I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks that it is somehow wrong that people in other countries are wanting and getting jobs in the tech sector. It is an inevitable, and ultimately good thing, for the countries and citizens involved, and the world.
The problem that we Americans are seeing regarding this outsourcing, which is causing our consternation over "what are we going to do" - is the inequality of prices of goods between the countries "taking the jobs" and America. Here in America, we find it difficult to fathom places where people are able to live for say, $1000.00 (US) per year - yet we know it happens, and in many places, sometimes even less. That same amount of money here in the US won't even be considered a down payment for car, let alone a house (heck, my house payment per month, alone, is more than that). Even a good apartment will run you from $500 to $800 per month (depending on size, location, and city/state, of course).
Now, imagine that you are a programmer making $50,000 (US) per year, with a house payment and a car payment, plus credit card bills, etc. Right now, you can probably find work, if you need to. But what happens if *all* the programming jobs are outsourced, and if you want a programming job here in the US, you have to be willing to work for say, only $25,000 a year - but you still have that car payment and house payment (say $1300 a month - for a modest house and car) - that ends up being over half of your salary in a year (actually more, because after taxes and such, your takehome pay is much less), and honestly, you likely can't easily live like that - especially with all the other attendant bills you may have (and more so if you have a family). If you have been a programmer for 10-20 years, with a family to support, what do you do?
In the past, this was the same argument that the American auto and textile workers gave. The answer was "educate yourselves, move into the knowledge worker field" - which many did. It was difficult, but as time progressed, it rapidly became apparent that you could spend $2000.00 on a computer (or computer kit), learn the basics or more, and easily get a job "because you know computers". As time went on, it became easier and easier to get that "knowledge worker education" - nowadays, it is almost like it is being given away (computers to learn on can be had from the trash, literally). In theory, the same answer could be given to today's knowledge workers in the US - but what is the next up-and-coming field that these workers can easily transition to?
The answer is: there isn't one. Computers are the one high-tech field where you can educate yourself and get a job on that education, and rarely do you need a degree or certification (though times are changing) to get a job. All you need is a computer, and maybe a few books or a friend, and you can learn it, too! Other high-tech jobs? Everything else requires a degree and/or much higher education - which here in America doesn't come cheap. If you already can't afford to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, or your child's health care up-to-date - how can you afford the time and money for more education?
We can't, yet, go down to the store or whatnot and buy a book or kit that will teach us, say, "biotechnology" - or any other new high-tech field. Granted, one can't really get a "computer-science" education off-the-shelf, by themselves, either - but most companies involved with computers don't need (and sometimes, don't want) people with computer science degrees - it would be like hiring a chemist to build a road. But other technology industries, like biotech, require a much deeper knowledge and understanding, and there isn't any easy way to get from here (a programmer with a family - who may be 30-40 years old), to a biotech scientist. That just doesn't happen.
Also, notice I am only talking about biotech - because I really don't know what the "next-best-thing" is. Maybe the programmers (and others) can move to management or sales - but don't you think that if that is
Perhaps I should have said "fossil sources", instead of "oil" (and, while hydrogen is part of natural gas production - there is such a thing as catalytic cracking for hydrogen). I also do know about algae, biomass, and electrolysis - but none of these are currently major producers of hydrogen (I do agree that all of them could be scaled up - however, the last one would only be viable if we used nuclear power to run the process - and you would still get less energy from the result than if you just used the electricity).
The point I was trying to get across was that currently hydrogen is being touted as the next "great" thing, when all it will ultimately do is continue to fund the oil companies, until the fossil sources run out.
I agree with you here, too - ride sharing and other mass transit can help alleviate the pressure. These methods tend to be better in dense urban areas, though, as well as in places where cities are close together (Europe, Britain, Japan/Asia).
In America, we have the big problem of too much space - it is easier to expand outward, and these outer subburbs typically are designed completely wrong, thus making it imperative that you MUST drive everywhere. Furthermore, since most people in a company don't live near each other - ride sharing tends to fail. We can't install light rail or other similar systems into the suburbs easily because of NIMBY and other attitudes, along with the fact that the 'burbs weren't designed with such future infrastructure expansion in mind - so at best, you still have to drive to one location to get on the bus or train - and if you are already driving, why not go all the way in?
Ideally, if our cities were designed with volume in mind, and not just "area" (ie, a dense arcology or similar) - most transportation could be easily done via walking or bicycling, along with other methods. But this isn't likely to ever change, at least in the near future...
That is what they want you to believe - but the car companies and the oil^H^H^Henergy companies are bamboozling the public, and not letting the public in on the "big secret":
Hydrogen comes from OIL.
