Teach a man to debunk Creationism/ID in a science classroom and he's saved from foolishness today. Teach him to think critically and he can debunk such nonsense for a lifetime.
"In a sustainable energy future, electricity will become the prime energy carrier. We now have to focus our research on electricity storage, electric cars and the modernization of the existing electricity infrastructure."
These are the areas where our "energy future" money should be spent: electricity production, transmission, storage and usage.
H2 and EtOH are tossed around in politics and the media because they sound nice: H2 is 2/3s of H2O so we have lots of it, and EtOH comes from corn (like most of our food) so it must be cheap. While that is not reality, it sounds nice and gets votes.
The reality is we have a pretty good electrical grid now, with pretty good power plants at one end now. We can reduce our energy usage now (efficient home tax credits, energy usage taxes...) The power plants can be replaced with cleaner and/or renewable sources (wind, geothermal, solar, cogeneration, nukular...) in the near future. We can get plug-in electric cars (or plug-in hybrids) in the near future.
The practical advantage of H2 over battery (both are electric) vehicles is fast recharging. To that end we can even go with H2 cars and point-of-use H2 generators/compressors (fueling stations on the electric grid, or even home units).
A large bandgap is required to split water and large bandgap cells are inefficient. Current state of the art in direct solar electrolysis uses a multijunction cell. One junction absorbs in one region of the spectrum (UV) and has a bandgap a little bit too small for splitting water, so it needs to be bias driven. The other junction uses the long pass light not absorbed by the first material to generate a bias voltage, which increases the bandgap at the first junction, thus enabling electrolysis.
Currently, several labs are working on improving efficiency of solar water splitting throuhg multijunction cells, and altering the chemistry of n-type materials to tailor the bandgap and improve e- transport. Also they are trying to utilize more of the available spectrum. Some papers are showing champion efficiency > 50% but that is for a very narrow portion of the UV spectrum and a very low overall efficiency ( 1%) when you consider how little light they actually use.
There is a good article by Graetzel in Nature (414(2001)p338) which offers a good intro to this area.
That's what courts are for. They, on a case-by-case basis, decide if something is illegal. If and when they do that, they should instruct the owner to take the illegal speech offline. Barring cooperation from the owner, they may instruct the host to do so.
Google, at their discretion, may or may not restrict what is published on their service. But their mantra "don't be evil" means staying neutral, and permitting questionable speech, until an authority forces them to take action.
and of course, it is always absolutely perfectly crystal clear after this "enhancement"
But without the image enhancement software on loan from the FBI, how else could we use bank security camera footage to get a license plate number reflected in the eyeglasses of the guy at the ATM?
In 1993, it is completely plausible that at least one 10-year-old girl "knows UNIX", provided said 10-year-old girl is vacationing on a FREAKING ISLAND FULL OF CLONED DINOSAURS.
Not to mention that you CANT PUT IT IN A DVD PLAYER... or watch it on a mac... or linux... or xbox.... or iPod+video... or even on another computer (without re-downloading it) But I can do all those things and more with a physical DVD, so why should they cost the same again?
Didn't we try this with those retarded PSP movies? Cost the same, but only work on a PSP? Sure its protable, but that might have made sense 5 years ago when portable dvd players cost $2000.
I can only think of 2 advantages of a download vs DVD 1) Laziness... you can download in 2 hrs without leaving your chair. (Notice I said laziness not time, as I'm sure you could drive to blockbuster or bestbuy, get the DVD and start watching it in the same time or less) 2) Replacement... you can get another copy if you lose yours.
...I've seen LED-based Christmas lights, they drive me nuts like a 60Hz monitor, though many don't notice it...
I was about to ask about this. I noticed it in LED taillights, particularly in GM cars (mainly Cadillacs). For me, this effect can trigger a migraine, especailly at night. I'm a bit ignorant regarding LED drivers, how does the post parent's system handle this?
The article is lite on details regarding distribution, most likely because they haven't really figured it out completely. But the sticking point is this: In order to prevent piracy of licensed commercial content, all binaries (including homebrew) will not be freely distributable. Homebrew distribution requires source code distribution, so for now end users must have a dev kit ($99/year) in order to compile and run "free" homebrew games/apps.
