Yah, many of the responses to date are nothing but typical Slashdot hypocrisy. After Columbine and after VT, the calls were loud and long for the authorities to be called to account for their failure to Do Something about the students before they snapped.
But when the authorities actually attempt to do so (although a bit ham handed I grant), the howls are long and loud about how the student is opressed, repressed, etc... etc...
>Also, doesn't the US have a constitution which makes freedom of expression an absolute right? >>Yes, but that does not exempt you from the consequences of exercising that right.
That's ridiculous! It's obviously not a "Right" if the government can throw you in prison for exercising it!
No, that's not 'obvious' at all. The Constitution has never been a gaurantor of absolute freedom - nor has it at any time or in any fashion expressed the position that one can exercise ones rights without fear of the consequences. This is why libel and slander laws remain on the books - because one is not exempted from the consequences of exercising ones rights to Free Speech or Free Press. Equally, one retains the right to own a gun - but shoot someone with it and you are liable for that action.
We need to help each other educate ourselves about the corruption. Here is my summary of U.S. government corruption. Where's yours?
Well, you don't actually have a summary of U.S. goverment corruption. The page you link to is a hatchet job that concentrates on personal attacks on President Bush. Linked off of that page is a page of book reviews of books on corruption that has (further down the page) a muddled mess of personal attacks and sophmoric political philosophy.
So, on the topic of summaries of govermental corruption - where's yours?
It's not in the mainstream media because its not actually an impeachment procedure. It's a stunt being pulled by a Congressman (in)famous for pulling such stunts.
It's getting no coverage in mainstream media - because it's a non event. Marginal fringe Congresscritters grandstand for their consituency on a routine basis, and it only makes the news on a particularly slow news day.
NPR understands the difference between actual news, a tempest in a teapot.
Not really. This hasn't made the big news sites - because it isn't big news, it's a marginal congresscritter grandstanding for his own self aggrandizement. This happens on a daily basis - and almost never makes the big news sites unless its a very slow news day and nobodie's kitten was caught on video being rescued by the local fire department.
Precisely. 'Fair Use' is, contrary to the beliefs of many, fairly well defined - and fairly sharply limited. Among other things, if the chart and table in question represent the main contents of the paper of the paper - then case law is clear that republishing them is decidely not fair use.
If you actually bother to read the politics section - you'll find that it has historically confined to itself to political topics of specific interest to nerds, not general political news. Get off your pedantic ass and actually look at politics.slashdot.org and note the type of story typically published there - and note how this one doesn't match the general tenor. I'm not bitching because of the section - it's on my front page for a reason. I'm bitching about the story selection. There is a difference between the two even if you lack the wit or energy to actual read and understand my post.
I'm a nerd and I am very interested in national policies. And since this news seems to have been largely ignored by the main networks,
And why shouldn't it be? It's non-news even in the political spectrum, marginal congress critters submit all manner of weird bills on a regular basis. You never hear about 99.9999% of them of them because they quietly die in committee. This is just another such bill.
I am very happy to see it reported by and for our community. Nowhere else will be it discussed by people of like-mind.
Right. All the other political sites out there will ignore it if it's of any value to discuss.
Your complaint begs the question; Are you genuinely concerned about how different types of news should be categorized, or is there some other reason you don't want people here to see or think about this item?
Did you actually bother to read my post? It would seem not - as I was quite clear on why I believed this item should not be here.
I mean, that question has been asked for many a submission across the years - but this one really crosses the line. It isn't about technology, or YRO, or anything else 'slashlike'. It's pure politics and nothing else.
If this 'story' made the grade because of the firehose, I fear for the future of Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure - once someone develops a psychological screening system that actually works with small populations and individuals. (They'll probably also get a Nobel along with a NASA contract.)
It's all about attitude and preperation. A friend of mine had a crewmate who died shortly after his submarine deployed, the put the body into a bodybag and stowed it in the freezer. Today, he doesn't even remember it unless you remind him.
Right. Married couples never have sexual issues within the relationship, never get jealous when one of the other pays what might be seen as excessive attention to another... (Not to mention extramarital affairs...)
No, it only seems simple when you don't think about it. When you actually do think about it, it no longer appears to be a fool proof solution.
I've been watching solar power issues for thirty years - and "cheaper, more efficient" solar cells have been "coming Real Soon Now because of this Cool Discovery" about every six months all that time.
I've stayed on incandescents and my electric bill is miniscule. (Mostly because there's only one or two bulbs on in the house at any given time.)
At first there wasn't an extensive outcry, no. But that was back in the bad old days when you had lead in paint and could buy various extremely toxic substances at the hardware store. (Most of which would end up in the enviroment.) But eventually there was an outcry, which is why we don't have old school flourescent tubes anymore.
An amazing amount of data is available for free (or for a nominal sum) from various govermental bodies. There's even a standard format for it.
The fact that is has dropped isn't as important that the fact that it hasn't dropped anywhere near the rate consistently predicted, and the fact that it remains very expensive despite the drop. I wouldn't put my money on it based on the historical record.
Don't plan that trip to Stockholm just yet. The scheme you propose above requires either a) no power generation during the the day or, b) doubling the size of the proposed plant. Furthermore, I invite you to compare the size of current hydroelectric capacity in the US to the total power demands of the US. That should give you an idea of how many trillions of additional dollars your scheme will require to get the pumped storage approved and built. (And you should plan on at least a decade in the courts while the Greens keep you tied up.)
