Setting down a square mile of solar cells would be a lot easier then building a square mile rigged structure.
Really? First of all, in both cases, the structure would have to be built. Second, I would assume that some amuount of landscaping would have to be do to get these things oriented properly, not to mention keeping them oriented. Then there is the distance.
An orbiting structure would be closer, and thus cheaper to build and maintain.
The big problem with solar power is its real-time-ness and storage/transmission. For small apps (like home power -- which I plan to impliment myself some day) it's easy with batteries. Howwver, I can't fathom a multi-megawatt-hour battery array!
It is disturbing, however, that Microsoft is becoming analogous to a government entity, where it has the power to restrict and regulate the behavior and actions of its users.
The "People" are not "users" or customers of the Government. The "People" are the Government. The degree to which the Goverment can restrict and regulate the People is strictly a function of the People's desire to be regulated (for their own security) and their willingness to resist over-reaching Government powers.
In much the same way, the degree to which Microsoft can place restrictions on software is a function of its users/customers tolerance of such restrictions.
Thus, when you shake you head in disgust at the state of goverment or the state of Microsoft sofware, remeber: Both reflect the desires and priorities of the general public. Neither has the power to force something down the throat of an unwilling populace.
Holy shit there are a lot of touchy programmers in this thread!
Programmers don't necessarly work for companies that sell software, and those that don't are not impacted by the piracy of software. It's not rocket science, folks!
IF the cost of upgrading (or purchasing new machines) with Windows and MSOffice is greater or equal to the retraining costs for Linux and StarOffice, then people will start to switch.
True, but these are generally the same MS users that are flamed repeatedly around here (no, not necessarily by you) for being clueless perpetual newbies. Rhetoric aside, the average Windows/MS Office/Photoshop user is not someone who is familiar with the workings of their computer (from my experience). As competent as they may be in the applications that they use, switching them to another platform is likely to cause more problems than it seems would be warranted.
I have often struggled to get people to see the larger picture, and realize that conventions in Word or whatever are applicable to to the entire platform (short-cuts, saving files etc). It can take a lot of work for them to re-pupose their knowledge for a new application, regardless of how similar. They see their computer on an application level, not on a platform level. So skills don't automatically transfer to other apps, regardless of how similar.
This "self-preservation instinct" you talk about is a proven falsity. Humans, as well as other animals, have a natural instinct to help each other out. I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
Regardless of the genetic reason, the fact is that real world evidence that supports the concept of self preservation abounds, even among humans. Honestly, you sound very sheltered. Have you ever lived in a high crime area, or large city?
It doesn't take courage to call 911 and call for help.
It does if you are afraid of reprisals. That's why they have anonynmous tip lines: because it DOES take courage to get involved in a crime. People in general are afraid to get involved and, despite Dawkins' book, often don't.
I'd try that argument with something that isn't as cumbersome as water bottles. My first reaction was, "Where the hell am I going to keep 50 bottles of water." Unless you are talking about those small bottles. But, in that case, wouldn't it be cheaper to buy in bulk?
It really stems from the self-preservation instinct that is hard-wired into the human brain. It makes perfect sense, from a purely practical point of view, to avoid any danger that does not presently involve you. It takes courage to supress the flight instinct and put oneself harms way for the sake of others. This is why people such as firefighters, cops and good-sumaritans are considered heros, as opposed to just normal people.
Just don't try to conduct that study of yours on your own. Unless, that is, you want to find out if people will come to your aid when you call for help in jail.
Think about it. You are in your house/apartment, you here someone yelling "Fire." I'd for damn sure call 911.
I would do the same for someone calling out in distress, but experience has shown repeatedly (at least in the US) that many people will ignore it, or rationalize that someone else must be taking care of it. People (at least in the US) just don't want to get involved in troublesome situations if they can avoid it. Someone else's problems are easy to ignore. A fire can quickly become YOUR problem.
I have heard this too (no evidence, sorry). The reaoning that I have heard is not that people like to see things burn, but that a fire may spread, and thus threatens more people than the actual victim. (I guess it is unlikely that a burglar/mugger is going to go house to house, or person to person in the same area)
Didn't you parents or some teacher ever tell you the story of the boy who cried wolf? It doesn't matter what sound a car makes, after a few dozen of the false alarms that car alarms are so prone too, people will just tune them out. The only thing your plan would accomplish is the desensitization of people to the sound of an actual person in distress.
This, however, is almost purely tactical, and purely defensive.
I disagree. Any device that gives us the advantage by reducing the effectiveness of our rivals is likely to be protested. This is no different to missle-defense, which the Russians are not too hapy about.
Re:This could be used to fight terrorism
on
Quantum Holography
·
· Score: 1
These devices would do for terrorism what store security cameras did for shoplifting: nearly stop it dead in its tracks.
Shoplifting has NOT been stopped dead in its tracks, and certainly not because of security cameras. In fact, shoplifting is still vastly more common than terroism, despite the fact that it is an enemy that we CAN see.
Slashdot Mirror
Setting down a square mile of solar cells would be a lot easier then building a square mile rigged structure.
Really? First of all, in both cases, the structure would have to be built. Second, I would assume that some amuount of landscaping would have to be do to get these things oriented properly, not to mention keeping them oriented. Then there is the distance.
An orbiting structure would be closer, and thus cheaper to build and maintain.
The big problem with solar power is its real-time-ness and storage/transmission. For small apps (like home power -- which I plan to impliment myself some day) it's easy with batteries. Howwver, I can't fathom a multi-megawatt-hour battery array!
