What's funny is they knew what they were doing. Look at the server window for HL. Now pull servers from the net and observer the bitmap displayed beside Linux servers.... Now, if they didn't intend to release a Linux version (EG: hacked, reverse engineered), why would there be a "affirmation" by displaying a 'hacked' server and acknologing Linux?
Then please explain to me why Mandrake is bringing their own "Linux Game installs"? These games include The Sims.
I'm sure Licensing for putting The Sim's wasn't cheap, nor was the Win2Lin translator service. Now why would Mandrake do that? They are trying to make money on Linux Gaming.
---"You are delusional. Even Id has publicly stated, Game Developer Magazine, that Linux games do not make business sense, that they support various Unix platforms because they think it is cool to do so."---
No, I'm not. Do you remember what the deveopers of UT said when they were askek if they planned to make UT2 for Linux? They were most certainly making the server for Linux, as nearly all FPS's with Linux servers made more sales (uptime of servers compared to longevity of game). They were questioning on a Linux Client (if THAT would make more money). My assumption is if companies consider making servers for Linux, could the same consideration be made for clients? My answer is yes.
"Forget what I said. Of course it's not surprising to any of us. It was posted by chrisd."
"Return of Castle Wolfenstein sounds a great game, Chris! I can't wait for it to come out for Windows. Is it better than Return to Castle Wolfenstein, or is it just more of the same?"
Why dont you just shut the fuck up. So what. Chrisd messes up a name. It's not like it was "thaedy to ghatwl irnfuxstown". What he wrote was easily readable AND understandable.
And the most ineresting thing is that he's the only editor I see that even bothers posting. And yes, because of actually reading and posting comments, I think he truly cares. It's only dicks like you that even jump a word juxtaposition like that.
You ever heard that if you commit a spelling flame, you've lost? You have.
Yeah. Loki was doomed from the start. 1: They had to compete with the WIndows market. That was anywhere 6 months to 2 years of delay. Nobody pays 50$ for a "old" game. Even after 3 months, you expect for games to drop to 30$. 2: The squandered thier money away. 3: They gave away patch files so you could use games (that you bought with WIndows) on Linux. They made NO money doing this.
Essentially, the group Loki just used "Linux Gaming" as a nice money grab. It worked. Look the the former Top part of the staff....
Screwball setups like this dont work. The developers need to make it. Perferabally, have an installer on the "Game cd". Then you'd be able to slap on a label "Works with Windows and Linux! (insert windows logo and penguin)".
Your user number may be way under mine, but that doesn't mean you're any smarter than I. Anyways, we'll have producers, that make multiplatform games (ID for example). However Most producers will stay away from Linux. Why? They are in bed with MS.
Do you think whining to these producers will do anything, other than churning out MS games? Nope. Now take a look at Warcraft 3. After the spectacle of BnetD they put on, do you think they'll touch Linux? Hell no. Vivendi Universal is already scared shitless about linux. Fully functional DeCss vid apps, ASF and WMV decoders (look at mplayer)....
The best, and only way, for more Linux games be made is not to buy Windows games. Treat Windows games (only from non-Linux game developers) as free software. However, you MUST fully support Linux 3d games. What I'm advocating is Illegal. But in order for Linux games be made, we must hurt these devolopers in thier pocketbooks while boosting Linux purchases. This will give incentive for "I-dont-know-if-we-should-support-linux" developers more ammo. However, MS game shops will continue to make more games. (* read below)
Truly what I'd like to see is dual-install games (Win/Lin). Older developers did the same with Mac/Win. All you'd need is the standard autorun for Windows and/linux/install.sh for linux.
* This is the exact reason why there needs to be an API emulator for Windows games.(And if it's good enough to play games, why not simpler programs?) Who wants to reboot or move to another machine that can run Windows and is sooped up enough to play 'it'? I sure as hell dont. Wine/Winex/Derivative is a conveinance library. It also covers windows-only apps for ones that no such compatible program that exists in linux.
