True about 3001 (things went downhill in *all* of his series', IMO).
But have you read The Light of Other Days? Sure, it was a co-authorship, but Clarke's old, and you can still see plenty of the original Clarke genius in it. That was one of the best blow-my-mind books since Childhood's End.
I can't believe that nobody brought up The Singularity sooner - as an avid reader of the good hard science fiction throughout childhood, I have found no better explanation of the state of Sci-Fi, and really no cooler sci-fi idea itself... truly amazing.
Beyond that, you added far more insightful commentary than I would have expected on Slashdot.
Thanks.
Oh, and for anyone out there who read the parent comment, *seriously* go check out the link to the Singularity - it's worth it. Additionally, the short story on there is the single best piece of of fiction text I've ever read online.
Thank you... that looks to be a much better resource than the other stuff I've found. It looks reassuring enough to finally take the plunge and at least set up a new partition for dual boot.
It's hard, because it means learning a new OS, a new set of software (in many cases, incompatible with my old files), etc., which is a bitch when I'd often rather be just *working* on stuff. Still, I dislike microsoft enough, and I think I would be happy enough with Linux, that it seems worth going for it.
What really bugs me about articles like this one are that they completely fly in the face of the reasons that I, as a *gasp* Windows user, would switch to Linux.
I *want* to be able to change my desktop, to modify my computer to work in the way that *I* want it to. For this reason alone (not to mention the security, stability, and other customizability), I really want to switch to linux, and away from a crappy interface-for-everyone promoted by Microsoft.
Unfortunately for me, it all comes down to software. I simply cannot do sound and video editing properly (or *remotely* easily) on Linux. Saying that saddens me, but I'm pretty sure that it's true. I'd be willing to put a huge amount of effort into learning to run linux, but, sadly (for me anyway), I just don't have time to learn the ins and outs of an entire OS if it won't even run the software I use on a daily basis. And please don't give me the "write your own software" argument - I am genuinely not trying to flame linux, and I am an avid computer *user*, but I just can't code at that level (and I shouldn't be expected to!).
So Linux, please keep your varied desktops and your multiplicity of options - it's what makes you great... I just hope that you can gain enough marketshare (or that WINE can work sufficiently well) to allow me to use a proven set of task oriented software in your sphere. Then I'll switch in a heartbeat.
And since the power transfer from a typical gas station pump is the equivalent of well over a mW (do the math), I'd say it's a pretty lame complaint...
This is amazing - the guy who makes the joke gets only a 3, but the guy who explains the (unbelievably obvious) punch line gets the +4 funny.
This comment should be modded redundant, just like the one below it. Stupid mods... (and no, I'm not that new here, so you're right, I should be used to it by now)
I'll have to tell people here about that one... and I'll have to try it sometime on a nonfunctioning panel...
I'm sure the PC-30 didn't hurt; it's amazing what that stuff can take (I guess 30 psi really means something - I've driven over it in a truck with no evidence but a few marks).
Well, it's a tricky figure, because manufacturers usually don't release their manufacturing energy costs, but using the simple calculator on this site, a 190 watt panel in LA with no tilt will produce about 6500 kWh per year.
At 130000 kWh over a (conservative) 20 year lifespan, I'm guessing that their production *far* surpass the energy used in their manufacturing, installation, and design.
As someone who works at PowerLight, I'm not sure that I'd *want* to hit one of our panels with a baseball bat- but I'm impressed if you've really seen one stand up to a dedicated whack like that.
In the end, though, you're right - the point remains that the newer modules will stand up to at least as much as most roofs, and, in the case of PowerGuard will often protect the roof, allowing for *less* maintainance of the roofing system rather than more. Solar installations must be tested at extremely high wind speeds (think 150mph+), which varies depending upon their placement (area of the country, height, etc.), so if a tornado takes them off, chances are a substantial portion of the building will go with them.
People may be thinking of the old thin-film panels (like the ones in a calculator), which, because they weren't tempered, would break after getting sneezed on. As you say, the newer panels are very hardy, and Unisolar (because it doesn't have glass that can shatter) are incredibly durable, if relatively inefficient.
And yep, you're certainly right about the costs dropping - one of the coolest things about investing in solar is that you're not only paying a reasonably competitive rate (depending upon your power rates), you're helping to bring the volume up, which will quickly get the cost down to levels that will cause mass adoption.
...It's dead on. last I heard, the US legislature was supposed to support its *citizens* regardless of how (or if) they spend money.
We are not money-spending machines, and that is not our sole duty to our country - we are humans who live here, and this country is *our* country, as it says in our constitution...
Besides what the other comments to your post, you have to realize that fuel use and capacity increase exponentially with the amount of fuel needed to get to a specific velocity.
The more fuel you need at a given altitude, the more fuel you need to expend to get the extra fuel to that altitude. Much of the fuel expended in the first stage of a launch is devoted to lifting all of the rest of the fuel, not to lifting the orbiter.