In other words, you _assume_ the land in Arizona is wasteland, and you _assume_ that many square miles can be located. (In fact, more square miles if you locate any of them outside of Arizona or New Mexico - a square mile here near Seattle will generate much less power on an annual basis than a square mile near Phoenix.)
Nobody really knows.
That's an assumption - not a given. Cheap, clean solar (panel) technology has been 'a few years away' for about fifty years now.
If you have a [workable] idea for storing enough energy to supply the entire United States while the array is in darkness - a Nobel Prize awaits you. That's one of the big problems with solar, one that green power enthusiasts don't want people thinking too hard about - because its virtually a deal breaker.
Google Earth showed the land to be virtually flat (any significant deviation from flat means you need more area), and free of any existing usage which conflict with your plans? (Like mines, endangered species, etc... etc..) Further more, out in the desert - where does the water for your cleaning robots come from?
Anything is possible when you are just handwaving - but the devil is in the details.
It'll create a couple of dozen or so jobs at the max - most of them verging on the unskilled. (I.E. the guys who mow the grass and the clean the collectors. Assuming they don't contract those functions out.) *Yawn*. The 'job creation' will be higher during construction - but virtually all of those jobs will be done by people who would have building something else somewhere else if they weren't employed on this job.
Yah, this plant will be incredibly helpful - so long as the sun is shining.
Not only that, but the article strongly implies that Google itself is obtaining the imagery - which is not the case. They buy (or license) imagery from a wide variety of sources. (The folks who take these images tend to retain the rights to them - and resell the imagery as many times as possible.)
Because (AFAIK) digital cameras don't exist in the large format form factor that [film] cameras for aerial photography uses. Even if they did, from typical aerial photography altitudes digital camera are inferior in resolution to existing films.
Try actually reading and thinking my message rather than repeating something you've read elsewhere and seem to lack the wit to understand. You'll find I said exactly what you did.
Slashdot defense of 'security researchers' is pretty much a knee jerk reaction, no critical thinking involved. "I was just researching security" acts on the average Slashdotter like "think of the children" seems to among the general public - it makes them blind to the facts.
I find it pretty sad that they backed off actually, because being among the 'best and brightest' shouldn't be a 'get out of jail free' card.
Engineering students are pretty bright - after a few got jailed the rest would wise up and learn that there are things that you may not do. (Which they should have learned from their parents.)
The problem is - he wasn't looking at vulnerabilities in software. He was actively bypassing security software, an entirely different ball of wax. 'Looking at security' is something you do for a day or two. Running a program for six months is breaking security.
[rant]
I swear - "I was just looking at security" is the Slashdot equivalent of "think of the children". Every time someone is caught like this individual, they play that card and the hivemind goes into full on apologist mode.
[/rant]
Yah, many of the responses to date are nothing but typical Slashdot hypocrisy. After Columbine and after VT, the calls were loud and long for the authorities to be called to account for their failure to Do Something about the students before they snapped.
But when the authorities actually attempt to do so (although a bit ham handed I grant), the howls are long and loud about how the student is opressed, repressed, etc... etc...
Well, you don't actually have a summary of U.S. goverment corruption. The page you link to is a hatchet job that concentrates on personal attacks on President Bush. Linked off of that page is a page of book reviews of books on corruption that has (further down the page) a muddled mess of personal attacks and sophmoric political philosophy.
So, on the topic of summaries of govermental corruption - where's yours?
It's not in the mainstream media because its not actually an impeachment procedure. It's a stunt being pulled by a Congressman (in)famous for pulling such stunts.
It's getting no coverage in mainstream media - because it's a non event. Marginal fringe Congresscritters grandstand for their consituency on a routine basis, and it only makes the news on a particularly slow news day.
NPR understands the difference between actual news, a tempest in a teapot.
Not really. This hasn't made the big news sites - because it isn't big news, it's a marginal congresscritter grandstanding for his own self aggrandizement. This happens on a daily basis - and almost never makes the big news sites unless its a very slow news day and nobodie's kitten was caught on video being rescued by the local fire department.
Precisely. 'Fair Use' is, contrary to the beliefs of many, fairly well defined - and fairly sharply limited. Among other things, if the chart and table in question represent the main contents of the paper of the paper - then case law is clear that republishing them is decidely not fair use.
If you actually bother to read the politics section - you'll find that it has historically confined to itself to political topics of specific interest to nerds, not general political news. Get off your pedantic ass and actually look at politics.slashdot.org and note the type of story typically published there - and note how this one doesn't match the general tenor. I'm not bitching because of the section - it's on my front page for a reason. I'm bitching about the story selection. There is a difference between the two even if you lack the wit or energy to actual read and understand my post.
And why shouldn't it be? It's non-news even in the political spectrum, marginal congress critters submit all manner of weird bills on a regular basis. You never hear about 99.9999% of them of them because they quietly die in committee. This is just another such bill.
Right. All the other political sites out there will ignore it if it's of any value to discuss.
Did you actually bother to read my post? It would seem not - as I was quite clear on why I believed this item should not be here.
This is news for nerds?
I mean, that question has been asked for many a submission across the years - but this one really crosses the line. It isn't about technology, or YRO, or anything else 'slashlike'. It's pure politics and nothing else.
If this 'story' made the grade because of the firehose, I fear for the future of Slashdot.