That's right - you heard it here. The vast majority of the worlds hydrogen is "generated" through catalytic cracking from oil - simply because it is the cheapest and easiest way to get hydrogen (ie, HYDROcarbons, anyone?). Hydrogen-powered vehicles, whether they use fuel cells or ICEs, or something else - won't do jack to lessen the world's dependence on oil. If anything, such vehicles will either keep the status quo moving along, or increase our consumption (because at least for a while, you will have to support gasoline and hydrogen fuel vehicles).
Throw peak oil (yes, peak oil is REAL - just about every oil and energy company on the planet knows about it and acknowledges it as a fact) into the mix, and you have the makings of BIG PROFIT for those who get into it at the right point.
Please note that I am not against the use of petroleum or its products - just that I think there are better solutions available for our energy needs (there isn't ONE alternative energy solution - but there are MANY alternative energy solutions which we could be using to make a real solution in total). If we just built our houses properly (monolithic dome earthships?) and got off this kick of "more power, more speed, damn the environment" for our vehicles, we could probably save a bunch and use the alternative solutions we already have. There are many other better things those fossil sources could go to (medicine, chemicals, plastics, etc).
But, I doubt it will ever happen - and the public is just going to take it up the rear again, because the public is so damn uneducated and ignorant of the truth...
One other thing you may not be aware of is that the EV1 used a high-performance motor - such motors are not readily available to the public in surplus numbers, and when they are, they are still damn expensive.
I was once looking into the idea of using hub motors for an electric car - brand new, each motor (made by a company in Germany) would cost me $600.00. I found similar motors (which would be OK for a bike or electric motorcycle, maybe) surplus for $300.00 each.
So, it isn't just battery technology, but motor technology as well, that helps determine how far an electric vehicle can travel on a charge...
Alright, you got me beat on the CPU...
on
Less Might Be More
·
· Score: 1
I am running on my firewall FreeSCO on a P90 underclocked to P75, 8 meg of ram and a floppy drive. You are right - we both could get that el-cheapo router, which would probably use less power - but there is something cool about a home-brew box...
So, couldn't you use any kind of ferrous metal then, like scrap steel and iron to feed the process? What could be done (I am not a chemist, either) to reclaim the oxygen from the iron-oxide (leaving behind, presumably, the iron)?
I can see why this isn't done, now - you bring up a good point, one that I will have to ponder on. Even if you use scrap, eventually you would run out of that, and the process of making new is an energy intensive process, as you noted. I wonder if solar-based smelting could be done?
There are two things that shouldn't be "drive by wire" on a vehicle - steering, and braking. I would almost add acceleration on this, too, but if something breaks, I doubt it would break in the direction of "give it more gas" (whereas a mechanical system can and does do this, on an accelerator!).
In steering and braking, even if the "power" fails (ie, the engine dies, or something else happens), you still can control the vehicle in a reasonable manner, without (generally) endangering others on the road. However, should the steering or braking fail on a drive-by-wire system, you are completely SOL.
Unless they have a backup mechanical system of some sort, I don't know if I would trust such systems - they don't have a proven track record, unlike large commercial aircraft, which I know do use a true fly-by-wire system (at least the larger, newer aircraft). These aircraft also have generally a three-computer voting system to determine actions and outcomes based on current conditions and sensor readings. Furthermore, their software goes through a QA process unlike any other software on the planet (read, big $$$ to certify and QA - especially on changes to the software over various release versions). I don't know if we would see that kind of scrutiny in a vehicle's "driving management system" (or whatever they would call it) or not - given the cheapness in the average automobile (hell, even supposed luxury automobiles are built like crap), I tend to doubt it.
I agree that what such advances could allow for are amazing, and very tempting to the buyer (IIRC, GM has the "skateboard" platform with the drive-by wire system - allowing a return to custom body styles and manufacturers - case-modding for cars, anyone?). I just can't see myself trusting such a vehicle until all the bugs are shaken out over a few years and the track record and safety figures are the same as a regular vehicle. Computers (all computers) can and do crash - if I don't have any control over the direction and velocity of my vehicle when they fail, death could result in a hurry...
You are thinking consumer level equipment, I think. Real jog wheels on pro-level (studio) equipment were real "wheels", set to allow everything from frame-by-frame advance (or is it field-by-field?), up to any multiple thereof. In other words, the jog wheel (or dial, if you want) allowed you to easily fast-forward and reverse the tape, while allowing ultra-fine control for exact positioning and queuing...