That's why rockets like the Saturn V reached a point of diminishing returns; the more fuel they needed to lift a given weight to orbit, the more they needed to lift the fuel and the boosters, which meant more fuel to lift that fuel, etc., etc.
If one actually bothered to get all this plumbing hooked up, t'would be a relatively simple matter to install another radiator outside - in the shade, of course - with a bypass valve that would allow you to run the flow to one or the other (or both, for maximum cooling).
And hey, with fast enough processors, you could just put the radiator in a little room, pour some water on it, and have your own personal sauna...
Sometimes there is more to people's decisions than cost. I'm not saying that the hybrid is necessarily better for the world (batteries, manufacturing overhead, etc.), but it's at least worth something, to me anyway, that people are willing to shell out a little bit more in an attempt to avoid:
1. Oil funded wars
2. Destruction of the world around us (yes, that *environment* that environmentalists talk about really is everything around you, and everything your children will have to deal with).
3. More hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.
Just because we are priveleged with gas that is cheaper than bottled water doesn't mean we have to base our purchases solely on that fact.
hopefully this comes across as simply a reminder and not a flame...
Yeah, I know - and I have to say that I had a lot of respect for what he had to say - simplicity *is* something we need to keep in mind right now, and the immense amount of crap being produced does seem to indicate our decadence.
I just felt that he overlooked the evolutionary steps involved with technologies, not to mention the silly tools that fall by the wayside. Picking out a few good inventions from the past and saying that they were better than the current ones is like picking out the best films from the last 100 years and saying that films were better in the old days.
So you're right; these glasses will not mixed reality make. But the more that things like this are worked on, the closer we are to a constant internet and informational connection (with all the ensuing consequences, of course). That WILL be a life-changing "invention".
...that three of the things he brought up as overhyped, useless toys, are the makings of something that will drastically change the way we live?
Combine:
1. 3G phones
2. video glasses
3. micro-sized digital storage
...and you have the technology for realtime internet and mixed reality in your sunglasses. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, worthwhile or not, such wearable computing will become a cornerstone of our perception of the world pretty damned soon.
I'd call that at least an order of magnitude above idle gadgetry.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe no one has asked, but:
Why would you invest in a company you don't believe in? I know the standard response is that it's just about money but really, is it?
Yeah, I used to use my roomate's copy of Wired for that too.
It's a little abrasive though, so I'm glad I can now afford TP.
True about 3001 (things went downhill in *all* of his series', IMO).
But have you read The Light of Other Days? Sure, it was a co-authorship, but Clarke's old, and you can still see plenty of the original Clarke genius in it. That was one of the best blow-my-mind books since Childhood's End.
I can't believe that nobody brought up The Singularity sooner - as an avid reader of the good hard science fiction throughout childhood, I have found no better explanation of the state of Sci-Fi, and really no cooler sci-fi idea itself... truly amazing.
Beyond that, you added far more insightful commentary than I would have expected on Slashdot.
Thanks.
Oh, and for anyone out there who read the parent comment, *seriously* go check out the link to the Singularity - it's worth it. Additionally, the short story on there is the single best piece of of fiction text I've ever read online.
Thank you... that looks to be a much better resource than the other stuff I've found. It looks reassuring enough to finally take the plunge and at least set up a new partition for dual boot.
It's hard, because it means learning a new OS, a new set of software (in many cases, incompatible with my old files), etc., which is a bitch when I'd often rather be just *working* on stuff. Still, I dislike microsoft enough, and I think I would be happy enough with Linux, that it seems worth going for it.
Thanks again...
What really bugs me about articles like this one are that they completely fly in the face of the reasons that I, as a *gasp* Windows user, would switch to Linux.
I *want* to be able to change my desktop, to modify my computer to work in the way that *I* want it to. For this reason alone (not to mention the security, stability, and other customizability), I really want to switch to linux, and away from a crappy interface-for-everyone promoted by Microsoft.
Unfortunately for me, it all comes down to software. I simply cannot do sound and video editing properly (or *remotely* easily) on Linux. Saying that saddens me, but I'm pretty sure that it's true. I'd be willing to put a huge amount of effort into learning to run linux, but, sadly (for me anyway), I just don't have time to learn the ins and outs of an entire OS if it won't even run the software I use on a daily basis. And please don't give me the "write your own software" argument - I am genuinely not trying to flame linux, and I am an avid computer *user*, but I just can't code at that level (and I shouldn't be expected to!).
So Linux, please keep your varied desktops and your multiplicity of options - it's what makes you great... I just hope that you can gain enough marketshare (or that WINE can work sufficiently well) to allow me to use a proven set of task oriented software in your sphere. Then I'll switch in a heartbeat.
Exactly...
And since the power transfer from a typical gas station pump is the equivalent of well over a mW (do the math), I'd say it's a pretty lame complaint...
This is amazing - the guy who makes the joke gets only a 3, but the guy who explains the (unbelievably obvious) punch line gets the +4 funny.
This comment should be modded redundant, just like the one below it. Stupid mods... (and no, I'm not that new here, so you're right, I should be used to it by now)
Lol...
