2. Google "single-car accident bridge pillar supports" and you'll see that, despite being engineered to minimize it happening, plenty of people get killed. It's also a popular form of suicide.
If you go to the link I've posted elsewhere, surface scratches aren't really a problem - you use laminated glass, and the top layer is sacrificial. As for a large piece of something falling off a truck, that's a problem even today. More cameras will help catch the perps so they can pay for the damages, and maybe be more careful the next time. Same with gravel trucks that don't properly cover their load.
If others can't reproduce it, it's not a verified bug, same as if others can't reproduce cold fusion, it's not cold fusion.
You are also free to add your own printk functions in the source and recompile - it's not that hard for a c programmer.
It's like when a patient goes to a doctor and says "It hurts every time I do this." If after all sorts of tests, there's no sign of anything wrong, the doctor would say "Then don't do that."
First, trials != ventures. And since, as you pointed out, there's no cost/benefit evaluation, you have no rational basis to complain - neither you nor I have the figures. I was just pointing out that you had left out one cost of ordinary roads in your theoretical equation of worth.
I should imagine that, properly done, the underlying road will last much longer because (1) no exposure to light, so no asphalt oxidation, (2) any cracks that form will be covered with adhesive from the tile, so no water infiltration. Think of them as acting like shingles on a roof, instead of just leaving the bare roof exposed to the elements.
Unless you're jamming the brakes hared enough to cause a skid, you won't get a rubber coating on the tiles - it's in the air and settles out as dust. The motion of the next few vehicles will prevent dust buildup.
Otherwise, we'd never have to resurface roads - they'd be coated with a nice coating of black rubber protecting the asphalt, instead of the asphalt oxidizing and turning light grey.
People are sick of these perpetual price increases. Cable is the only product I can think of that is constantly decreasing in value yet always increasing in price, well above the rate of inflation.
Politicians are costing the average joe more and more every year to give more and more to their 0.01% overlords.
Package sizes are shrinking to hide that you're paying more for less.
How's that university degree holding up, cost/benefit-wise? Ask any grad waiting tables or working at Wallyworld.
About the only ones getting increasing value for decreasing price are employers who treat their employees as replaceable cogs who live in fear of losing what little they have.
Discovery wants to do that because they know that there's a captive audience of lowbrows, trailer trash, and dementia patients who can't live without that crap. Those ones are the ones who are going to complain, because (1) they have the most time to watch such crap, and (2) they have the most time to complain.
Bundling does NOT reduce prices. The extra income from bundling is used to subsidize channels that nobody watches, creating make-work jobs for friends and family. And no, it's NOT the same all over the world. Change is coming.
The loser culture of the nerd is being expunged from society
Really? You must be from Planet Geek. Mostly neither respected nor listened to by your bosses, seen as a replaceable cog - the sooner the better, and boring as all hell for the rest of society to talk to.
Why? Too narrow focus. Look at the negative reaction to posting stories that aren't immediately nerdy-geeky, like this one. Cable companies in Sweden still wanting to bundle channels so that people have to pay for shows they don't want. Do YOU like to pay for something you don't want? Or bait-and-switch, like "unlimited bandwidth(some conditions may apply, offer void if blah blah blah, bandwidth charge of $X for each megabyte over Ygig, etc.)
And the structure required to support a highway-sized 1000km road against gravity, never mind wind forces, renders it cost-prohibitive, never mind that it would be butt-ugly.
You won't be driving the space shuttle down any roads. They're now museum pieces.
Also, not all glass is created equal. Some glasses can withstand 400 psi, which is far more pressure than a semitrailer tire produces on the road, unless you inflate the tire to more than 400 psi, which you won't do if you value your life. Structural glass is coming into wider use, as the transparent floor of walkways and dance floors, and resists wear longer than acrylics. It's even been used to make bridges between two buildings that have no steel supporting members, and staircases with no steel.
First, it's not just the median. It's the grassy areas on both sides. Second, while it might be possible in theory, the extra strength for such long and wide spans to resist wind, etc., would render it impractical. Third, if you cover the road, you now need to light the road 24/7.
No, "dry heat" means heat with little or no moisture, so no relabeling necessary. H2O exists as a solid (we call it ice, but it's still the chemical H2O), liquid (we call it water, but it's also still the chemical H2O) and gas (vapor but still H2O). However, if it's frozen, it's frozen water, not a liquid.
The panels would still have to be rugged, and their support structure would have to be able to resist winds, snow, and impacts of cars on the support pillars. Those open fields next to highways save a lot of lives - your idea would kill people.
It's not like ordinary roads don't need maintenance. So as long as the initial cost + maintenance is less than the value of the electricity generated + the cost of maintaining an ordinary road, you come out ahead.
You know how strong you would have to build the superstructure to withstand wind and snow? If these can be used, and make it easy as replacing a tile to "fill a pothole", anyone who's ever needed a wheel alignment or a new rim after hitting one will be grateful.
Slashdot Mirror
1. The roof would have to be VERY strong.
2. Google "single-car accident bridge pillar supports" and you'll see that, despite being engineered to minimize it happening, plenty of people get killed. It's also a popular form of suicide.
