Umm... what the article was commenting on was the fact that SUVs *cost* the gov't more money because of the wear and tear on roads, yet people are encouraged to buy them with tax breaks that decrease the amount the gov't gets to pay for their burden.
You seem to be trying to fit this into an anti-government intervention attitude when the main body of the article never involves an increase in regulation. It is merely pointing out the contradiction in current regulations, contradictions that could be changed without any need for new regulations. If anything, if you are trying to argue the libertarian point, you could recognize that the current regulations are causing the burden of these vehicles on the state's infrastructure to be shouldered disproportionately by the people that *don't* own them. I would think that the libertarian view would be that a real estate agent shouldn't be exempt from taxes that others pay just because he/she drives something categorized as a truck. And I really wouldn't think a libertarian or conservative would buy it when that truck is causing a greater strain on a public infrastructure that we all pay for. The current situtation is an allowance for certain people to take from others, forcing non-SUV owners to dole out money for road work they don't even cause.
Personally, I don't mind if people want to have SUVs so long as they are willing to step up and pay for their whole cost to society. You're right, people *should* be allowed to do what they want, kill themselves if they want, but only if they're not taking from everyone else to do it.
Even more important in improving the efficiency of stop-and-go driving is the hybrid's ability to use regenerative braking, turning some of that "stop" into "go".
Ahh, that makes me feel *so* much better - it's not because he's stupid, it's because he's assuming that most of his conversations, if they went public, would cause problems.
From that, I can also see (hear) why the noise is so startling - I never thought about it before, but you don't even hear the sounds of the engines until the boom hits.
So supersonic aircraft would probably still bug people even without the boom - when a subsonic jet goes by, the jet rumble builds slowly and dies off, which to the human ear usually doesn't sound eventful enough to warrant noticing. The instant appearance of engine noise from a supersonic plane, though, would seem much more obtrusive. I just hope that issue doesn't create another barrier (no pun intended) to allowing supersonic flights over land.
I got mine because when I was growing up a few of my friends were robbed at gunpoint. I didn't want to be in the same situation.
You could still be in the same situation. With a gun, you'd just end up killing/maiming someone or, more likely, getting killed/maimed yourself; even if you have a gun they don't expect, you're still at a huge disadvantage if they already have one pointed at you.
Personally, I'd rather lose my wallet than kill someone, but I guess that makes me a peace-loving hippy (I'm actually not, and I strongly uphold people's right to own guns).
In this case, getting there is less than half the fun. The real trick is moving and/or destroying enough of the asteroid to prevent it from doing serious harm. The hard thing to realize is just how *much* mass could be involved in a large asteroid.
From what I've read, destruction is basically impossible; the little pieces that were left could do as much or more damage than the whole rock. Moving it requires absolutely enormous amounts of energy (presumably applied at a point in its trajectory when only a "nudge" is needed) It's just a lot of momentum to divert, and I've heard that even the application of a whole lotta nukes is not much energy in comparison.
T'would be a fun engineering project though, I have to say. To have the resources of the entire unified population of humans at your disposal could allow for some damned cool machinery.
I agree with the other responder that Kare is neglecting the return energy that can be delivered on the down trip (just like all other elevators). However, even as a space elevator proponent, I found this compilation very interesting - thanks.
That said, that has to be nearly the worst presentation of a set of estimates and data I've ever seen. I can't imagine how they operate a consulting service if they hand over documents with that lack of clarity. It seems as though it's meant to be read aloud (a la Powerpoint), but my god - if someone gave that to me I would assume that their estimates bore as little weight as the effort they put into conveying them.
Nice reply - thanks so much. In fact, that was more interesting than anything else in the thread; it's unfortunate that the way of slashdot is biased so much toward fast posting.
That was, as another poster said, quite informative. Thank you.
What doesn't make sense to me though is your use of "holographic". From what I know, the cool thing about holography is that every angle is captured for every point in space. Reproducing this amount of information from just two offset photos (or game-generated images) is impossible. It may *look* like a hologram from a particular point of view, but it cannot actually *be* a true hologram without all that extra information.