"RMS needs to relax a little, and have faith in the GPL he wrote. No need to get all up in arms. Stupid people will go out of business. Software written by smart people will dominate the world. It's the Linux way. "
What he needs to do is ENFORCE what he says. All he's doing now is pissing on the wrong poles. Wanting GNU/ is just plain moronic. I could easily see more understandable is: at the bottom of kernel.org's website, a little blurp saying Thanks to Stallman and GNU crew.
However, forget the idiotic naming issue... How about enforcing current GNU software? Does anybody remember what Avery Lee had to go through against Vidomi? A little background.. Lee writes all his math intensive stuff by assembler. I cannot remember what algorythims Vidomi filched, but they stole a substantial part (I'm thinking it's the resizing plugins). Avery proved it was filched code by observing exact hex (in the resizing equasions) in his and thier programs. All he wanted to do is have them put thier source open, under GNU contract, or remove it from public.
Lest to say, the threw a big fit.. Then they finally opened source.
Perhaps Stallman needs to be a bit more adamant on these cases, instead of whining about names.
Nawwww.... If THIS was on K5, It'd be modded down, just not as fast as that whiny "Why do you all Hate Jesus on K5" a few weeks ago. One of the editors bitch-slapped his article. The idiot put in the queue.
Why not? Well, all this is just speculative "I thinks" by wannabe astrnomers. If they want us to think what they say is true, then prove it. Oh wait, they cant. They cant prove a negative.
The main point is that these idiots are trying to get "popularity" by spreading crap. Next week we'll hear about 50% chance life is in next solar system...
Well, technically, GNU software is proprietary. All that means is someone owns it. Company software (like MSWindows) is Trade secret, proprietary, and liscensed software. GPL stuff is STILL OWNED. By whom, you ask? Anybody who contributes to the code base.
Say, a company goes to Linus and offers to buy an exclusive linux kernel for X dollars to him for unlimited liscense. OK. All he has to do is get an UNANIMOUS vote from EVERY DEVELOPER(lest that be thousands of lines of code, or a simple 1 liner) a YES to allow that liscense.
Effectively, GPL locks out companies from using thier code directly.
Try kuro5hin.org . It's not as good as slashdot. All you can do is VOTE ON ARTICLES, not have idiot editors reject them as the second they're sent, or have moderation on everybody. And about that moderation, it tells WHO EXACTLY modded you and what you gave them. In Voting on articles, you name is also associated wether you vote the article to front page or the bit bucket.
Even after all these (cough) criticisms, it's not that good.
We all know about apple.slashdot.org or yro.slashdot.org . These are for sections that pertain for the articles. Have you ever thought about creating one called payed-for-by-mpaa.slashdot.org ??? That's what this place is turning out to be.
However, I DEEPLY commend those working on the Linux Media front. Those include sharing apps (Lopster), fully reprogrammed lib's of popular AVI compressions (DiVX), the folks at mPlayer (not the windows app), and Xmms. I've only used those so far, but look foward to getting others. I'll be getting Real Player soon. Why you ask? They count downloads.
However, Linux on the desktop does work. It's a bitch to correctly set up. However, most hardware isnt the problem anymore. It's permissions, software installs, things like that. If every piece software had installers like the one that Loki put with their games (ran graphical OR gui), then yes, Linux would easily be for the desktop. I'm actually running Linux continously (trying to get everything I need done in Linux).
As a sysadmin perspective, Linux rocks. As a home deesktop user, Linux is way too hard.
....Or they rewrite the code to non-GPL. That's why you dont annotate the code that was taken through GPL liscense. You just state that intellectural Property in the basis of code and thoery of thier code/program was used in your program. OUCH.
OK. I see nowhere that restricts using... say GPL code in it. Oh wait!!! If they claim your code, just (ahem)kindly remind them that they will have to get permission from EACH AND EVERY developer that wrote the GPL code or have to make the module OPEN SOURCE/GPL.