If you go to the link I've posted elsewhere, surface scratches aren't really a problem - you use laminated glass, and the top layer is sacrificial. As for a large piece of something falling off a truck, that's a problem even today. More cameras will help catch the perps so they can pay for the damages, and maybe be more careful the next time. Same with gravel trucks that don't properly cover their load.
If others can't reproduce it, it's not a verified bug, same as if others can't reproduce cold fusion, it's not cold fusion.
You are also free to add your own printk functions in the source and recompile - it's not that hard for a c programmer.
It's like when a patient goes to a doctor and says "It hurts every time I do this." If after all sorts of tests, there's no sign of anything wrong, the doctor would say "Then don't do that."
First, trials != ventures. And since, as you pointed out, there's no cost /benefit evaluation, you have no rational basis to complain - neither you nor I have the figures. I was just pointing out that you had left out one cost of ordinary roads in your theoretical equation of worth.
I should imagine that, properly done, the underlying road will last much longer because (1) no exposure to light, so no asphalt oxidation, (2) any cracks that form will be covered with adhesive from the tile, so no water infiltration. Think of them as acting like shingles on a roof, instead of just leaving the bare roof exposed to the elements.
Otherwise, we'd never have to resurface roads - they'd be coated with a nice coating of black rubber protecting the asphalt, instead of the asphalt oxidizing and turning light grey.
People are sick of these perpetual price increases. Cable is the only product I can think of that is constantly decreasing in value yet always increasing in price, well above the rate of inflation.
Politicians are costing the average joe more and more every year to give more and more to their 0.01% overlords.
Package sizes are shrinking to hide that you're paying more for less.
How's that university degree holding up, cost/benefit-wise? Ask any grad waiting tables or working at Wallyworld.
About the only ones getting increasing value for decreasing price are employers who treat their employees as replaceable cogs who live in fear of losing what little they have.
Discovery wants to do that because they know that there's a captive audience of lowbrows, trailer trash, and dementia patients who can't live without that crap. Those ones are the ones who are going to complain, because (1) they have the most time to watch such crap, and (2) they have the most time to complain.
"Reality TV" appeals to people who have no life. It's their version of "Virtual Reality."
Bundling does NOT reduce prices. The extra income from bundling is used to subsidize channels that nobody watches, creating make-work jobs for friends and family. And no, it's NOT the same all over the world. Change is coming.
And who is still watching Animal Planet?
The loser culture of the nerd is being expunged from society
Really? You must be from Planet Geek. Mostly neither respected nor listened to by your bosses, seen as a replaceable cog - the sooner the better, and boring as all hell for the rest of society to talk to.
Why? Too narrow focus. Look at the negative reaction to posting stories that aren't immediately nerdy-geeky, like this one. Cable companies in Sweden still wanting to bundle channels so that people have to pay for shows they don't want. Do YOU like to pay for something you don't want? Or bait-and-switch, like "unlimited bandwidth(some conditions may apply, offer void if blah blah blah, bandwidth charge of $X for each megabyte over Ygig, etc.)
What do you think is a component of these tiles. It's certainly not some opaque material.
And the structure required to support a highway-sized 1000km road against gravity, never mind wind forces, renders it cost-prohibitive, never mind that it would be butt-ugly.
You won't be driving the space shuttle down any roads. They're now museum pieces.
Also, not all glass is created equal. Some glasses can withstand 400 psi, which is far more pressure than a semitrailer tire produces on the road, unless you inflate the tire to more than 400 psi, which you won't do if you value your life. Structural glass is coming into wider use, as the transparent floor of walkways and dance floors, and resists wear longer than acrylics. It's even been used to make bridges between two buildings that have no steel supporting members, and staircases with no steel.
First, it's not just the median. It's the grassy areas on both sides. Second, while it might be possible in theory, the extra strength for such long and wide spans to resist wind, etc., would render it impractical. Third, if you cover the road, you now need to light the road 24/7.
... or to help determine the limits of OCD among gnu fans :-)
I think you mis-spelled "centuries." :-)
You think we'll still be using linux a few centuries from now, when HURD might be usable? Even Linus foresees the day something else replaces linux.
No, you won't. This is one user, who admits doing weird things in his scripts. He fixed his problem.
That anybody is still following the HURD is what's news. The herd has moved elsewhere.
All they have to do is wait for the user to upload them to facebook.
So instead of plugging a charger into your phone, you plug the charger into the mat. Seems to me that the mat is useless clutter.
Neither are the emissions from high voltage lines.
No, "dry heat" means heat with little or no moisture, so no relabeling necessary. H2O exists as a solid (we call it ice, but it's still the chemical H2O), liquid (we call it water, but it's also still the chemical H2O) and gas (vapor but still H2O). However, if it's frozen, it's frozen water, not a liquid.
The panels would still have to be rugged, and their support structure would have to be able to resist winds, snow, and impacts of cars on the support pillars. Those open fields next to highways save a lot of lives - your idea would kill people.
It's not like ordinary roads don't need maintenance. So as long as the initial cost + maintenance is less than the value of the electricity generated + the cost of maintaining an ordinary road, you come out ahead.
You know how strong you would have to build the superstructure to withstand wind and snow? If these can be used, and make it easy as replacing a tile to "fill a pothole", anyone who's ever needed a wheel alignment or a new rim after hitting one will be grateful.