Don't be so paranoid, it would be protected in a bag made from Thermite, and there are no easy pathways for lighting to get from the roof to the basement, unless you count all those solid copper wires running from the Solar panels to the charging apparatus, and who counts those?
But the problem perhaps - may be that as long as "Cheap Oil (tm)" exists, then it is very important to have access to cheap oil in order to globally competitive. or example, if China were to be getting "Cheap Oil tm" and the US were to try to compete economically or militarily with an economy powered by "uncheap oil (cl)" it would place the US at a long term disadvantage.
So in a sense, regardless of the cost, it is a competitive problem if cheap oil exists and a county is excluded from using it.
(my pinion is that we should use more renew ables to improve our economy and solve this problem - but I doubt that is the position of the administration. clearly the dems are in favor of more renewables. We'll see)
China has an interesting relationship with energy.
China has access to huge sims of USD. It could probably buy all the oil in the word at market prices for a good long time.
The problem is that when Cina buys oil, it raises the cost of oil in its target markets, it raises the cost of shipping goods to its target markets, and it reduces overall the economic advantages of forcing 9 year olds to work 80 hour weeks.
China cannot be in both the energy-buying business, and the slavery-laundering business at the same time. - Not effectively.
Have you expressed your disagreement to the President. Mr. Bush has made it quite clear that a failure in Iraq will result in other people getting their oil and preventing us from having it.
That is the argument of the one person who took the nation to war - its not my argument. The other reasons have been panned for what they are - lies and deceptions. Even the President has retracted the 16 words - which scooter Libby is today in court as part of an effort by the Administration to use any means available - legal or not - to drag a nation into an unconstitutional and undeclared war.
The fact that one cannot put a dollar value on a life (and btw we put dollar amounts on lives all the time - lawsuits assign a dollar value to those wrongly killed, life insurance policies often reflect at least the replacement costs of an individual, etc etc...) But even if we cannot, they deserve at least the recognition of their sacrifice. So it is not unreasonable to point out that oil costs in both blood and treasure.
My Wife recently read me a short relationship advice:
Five steps to a happy marriage...
1. Find a man who is great with kids,
2. Find a man who can say "I Love you" a hundred ways,
3. Find a man who can hold a job and balance a checkbook,
4. Find a man who can (etc...)
5. Make sure none of these men find out about the other...
Sure, Happy combinations of mediocre talent and moderate patience exist, but at the level of competitive business, it is unlikely that the same people who are better than 95% of the population at X are even remotely competitive at Y, and yes, IT are probably 5% of the population.
Try looking at it from another angle.
Say 5% of the people had all the food. They other 95% would always be asking for the food. Those with the food would try giving it away at first, bu they would quickly discover that when they do give it away, the line only gets longer. In the end, nothing the 5 can do will provide food for the hungry, so they start to hint that maybe the 95 without food should do whatever it is one does to get food, rather than simply handing over the food they already have.
The reputation that IT has for an unwillingness to endlessly engage in the free-education of those who have not made the same effort to be informed is a manifestation of a limited resource (people who understand it) experiencing over-demand combined with the problems of free-ridership. In my opinion, people who don't understand tech, but want their tech questions answered without the effort of comprehensive study - are free-riders, and techs will naturally resist free-riders. The fact that money may or may not be changing hands is important, but not paramount. I suggest that the theory of grouchy IT is actually a form of social pressure placed by neophyte's on techs, in order to manipulate them to continue their free-rider privileges.
Apply these theories to your own facts, and see if they don't explain it better.
You say it pays to be nice, but the reason technical professions are notable more for their tangible benefits than for their intangibles benefits is that they CAN provide tangibles.
I suggest that where real solutions are expected, those who can produce real solutions will win out over those who specialize in reaffirming the insecure - or whatever it is that niceties provide.
If you can do, if you can't - find somebody to suck up too.