I don't know if I love these walls of color more or less than the "cube" voxel-display art piece that was on the Playa (IIRC, somewhere around 4:30 or so, not to far out toward the man from the Esplanade), called the Cubatron by Mark Lottor...
The fact is that most of these bombs that were lost in training, were in fact, just that - bombs. Dropped from a plane, from a bomb bay (both America and later the Soviets, at that time, had standing nuclear bomb carrying fleets of aircraft, ready to go in an instant - these were later superceded by ICBMs). These bombs, of course, had a lot of mass - mainly from the uranium/plutonium. So, they would make the plane handle differently in air (and on take off, and on landing, in the event of a recall of action). The pilots had to train for this, there wasn't any other way to simulate it.
While I don't know for certain, I imagine even drops were simulated, but with concrete/lead bombs - because when you release that mass, the plane is going to want to lurch, so you need to know how to deal with that lurching, while making your tight turn to head away from the (soon to come) nuclear explosion.
I think it is doable, but it won't be easy - and really relies on some heavy hacking skills (very heavy).
You basically need a GPS receiver and a small cellphone. GPS receivers (bare-bones) can be bought from Garmin and other manufacturers very cheaply - some are the size of a book of matches. Most output their data as a serial stream, generally RS-232 or some other wire protocol (sometimes USB, sometime bit-bang). If you want to make it easy on yourself, get one that does RS-232.
Then you need to find a relatively recent model cellphone (the more recent, the better - as the internals are smaller), and tear it down and figure out how to interface the serial stream from the GPS receiver to the cellphone. You will probably want to do some investigation first on this end, reviewing phones which are easily hackable for this kind of application (many phones have a way to get data in and out of them - what you are looking for is how to program the phone - ie, development kits, etc - to custom create an application for the phone).
Once you have the phone and the GPS unit (total cost should be well under $200.00 - much less if you shop yard sales for older phones - the GPS unit should only cost $50-100.00), and you have them hooked together, you would need to develop an application that can poll the GPS data stream, and dial a number to send that data to - to pinpoint the location. So, you are going to have a monthly recurring cost for the cellphone, of course. You will also need a phone line to recieve the data - or, if you can figure out another scheme and can code/hack the phone for it - send audio data to the voicemail box of the cellphone (so if the bike gets stolen, you can just call the voicemail box and retrieve the information at your leisure).
Once you have all of that working and verified, then you need to take the phone apart, and hide the parts (and antennas) in and on the bike. Most of it could probably be hidden under the seat. Other places would be in a "fake" headlight or taillight assembly, or a fake waterbottle could easily hold the entire thing (antennas and all!) - heh, there is a business - build these things very small, put inside fake water bottles, and sell them to bicyclists. Charge $1000.00...
One thing you forget is that hydrogen reacts weird with just about everything - for instance, it makes steel brittle. It is a very interesting element. This weirdness is why water is such a great solvent (some have said it is a perfect solvent)...
...both here and on other forums - and have yet to see anyone tell me why it wouldn't work (I am not an engineer - I assume there are flaws with my idea):
Cracking water/steam using solar furnaces - use the power-tower or similar concepts to first heat water to super-heated steam, then run the steam over red-hot iron (heated by the sun as well).
As I have noted before, I don't know why this couldn't work - or why it works. All I know is that this was a major method of hydrogen production back in the 1800's for ballooning (aerostat racing and exhibitions) - super heated steam was passed over red-hot iron and cracked into hydrogen (and one assumes oxygen - it binds with the iron to make rust?) at fast enough rates to fill a balloon envelope. If it worked then it would work now. In fact, a variation of this is how we crack hydrocarbons into hydrogen at a refinery.
I have proposed that a plant be built in Barstow/Daggett in California, near Boron. There used to be a technology marketed to bind the hydrogen to borax (similar to hydrate storage?) - making these "solid fuel" tablets of hydrogen - reacted in water (IIRC), the tablets would release hydrogen gas to run an engine, and heat (exothermic reaction) - and the water/precipitate (don't remember what the reaction created) could be recycled to create more "solid hydrogen" tablets (bonded hydrogen would be a better term).
How many times do I need to post this idea - and when will I get an answer of why it won't work (I have a theory that there may be a practical reason - but I have yet to hear it)? Such a system of generating hydrogen would be mostly eco-safe: solar, water, and iron (scrap cars?) would be all that is needed, and a source of borax (hence the location for the plant - plenty of nearby borax, location on a fairly major trucking route to ship the resulting fuel, and plenty of sun year round for generation!).