GPL infestation! Fun for the whole Penguin family:-)
How is this NOT surprising? We all have heard the arguments. They're baseless, still knowing idiot judges, did you EXPECT ELSEWISE? If you were, then you're a fool.
Still, the damage has been done. No fucking judge will pull every copy of deCss deritiave program from every computer at the time of judgement. All they are is just a talking head when it comes to the internet. If it's code, we have nearly perfected it by the time it goes to trial. If it's open-sourced, then speed that process up by 10 speed.
All they can do is bitch and moan in part of thier corporate interests. We're waaaaay ahead of them.
1: A site that seems to be deeply against abortion posts all known doctors connected to that procedure. The names, adresses and phone numbers are all public knowledge (try phone book).
2: It is seen, by many doctors and others, as a threat to the doctors/families lives.
3: Law suit filed stating that web site is not covered under 1'st Amendment rights.
I'll bring up a few discussion points. First, since religion seems to be frowned in this place, I'm dismissing it from all my arguments (read below on rant about religion).
First, you can find many doctors in the Yellow Pages. Many support abortions, and even advertise such. That isn't illegal. You can also walk into the office, and you'll VERY LIKELY see a plackard of all the doctors in that facility. This isn't illegal, either. From the above 'legal stuff' you can do, reprinting _public knowledge_ is legal.
However, the accusation made is saying they are advocating/supporting this violence. It is true that that web site does, infact, have doctor damage charts indiciating the following: Alive, maimed, Killed. The way I'm understanding this accusation is that of the "Yelling Fire in a theater". The damage chart with contact info is supposedly the direct call to action. Yelling an emergency word like "Fire" is the description and directly implies "Get the fuck outta here!!!".
Lets look at this this from a different angle. What if I listed all the leaders from all the countries of the world. Then by thier names, I put thier address, phone number and recent medical troubles. Would I be advocating any harm done to these poeple? How about if I made an essay or 2 about political assassinations. Would I be considered making a violence advocating website?
Now lets talk about groups that do similar things. the KKK is known to hate "niggers". Why is that? I don't know, since KKK idiots are too incoherent as to why the hate blacks. However, from one I know, the KKK wants them dead. Or lets visit neo-Nazis. What do they advocate? Well, nothing except widespread destruction of the Jews. Hitler started with that plan. All they want to do is finish it. Why doesnt the government shut these places down? It is PROTECTED SPEECH.
Now I'm asking, What is the difference between "Widespread Destruction of a Race" and listing certain doctors, with the possible intent of Injury/Death ?
Religion Rant: Why does so many people in here dismiss and/or insult religion? Unlike most slashdotters, most of the US (and other countries) have strong ties in religion (mainly Christanity). Flatly insulting someones faith is GUARANTEED to TURN them diametrically against your ideas. I'm a Catholic, and I have many atheist friends. I implemented a polity with myself a long time ago: dont mention religion unless asked. Period. If you have an argument and you use religion as the "Trump" card, you've LOST. One time, a good friend (an atheist) got into a religious debate. I using facts about faiths, claimed that Atheism is a religion. Why? God is undetermined (cannot prove or disprove). Christans BELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgment). Atheists DISBELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgement). It is an interesting religion, in that it denies all underlying faiths in all religions. Regarding Abortion: I have successfully argued being against abortion. Remember what I said above: mention religion, lose argument. RANT ENDED. ahh I feel better now (sorta like after taking a dump- core dump that is:0)
---"It doesn't matter how inefficient it is if the source of the all the energy is free (minus startup costs)."---
That's the key. The BIG issue here is break-even. You cant go over 100%(cause of thermodynamics), but you can compare efficency of that plan to that of Standard Oil (semi-pun intended). And no, it's not all startup coses and minimal maintenance. YOu know those big heavy propane drums? Well, the hydrogen drums will have to be much heavier and costlier, because H2 can break open microfractures in seals.