In the case of a game, the computer would have to know the location of your eyes (and thus your viewing angle) to generate the appropriate two stereoscopic views - without this knowledge, it certainly can't render the infinity of views required for multi-angle viewing (not without a *huge* increase in computing power).
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - it may be that my understanding of holography is flawed.
I've already posted twice in this thread, but since it's an old one I thought I'd reply to you in case you check your replies.
I too love The City and the Stars (in fact, saying that got you added to my friends list)... have you read The Light of Other Days? See my other comments for my thoughts on that (I'm trying not to get too repetitive). Worth a read...
Try The Light of Other Days. Yes, it's co-authored, but it's obviously Clarke doing the thinking, and it's the best of his that I'd read in a looooooong time.
It showed me that he can still whip out the blow-your-mind genius once in awhile...
I already commented in this thread, but I just reread your commment and realized that you mentioned the "long future". I think that's what always pulled me in to Clarke, and especially the City and the Stars... that strange sensation of perpetuity, of what might happen in a world so far extrapolated from where most sci-fi writers can even reach.
That's what I like about The Light of Other Days, as I said in my other comment, but I also think Asimov touched on a similiar feeling in his short story, The Last Question. It's always on the list of his best shorts, and it's always worth a reread (though the first read is best).
A story that you may or may not enjoy is The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect, a book based upon Vernor Vinge's idea of the Singularity. It's more violent than I'm usually amenable to, but it's the best online novella I've ever read (actually the only one I've really gotten into, because I hate reading stories off the screen). The whole idea of the Singularity blew my mind (and still does), and this story takes it to a far point... worth a shot if you haven't given it one, IMHO.
Add me to that list;). It has long been my favorite book, since I found it in the library and it set me off... I wonder what one could tell about people who just loved that book.
Has anyone read The Light of Other Days? It's written with Stephen Baxter, but it's got true Clarke genius and wonder in it. After a series of (dare I say it) rather lame (for him) books, that one was the first book I'd read in a long time that brought me back to when I was a kid, when I would read the last quarter of the book in total amazement and close it at the end just to think for awhile. If you haven't read it, it's worth a look (don't expect to have my experience though, I hate it when overly high expectations ruin an experience).
YOU are the product (target demographic) being SOLD to the companies BY the media channels
That's a great way to look at it. I abhor this aspect of our "culture", the fallacy of it, the fact that so much "entertainment" is a just-shiney-enough carrot to get people to watch ads, but I'd never quite thought of it on these terms before...
I don't want to "save money". I'm sick of that scam. I want to spend a fair price on a product that I want and that's IT.
The thing is, no one wants you to save money either (except maybe the random good samaritan). They want you to buy sh!t. Their sh!t. So-called sales are not really somebody's way of helping you out, they're ways to help themselves at your stupidity's expense, a way to lure you into thinking you've gotten some magical "deal".
It's BS, the whole thing, and it's dishonest. Do you think those car advertisements are there so you'll save money? Do you think they're providing some kind of public service to let you know what kind of deal you can get? I guarantee you that they're there to get you to get your butt down to the car lot to *spend* money, and probably not even on the advertised model. If you want a car, or any other service, is it so hard to go down, check out the prices, and decide who's got a better deal on the one that you want, or do you need an ad to tell you that something's a great deal?
Sorry, I guess I'm just sick of the junk mail, junk email, billboards and all the rest. I don't want it. If I need a product you supply I'll compare it to similiar products and find the ones that meet my needs at the best price. I just spend 1/2 an hour going through my mail from the last week to find the two legit items in it, and I'm sick of the invasion of *my* mailbox, *my* time, and *our* planet's resources on what is total and complete bullsh!t.
If people want to buy the sunday paper (or any other periodical) for the ads, let them. But quit *forcing* the stuff on me!