BTW - the test plants that were built in Barstow/Daggett - they routinely output 10+ megawatts, and used very little ground area for a solar plant (less than an airport - possibly even less than a conventional power plant)...
The nice thing about a hooptie is that likely, unless you hit another hooptie, a larger truck, or a tractor-trailer (or something else larger than you) - you are not likely to stop, you will probably go through or over (and sometimes, maybe under) any other car on the road. Not so good for the other car, but you aren't going to easily come to a dead stop.
I agree, though, that if you do come to a dead stop, yeah - all that momentum and energy will be transferred to the human occupants, and "squish".
Oh, one other thing: in a hooptie people will tend to avoid you - something about the peeling paint, the rust, the dents, the scratches - they think you don't have insurance and are poor. They don't want to get hit, because they won't get anything out of it - so they avoid you.
I have seen this first-hand when I drive my 1979 full-size Bronco (*not* my daily driver) - it is so ugly and redneck looking no one wants to be hit by it, thinking I don't have insurance (though I do) - that, and its size...
There is the fact that even with low blends (ie, B10-B30), all of the features of biodiesel get transferred to the blend. Not as good as B100, but certainly not as bad as straight fossil fuel diesel...
While you couldn't easily buy a hybrid car before, I distinctly remember several TAB books in the 1980's describing how to build your own (as well as electrics).
Hybrid cars aren't new, the technology isn't new, either. I think the only thing that caused their appearance on the open market (that is, why manufacturers started making them now, when they could have been made years ago) is that gasoline started to get expensive, and people being greedy bastards, wanted to get better MPG so they weren't spending as much on gas. It certainly wasn't because they were thinking about the planet or their fellow man.
With that in mind, peak oil times should cause a flurry in "advanced" developments coming to market - heh, we might even see the 200 MPG carbuerator make a comeback...;)
Actually, that day has already been there, done that - look into the East India Company, circa 17th century. Basically a large "multinational" corporation with its own Navy and Army. More or less ruled India in the day, and controlled major trading routes (shipping). Its rule lasted for 200 years, until the British finally stepped up to the plate and dissolved the company.
History - learn it or repeat it. It happenned then, it could easily happen today (some might say it *is* happenning). Also, witness the rise of corporate military training and weapons systems suppliers, along with corporate mercenary squads (DeBeers, anyone?)...
It's even cleaner than solar, since the process used to manufacture solar cells is quite a bit dirtier than what's required to build the wind turbines (although it's better than it was 20 years ago).
You are making the (unstated) assumption here that the only way to use solar energy is through direct photovoltaic conversion - which isn't true.
Indeed, a great amount of our energy needs could be cut if we designed our houses with the sun in mind: Geodesic and monolithic dome buildings require less energy to keep cool, due to the surface area of a dome being quite a bit less than the same surface area exposed to the sun in a convention "box" constructed house. In the case of a monolithic dome, due to the huge thermal mass involved - heating and cooling costs are that much less.
With smaller heating and cooling requirements, solar energy systems for heating and cooling (think solar water heaters, and solar cooling towers/chimneys combined with evaporative-based chillers) would be more than capable of handling the needs. Even without dome construction methods, most homes could be cooled or heated with these two technologies, if the buildings were designed around them.
Electricity can be generated in a variety of ways using solar energy concentrated by mirrors onto various forms of heat exchangers and boilers, the heat then being used to generate steam which drives a conventional steam turbine - Daggett and Kramer Junction (near Barstow, CA) seem to be favorite spots to put these type of pilot and test plants. In most cases, outputs of greater than 10MW are generated. Surface area needed by these plants, though not small, is typically much less than you would expect.
Please note that I am not saying you don't know about these technologies - I am not. But by not mentioning them, you are doing a disservice to others who might not realize that there are other ways to use alernative energy, especially solar energy, along with alternative construction methods (domes are but one method - rammed earth and straw bale are two others which utilize cheap and/or renewable materials with very high thermal mass) - to help lessen (or possibily eliminate using multiple heterogenous systems) our dependence on fossil fuels...
Last week at Burning Man 2004, I spent time listening to a series of talks at John Smart's camp, "Singularity Point", from a variety of speakers, including a couple of talks (one impromptu) by John Smart.
I found his speaking style engaging and intelligent, and his theories to be enlightening. You each owe it to yourself to read an interview with him, which he gave out copies of to participants in the talks at the camp.
The interview details his theory on the whys and hows of what has been termed "the coming technological singularity". Transhumanists here will know what I speak of - all others, please look into it - google is your friend.