Which means it would be more like this...
1) Sell dev kit subscription to homebrew devs 2) Sit back and watch homebrew apps/games evolve (XBMC360?) and become popular 3) Charge end users $99/year to use "free" apps/games.
The EV reminds me of the DeLorean in Back to the Future. The time circuits needed 1.21GW. To get it Doc initially had to use plutonium, but then he was able to use a bolt of lightning when he knew when and where it would strike, and finally the Mr. Fusion household cold fusion reactor.
The point is that a viable EV platform could use a variety of storage technologies, as they become available. Lead-acid cells, NiMH, Li-ion, H-fuel cell, Methonol-fuel cell, etc... When the Li cells in the Tesla stop working in ~100,000 miles, no doubt the replacement cells will be better, faster cheaper and lighter.
Consider that electriciy is just a means of transporting energy, not a source of it, the enviornmental impact and energy production associated with opperating an EV is much more flexible than for a gas powered one. Clean energy electric (wind, solar, biomass...) won't replace coal in large numbers anytime soon, but it is currently supplemental and with EV the flexibility to use alternate energy is built-in.
The issue with EV as a primary-use vehicle is its range + recharge time limits your longer trips. As an enthusiast machine the Tesla looks solid: quick, stylish, nimble, about the same price as a similarly capable high-end gas-powered car.
AC = slightly more efficient, but also allows for regenerative braking at the motor. With DC powered EVs, a seperate generator is used, often coupled to the motor shaft.
The 3-phase AC motor has a fancy controller to run it on the DC power.
From the FAQ: "Li-Ion batteries are good for 500 charge/discharge cycles. With 250 miles of range this works out to 125,000 miles, but our estimate is a conservative 100,000 miles. However we believe that we will get better life from our batteries due to temperature control of the batteries and intelligent charge/discharge cycling."
So more like every 10-15 years. Also the battery recycling cost is built-in to the price of the car.
With gaseous H cars, the most dangerous bit is the high-P storage tank in the back of your car. The risk of rupture is the danger, the combustion of the gas inside is of little consequence.
It might be obvious to most/.ers, but H is not a fuel; its an energy storage medium, like a battery. The general public doesn't get that yet. The point of switching to H-fuel cells in cars and trucks, isn't to replace oil as an energy source, but to shift energy consumption and pollution to a central location. That enables the use of any combination of energy sources, oil, gas, wind, coal, solar, nuke.... to produce the energy stored in hydrogen, making our H-cars flexible fuel. Pollution is also more efficiently controlled at a central plant, which helps with things like smog etc.
H-cars aren't the crackpot idea many people think they are, but they aren't the "cure for our oil addiction" either.
The stuff theoretically wouldn't leave the "tank"; this wouldn't be like going to the gas station and filling up with little 'balls' of hydrogen
It would be EXACTLY like going to a gas station and filling up with little balls of hydrogen. That is the whole point: Hydrogen storage and refueling as fast and safe as gasoline storage and refueling.
Pull up to the station, pump out the spent balls, pump in H-charged balls. The old balls are trucked away to be recharged when the tanker shows up with new balls. They can possibly be recharged at the station.
This does sound to be expensive in both $ and energy. And of course there is still the problem of where we get all this hydrogen.
The AMD infrastructure is still of a much lower volume than the Intel infrastructure and has fewer suppliers....
Even so, given AMD's traditionally lower costs, and Apple's (relatively) low volume, this could have likely been a cheaper way to make a mac.
What I find very interesting is the false presmise that Apple needed to switch their computing platform to Intel to be able to broker (speculatively I should add) unrelated technology deals with Intel that concern the iPod platform. There is little or no sense to that as far as I can see.
I wouldn't quite put it that way, but Apple will certainly get the cheapest suitable parts for the iPod line, regardless of vendor. That vendor could or could not be Intel, with or without the PC platform deal. One certainly doesn't necessitate the other. And one doesn't guarantee price deals for the other, but it might be possible, and I think that's what people are speculating about.