The point remains that you blaming "tree huggers" as a group is inane. I work at a solar power company in *Berkeley* of all places and myself and everyone I know is fine with plutonium on space missions.
It's time for you people, and by "you people," I mean those who use the term "tree hugger" to discount anyone who gives a rat's ass about the world that we live in ("God's" world, if you're into that), just because a few morons are paranoid. Get the fsck with it.
I don't think you're necessarily a troll as you've been modded, but come on... whose money, do you think, is getting spent by the republicans right now?
We're deficit spending at an unparalleled rate on all kinds of "rightist" (to use your terminology) pet projects, and while we're not getting taxed on it now, who do you think is going to pay for it all (plus interest)? You could just as easily look at it as your money (and your children's money) being stolen, with you forced to pay off a loan that you never wanted to take out. But no, you're acting like fiscal responsibility -spending only money that you *have*- is a bad thing...
From the people I've talked to, true fiscal conservatives (right or left) are just as scared by the insane borrow-and-spend methods of the current governments as conservative libertarians and "leftists" are about the freedoms that are being taken away in the Patriot Act.
The interface on the iPod is better, but the vastly superior battery life of the iRiver will change some people's minds.
And the high quality recording ability of the iRiver is indeed massively superior in that it even exists - for some people, like me, it's not even worth getting a portable player unless they can use it for a/d recording.
That's all I've been waiting for. I know that iRiver has a recordable hard drive device, but the interface is just not even close to the ipod. Now that sony has shitcanned A/D recording in their minidisc players it's really difficult to find a good field recorder.
I suppose it's not worth them adding it right now for the only 1% of people who care, but an iPod with high-quality recording would get me to buy...
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... what the article was commenting on was the fact that SUVs *cost* the gov't more money because of the wear and tear on roads, yet people are encouraged to buy them with tax breaks that decrease the amount the gov't gets to pay for their burden.
You seem to be trying to fit this into an anti-government intervention attitude when the main body of the article never involves an increase in regulation. It is merely pointing out the contradiction in current regulations, contradictions that could be changed without any need for new regulations. If anything, if you are trying to argue the libertarian point, you could recognize that the current regulations are causing the burden of these vehicles on the state's infrastructure to be shouldered disproportionately by the people that *don't* own them. I would think that the libertarian view would be that a real estate agent shouldn't be exempt from taxes that others pay just because he/she drives something categorized as a truck. And I really wouldn't think a libertarian or conservative would buy it when that truck is causing a greater strain on a public infrastructure that we all pay for. The current situtation is an allowance for certain people to take from others, forcing non-SUV owners to dole out money for road work they don't even cause.
Personally, I don't mind if people want to have SUVs so long as they are willing to step up and pay for their whole cost to society. You're right, people *should* be allowed to do what they want, kill themselves if they want, but only if they're not taking from everyone else to do it.
Even more important in improving the efficiency of stop-and-go driving is the hybrid's ability to use regenerative braking, turning some of that "stop" into "go".
Ahh, that makes me feel *so* much better - it's not because he's stupid, it's because he's assuming that most of his conversations, if they went public, would cause problems.
Gotta love that free and open government...
From that, I can also see (hear) why the noise is so startling - I never thought about it before, but you don't even hear the sounds of the engines until the boom hits.
So supersonic aircraft would probably still bug people even without the boom - when a subsonic jet goes by, the jet rumble builds slowly and dies off, which to the human ear usually doesn't sound eventful enough to warrant noticing. The instant appearance of engine noise from a supersonic plane, though, would seem much more obtrusive. I just hope that issue doesn't create another barrier (no pun intended) to allowing supersonic flights over land.
Thanks for the clip, BTW...
I got mine because when I was growing up a few of my friends were robbed at gunpoint. I didn't want to be in the same situation.
You could still be in the same situation. With a gun, you'd just end up killing/maiming someone or, more likely, getting killed/maimed yourself; even if you have a gun they don't expect, you're still at a huge disadvantage if they already have one pointed at you.