1. Creating fast indexes of data so you don't need to store everything in memory, and
2. Finding only the data you need so the network/harddrive/processor doesn't need to handle the entire dataset for every query.
3. Locking stuff up so x can't see it.
If your dataset will fit in memory and your application is single-user, you may not need a database (yet), and are free to brag (ignorantly) about how python is faster.
I think in the end it boils down to function v form.
If a thing has a function - any function whatsoever, than it can only be protected for 15 years as a utility patent. If on the other hand a thing has only the function of being a restraint on trade, it would probably be ruled neither novel, nor a trademark. as it would seem it should be. People have the right to use the things they purchase for any lawful purpose.
If Autocad can get engineers to sign "I won't use anything but Autocad" contracts, they would have a case; which they could fight after doing 5-10 for Sherman Act violations.
It seems to me they are trying to use trademark law to protect a function.
I think they can protect a function for 15 years under a utility patent, but they cannot say that the functionality itself is a trademark; were that the case, the patent office could close, and everyone would file for trademarks on their functions - its much cheaper, and it lasts forever.
No, it "Functions" like their old one, and functions are substantially different that trademarks. No users of third party software will be confused by the functional similarities of the output into thinking they are using Autodesk. On the other hand, they will get exactly the same functionality as if they were.
I think this case will bear the most resemblance to the generic drug industry.
Makers combine some drugs which have a unique effect when introduced to a data-processing-system (so it's dna based - big whoop) In 15 years, the generics can cop the formula to achieve the same functions; they cannot however copy the cute pill shape/color combination, the logo, etc....
The idea of making your company logo a blue-print of your product is just a high-jinx to subvert patent law.
Remember patent law protects patents for 15 years - but it protects design copiers (and consumers) after 15 years,
Apparently the Autocad format has no "real" units. Instead, it presupposes that the user has some fixed idea of what a unit is. So if you send an Autocad file to someone, they will have to guess what units it was authored in - kind of sucky if they get it wrong.
You're certainly right to point out the different approach, and signature is a decent metaphor, except, in the case of a forged signature, someone is trying to author a document such that it appears to be authored by another person.
If you accept that the author is the engineer, then the only signature which could be forged is that of the author - ie the engineer using Autocad. Since autocad - again - does not own the intellectual property of the building or whatnot, they cannot legally exercise dominion or constraint on the document.
Now if Autocad wanted to constrain its future purchasers from opening files other than autcad files, and it executed a binding contract with those users with reasonable compensation, then autocad could sue the people who OPEN the generic document, but they cannot go after people who create a novel document containing principally the intellectual property of a third person.
Trademark protection will not buy an endless monopoly on "utility". They can patent their file structure - disclose it, and start counting to 15. That is the monopoly law on utility.
Again some points: 1. Their relief must come from people who have waived the right to open certain files, non-signatories would seem to be free to create files.
2. Trademark cannot be used to monopolize a "function". Which by definition means that aspects of design which have an impact on functionality can only be protected by a utility patent limited to ~15 years.
3. The only "signature" which matters is that o the document owner. Autocad does not own the documents created by its users.
Let's say the DMCA etc basically say that "breaking into a locked box" is unlawful, even if the lock is encryption etc...
This case is far different, because no one is breaking into a locked box, What they are doing is creating a new box, which happens to use the same key.
Take the key to your office. You could ask a locksmith to make a lock to fit your office Key - say to lock your bicycle and save the chaos of a thousand keys.
You are not breaking into someone else's locked box.
No on the other hand, if you do not own a key to this office, and you jam a screwdriver into the lock - that is a very different matter.
The question is - do people have the right to make a lock so it works with a pre-existing key. The answer from the court had better be - apsofreakenlutely. The person who owns the information in an autocad file are not autodesk, but the engineer who designed the building, and that engineer has the unequivocal right to use their data anyway they choose, including opening it into a different program. The relinquishment of ownership of a significantly valuable work such as that would surely require more than a contract, it would require meaningful compensation. Unless Autodesk has paid for the services rendered by the author of a file, it has no argument to constrain the use of that document.