All that said, this switch to Intel certainly does give Apple many opportunities to leverage Intel's considerable product line...All of these things a player smaller than Intel could not provide.
This is well said and precisely why a lower cost CPU+arch is only part of the equation. I agree that Intel was the smartest choice, probably the only choice. The decision therefore was not whether or not to "go Intel" but whether or not to dump PPC.
Chalcogenides, specifically the "phase change" type, in MatSci-speak, refers to non-oxide chalcogenide glasses and crystals, like Ge-Sb-Te. They tend to have big temperature difference between crystallization (Tx) and melting (Tm) points, Tx Tm, and it cools amorphous. Since the amorphous and crystalline phases are different optically and electronically, these materials make nice persistent optical memory (CD-RW) and potentially nice persistant solid state storage media.
the REAL reason they switched to Intel was to lower overall component costs.
That is no doubt part of the story... but what could the cumulative per unit savings really add up to? While there is a very real cost savings on the cpu and associated architecture, the cost of the transition is huge. Rosetta development, maintaining support for 2 architectures, convincing 3rd party developers to ship UBs, Osbourne effect... If it really were only about saving a buck or two, it was a pretty risky move. Still, AMD could have given Apple cheap fast x86 compatible cpus for lower cost (Apple would have become AMDs biggest cpu partner overnight and thus could have likely brokered a pretty sweet deal). So if it were all about marginal costs on the CPU+arch, AMD would have been a better choice. Besides, Apple computers have always been premium-priced compared to WinPCs. They seem to be content in that portion of the market, even with Intel CPUs.
The Intel CPU switch is part of a big package. Not the least of which was the aging mobile G4 cpu. Apple promised consumers and investors faster powerbooks and 3gz powermacs for a long time. With IBM, they couldn't deliver and Steve, with egg on his face, had to give one lame excuse after another. The Intel switch made it at least look like Apple was committed to that promise and things are looking up for the mac division once again. Commodity arch makes possible faster powerbooks, imacs and eventually faster powermacs. Even if it cost Apple the same per unit it is necessary to keep the line alive.
Would the Intel switch make an Intel iPod chip deal more likely? Probably. This certainly put Apple in (even more of) a position to pressure PortalPlayer for cost or features. The iPod is still Apple's cash cow. Competing DAPs come and go with more features or lower prices. One day a non-Apple DAP will supplant the iPod. This is the market where cost REALLY matters and commoditized parts makes a BIG difference. Apple dumped Synaptics touchwheels in the name of cost. No doubt PortalPlayer saw the writing on the wall. Cheaper, better iPods are guaranteed, and necessary and this point. The Apple-Intel relationship makes that more likely than an Apple-IBM or Apple-AMD relationship.
I always love/. stories about FF extensions, as it introduces me to some that I haven't tried yet. Here are the extensions I can not do without.
Essential extensions:
1. Adblock Plus, (with filterset updater) = much much better than regular Adblock
2. IE Tab, for when you really need to use IE (this has been giving me trouble in OSX lately) Replaced Launchy for me.
3. Update notifier, auto-update FF and all your extensions, automatically natch
4. Linkification, turn text-links into clickable links, automatically. Faster and easier than, select, copy, ctrl-L, paste (or select, rt-click, search web for...)
5. Sessionsaver and Restart Firefox, this combo makes installing/updating/removing addons painless. Just click one button and restart FF right where you left off, with your new extensions installed.
Essential timesaver:
Get rid of the search box, use quick searches! Right-click in a search box on any webpage, add a keyword for this search (i use g for google). Now just use ctrl-L, "g search term", and there you go.
The slashdotter plugin is essential for/. users, especially the CC linker, for/.ed stories.
Slashdot Mirror
on both counts, you couldn't be more wrong
Teach a man to debunk Creationism/ID in a science classroom and he's saved from foolishness today.
Teach him to think critically and he can debunk such nonsense for a lifetime.
Since Apple is calling this an accounting error, not a revenue grab, a rebate seems like a fair oportunity to NOT stick it to the customer.
$179 - built-in "airport disk" sharing of USB hard drives -- woohoo
Only one USB port -- boo
The only thing needed from the article:
"In a sustainable energy future, electricity will become the prime energy carrier. We now have to focus our research on electricity storage, electric cars and the modernization of the existing electricity infrastructure."
