If it's in your way to see stuff, it's a badly designed HUD. Fighter jet HUDs have TONS of information being presented.
Take an average person and have them try and use a fighter jet's HUD. They'll be overwhelmed and unable to function because they don't know how to use it. Google Glass won't be any different.
HUD's (well, properly designed ones) are MUCH safer than interfaces you have to look away from your target to view. You see 'both' the road and the data because you're focus point is out in front of you, not at the lens distance. While you glance at the projected speedometer you're still able to see movement behind it (and ideally it would be on the periphery anyway.
Training people to use this technology though is the problem. Give to someone without any training and you'll be getting movie watching while driving Darwin Award contenders aplenty.
What he seems to understand, and you don't, is that by definition Google Glass is a heads up display. The very thing automakers have been implementing for years with speed projected on the window.
Heads up is always better. Of course the clutter of that interface is certainly the main point. But just like some phones have 'driving' apps that limit what you can do with your phone as well as provide quicker/easier access to the things you do need to do (like GPS), Google Glass can very plausibly be a great addition to driving.
Imagine your field of view showing when you're starting to deviate from the lane? It could flash in your eyes or even vibrate if it detects your head nodding, etc. Lots of possibilities for improving the safety of driving...as well as dangers.
Training and licensing so we get qualified people doing this is the issue.
but bills targeting (or benefiting) specific people/companies/tech/etc. are generally considered illegal no?
The issue here, as always, is training people to use new technology properly. We simply don't. We expect everyone to implicitly know when they shouldn't do something. As evidenced by the texting and driving, people aren't making proper choices. It is perfectly reasonable to text while stopped at a light, not so much while moving. (and yes arguments can be made about any situation).
Since texting is frequently compared to drunk driving - here's a good example - It's perfectly LEGAL to drive with alcohol in your system. It's just 'how much' that's the issue.
Training to get a license certified to use a technology 'like' Google Glass is the answer. Cops will be using it eventually and they will most certainly be trained on how it interacts with their driving (just as they are for the laptops, radios, etc that they have going in the vehicle while driving today).
What I don't see talked about is how much 'fuel' will this require. I've seen claims that a glass of water could power a city and such, but realistically what's the need in fuel amounts?
They are only in need of government subsidies because coal isn't taxed at a rate to offset it's cost. i.e. carbon emissions. If coal had to pay for removing all the CO2 it released, solar would be a bargain in comparison.
With some high-voltage DC cables running easy to west,
Correct me if I'm wrong but 'DC' is terrible at long distances, you lose vast amounts of the energy put in to push it the whole way. This is why AC is used today.
Geothermal is one definite possibility that could be completely constant power. Much like hydro power, the question is is it feasible everywhere? Iceland/Yellowstone obviously have it really really close to the surface, but how about Utah, Florida or Maine?
You don't need to store baseline grid power, you just build enough renewable energy to cover it.
If all your power is coming from renewable sources, how exactly do you get power at night? Or on a calm day? That was my point. Until we can do that on solely renewable energy, we'll need something else to maintain the base load.
Solar panels, wind mills, dams. All exist right now and can be made using today's technology to provide equivalent to base grid power. The problem isn't supply of renewable energy, it's how to store it for off-peak.
just take all that hydropower that was built to store nuclear off-peak generation
What fraction of a percent of the grid load is this able to store? Seriously, you'd need to flood a few states hundreds of feet deep to provide power to the whole country.
I don't think that means what you think it means.:)
You can only claim a plant is a net consumer of carbon if over it's entire life-cycle it consumes more than it produces.
After a plant dies it decomposes and releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere - unless it gets trapped in situations that produced our oil. But that's a different case. In 'normal' conditions, they consume and then release CO2.
likewise people. We consume carbon through eating and release it through breathing and other outputs - if you aren't carbon neutral you're going to die pretty quickly.
Human 'society' obviously is net producing due to our use of fossil fuels, but a human being simply can't exist without being carbon 'neutral'.
Any links? I find it hard to believe you could do even 1/2 of base load grid power that way. Sure, 'technically' it's doable, but the reality of suitable sites for putting all that pumped stuff (I'm assuming water?) limits how much you can actually scale.
Short answer - In their fuel. They aren't storing any power at all, they are simply producing it. That's the difference between a power source that uses a physical 'fuel' and one that uses sunlight/wind.