Personally, I'd rather lose my wallet than kill someone, but I guess that makes me a peace-loving hippy (I'm actually not, and I strongly uphold people's right to own guns).
It's worse than that - they couldn't even buy their own ramps because it would be illegal.
Great point...
Nextel
Thanks to the moderator who modded the parent Informative - that was the best case of moderator abuse I've seen ;)
And yeah, I know I'm offtopic.
In this case, getting there is less than half the fun. The real trick is moving and/or destroying enough of the asteroid to prevent it from doing serious harm. The hard thing to realize is just how *much* mass could be involved in a large asteroid.
From what I've read, destruction is basically impossible; the little pieces that were left could do as much or more damage than the whole rock. Moving it requires absolutely enormous amounts of energy (presumably applied at a point in its trajectory when only a "nudge" is needed) It's just a lot of momentum to divert, and I've heard that even the application of a whole lotta nukes is not much energy in comparison.
T'would be a fun engineering project though, I have to say. To have the resources of the entire unified population of humans at your disposal could allow for some damned cool machinery.
I agree with the other responder that Kare is neglecting the return energy that can be delivered on the down trip (just like all other elevators). However, even as a space elevator proponent, I found this compilation very interesting - thanks.
That said, that has to be nearly the worst presentation of a set of estimates and data I've ever seen. I can't imagine how they operate a consulting service if they hand over documents with that lack of clarity. It seems as though it's meant to be read aloud (a la Powerpoint), but my god - if someone gave that to me I would assume that their estimates bore as little weight as the effort they put into conveying them.
Nice reply - thanks so much. In fact, that was more interesting than anything else in the thread; it's unfortunate that the way of slashdot is biased so much toward fast posting.
That was, as another poster said, quite informative. Thank you.
What doesn't make sense to me though is your use of "holographic". From what I know, the cool thing about holography is that every angle is captured for every point in space. Reproducing this amount of information from just two offset photos (or game-generated images) is impossible. It may *look* like a hologram from a particular point of view, but it cannot actually *be* a true hologram without all that extra information.
In the case of a game, the computer would have to know the location of your eyes (and thus your viewing angle) to generate the appropriate two stereoscopic views - without this knowledge, it certainly can't render the infinity of views required for multi-angle viewing (not without a *huge* increase in computing power).
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - it may be that my understanding of holography is flawed.
Does that mean there's accenting in Morse? I guess I never thought about it, but there probably is (just not based on nationality necessarily).
I've already posted twice in this thread, but since it's an old one I thought I'd reply to you in case you check your replies.
I too love The City and the Stars (in fact, saying that got you added to my friends list)... have you read The Light of Other Days? See my other comments for my thoughts on that (I'm trying not to get too repetitive). Worth a read...
Try The Light of Other Days. Yes, it's co-authored, but it's obviously Clarke doing the thinking, and it's the best of his that I'd read in a looooooong time.
It showed me that he can still whip out the blow-your-mind genius once in awhile...
I already commented in this thread, but I just reread your commment and realized that you mentioned the "long future". I think that's what always pulled me in to Clarke, and especially the City and the Stars... that strange sensation of perpetuity, of what might happen in a world so far extrapolated from where most sci-fi writers can even reach.
That's what I like about The Light of Other Days, as I said in my other comment, but I also think Asimov touched on a similiar feeling in his short story, The Last Question. It's always on the list of his best shorts, and it's always worth a reread (though the first read is best).
A story that you may or may not enjoy is The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect, a book based upon Vernor Vinge's idea of the Singularity. It's more violent than I'm usually amenable to, but it's the best online novella I've ever read (actually the only one I've really gotten into, because I hate reading stories off the screen). The whole idea of the Singularity blew my mind (and still does), and this story takes it to a far point... worth a shot if you haven't given it one, IMHO.
Add me to that list ;). It has long been my favorite book, since I found it in the library and it set me off... I wonder what one could tell about people who just loved that book.