These are the areas where our "energy future" money should be spent: electricity production, transmission, storage and usage.
H2 and EtOH are tossed around in politics and the media because they sound nice: H2 is 2/3s of H2O so we have lots of it, and EtOH comes from corn (like most of our food) so it must be cheap. While that is not reality, it sounds nice and gets votes.
The reality is we have a pretty good electrical grid now, with pretty good power plants at one end now. We can reduce our energy usage now (efficient home tax credits, energy usage taxes...) The power plants can be replaced with cleaner and/or renewable sources (wind, geothermal, solar, cogeneration, nukular...) in the near future. We can get plug-in electric cars (or plug-in hybrids) in the near future.
The practical advantage of H2 over battery (both are electric) vehicles is fast recharging. To that end we can even go with H2 cars and point-of-use H2 generators/compressors (fueling stations on the electric grid, or even home units).
A large bandgap is required to split water and large bandgap cells are inefficient. Current state of the art in direct solar electrolysis uses a multijunction cell. One junction absorbs in one region of the spectrum (UV) and has a bandgap a little bit too small for splitting water, so it needs to be bias driven. The other junction uses the long pass light not absorbed by the first material to generate a bias voltage, which increases the bandgap at the first junction, thus enabling electrolysis.
Currently, several labs are working on improving efficiency of solar water splitting throuhg multijunction cells, and altering the chemistry of n-type materials to tailor the bandgap and improve e- transport. Also they are trying to utilize more of the available spectrum. Some papers are showing champion efficiency > 50% but that is for a very narrow portion of the UV spectrum and a very low overall efficiency ( 1%) when you consider how little light they actually use.
There is a good article by Graetzel in Nature (414(2001)p338) which offers a good intro to this area.
...efficiency of electrolytic hydrogen production...
Currently about 4%. Expect ~10% in the next 5-10 years.
That's what courts are for. They, on a case-by-case basis, decide if something is illegal. If and when they do that, they should instruct the owner to take the illegal speech offline. Barring cooperation from the owner, they may instruct the host to do so.
Google, at their discretion, may or may not restrict what is published on their service. But their mantra "don't be evil" means staying neutral, and permitting questionable speech, until an authority forces them to take action.
and of course, it is always absolutely perfectly crystal clear after this "enhancement"
But without the image enhancement software on loan from the FBI, how else could we use bank security camera footage to get a license plate number reflected in the eyeglasses of the guy at the ATM?
In 1993, it is completely plausible that at least one 10-year-old girl "knows UNIX", provided said 10-year-old girl is vacationing on a FREAKING ISLAND FULL OF CLONED DINOSAURS.
...Although the library I went to as a kid was ugly and looked like an old bomb shelter, it provided something very important to me...
You don't READ the library. You don't even read the cover. You read the book.
If the book is horribly laid out with gray text on black paper so it is hard to read... refer to the "quote of the moment"
There is more to aesthetics than just being pretty.
Not to mention that you CANT PUT IT IN A DVD PLAYER... or watch it on a mac... or linux... or xbox.... or iPod+video... or even on another computer (without re-downloading it) But I can do all those things and more with a physical DVD, so why should they cost the same again?
Didn't we try this with those retarded PSP movies? Cost the same, but only work on a PSP? Sure its protable, but that might have made sense 5 years ago when portable dvd players cost $2000.
I can only think of 2 advantages of a download vs DVD 1) Laziness... you can download in 2 hrs without leaving your chair. (Notice I said laziness not time, as I'm sure you could drive to blockbuster or bestbuy, get the DVD and start watching it in the same time or less) 2) Replacement... you can get another copy if you lose yours.
...I've seen LED-based Christmas lights, they drive me nuts like a 60Hz monitor, though many don't notice it...
I was about to ask about this. I noticed it in LED taillights, particularly in GM cars (mainly Cadillacs). For me, this effect can trigger a migraine, especailly at night. I'm a bit ignorant regarding LED drivers, how does the post parent's system handle this?