The Autodesk format (DWG etc ) is a piece of crap anyway, and it would appear the company is the devil incarnate.
The point is that video cards have become faster than cpus for a wide variety of tasks (hint music can be represented and compressed as an image in which time and frequency are x an y)
AMD recently acquired a video card div (ATI?), and there is a great deal of resource advantage is combining the video driver with the cpu in such a way that those transistors can be used for file output as well as display output.
Is this the Amiga once over? Yes, but Amiga was an inferior machine, optimized for price, with a lower cost screen, etc... AMD is compatible with windows, and is creating synergy by combining proven and demanded technology (high speed video drivers with general purpose CPU). IMO
As the environment become more popular, I suggest that you will see a growing number of expert government muchers lining up for the government welfare checks.
I think it's pretty clear that biofuels are an example of converting the environmental budget into a cash handout for votes.
The "Hydrogen Economy" doesn't appear to be in any hurry to materialize; while the US continues to lose ground in the alternative energy economy to Europe and Japan. (Honda announced they will build solar panels - why not Ford)
Personally, I think the US economy needs to be more aggresive in bringing and keeping clean jobs here, and I doubt that a series of poorly thought out proposals, such as forgetting about where the water will come from, may result in less desireable outcomes.
I strongly agree that there are valid alternative energies. My point is that the politically popular choices: hydrogen and biofuels both appear to require substantial amounts of water - and I have heard the question posed at the highest levels (NREL and attendees) without a satisfactory answer.
With respect to the other options, my criticism would be the failure to spread research money across a variety of potential sources: Wave energy, and non PV solar systems for example are being underfunded with respect to their potential IMO. Nuclear has had 0 years to become self-sufficient and remains a corporate welfare child.
Sorry didn't check the name - this is for me an anecdotal fact - having lived in California. I believe the principle stands, that the US is consuming a great deal of water - to the detriment of those downstream. AIK
The FTC probably deserves a great deal of criticism (perhaps for failing to prevent the monopolization of the US economy for starters) but "False Advertising" is wrong, and any effort to address it will invariable be conflated with the thought police. I disagree. False Advertising goes beyond the market of ideas, and reaches into the ability of people to compete fairly for sustenance in a market for which we all pay taxes and support in other ways (in the most extreme cases with one's life). Free and functioning economies are a rare and precious excursion from the chaos and mayhem which marks the lives of some 90% of persons now and throughout history.
Recently at the NREL energy convention (PA 2006), the question of water scarcity was raised in connection with bio-fuels as well.
Yes, one can "make" water from brackish water given enough energy, but that's partly the point, if it takes a lot of energy to create the water used to create the energy, you're headed for trouble.
As for collecting the water at the end, I suspect the amount of water is small compared to the effort (and energy) of collecting it.
I would concluded, that there are some really nifty ideas - like running your car on used cooking oil, which are fun to read, but fall far short of contributing substantially to the energy needs of a civilization.
Water-dependant schemes are prone to the constraint of water; bearing in mind many of the poor lack fresh water today, we would (are currently*) diverting fresh water from the poor to make pretty golf courses. Taking more water from the poor to power a Hummer doesn't appear to be a moral victory.
AIK
*The Rio Grande used to bring water to Mexico, which it no longer does do to consumption in southern California - part of the reason in fact that many Mexicans now come north to farm.
One of the great features of Solar is that it can be built where the energy is needed - this reduces the cost and size of grid wires. Failing to use this feature only increases the cost/performance ratio. That's fine if you can afford it, bu the value of delivered energy is twice the value of utility power, in addition, about 50% of the power is lost in transmission, so on-site power may be worth 4x over utility grade stuff.
I don't see a loss of jobs related to the adoption of solar energy (in consumption country). The losses would occur in oil-fields ie Venezuela, Saudi, Dubai, etc...