I'll have to tell people here about that one... and I'll have to try it sometime on a nonfunctioning panel...
I'm sure the PC-30 didn't hurt; it's amazing what that stuff can take (I guess 30 psi really means something - I've driven over it in a truck with no evidence but a few marks).
Well, it's a tricky figure, because manufacturers usually don't release their manufacturing energy costs, but using the simple calculator on this site, a 190 watt panel in LA with no tilt will produce about 6500 kWh per year.
At 130000 kWh over a (conservative) 20 year lifespan, I'm guessing that their production *far* surpass the energy used in their manufacturing, installation, and design.
As someone who works at PowerLight, I'm not sure that I'd *want* to hit one of our panels with a baseball bat- but I'm impressed if you've really seen one stand up to a dedicated whack like that.
In the end, though, you're right - the point remains that the newer modules will stand up to at least as much as most roofs, and, in the case of PowerGuard will often protect the roof, allowing for *less* maintainance of the roofing system rather than more. Solar installations must be tested at extremely high wind speeds (think 150mph+), which varies depending upon their placement (area of the country, height, etc.), so if a tornado takes them off, chances are a substantial portion of the building will go with them.
People may be thinking of the old thin-film panels (like the ones in a calculator), which, because they weren't tempered, would break after getting sneezed on. As you say, the newer panels are very hardy, and Unisolar (because it doesn't have glass that can shatter) are incredibly durable, if relatively inefficient.
And yep, you're certainly right about the costs dropping - one of the coolest things about investing in solar is that you're not only paying a reasonably competitive rate (depending upon your power rates), you're helping to bring the volume up, which will quickly get the cost down to levels that will cause mass adoption.
Deserves a 5, IMHO.
...It's dead on. last I heard, the US legislature was supposed to support its *citizens* regardless of how (or if) they spend money.
We are not money-spending machines, and that is not our sole duty to our country - we are humans who live here, and this country is *our* country, as it says in our constitution...
Besides what the other comments to your post, you have to realize that fuel use and capacity increase exponentially with the amount of fuel needed to get to a specific velocity.
The more fuel you need at a given altitude, the more fuel you need to expend to get the extra fuel to that altitude. Much of the fuel expended in the first stage of a launch is devoted to lifting all of the rest of the fuel, not to lifting the orbiter.
That's why rockets like the Saturn V reached a point of diminishing returns; the more fuel they needed to lift a given weight to orbit, the more they needed to lift the fuel and the boosters, which meant more fuel to lift that fuel, etc., etc.
nicely put.
No kidding, right? I thought it was *supposed* to be funny...
That's IT???
Geez, cheap publishers...
'Tis a worthy story, though, even if there's not much in the way of cryptography to it...
If one actually bothered to get all this plumbing hooked up, t'would be a relatively simple matter to install another radiator outside - in the shade, of course - with a bypass valve that would allow you to run the flow to one or the other (or both, for maximum cooling).
And hey, with fast enough processors, you could just put the radiator in a little room, pour some water on it, and have your own personal sauna...
+/-1 geeky
Sometimes there is more to people's decisions than cost. I'm not saying that the hybrid is necessarily better for the world (batteries, manufacturing overhead, etc.), but it's at least worth something, to me anyway, that people are willing to shell out a little bit more in an attempt to avoid:
1. Oil funded wars
2. Destruction of the world around us (yes, that *environment* that environmentalists talk about really is everything around you, and everything your children will have to deal with).
3. More hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.
Just because we are priveleged with gas that is cheaper than bottled water doesn't mean we have to base our purchases solely on that fact.
hopefully this comes across as simply a reminder and not a flame...
Yeah, I know - and I have to say that I had a lot of respect for what he had to say - simplicity *is* something we need to keep in mind right now, and the immense amount of crap being produced does seem to indicate our decadence.
I just felt that he overlooked the evolutionary steps involved with technologies, not to mention the silly tools that fall by the wayside. Picking out a few good inventions from the past and saying that they were better than the current ones is like picking out the best films from the last 100 years and saying that films were better in the old days.
So you're right; these glasses will not mixed reality make. But the more that things like this are worked on, the closer we are to a constant internet and informational connection (with all the ensuing consequences, of course). That WILL be a life-changing "invention".
...that three of the things he brought up as overhyped, useless toys, are the makings of something that will drastically change the way we live?
...and you have the technology for realtime internet and mixed reality in your sunglasses. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, worthwhile or not, such wearable computing will become a cornerstone of our perception of the world pretty damned soon.
Combine:
1. 3G phones
2. video glasses
3. micro-sized digital storage
I'd call that at least an order of magnitude above idle gadgetry.
argh - sorry - didn't think this got submitted properly
...if they make their EULAs as ugly as that web page, even the lawyers won't read them...
If they make their EULA's as ugly as that web page, even the lawyers won't read them...
Designers prefer macs indeed...
...that lets people know that they are obligated to present web pages that are not ungodly ugly (or IE only, which this one wasn't).