I wonder if there is any connection between the recall and the fact that the new PB battery I ordered last week is now on 6 week backorder.
I guess I'ma cancel that order and get a free one instead.
The article is lite on details regarding distribution, most likely because they haven't really figured it out completely. But the sticking point is this: In order to prevent piracy of licensed commercial content, all binaries (including homebrew) will not be freely distributable. Homebrew distribution requires source code distribution, so for now end users must have a dev kit ($99/year) in order to compile and run "free" homebrew games/apps.
Which means it would be more like this...
1) Sell dev kit subscription to homebrew devs
2) Sit back and watch homebrew apps/games evolve (XBMC360?) and become popular
3) Charge end users $99/year to use "free" apps/games.
The EV reminds me of the DeLorean in Back to the Future. The time circuits needed 1.21GW. To get it Doc initially had to use plutonium, but then he was able to use a bolt of lightning when he knew when and where it would strike, and finally the Mr. Fusion household cold fusion reactor.
The point is that a viable EV platform could use a variety of storage technologies, as they become available. Lead-acid cells, NiMH, Li-ion, H-fuel cell, Methonol-fuel cell, etc... When the Li cells in the Tesla stop working in ~100,000 miles, no doubt the replacement cells will be better, faster cheaper and lighter.
Consider that electriciy is just a means of transporting energy, not a source of it, the enviornmental impact and energy production associated with opperating an EV is much more flexible than for a gas powered one. Clean energy electric (wind, solar, biomass...) won't replace coal in large numbers anytime soon, but it is currently supplemental and with EV the flexibility to use alternate energy is built-in.
The issue with EV as a primary-use vehicle is its range + recharge time limits your longer trips. As an enthusiast machine the Tesla looks solid: quick, stylish, nimble, about the same price as a similarly capable high-end gas-powered car.
AC = slightly more efficient, but also allows for regenerative braking at the motor. With DC powered EVs, a seperate generator is used, often coupled to the motor shaft.
The 3-phase AC motor has a fancy controller to run it on the DC power.
From the FAQ:
"Li-Ion batteries are good for 500 charge/discharge cycles. With 250 miles of range this works out to 125,000 miles, but our estimate is a conservative 100,000 miles. However we believe that we will get better life from our batteries due to temperature control of the batteries and intelligent charge/discharge cycling."
So more like every 10-15 years. Also the battery recycling cost is built-in to the price of the car.
With gaseous H cars, the most dangerous bit is the high-P storage tank in the back of your car. The risk of rupture is the danger, the combustion of the gas inside is of little consequence.
/.ers, but H is not a fuel; its an energy storage medium, like a battery. The general public doesn't get that yet. The point of switching to H-fuel cells in cars and trucks, isn't to replace oil as an energy source, but to shift energy consumption and pollution to a central location. That enables the use of any combination of energy sources, oil, gas, wind, coal, solar, nuke.... to produce the energy stored in hydrogen, making our H-cars flexible fuel. Pollution is also more efficiently controlled at a central plant, which helps with things like smog etc.
It might be obvious to most
H-cars aren't the crackpot idea many people think they are, but they aren't the "cure for our oil addiction" either.
The stuff theoretically wouldn't leave the "tank"; this wouldn't be like going to the gas station and filling up with little 'balls' of hydrogen
It would be EXACTLY like going to a gas station and filling up with little balls of hydrogen. That is the whole point: Hydrogen storage and refueling as fast and safe as gasoline storage and refueling.
Pull up to the station, pump out the spent balls, pump in H-charged balls. The old balls are trucked away to be recharged when the tanker shows up with new balls. They can possibly be recharged at the station.
This does sound to be expensive in both $ and energy. And of course there is still the problem of where we get all this hydrogen.
The AMD infrastructure is still of a much lower volume than the Intel infrastructure and has fewer suppliers....
Even so, given AMD's traditionally lower costs, and Apple's (relatively) low volume, this could have likely been a cheaper way to make a mac.
What I find very interesting is the false presmise that Apple needed to switch their computing platform to Intel to be able to broker (speculatively I should add) unrelated technology deals with Intel that concern the iPod platform. There is little or no sense to that as far as I can see.