You've gotta understand what they are thinking. They're treating Hydrogen gas as a energy container. There's no way to feasibally hold pure energy. It disperses too quick, and cryo-torids are a ways off.
Hydrogen's fairly stable (without presence of oxygen molecules), and it takes only a wee bit of energy to start the chain reaction back to water and a ton of energy.
But to answer your question: yep, its expensive as hell.
1: Seawater is made out of Hydrogen and Oxygen (with lots of energy in the bonds) 2: Solar panels at the sea locations provide the energy, albeit slowly, to electrolyze the water to the gaseous components. H 2 and O2. 3: The H2 is stored until used in Hydrogen Fuel cells. Combining of Hydrogen gas, Oxygen gas and heat give lots of heat. This turns turbines.
First problem. The solar cells are way innefficent. I'm guessing about 10% (10% of sun is turned into usable electric current). Electrolysis would be too slow, not to mention how expensive even 1 solar panel is. However, I've heard of a man at Purdue who has a prototype of a solar panel that is efficent to 35%. Problem is it's too expensive to make, and it takes more energy to make it than you can gather in it's whole lifetime.
Second problem: All that Hydrogen gas has to be stored somewhere, and in air-tight containers. The only feasible way I can see it being stored is in liquid or metal form. Those takes nasty pressures and tempatures. Gasoline is already fairly dense and has a good energy density.
Third problem: You still lose a lot of energy in turning the turbines.
Overall, I'd HATE to see how inefficent it really is. OH well. BTW, isthis sponsored by any eco-freaks?
Slashdot Mirror
What's funny is they knew what they were doing. Look at the server window for HL. Now pull servers from the net and observer the bitmap displayed beside Linux servers.... Now, if they didn't intend to release a Linux version (EG: hacked, reverse engineered), why would there be a "affirmation" by displaying a 'hacked' server and acknologing Linux?
Then please explain to me why Mandrake is bringing their own "Linux Game installs"? These games include The Sims.
I'm sure Licensing for putting The Sim's wasn't cheap, nor was the Win2Lin translator service. Now why would Mandrake do that? They are trying to make money on Linux Gaming.
---"You are delusional. Even Id has publicly stated, Game Developer Magazine, that Linux games do not make business sense, that they support various Unix platforms because they think it is cool to do so."---
No, I'm not. Do you remember what the deveopers of UT said when they were askek if they planned to make UT2 for Linux? They were most certainly making the server for Linux, as nearly all FPS's with Linux servers made more sales (uptime of servers compared to longevity of game). They were questioning on a Linux Client (if THAT would make more money). My assumption is if companies consider making servers for Linux, could the same consideration be made for clients? My answer is yes.
"Forget what I said. Of course it's not surprising to any of us. It was posted by chrisd."
"Return of Castle Wolfenstein sounds a great game, Chris! I can't wait for it to come out for Windows. Is it better than Return to Castle Wolfenstein, or is it just more of the same?"
Why dont you just shut the fuck up. So what. Chrisd messes up a name. It's not like it was "thaedy to ghatwl irnfuxstown". What he wrote was easily readable AND understandable.
And the most ineresting thing is that he's the only editor I see that even bothers posting. And yes, because of actually reading and posting comments, I think he truly cares. It's only dicks like you that even jump a word juxtaposition like that.
You ever heard that if you commit a spelling flame, you've lost? You have.
Yeah. Loki was doomed from the start.
1: They had to compete with the WIndows market. That was anywhere 6 months to 2 years of delay. Nobody pays 50$ for a "old" game. Even after 3 months, you expect for games to drop to 30$.
2: The squandered thier money away.
3: They gave away patch files so you could use games (that you bought with WIndows) on Linux. They made NO money doing this.
Essentially, the group Loki just used "Linux Gaming" as a nice money grab. It worked. Look the the former Top part of the staff....