Your example would work if the reactors only ran in the day time and then somehow that energy had to be stored for use at night as well. It isn't.
Ask Michigan how the cleanup in the Kalamazoo river is going. Unlike 'normal' oil most people are familiar with, heavy crude/tar sand oil sinks in water and cleanup is ridiculously expensive and hard and you don't really ever get your environment back to normal.
As for the arguments 'for' the pipeline, many of the supporters claim we'll get the refined oil produced. That's wholly untrue. It goes on the market and is up for anybody to buy. It would likely not make much of a dent in prices over the long term as the supply of 'cheap' oil is dwindling - exactly the reason the tar sands are now even economical to develop.
The problem with fossil fuels is it is simply adding millions of years worth of CO2 to the environment (in a single century), never removing it. Humans continually add and REMOVE CO2 from the environment making a net zero sum total.
The renewable generation of power tech exists, but we don't have any way to store base line grid power yet. The super simplified example, is night time. How are you going to store enough energy to power the US while it's dark?
That said, yes we need to be plowing money into renewables, it's an investment that will pay itself off many times over...but unfortunately over a number of decades and so private industry simply isn't going to do that.
In the short term anyway. Variable sources need a method to store the energy for when the supply is low. This is the biggest thing holding back renewables right now.
In regards to climate, nuclear is the only viable option (and I *hate* nuclear!) going forward until we have new technology that stores energy more densely, more efficiently and cheaper than is available today.
A wild guess is probably 100 years or so before we can truly move to renewable sources only, for base line grid power.
Eh, he's definitely a 'criminal' in that he certainly violated laws to do what he did. Hero is a bit large, but perhaps it fits.
But that's why we have pardon's, to remove that portion of judgement from his history, acknowledging the larger good of his actions. Not that he's going to get one anytime soon unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
If you just press the go pedal a split second after the green
Never said that now did I.... Notice this other thing I said in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE.
(and yes arguments can be made about any situation).
moron.
If it's in your way to see stuff, it's a badly designed HUD. Fighter jet HUDs have TONS of information being presented.
Take an average person and have them try and use a fighter jet's HUD. They'll be overwhelmed and unable to function because they don't know how to use it. Google Glass won't be any different.
HUD's (well, properly designed ones) are MUCH safer than interfaces you have to look away from your target to view. You see 'both' the road and the data because you're focus point is out in front of you, not at the lens distance. While you glance at the projected speedometer you're still able to see movement behind it (and ideally it would be on the periphery anyway.
Training people to use this technology though is the problem. Give to someone without any training and you'll be getting movie watching while driving Darwin Award contenders aplenty.
What he seems to understand, and you don't, is that by definition Google Glass is a heads up display. The very thing automakers have been implementing for years with speed projected on the window.
Heads up is always better. Of course the clutter of that interface is certainly the main point. But just like some phones have 'driving' apps that limit what you can do with your phone as well as provide quicker/easier access to the things you do need to do (like GPS), Google Glass can very plausibly be a great addition to driving.
Imagine your field of view showing when you're starting to deviate from the lane? It could flash in your eyes or even vibrate if it detects your head nodding, etc. Lots of possibilities for improving the safety of driving...as well as dangers.
Training and licensing so we get qualified people doing this is the issue.
but bills targeting (or benefiting) specific people/companies/tech/etc. are generally considered illegal no?
The issue here, as always, is training people to use new technology properly. We simply don't. We expect everyone to implicitly know when they shouldn't do something. As evidenced by the texting and driving, people aren't making proper choices. It is perfectly reasonable to text while stopped at a light, not so much while moving. (and yes arguments can be made about any situation).
Since texting is frequently compared to drunk driving - here's a good example - It's perfectly LEGAL to drive with alcohol in your system. It's just 'how much' that's the issue.
Training to get a license certified to use a technology 'like' Google Glass is the answer. Cops will be using it eventually and they will most certainly be trained on how it interacts with their driving (just as they are for the laptops, radios, etc that they have going in the vehicle while driving today).
Yes. I say this as a 20 year programmer. I'm quite happy to have my competition toiling away in Notepad while I'm rolling out version 14 :)
What I don't see talked about is how much 'fuel' will this require. I've seen claims that a glass of water could power a city and such, but realistically what's the need in fuel amounts?