One of the ideas presented in the above interview referenced, John Smart lays out the idea that natural disasters do little to impeded evolutionary development, in fact, he contends that such disasters cause leaps in development:
from the above interview
"Catastrophes are to be expected, and they accelerate change whenever immune systems learn from them. In my own research, there has never been a catastrophe in known universal history (supernova, KT-meteorite, plague, civilization collapse, nuclear detonation, reactor meltdown, computer virus, 9/11, you name it) that did not function to accelerate the average distributed complexity (ADC) of the computational network in which it was embedded." - John Smart
The ideas and theory he sets forth in the above interview make a lot of sense. He does, however, always hold that it is a theory, and may be wrong - several times during his talks at Burning Man he was adament in stating this. However, I think his ideas highlight and explain certain domains within the idea of a technological singularity in a logical and consistent manner.
Please note that I am open to debate on this entire issue. If anyone can offer me detailed analysis or references to papers or writings regarding the unlikelyness or impossibility of a technological singularity occurring, I am all ears, so to speak. I want to hear the other side of the story, from the dissenters. All of it is fascinating, but it is hard to determine what the likelyhood of any of it is if you have only heard one side...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem that we Americans are seeing regarding this outsourcing, which is causing our consternation over "what are we going to do" - is the inequality of prices of goods between the countries "taking the jobs" and America. Here in America, we find it difficult to fathom places where people are able to live for say, $1000.00 (US) per year - yet we know it happens, and in many places, sometimes even less. That same amount of money here in the US won't even be considered a down payment for car, let alone a house (heck, my house payment per month, alone, is more than that). Even a good apartment will run you from $500 to $800 per month (depending on size, location, and city/state, of course).
Now, imagine that you are a programmer making $50,000 (US) per year, with a house payment and a car payment, plus credit card bills, etc. Right now, you can probably find work, if you need to. But what happens if *all* the programming jobs are outsourced, and if you want a programming job here in the US, you have to be willing to work for say, only $25,000 a year - but you still have that car payment and house payment (say $1300 a month - for a modest house and car) - that ends up being over half of your salary in a year (actually more, because after taxes and such, your takehome pay is much less), and honestly, you likely can't easily live like that - especially with all the other attendant bills you may have (and more so if you have a family). If you have been a programmer for 10-20 years, with a family to support, what do you do?
In the past, this was the same argument that the American auto and textile workers gave. The answer was "educate yourselves, move into the knowledge worker field" - which many did. It was difficult, but as time progressed, it rapidly became apparent that you could spend $2000.00 on a computer (or computer kit), learn the basics or more, and easily get a job "because you know computers". As time went on, it became easier and easier to get that "knowledge worker education" - nowadays, it is almost like it is being given away (computers to learn on can be had from the trash, literally). In theory, the same answer could be given to today's knowledge workers in the US - but what is the next up-and-coming field that these workers can easily transition to?
The answer is: there isn't one. Computers are the one high-tech field where you can educate yourself and get a job on that education, and rarely do you need a degree or certification (though times are changing) to get a job. All you need is a computer, and maybe a few books or a friend, and you can learn it, too! Other high-tech jobs? Everything else requires a degree and/or much higher education - which here in America doesn't come cheap. If you already can't afford to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, or your child's health care up-to-date - how can you afford the time and money for more education?
We can't, yet, go down to the store or whatnot and buy a book or kit that will teach us, say, "biotechnology" - or any other new high-tech field. Granted, one can't really get a "computer-science" education off-the-shelf, by themselves, either - but most companies involved with computers don't need (and sometimes, don't want) people with computer science degrees - it would be like hiring a chemist to build a road. But other technology industries, like biotech, require a much deeper knowledge and understanding, and there isn't any easy way to get from here (a programmer with a family - who may be 30-40 years old), to a biotech scientist. That just doesn't happen.
Also, notice I am only talking about biotech - because I really don't know what the "next-best-thing" is. Maybe the programmers (and others) can move to management or sales - but don't you think that if that is
I have - I found it to be a very excellent book that for some reason I found to be frightening in a primal sense. Not sure what to make of that...
The point I was trying to get across was that currently hydrogen is being touted as the next "great" thing, when all it will ultimately do is continue to fund the oil companies, until the fossil sources run out.
In America, we have the big problem of too much space - it is easier to expand outward, and these outer subburbs typically are designed completely wrong, thus making it imperative that you MUST drive everywhere. Furthermore, since most people in a company don't live near each other - ride sharing tends to fail. We can't install light rail or other similar systems into the suburbs easily because of NIMBY and other attitudes, along with the fact that the 'burbs weren't designed with such future infrastructure expansion in mind - so at best, you still have to drive to one location to get on the bus or train - and if you are already driving, why not go all the way in?