Screwball setups like this dont work. The developers need to make it. Perferabally, have an installer on the "Game cd". Then you'd be able to slap on a label "Works with Windows and Linux! (insert windows logo and penguin)".
Your user number may be way under mine, but that doesn't mean you're any smarter than I. Anyways, we'll have producers, that make multiplatform games (ID for example). However Most producers will stay away from Linux. Why? They are in bed with MS.
/linux/install.sh for linux.
Do you think whining to these producers will do anything, other than churning out MS games? Nope. Now take a look at Warcraft 3. After the spectacle of BnetD they put on, do you think they'll touch Linux? Hell no. Vivendi Universal is already scared shitless about linux. Fully functional DeCss vid apps, ASF and WMV decoders (look at mplayer)....
The best, and only way, for more Linux games be made is not to buy Windows games. Treat Windows games (only from non-Linux game developers) as free software. However, you MUST fully support Linux 3d games. What I'm advocating is Illegal. But in order for Linux games be made, we must hurt these devolopers in thier pocketbooks while boosting Linux purchases. This will give incentive for "I-dont-know-if-we-should-support-linux" developers more ammo. However, MS game shops will continue to make more games. (* read below)
Truly what I'd like to see is dual-install games (Win/Lin). Older developers did the same with Mac/Win. All you'd need is the standard autorun for Windows and
* This is the exact reason why there needs to be an API emulator for Windows games.(And if it's good enough to play games, why not simpler programs?) Who wants to reboot or move to another machine that can run Windows and is sooped up enough to play 'it'? I sure as hell dont. Wine/Winex/Derivative is a conveinance library. It also covers windows-only apps for ones that no such compatible program that exists in linux.
"RMS needs to relax a little, and have faith in the GPL he wrote. No need to get all up in arms. Stupid people will go out of business. Software written by smart people will dominate the world. It's the Linux way. "
What he needs to do is ENFORCE what he says. All he's doing now is pissing on the wrong poles. Wanting GNU/ is just plain moronic. I could easily see more understandable is: at the bottom of kernel.org's website, a little blurp saying Thanks to Stallman and GNU crew.
However, forget the idiotic naming issue... How about enforcing current GNU software? Does anybody remember what Avery Lee had to go through against Vidomi? A little background.. Lee writes all his math intensive stuff by assembler. I cannot remember what algorythims Vidomi filched, but they stole a substantial part (I'm thinking it's the resizing plugins). Avery proved it was filched code by observing exact hex (in the resizing equasions) in his and thier programs. All he wanted to do is have them put thier source open, under GNU contract, or remove it from public.
Lest to say, the threw a big fit.. Then they finally opened source.
Perhaps Stallman needs to be a bit more adamant on these cases, instead of whining about names.
Nawwww.... If THIS was on K5, It'd be modded down, just not as fast as that whiny "Why do you all Hate Jesus on K5" a few weeks ago. One of the editors bitch-slapped his article. The idiot put in the queue.
Fuck the car. For those prices, they oughtta toss in The Swiss Alps.
Why do I care??? I DONT.
Why not? Well, all this is just speculative "I thinks" by wannabe astrnomers. If they want us to think what they say is true, then prove it. Oh wait, they cant. They cant prove a negative.
The main point is that these idiots are trying to get "popularity" by spreading crap. Next week we'll hear about 50% chance life is in next solar system...
Knowing the recent email posted about this subject, I'd say You're lying.
If you're not, scan us the letter and post a link. Don't forget your real name to prove it.
You seem like the average slashdotter. If it isnt true, make it up.
ME TOO!!
Well, technically, GNU software is proprietary. All that means is someone owns it. Company software (like MSWindows) is Trade secret, proprietary, and liscensed software. GPL stuff is STILL OWNED. By whom, you ask? Anybody who contributes to the code base.
Say, a company goes to Linus and offers to buy an exclusive linux kernel for X dollars to him for unlimited liscense. OK. All he has to do is get an UNANIMOUS vote from EVERY DEVELOPER(lest that be thousands of lines of code, or a simple 1 liner) a YES to allow that liscense.