They are only in need of government subsidies because coal isn't taxed at a rate to offset it's cost. i.e. carbon emissions. If coal had to pay for removing all the CO2 it released, solar would be a bargain in comparison.
With some high-voltage DC cables running easy to west,
Correct me if I'm wrong but 'DC' is terrible at long distances, you lose vast amounts of the energy put in to push it the whole way. This is why AC is used today.
Geothermal is one definite possibility that could be completely constant power. Much like hydro power, the question is is it feasible everywhere? Iceland/Yellowstone obviously have it really really close to the surface, but how about Utah, Florida or Maine?
:)
Interesting points
You don't need to store baseline grid power, you just build enough renewable energy to cover it.
If all your power is coming from renewable sources, how exactly do you get power at night? Or on a calm day? That was my point. Until we can do that on solely renewable energy, we'll need something else to maintain the base load.
Solar panels, wind mills, dams. All exist right now and can be made using today's technology to provide equivalent to base grid power. The problem isn't supply of renewable energy, it's how to store it for off-peak.
just take all that hydropower that was built to store nuclear off-peak generation
What fraction of a percent of the grid load is this able to store? Seriously, you'd need to flood a few states hundreds of feet deep to provide power to the whole country.
net consumers
I don't think that means what you think it means. :)
You can only claim a plant is a net consumer of carbon if over it's entire life-cycle it consumes more than it produces.
After a plant dies it decomposes and releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere - unless it gets trapped in situations that produced our oil. But that's a different case. In 'normal' conditions, they consume and then release CO2.
likewise people. We consume carbon through eating and release it through breathing and other outputs - if you aren't carbon neutral you're going to die pretty quickly.
Human 'society' obviously is net producing due to our use of fossil fuels, but a human being simply can't exist without being carbon 'neutral'.
Any links? I find it hard to believe you could do even 1/2 of base load grid power that way. Sure, 'technically' it's doable, but the reality of suitable sites for putting all that pumped stuff (I'm assuming water?) limits how much you can actually scale.
So where are the reactors storing that power now?
Short answer - In their fuel. They aren't storing any power at all, they are simply producing it. That's the difference between a power source that uses a physical 'fuel' and one that uses sunlight/wind.
Your example would work if the reactors only ran in the day time and then somehow that energy had to be stored for use at night as well. It isn't.
re: The Keystone Pipeline.
Ask Michigan how the cleanup in the Kalamazoo river is going. Unlike 'normal' oil most people are familiar with, heavy crude/tar sand oil sinks in water and cleanup is ridiculously expensive and hard and you don't really ever get your environment back to normal.
As for the arguments 'for' the pipeline, many of the supporters claim we'll get the refined oil produced. That's wholly untrue. It goes on the market and is up for anybody to buy. It would likely not make much of a dent in prices over the long term as the supply of 'cheap' oil is dwindling - exactly the reason the tar sands are now even economical to develop.
The problem with fossil fuels is it is simply adding millions of years worth of CO2 to the environment (in a single century), never removing it. Humans continually add and REMOVE CO2 from the environment making a net zero sum total.
All the necessary technology exists
The renewable generation of power tech exists, but we don't have any way to store base line grid power yet. The super simplified example, is night time. How are you going to store enough energy to power the US while it's dark?
That said, yes we need to be plowing money into renewables, it's an investment that will pay itself off many times over...but unfortunately over a number of decades and so private industry simply isn't going to do that.
In the short term anyway. Variable sources need a method to store the energy for when the supply is low. This is the biggest thing holding back renewables right now.
In regards to climate, nuclear is the only viable option (and I *hate* nuclear!) going forward until we have new technology that stores energy more densely, more efficiently and cheaper than is available today.
A wild guess is probably 100 years or so before we can truly move to renewable sources only, for base line grid power.
Yet more arguments against having Flash, then.
Quite a...wait for it....Zynger! :)
well that's a low bar ;-)
Eh, he's definitely a 'criminal' in that he certainly violated laws to do what he did. Hero is a bit large, but perhaps it fits.
But that's why we have pardon's, to remove that portion of judgement from his history, acknowledging the larger good of his actions. Not that he's going to get one anytime soon unfortunately.
and the job as CEO at Microsoft
You evil evil bastard. Have you no compassion in your soul?
well played Sir, well played :)