I wouldn't quite put it that way, but Apple will certainly get the cheapest suitable parts for the iPod line, regardless of vendor. That vendor could or could not be Intel, with or without the PC platform deal. One certainly doesn't necessitate the other. And one doesn't guarantee price deals for the other, but it might be possible, and I think that's what people are speculating about.
All that said, this switch to Intel certainly does give Apple many opportunities to leverage Intel's considerable product line...All of these things a player smaller than Intel could not provide.
This is well said and precisely why a lower cost CPU+arch is only part of the equation. I agree that Intel was the smartest choice, probably the only choice. The decision therefore was not whether or not to "go Intel" but whether or not to dump PPC.
Chalcogenides, specifically the "phase change" type, in MatSci-speak, refers to non-oxide chalcogenide glasses and crystals, like Ge-Sb-Te. They tend to have big temperature difference between crystallization (Tx) and melting (Tm) points, Tx Tm, and it cools amorphous. Since the amorphous and crystalline phases are different optically and electronically, these materials make nice persistent optical memory (CD-RW) and potentially nice persistant solid state storage media.
the REAL reason they switched to Intel was to lower overall component costs.
That is no doubt part of the story... but what could the cumulative per unit savings really add up to? While there is a very real cost savings on the cpu and associated architecture, the cost of the transition is huge. Rosetta development, maintaining support for 2 architectures, convincing 3rd party developers to ship UBs, Osbourne effect... If it really were only about saving a buck or two, it was a pretty risky move. Still, AMD could have given Apple cheap fast x86 compatible cpus for lower cost (Apple would have become AMDs biggest cpu partner overnight and thus could have likely brokered a pretty sweet deal). So if it were all about marginal costs on the CPU+arch, AMD would have been a better choice. Besides, Apple computers have always been premium-priced compared to WinPCs. They seem to be content in that portion of the market, even with Intel CPUs.
The Intel CPU switch is part of a big package. Not the least of which was the aging mobile G4 cpu. Apple promised consumers and investors faster powerbooks and 3gz powermacs for a long time. With IBM, they couldn't deliver and Steve, with egg on his face, had to give one lame excuse after another. The Intel switch made it at least look like Apple was committed to that promise and things are looking up for the mac division once again. Commodity arch makes possible faster powerbooks, imacs and eventually faster powermacs. Even if it cost Apple the same per unit it is necessary to keep the line alive.
Would the Intel switch make an Intel iPod chip deal more likely? Probably. This certainly put Apple in (even more of) a position to pressure PortalPlayer for cost or features. The iPod is still Apple's cash cow. Competing DAPs come and go with more features or lower prices. One day a non-Apple DAP will supplant the iPod. This is the market where cost REALLY matters and commoditized parts makes a BIG difference. Apple dumped Synaptics touchwheels in the name of cost. No doubt PortalPlayer saw the writing on the wall. Cheaper, better iPods are guaranteed, and necessary and this point. The Apple-Intel relationship makes that more likely than an Apple-IBM or Apple-AMD relationship.
Hmmm, I can't seem to create a new calender.
Go through the setup, click create new, and voila, back to main screen with no new calender added.
I always love /. stories about FF extensions, as it introduces me to some that I haven't tried yet. Here are the extensions I can not do without.
/. users, especially the CC linker, for /.ed stories.
Essential extensions:
1. Adblock Plus, (with filterset updater) = much much better than regular Adblock
2. IE Tab, for when you really need to use IE (this has been giving me trouble in OSX lately) Replaced Launchy for me.
3. Update notifier, auto-update FF and all your extensions, automatically natch
4. Linkification, turn text-links into clickable links, automatically. Faster and easier than, select, copy, ctrl-L, paste (or select, rt-click, search web for...)
5. Sessionsaver and Restart Firefox, this combo makes installing/updating/removing addons painless. Just click one button and restart FF right where you left off, with your new extensions installed.
Essential timesaver:
Get rid of the search box, use quick searches!
Right-click in a search box on any webpage, add a keyword for this search (i use g for google). Now just use ctrl-L, "g search term", and there you go.
The slashdotter plugin is essential for