The new jobs created by the Solar energy (and Wind sector) thus far are on the whole very good jobs, and there would be more jobs in a renewable economy, look at the O&M component of these "Concentrator" systems. They have moving parts, they require education to install, and the jobs would be create in every state and county. Nuclear plants, by contrast create jobs with a high risk-premium, but they also create less jobs per kilowatt than any other electrical provider, as the plant size is bigger, and there are fewer of them generally.
HVDC Lines (High Voltage Direct Current) are quite efficient (~90%). Yes transportation is an issue, but not a "Hard" problem. The lower (financial) cost of oil and natural gas is a much larger barrier., as is the lower cost of wind energy. If you had good transportation, then wind would also be more viable.
First somebody mod parent up as +1 on-topic-in-the-increasingly-puerile-sea-of-/.-irr elevance.
Second, My view is that the author has a sterile view of what productivity is. If we limit productivity to typing in sales figures - then sure, were well into the diminishing returns; however if you're talking about recording multi-track music, or godforbid editing HDTV, then we're still a long way from the end of the trail. The question might be WHAT technology is expected to improve in the mid-term. Personally, I think the printer is a constraint - as it dictates that everything the computer does is for the purpose of making colored paper. The new world of 3D printing (~$2000 on Make.com), personal cutters ($175 at Michael's), conductive printing and other prototype machines, suggests that many personal computers will increasingly be used to MAKE custom things. Surely this is a realm of productivity fully unconsidered by the author.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be so paranoid, it would be protected in a bag made from Thermite, and there are no easy pathways for lighting to get from the roof to the basement, unless you count all those solid copper wires running from the Solar panels to the charging apparatus, and who counts those?
AIK
I wonder if its that simple.
I think shale will be harvested in the future.
But the problem perhaps - may be that as long as "Cheap Oil (tm)" exists, then it is very important to have access to cheap oil in order to globally competitive. or example, if China were to be getting "Cheap Oil tm" and the US were to try to compete economically or militarily with an economy powered by "uncheap oil (cl)" it would place the US at a long term disadvantage.
So in a sense, regardless of the cost, it is a competitive problem if cheap oil exists and a county is excluded from using it.
(my pinion is that we should use more renew ables to improve our economy and solve this problem - but I doubt that is the position of the administration. clearly the dems are in favor of more renewables. We'll see)
AIK
China has an interesting relationship with energy.
China has access to huge sims of USD. It could probably buy all the oil in the word at market prices for a good long time.
The problem is that when Cina buys oil, it raises the cost of oil in its target markets, it raises the cost of shipping goods to its target markets, and it reduces overall the economic advantages of forcing 9 year olds to work 80 hour weeks.
China cannot be in both the energy-buying business, and the slavery-laundering business at the same time. - Not effectively.
AIK
Have you expressed your disagreement to the President. Mr. Bush has made it quite clear that a failure in Iraq will result in other people getting their oil and preventing us from having it.
...) But even if we cannot, they deserve at least the recognition of their sacrifice. So it is not unreasonable to point out that oil costs in both blood and treasure.
That is the argument of the one person who took the nation to war - its not my argument. The other reasons have been panned for what they are - lies and deceptions. Even the President has retracted the 16 words - which scooter Libby is today in court as part of an effort by the Administration to use any means available - legal or not - to drag a nation into an unconstitutional and undeclared war.
The fact that one cannot put a dollar value on a life (and btw we put dollar amounts on lives all the time - lawsuits assign a dollar value to those wrongly killed, life insurance policies often reflect at least the replacement costs of an individual, etc etc
The question is how much?
AIK
I think you should include Oil-War Casualties in your calculations:
Perhaps like
It will only take 415 years and 12,000 US dead and maimed soldiers to pay for the oil-related energy.
I'm not sure, you do the math.
AIK
My Wife recently read me a short relationship advice:
...