Ideally, if our cities were designed with volume in mind, and not just "area" (ie, a dense arcology or similar) - most transportation could be easily done via walking or bicycling, along with other methods. But this isn't likely to ever change, at least in the near future...
Hydrogen comes from OIL.
That's right - you heard it here. The vast majority of the worlds hydrogen is "generated" through catalytic cracking from oil - simply because it is the cheapest and easiest way to get hydrogen (ie, HYDROcarbons, anyone?). Hydrogen-powered vehicles, whether they use fuel cells or ICEs, or something else - won't do jack to lessen the world's dependence on oil. If anything, such vehicles will either keep the status quo moving along, or increase our consumption (because at least for a while, you will have to support gasoline and hydrogen fuel vehicles).
Throw peak oil (yes, peak oil is REAL - just about every oil and energy company on the planet knows about it and acknowledges it as a fact) into the mix, and you have the makings of BIG PROFIT for those who get into it at the right point.
Please note that I am not against the use of petroleum or its products - just that I think there are better solutions available for our energy needs (there isn't ONE alternative energy solution - but there are MANY alternative energy solutions which we could be using to make a real solution in total). If we just built our houses properly (monolithic dome earthships?) and got off this kick of "more power, more speed, damn the environment" for our vehicles, we could probably save a bunch and use the alternative solutions we already have. There are many other better things those fossil sources could go to (medicine, chemicals, plastics, etc).
But, I doubt it will ever happen - and the public is just going to take it up the rear again, because the public is so damn uneducated and ignorant of the truth...
I was once looking into the idea of using hub motors for an electric car - brand new, each motor (made by a company in Germany) would cost me $600.00. I found similar motors (which would be OK for a bike or electric motorcycle, maybe) surplus for $300.00 each.
So, it isn't just battery technology, but motor technology as well, that helps determine how far an electric vehicle can travel on a charge...
I am running on my firewall FreeSCO on a P90 underclocked to P75, 8 meg of ram and a floppy drive. You are right - we both could get that el-cheapo router, which would probably use less power - but there is something cool about a home-brew box...
I can see why this isn't done, now - you bring up a good point, one that I will have to ponder on. Even if you use scrap, eventually you would run out of that, and the process of making new is an energy intensive process, as you noted. I wonder if solar-based smelting could be done?
In steering and braking, even if the "power" fails (ie, the engine dies, or something else happens), you still can control the vehicle in a reasonable manner, without (generally) endangering others on the road. However, should the steering or braking fail on a drive-by-wire system, you are completely SOL.
Unless they have a backup mechanical system of some sort, I don't know if I would trust such systems - they don't have a proven track record, unlike large commercial aircraft, which I know do use a true fly-by-wire system (at least the larger, newer aircraft). These aircraft also have generally a three-computer voting system to determine actions and outcomes based on current conditions and sensor readings. Furthermore, their software goes through a QA process unlike any other software on the planet (read, big $$$ to certify and QA - especially on changes to the software over various release versions). I don't know if we would see that kind of scrutiny in a vehicle's "driving management system" (or whatever they would call it) or not - given the cheapness in the average automobile (hell, even supposed luxury automobiles are built like crap), I tend to doubt it.
I agree that what such advances could allow for are amazing, and very tempting to the buyer (IIRC, GM has the "skateboard" platform with the drive-by wire system - allowing a return to custom body styles and manufacturers - case-modding for cars, anyone?). I just can't see myself trusting such a vehicle until all the bugs are shaken out over a few years and the track record and safety figures are the same as a regular vehicle. Computers (all computers) can and do crash - if I don't have any control over the direction and velocity of my vehicle when they fail, death could result in a hurry...
You are thinking consumer level equipment, I think. Real jog wheels on pro-level (studio) equipment were real "wheels", set to allow everything from frame-by-frame advance (or is it field-by-field?), up to any multiple thereof. In other words, the jog wheel (or dial, if you want) allowed you to easily fast-forward and reverse the tape, while allowing ultra-fine control for exact positioning and queuing...
I don't know if I love these walls of color more or less than the "cube" voxel-display art piece that was on the Playa (IIRC, somewhere around 4:30 or so, not to far out toward the man from the Esplanade), called the Cubatron by Mark Lottor...