Effectively, GPL locks out companies from using thier code directly.
Try kuro5hin.org . It's not as good as slashdot. All you can do is VOTE ON ARTICLES, not have idiot editors reject them as the second they're sent, or have moderation on everybody. And about that moderation, it tells WHO EXACTLY modded you and what you gave them. In Voting on articles, you name is also associated wether you vote the article to front page or the bit bucket.
Even after all these (cough) criticisms, it's not that good.
I stand corrected. I try not to make mistakes like that, but sometimes they slip through. I know I dont mispell ;-) the meanings of the word, "its."
We all know about apple.slashdot.org or yro.slashdot.org . These are for sections that pertain for the articles. Have you ever thought about creating one called payed-for-by-mpaa.slashdot.org ??? That's what this place is turning out to be.
However, I DEEPLY commend those working on the Linux Media front. Those include sharing apps (Lopster), fully reprogrammed lib's of popular AVI compressions (DiVX), the folks at mPlayer (not the windows app), and Xmms. I've only used those so far, but look foward to getting others. I'll be getting Real Player soon. Why you ask? They count downloads.
I agree with Mr "-1 Troll". He's right.
However, Linux on the desktop does work. It's a bitch to correctly set up. However, most hardware isnt the problem anymore. It's permissions, software installs, things like that. If every piece software had installers like the one that Loki put with their games (ran graphical OR gui), then yes, Linux would easily be for the desktop. I'm actually running Linux continously (trying to get everything I need done in Linux).
As a sysadmin perspective, Linux rocks.
As a home deesktop user, Linux is way too hard.
....Or they rewrite the code to non-GPL. That's why you dont annotate the code that was taken through GPL liscense. You just state that intellectural Property in the basis of code and thoery of thier code/program was used in your program. OUCH.
OK. I see nowhere that restricts using... say GPL code in it. Oh wait!!! If they claim your code, just (ahem)kindly remind them that they will have to get permission from EACH AND EVERY developer that wrote the GPL code or have to make the module OPEN SOURCE/GPL.
:-)
GPL infestation! Fun for the whole Penguin family
How is this NOT surprising? We all have heard the arguments. They're baseless, still knowing idiot judges, did you EXPECT ELSEWISE? If you were, then you're a fool.
Still, the damage has been done. No fucking judge will pull every copy of deCss deritiave program from every computer at the time of judgement. All they are is just a talking head when it comes to the internet. If it's code, we have nearly perfected it by the time it goes to trial. If it's open-sourced, then speed that process up by 10 speed.
All they can do is bitch and moan in part of thier corporate interests. We're waaaaay ahead of them.
Dont forget that the Hipocratic oath has recently been changed so that it doesnt prohibit abortion. Just as a side note.
Lets look at this logically.
:0)
1: A site that seems to be deeply against abortion posts all known doctors connected to that procedure. The names, adresses and phone numbers are all public knowledge (try phone book).
2: It is seen, by many doctors and others, as a threat to the doctors/families lives.
3: Law suit filed stating that web site is not covered under 1'st Amendment rights.
I'll bring up a few discussion points. First, since religion seems to be frowned in this place, I'm dismissing it from all my arguments (read below on rant about religion).
First, you can find many doctors in the Yellow Pages. Many support abortions, and even advertise such. That isn't illegal. You can also walk into the office, and you'll VERY LIKELY see a plackard of all the doctors in that facility. This isn't illegal, either. From the above 'legal stuff' you can do, reprinting _public knowledge_ is legal.
However, the accusation made is saying they are advocating/supporting this violence. It is true that that web site does, infact, have doctor damage charts indiciating the following: Alive, maimed, Killed. The way I'm understanding this accusation is that of the "Yelling Fire in a theater". The damage chart with contact info is supposedly the direct call to action. Yelling an emergency word like "Fire" is the description and directly implies "Get the fuck outta here!!!".