Five steps to a happy marriage
1. Find a man who is great with kids,
2. Find a man who can say "I Love you" a hundred ways,
3. Find a man who can hold a job and balance a checkbook,
4. Find a man who can (etc...)
5. Make sure none of these men find out about the other...
Sure, Happy combinations of mediocre talent and moderate patience exist, but at the level of competitive business, it is unlikely that the same people who are better than 95% of the population at X are even remotely competitive at Y, and yes, IT are probably 5% of the population.
Try looking at it from another angle.
Say 5% of the people had all the food. They other 95% would always be asking for the food. Those with the food would try giving it away at first, bu they would quickly discover that when they do give it away, the line only gets longer. In the end, nothing the 5 can do will provide food for the hungry, so they start to hint that maybe the 95 without food should do whatever it is one does to get food, rather than simply handing over the food they already have.
The reputation that IT has for an unwillingness to endlessly engage in the free-education of those who have not made the same effort to be informed is a manifestation of a limited resource (people who understand it) experiencing over-demand combined with the problems of free-ridership. In my opinion, people who don't understand tech, but want their tech questions answered without the effort of comprehensive study - are free-riders, and techs will naturally resist free-riders. The fact that money may or may not be changing hands is important, but not paramount. I suggest that the theory of grouchy IT is actually a form of social pressure placed by neophyte's on techs, in order to manipulate them to continue their free-rider privileges.
Apply these theories to your own facts, and see if they don't explain it better.
AIK
You say it pays to be nice, but the reason technical professions are notable more for their tangible benefits than for their intangibles benefits is that they CAN provide tangibles.
I suggest that where real solutions are expected, those who can produce real solutions will win out over those who specialize in reaffirming the insecure - or whatever it is that niceties provide.
If you can do, if you can't - find somebody to suck up too.
AIK
Databases specialize in three things:
1. Creating fast indexes of data so you don't need to store everything in memory, and
2. Finding only the data you need so the network/harddrive/processor doesn't need to handle the entire dataset for every query.
3. Locking stuff up so x can't see it.
If your dataset will fit in memory and your application is single-user, you may not need a database (yet), and are free to brag (ignorantly) about how python is faster.
AIK
I think in the end it boils down to function v form.
If a thing has a function - any function whatsoever, than it can only be protected for 15 years as a utility patent. If on the other hand a thing has only the function of being a restraint on trade, it would probably be ruled neither novel, nor a trademark. as it would seem it should be. People have the right to use the things they purchase for any lawful purpose.
If Autocad can get engineers to sign "I won't use anything but Autocad" contracts, they would have a case; which they could fight after doing 5-10 for Sherman Act violations.
AIK
It seems to me they are trying to use trademark law to protect a function.
I think they can protect a function for 15 years under a utility patent, but they cannot say that the functionality itself is a trademark; were that the case, the patent office could close, and everyone would file for trademarks on their functions - its much cheaper, and it lasts forever.
Autodesk must be stupid stupid stupid?
AIK
No, it "Functions" like their old one, and functions are substantially different that trademarks. No users of third party software will be confused by the functional similarities of the output into thinking they are using Autodesk. On the other hand, they will get exactly the same functionality as if they were.
....
I think this case will bear the most resemblance to the generic drug industry.
Makers combine some drugs which have a unique effect when introduced to a data-processing-system (so it's dna based - big whoop) In 15 years, the generics can cop the formula to achieve the same functions; they cannot however copy the cute pill shape/color combination, the logo, etc
The idea of making your company logo a blue-print of your product is just a high-jinx to subvert patent law.
Remember patent law protects patents for 15 years - but it protects design copiers (and consumers) after 15 years,
My guess - Autocad is turning 15.
AIK
Apparently the Autocad format has no "real" units. Instead, it presupposes that the user has some fixed idea of what a unit is. So if you send an Autocad file to someone, they will have to guess what units it was authored in - kind of sucky if they get it wrong.