The fact is that most of these bombs that were lost in training, were in fact, just that - bombs. Dropped from a plane, from a bomb bay (both America and later the Soviets, at that time, had standing nuclear bomb carrying fleets of aircraft, ready to go in an instant - these were later superceded by ICBMs). These bombs, of course, had a lot of mass - mainly from the uranium/plutonium. So, they would make the plane handle differently in air (and on take off, and on landing, in the event of a recall of action). The pilots had to train for this, there wasn't any other way to simulate it.
While I don't know for certain, I imagine even drops were simulated, but with concrete/lead bombs - because when you release that mass, the plane is going to want to lurch, so you need to know how to deal with that lurching, while making your tight turn to head away from the (soon to come) nuclear explosion.
You basically need a GPS receiver and a small cellphone. GPS receivers (bare-bones) can be bought from Garmin and other manufacturers very cheaply - some are the size of a book of matches. Most output their data as a serial stream, generally RS-232 or some other wire protocol (sometimes USB, sometime bit-bang). If you want to make it easy on yourself, get one that does RS-232.
Then you need to find a relatively recent model cellphone (the more recent, the better - as the internals are smaller), and tear it down and figure out how to interface the serial stream from the GPS receiver to the cellphone. You will probably want to do some investigation first on this end, reviewing phones which are easily hackable for this kind of application (many phones have a way to get data in and out of them - what you are looking for is how to program the phone - ie, development kits, etc - to custom create an application for the phone).
Once you have the phone and the GPS unit (total cost should be well under $200.00 - much less if you shop yard sales for older phones - the GPS unit should only cost $50-100.00), and you have them hooked together, you would need to develop an application that can poll the GPS data stream, and dial a number to send that data to - to pinpoint the location. So, you are going to have a monthly recurring cost for the cellphone, of course. You will also need a phone line to recieve the data - or, if you can figure out another scheme and can code/hack the phone for it - send audio data to the voicemail box of the cellphone (so if the bike gets stolen, you can just call the voicemail box and retrieve the information at your leisure).
Once you have all of that working and verified, then you need to take the phone apart, and hide the parts (and antennas) in and on the bike. Most of it could probably be hidden under the seat. Other places would be in a "fake" headlight or taillight assembly, or a fake waterbottle could easily hold the entire thing (antennas and all!) - heh, there is a business - build these things very small, put inside fake water bottles, and sell them to bicyclists. Charge $1000.00...
One thing you forget is that hydrogen reacts weird with just about everything - for instance, it makes steel brittle. It is a very interesting element. This weirdness is why water is such a great solvent (some have said it is a perfect solvent)...
Cracking water/steam using solar furnaces - use the power-tower or similar concepts to first heat water to super-heated steam, then run the steam over red-hot iron (heated by the sun as well).
As I have noted before, I don't know why this couldn't work - or why it works. All I know is that this was a major method of hydrogen production back in the 1800's for ballooning (aerostat racing and exhibitions) - super heated steam was passed over red-hot iron and cracked into hydrogen (and one assumes oxygen - it binds with the iron to make rust?) at fast enough rates to fill a balloon envelope. If it worked then it would work now. In fact, a variation of this is how we crack hydrocarbons into hydrogen at a refinery.
I have proposed that a plant be built in Barstow/Daggett in California, near Boron. There used to be a technology marketed to bind the hydrogen to borax (similar to hydrate storage?) - making these "solid fuel" tablets of hydrogen - reacted in water (IIRC), the tablets would release hydrogen gas to run an engine, and heat (exothermic reaction) - and the water/precipitate (don't remember what the reaction created) could be recycled to create more "solid hydrogen" tablets (bonded hydrogen would be a better term).
How many times do I need to post this idea - and when will I get an answer of why it won't work (I have a theory that there may be a practical reason - but I have yet to hear it)? Such a system of generating hydrogen would be mostly eco-safe: solar, water, and iron (scrap cars?) would be all that is needed, and a source of borax (hence the location for the plant - plenty of nearby borax, location on a fairly major trucking route to ship the resulting fuel, and plenty of sun year round for generation!).
BTW - the test plants that were built in Barstow/Daggett - they routinely output 10+ megawatts, and used very little ground area for a solar plant (less than an airport - possibly even less than a conventional power plant)...
Damn - why aren't we doing this!?
I agree, though, that if you do come to a dead stop, yeah - all that momentum and energy will be transferred to the human occupants, and "squish".
Oh, one other thing: in a hooptie people will tend to avoid you - something about the peeling paint, the rust, the dents, the scratches - they think you don't have insurance and are poor. They don't want to get hit, because they won't get anything out of it - so they avoid you.
I have seen this first-hand when I drive my 1979 full-size Bronco (*not* my daily driver) - it is so ugly and redneck looking no one wants to be hit by it, thinking I don't have insurance (though I do) - that, and its size...