Fly-wheels, man. They'd store it with fly-wheels.
It is disturbing, however, that Microsoft is becoming analogous to a government entity, where it has the power to restrict and regulate the behavior and actions of its users.
The "People" are not "users" or customers of the Government. The "People" are the Government. The degree to which the Goverment can restrict and regulate the People is strictly a function of the People's desire to be regulated (for their own security) and their willingness to resist over-reaching Government powers.
In much the same way, the degree to which Microsoft can place restrictions on software is a function of its users/customers tolerance of such restrictions.
Thus, when you shake you head in disgust at the state of goverment or the state of Microsoft sofware, remeber: Both reflect the desires and priorities of the general public. Neither has the power to force something down the throat of an unwilling populace.
Why don't you log in and say that? Karma whore.
Yeah. But, it must be tough competing in the job market with all those other electrical and industrial engineers who used to work for dot-coms.
Nintendo did this in 1996, when they released the Game Boy Pocket.
That was really funny though, even though it was uninformed and all. Seriously. . .
how much did you unload yours for?
Silence you fool! Now they'll probably ban CD's on airplanes.
Holy shit there are a lot of touchy programmers in this thread!
Programmers don't necessarly work for companies that sell software, and those that don't are not impacted by the piracy of software. It's not rocket science, folks!
IF the cost of upgrading (or purchasing new machines) with Windows and MSOffice is greater or equal to the retraining costs for Linux and StarOffice, then people will start to switch.
True, but these are generally the same MS users that are flamed repeatedly around here (no, not necessarily by you) for being clueless perpetual newbies. Rhetoric aside, the average Windows/MS Office/Photoshop user is not someone who is familiar with the workings of their computer (from my experience). As competent as they may be in the applications that they use, switching them to another platform is likely to cause more problems than it seems would be warranted.
I have often struggled to get people to see the larger picture, and realize that conventions in Word or whatever are applicable to to the entire platform (short-cuts, saving files etc). It can take a lot of work for them to re-pupose their knowledge for a new application, regardless of how similar. They see their computer on an application level, not on a platform level. So skills don't automatically transfer to other apps, regardless of how similar.
think a better goal is to make it so much more efficient/friendlier/whatever than the original that it's worth the initial loss in productivity.
The the OS itself still has a long way to go.
Imagine a ten car pile-up of these!
Paying twice the price for broadband is like buying "the internet" in bulk!
Except that you can't store the surplus and over time.
This "self-preservation instinct" you talk about is a proven falsity. Humans, as well as other animals, have a natural instinct to help each other out. I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
Regardless of the genetic reason, the fact is that real world evidence that supports the concept of self preservation abounds, even among humans. Honestly, you sound very sheltered. Have you ever lived in a high crime area, or large city?
It doesn't take courage to call 911 and call for help.
It does if you are afraid of reprisals. That's why they have anonynmous tip lines: because it DOES take courage to get involved in a crime. People in general are afraid to get involved and, despite Dawkins' book, often don't.
I'd try that argument with something that isn't as cumbersome as water bottles. My first reaction was, "Where the hell am I going to keep 50 bottles of water." Unless you are talking about those small bottles. But, in that case, wouldn't it be cheaper to buy in bulk?
What!? A blemish on the "Microsoft Bad" argument's armor of absolute veracity.
This is counterintuitive to me.
It really stems from the self-preservation instinct that is hard-wired into the human brain. It makes perfect sense, from a purely practical point of view, to avoid any danger that does not presently involve you. It takes courage to supress the flight instinct and put oneself harms way for the sake of others. This is why people such as firefighters, cops and good-sumaritans are considered heros, as opposed to just normal people.
Just don't try to conduct that study of yours on your own. Unless, that is, you want to find out if people will come to your aid when you call for help in jail.
Think about it. You are in your house/apartment, you here someone yelling "Fire." I'd for damn sure call 911.
I would do the same for someone calling out in distress, but experience has shown repeatedly (at least in the US) that many people will ignore it, or rationalize that someone else must be taking care of it. People (at least in the US) just don't want to get involved in troublesome situations if they can avoid it. Someone else's problems are easy to ignore. A fire can quickly become YOUR problem.
Does KPMG expect every search engine to "execute an agreement" . . .
Doubt it. This policy is obviously a tool meant to harass people who are critical of KPMG. I'll bet that they don't care otherwise.
I have heard this too (no evidence, sorry). The reaoning that I have heard is not that people like to see things burn, but that a fire may spread, and thus threatens more people than the actual victim. (I guess it is unlikely that a burglar/mugger is going to go house to house, or person to person in the same area)
Didn't you parents or some teacher ever tell you the story of the boy who cried wolf? It doesn't matter what sound a car makes, after a few dozen of the false alarms that car alarms are so prone too, people will just tune them out. The only thing your plan would accomplish is the desensitization of people to the sound of an actual person in distress.
I can't imagine that a device that could detonate ordinance before it reaches it's target would not be of strategic interest.
This, however, is almost purely tactical, and purely defensive.
I disagree. Any device that gives us the advantage by reducing the effectiveness of our rivals is likely to be protested. This is no different to missle-defense, which the Russians are not too hapy about.
These devices would do for terrorism what store security cameras did for shoplifting: nearly stop it dead in its tracks.
Shoplifting has NOT been stopped dead in its tracks, and certainly not because of security cameras. In fact, shoplifting is still vastly more common than terroism, despite the fact that it is an enemy that we CAN see.
I don't think that the inside of a vaccum chamber in a lab is one of the extreme environments that we have yet to explore.