Lets look at this this from a different angle. What if I listed all the leaders from all the countries of the world. Then by thier names, I put thier address, phone number and recent medical troubles. Would I be advocating any harm done to these poeple? How about if I made an essay or 2 about political assassinations. Would I be considered making a violence advocating website?
Now lets talk about groups that do similar things. the KKK is known to hate "niggers". Why is that? I don't know, since KKK idiots are too incoherent as to why the hate blacks. However, from one I know, the KKK wants them dead. Or lets visit neo-Nazis. What do they advocate? Well, nothing except widespread destruction of the Jews. Hitler started with that plan. All they want to do is finish it. Why doesnt the government shut these places down? It is PROTECTED SPEECH.
Now I'm asking, What is the difference between "Widespread Destruction of a Race" and listing certain doctors, with the possible intent of Injury/Death ?
Religion Rant: Why does so many people in here dismiss and/or insult religion? Unlike most slashdotters, most of the US (and other countries) have strong ties in religion (mainly Christanity). Flatly insulting someones faith is GUARANTEED to TURN them diametrically against your ideas. I'm a Catholic, and I have many atheist friends. I implemented a polity with myself a long time ago: dont mention religion unless asked. Period. If you have an argument and you use religion as the "Trump" card, you've LOST. One time, a good friend (an atheist) got into a religious debate. I using facts about faiths, claimed that Atheism is a religion. Why? God is undetermined (cannot prove or disprove). Christans BELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgment). Atheists DISBELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgement). It is an interesting religion, in that it denies all underlying faiths in all religions. Regarding Abortion: I have successfully argued being against abortion. Remember what I said above: mention religion, lose argument. RANT ENDED. ahh I feel better now (sorta like after taking a dump- core dump that is
---"It doesn't matter how inefficient it is if the source of the all the energy is free (minus startup costs)."---
That's the key. The BIG issue here is break-even. You cant go over 100%(cause of thermodynamics), but you can compare efficency of that plan to that of Standard Oil (semi-pun intended). And no, it's not all startup coses and minimal maintenance. YOu know those big heavy propane drums? Well, the hydrogen drums will have to be much heavier and costlier, because H2 can break open microfractures in seals.
You've gotta understand what they are thinking. They're treating Hydrogen gas as a energy container. There's no way to feasibally hold pure energy. It disperses too quick, and cryo-torids are a ways off.
Hydrogen's fairly stable (without presence of oxygen molecules), and it takes only a wee bit of energy to start the chain reaction back to water and a ton of energy.
But to answer your question: yep, its expensive as hell.
OK. Let's understand what they're doing.
1: Seawater is made out of Hydrogen and Oxygen (with lots of energy in the bonds)
2: Solar panels at the sea locations provide the energy, albeit slowly, to electrolyze the water to the gaseous components. H 2 and O2.
3: The H2 is stored until used in Hydrogen Fuel cells. Combining of Hydrogen gas, Oxygen gas and heat give lots of heat. This turns turbines.
First problem. The solar cells are way innefficent. I'm guessing about 10% (10% of sun is turned into usable electric current). Electrolysis would be too slow, not to mention how expensive even 1 solar panel is. However, I've heard of a man at Purdue who has a prototype of a solar panel that is efficent to 35%. Problem is it's too expensive to make, and it takes more energy to make it than you can gather in it's whole lifetime.
Second problem: All that Hydrogen gas has to be stored somewhere, and in air-tight containers. The only feasible way I can see it being stored is in liquid or metal form. Those takes nasty pressures and tempatures. Gasoline is already fairly dense and has a good energy density.
Third problem: You still lose a lot of energy in turning the turbines.
Overall, I'd HATE to see how inefficent it really is. OH well. BTW, isthis sponsored by any eco-freaks?
Yep, it is. I put that in all the idiotic web forms I have to go through. Those forms check for character totals, not invalid prefixes (like 911).