AIK
You're certainly right to point out the different approach, and signature is a decent metaphor, except, in the case of a forged signature, someone is trying to author a document such that it appears to be authored by another person.
If you accept that the author is the engineer, then the only signature which could be forged is that of the author - ie the engineer using Autocad. Since autocad - again - does not own the intellectual property of the building or whatnot, they cannot legally exercise dominion or constraint on the document.
Now if Autocad wanted to constrain its future purchasers from opening files other than autcad files, and it executed a binding contract with those users with reasonable compensation, then autocad could sue the people who OPEN the generic document, but they cannot go after people who create a novel document containing principally the intellectual property of a third person.
Trademark protection will not buy an endless monopoly on "utility". They can patent their file structure - disclose it, and start counting to 15. That is the monopoly law on utility.
Again some points:
1. Their relief must come from people who have waived the right to open certain files, non-signatories would seem to be free to create files.
2. Trademark cannot be used to monopolize a "function". Which by definition means that aspects of design which have an impact on functionality can only be protected by a utility patent limited to ~15 years.
3. The only "signature" which matters is that o the document owner. Autocad does not own the documents created by its users.
AIK
Let's say the DMCA etc basically say that "breaking into a locked box" is unlawful, even if the lock is encryption etc...
This case is far different, because no one is breaking into a locked box, What they are doing is creating a new box, which happens to use the same key.
Take the key to your office. You could ask a locksmith to make a lock to fit your office Key - say to lock your bicycle and save the chaos of a thousand keys.
You are not breaking into someone else's locked box.
No on the other hand, if you do not own a key to this office, and you jam a screwdriver into the lock - that is a very different matter.
The question is - do people have the right to make a lock so it works with a pre-existing key. The answer from the court had better be - apsofreakenlutely. The person who owns the information in an autocad file are not autodesk, but the engineer who designed the building, and that engineer has the unequivocal right to use their data anyway they choose, including opening it into a different program. The relinquishment of ownership of a significantly valuable work such as that would surely require more than a contract, it would require meaningful compensation. Unless Autodesk has paid for the services rendered by the author of a file, it has no argument to constrain the use of that document.
The Autodesk format (DWG etc ) is a piece of crap anyway, and it would appear the company is the devil incarnate.
AIK
I know in North Carolina, there were specific rulings dealing with this, and the outcome ..
...
well damn, just go to Office Depot, they have an entire section dedicated to recycling and off-brand inks.
Ain't to hard to figure out what happened I guess
AIK
Well yes and no.
... AMD is compatible with windows, and is creating synergy by combining proven and demanded technology (high speed video drivers with general purpose CPU). IMO
The point is that video cards have become faster than cpus for a wide variety of tasks (hint music can be represented and compressed as an image in which time and frequency are x an y)
AMD recently acquired a video card div (ATI?), and there is a great deal of resource advantage is combining the video driver with the cpu in such a way that those transistors can be used for file output as well as display output.
Is this the Amiga once over? Yes, but Amiga was an inferior machine, optimized for price, with a lower cost screen, etc
AIK
As the environment become more popular, I suggest that you will see a growing number of expert government muchers lining up for the government welfare checks.
I think it's pretty clear that biofuels are an example of converting the environmental budget into a cash handout for votes.
The "Hydrogen Economy" doesn't appear to be in any hurry to materialize; while the US continues to lose ground in the alternative energy economy to Europe and Japan. (Honda announced they will build solar panels - why not Ford)
Personally, I think the US economy needs to be more aggresive in bringing and keeping clean jobs here, and I doubt that a series of poorly thought out proposals, such as forgetting about where the water will come from, may result in less desireable outcomes.
AIK
I strongly agree that there are valid alternative energies. My point is that the politically popular choices: hydrogen and biofuels both appear to require substantial amounts of water - and I have heard the question posed at the highest levels (NREL and attendees) without a satisfactory answer.