Has anyone read The Light of Other Days? It's written with Stephen Baxter, but it's got true Clarke genius and wonder in it. After a series of (dare I say it) rather lame (for him) books, that one was the first book I'd read in a long time that brought me back to when I was a kid, when I would read the last quarter of the book in total amazement and close it at the end just to think for awhile. If you haven't read it, it's worth a look (don't expect to have my experience though, I hate it when overly high expectations ruin an experience).
YOU are the product (target demographic) being SOLD to the companies BY the media channels
That's a great way to look at it. I abhor this aspect of our "culture", the fallacy of it, the fact that so much "entertainment" is a just-shiney-enough carrot to get people to watch ads, but I'd never quite thought of it on these terms before...
Do you mind if I borrow that thought for a sig?
I don't want to "save money". I'm sick of that scam. I want to spend a fair price on a product that I want and that's IT.
The thing is, no one wants you to save money either (except maybe the random good samaritan). They want you to buy sh!t. Their sh!t. So-called sales are not really somebody's way of helping you out, they're ways to help themselves at your stupidity's expense, a way to lure you into thinking you've gotten some magical "deal".
It's BS, the whole thing, and it's dishonest. Do you think those car advertisements are there so you'll save money? Do you think they're providing some kind of public service to let you know what kind of deal you can get? I guarantee you that they're there to get you to get your butt down to the car lot to *spend* money, and probably not even on the advertised model. If you want a car, or any other service, is it so hard to go down, check out the prices, and decide who's got a better deal on the one that you want, or do you need an ad to tell you that something's a great deal?
Sorry, I guess I'm just sick of the junk mail, junk email, billboards and all the rest. I don't want it. If I need a product you supply I'll compare it to similiar products and find the ones that meet my needs at the best price. I just spend 1/2 an hour going through my mail from the last week to find the two legit items in it, and I'm sick of the invasion of *my* mailbox, *my* time, and *our* planet's resources on what is total and complete bullsh!t.
If people want to buy the sunday paper (or any other periodical) for the ads, let them. But quit *forcing* the stuff on me!
The point remains that you blaming "tree huggers" as a group is inane. I work at a solar power company in *Berkeley* of all places and myself and everyone I know is fine with plutonium on space missions.
It's time for you people, and by "you people," I mean those who use the term "tree hugger" to discount anyone who gives a rat's ass about the world that we live in ("God's" world, if you're into that), just because a few morons are paranoid. Get the fsck with it.
Cool sig.
I don't think you're necessarily a troll as you've been modded, but come on... whose money, do you think, is getting spent by the republicans right now?
We're deficit spending at an unparalleled rate on all kinds of "rightist" (to use your terminology) pet projects, and while we're not getting taxed on it now, who do you think is going to pay for it all (plus interest)? You could just as easily look at it as your money (and your children's money) being stolen, with you forced to pay off a loan that you never wanted to take out. But no, you're acting like fiscal responsibility -spending only money that you *have*- is a bad thing...
From the people I've talked to, true fiscal conservatives (right or left) are just as scared by the insane borrow-and-spend methods of the current governments as conservative libertarians and "leftists" are about the freedoms that are being taken away in the Patriot Act.
The interface on the iPod is better, but the vastly superior battery life of the iRiver will change some people's minds.
And the high quality recording ability of the iRiver is indeed massively superior in that it even exists - for some people, like me, it's not even worth getting a portable player unless they can use it for a/d recording.
They should have put *that* on the statue of liberty:
We. Don't Want. You.
followed by:
Keep your crappy beaver pelts, shells, pine
cones, or whatever the fuck you use for
currency.
We don't want you here.
BTW, please try not to use "we" as though you speak for all americans. You don't speak for me.
That's all I've been waiting for. I know that iRiver has a recordable hard drive device, but the interface is just not even close to the ipod. Now that sony has shitcanned A/D recording in their minidisc players it's really difficult to find a good field recorder.
I suppose it's not worth them adding it right now for the only 1% of people who care, but an iPod with high-quality recording would get me to buy...