There is the fact that even with low blends (ie, B10-B30), all of the features of biodiesel get transferred to the blend. Not as good as B100, but certainly not as bad as straight fossil fuel diesel...
Hybrid cars aren't new, the technology isn't new, either. I think the only thing that caused their appearance on the open market (that is, why manufacturers started making them now, when they could have been made years ago) is that gasoline started to get expensive, and people being greedy bastards, wanted to get better MPG so they weren't spending as much on gas. It certainly wasn't because they were thinking about the planet or their fellow man.
With that in mind, peak oil times should cause a flurry in "advanced" developments coming to market - heh, we might even see the 200 MPG carbuerator make a comeback... ;)
I am not a father - but what you say is true and wise, I wish I had mod points!!!
Actually, that day has already been there, done that - look into the East India Company, circa 17th century. Basically a large "multinational" corporation with its own Navy and Army. More or less ruled India in the day, and controlled major trading routes (shipping). Its rule lasted for 200 years, until the British finally stepped up to the plate and dissolved the company.
History - learn it or repeat it. It happenned then, it could easily happen today (some might say it *is* happenning). Also, witness the rise of corporate military training and weapons systems suppliers, along with corporate mercenary squads (DeBeers, anyone?)...
You are making the (unstated) assumption here that the only way to use solar energy is through direct photovoltaic conversion - which isn't true.
Indeed, a great amount of our energy needs could be cut if we designed our houses with the sun in mind: Geodesic and monolithic dome buildings require less energy to keep cool, due to the surface area of a dome being quite a bit less than the same surface area exposed to the sun in a convention "box" constructed house. In the case of a monolithic dome, due to the huge thermal mass involved - heating and cooling costs are that much less.
With smaller heating and cooling requirements, solar energy systems for heating and cooling (think solar water heaters, and solar cooling towers/chimneys combined with evaporative-based chillers) would be more than capable of handling the needs. Even without dome construction methods, most homes could be cooled or heated with these two technologies, if the buildings were designed around them.
Electricity can be generated in a variety of ways using solar energy concentrated by mirrors onto various forms of heat exchangers and boilers, the heat then being used to generate steam which drives a conventional steam turbine - Daggett and Kramer Junction (near Barstow, CA) seem to be favorite spots to put these type of pilot and test plants. In most cases, outputs of greater than 10MW are generated. Surface area needed by these plants, though not small, is typically much less than you would expect.
Please note that I am not saying you don't know about these technologies - I am not. But by not mentioning them, you are doing a disservice to others who might not realize that there are other ways to use alernative energy, especially solar energy, along with alternative construction methods (domes are but one method - rammed earth and straw bale are two others which utilize cheap and/or renewable materials with very high thermal mass) - to help lessen (or possibily eliminate using multiple heterogenous systems) our dependence on fossil fuels...
...and, to initiate the fusion explosion, you need a fission device...
Similar to that "tapping in a cat's optic system" experiment - I know what you mean...
Can't say I have - do you have a link or reference I could follow?
I found his speaking style engaging and intelligent, and his theories to be enlightening. You each owe it to yourself to read an interview with him, which he gave out copies of to participants in the talks at the camp.
The interview details his theory on the whys and hows of what has been termed "the coming technological singularity". Transhumanists here will know what I speak of - all others, please look into it - google is your friend.
One of the ideas presented in the above interview referenced, John Smart lays out the idea that natural disasters do little to impeded evolutionary development, in fact, he contends that such disasters cause leaps in development:
from the above interview
"Catastrophes are to be expected, and they accelerate change whenever immune systems learn from them. In my own research, there has never been a catastrophe in known universal history (supernova, KT-meteorite, plague, civilization collapse, nuclear detonation, reactor meltdown, computer virus, 9/11, you name it) that did not function to accelerate the average distributed complexity (ADC) of the computational network in which it was embedded." - John Smart
The ideas and theory he sets forth in the above interview make a lot of sense. He does, however, always hold that it is a theory, and may be wrong - several times during his talks at Burning Man he was adament in stating this. However, I think his ideas highlight and explain certain domains within the idea of a technological singularity in a logical and consistent manner.
Please note that I am open to debate on this entire issue. If anyone can offer me detailed analysis or references to papers or writings regarding the unlikelyness or impossibility of a technological singularity occurring, I am all ears, so to speak. I want to hear the other side of the story, from the dissenters. All of it is fascinating, but it is hard to determine what the likelyhood of any of it is if you have only heard one side...