With respect to the other options, my criticism would be the failure to spread research money across a variety of potential sources: Wave energy, and non PV solar systems for example are being underfunded with respect to their potential IMO. Nuclear has had 0 years to become self-sufficient and remains a corporate welfare child.
AIK
Sorry didn't check the name - this is for me an anecdotal fact - having lived in California. I believe the principle stands, that the US is consuming a great deal of water - to the detriment of those downstream.
AIK
The FTC probably deserves a great deal of criticism (perhaps for failing to prevent the monopolization of the US economy for starters) but "False Advertising" is wrong, and any effort to address it will invariable be conflated with the thought police. I disagree. False Advertising goes beyond the market of ideas, and reaches into the ability of people to compete fairly for sustenance in a market for which we all pay taxes and support in other ways (in the most extreme cases with one's life). Free and functioning economies are a rare and precious excursion from the chaos and mayhem which marks the lives of some 90% of persons now and throughout history.
AIK
Recently at the NREL energy convention (PA 2006), the question of water scarcity was raised in connection with bio-fuels as well.
Yes, one can "make" water from brackish water given enough energy, but that's partly the point, if it takes a lot of energy to create the water used to create the energy, you're headed for trouble.
As for collecting the water at the end, I suspect the amount of water is small compared to the effort (and energy) of collecting it.
I would concluded, that there are some really nifty ideas - like running your car on used cooking oil, which are fun to read, but fall far short of contributing substantially to the energy needs of a civilization.
Water-dependant schemes are prone to the constraint of water; bearing in mind many of the poor lack fresh water today, we would (are currently*) diverting fresh water from the poor to make pretty golf courses. Taking more water from the poor to power a Hummer doesn't appear to be a moral victory.
AIK
*The Rio Grande used to bring water to Mexico, which it no longer does do to consumption in southern California - part of the reason in fact that many Mexicans now come north to farm.
One of the great features of Solar is that it can be built where the energy is needed - this reduces the cost and size of grid wires. Failing to use this feature only increases the cost/performance ratio. That's fine if you can afford it, bu the value of delivered energy is twice the value of utility power, in addition, about 50% of the power is lost in transmission, so on-site power may be worth 4x over utility grade stuff.
AIK
I don't see a loss of jobs related to the adoption of solar energy (in consumption country). The losses would occur in oil-fields ie Venezuela, Saudi, Dubai, etc...
The new jobs created by the Solar energy (and Wind sector) thus far are on the whole very good jobs, and there would be more jobs in a renewable economy, look at the O&M component of these "Concentrator" systems. They have moving parts, they require education to install, and the jobs would be create in every state and county. Nuclear plants, by contrast create jobs with a high risk-premium, but they also create less jobs per kilowatt than any other electrical provider, as the plant size is bigger, and there are fewer of them generally.
AIK
HVDC Lines (High Voltage Direct Current) are quite efficient (~90%). Yes transportation is an issue, but not a "Hard" problem. The lower (financial) cost of oil and natural gas is a much larger barrier., as is the lower cost of wind energy. If you had good transportation, then wind would also be more viable.
First somebody mod parent up as +1 on-topic-in-the-increasingly-puerile-sea-of-/.-irr elevance.
Second, My view is that the author has a sterile view of what productivity is. If we limit productivity to typing in sales figures - then sure, were well into the diminishing returns; however if you're talking about recording multi-track music, or godforbid editing HDTV, then we're still a long way from the end of the trail. The question might be WHAT technology is expected to improve in the mid-term. Personally, I think the printer is a constraint - as it dictates that everything the computer does is for the purpose of making colored paper. The new world of 3D printing (~$2000 on Make.com), personal cutters ($175 at Michael's), conductive printing and other prototype machines, suggests that many personal computers will increasingly be used to MAKE custom things. Surely this is a realm of productivity fully unconsidered by the author.
AIK