Gasoline burns like gangbusters. Safety concern is not that hydrogen burns. Concern is focused on hydrogen in the gaseous form (which burns explosively when mixed with oxygen). For gasoline to be explosive, you have to heat it enough to vaporize.
I do get tired of reading that burning hydrogen produces no emissions (NOx and others), but ignoring the fact that hydrogen as to come from somewhere (you can't just pump H2 out of a hole in the ground) that tends to be fossil fuels today in another forms.
Hydrogen is a storage technology, not an energy source. Now, methane based fuel cells are much more interesting because we've got lots of methane (pumped from the ground), but there is not an infinite supply of methane, and lots of CO2 is added to the exhaust mix.
I'm no Luddite. I want microfusion powered cars, or more realistically, some decent storage technology for transportation use, and nuclear or renewable resource for evergy generation.
There is little that I HATE more that trying to deal with an app that's thinking for me.
Um, maybe if MS Office were actually thinking, it would not be a problem After you dismissing the dancing paper-clip (which would not be annoying if it were actually thinking) a few times, the software would notice that you really don't like it. And it would notice that you don't like automatic smart tabbing and list numbering.
When we get real AI, you better bet that I want my computer thinking for me, just as if I had a good editor working on my behave. The "intelligence" in MS Office is a far cry from actual thinking.
As far as app quality is concerned, the dancing paperclick is unimportant (except that it must die) to most of us. But, many users perceive auto-numbered lists, smart tabbing, etc. as useful. I might even do so if it were easily flipped on/off and you could easily undo last autoformat, which would also prevent it from trying to do the exact same autoformat 3 seconds later.
When we mean quality, we tend to focus on core features, consistency, reliability, supportability. When marketing thinks quality, they think feature checklist, dancing paperclips, sizzle and profit margins.
Maybe, but maybe the problem with MS code is that the cooks have a different stew in mind. Their "benevolent dictators goal" has been more features, more integegration, easier to use, easier to market.
OSS has more typically been aligned along. Get it to work, don't break it, add features.
The dictator has been argueably both very successful (Bible's David) and very disastrous (Hitler). Problem with dictators is making sure that they are both benevolent and wise.
I like my Visor Deluxe, but don't ever drop it. Mine was knocked off a desk onto carpet (3 ft?), screen was cracked and would not work (or hotsync off the latest data either). I know others with similar story -- way too easily broken.
Replacement was simple (though the first replacement they sent was defective too), but it cost me about $100 at the time.
Sorry, this bothers me, just thought of another analogy.
Say Microsoft publishing its source code on the Internet, with the restrictions against using the data for profit (equivalent to mineral rights), and runs a contest whereby cash prizes acrue to winners for quality bug fixes or other enhancements.
Has MS suddenly gone open source? hardly. MS would be exposed to much more financial risk than the mining company in this comparison, as the source code is arguably valuable to competitors wishing to drill in MS fields. MS would be keeping all IP legal rights (just like the mineral rights), and noone would be saying, "Wow another open source success story."
Come, open source as usually perceived and promoted is that by "contributing to the public software" and "scratching an itch", much good comes to all as you everyone can then use this freely.
The valuable use of this data is pretty much restricted to the property owners of the gold mine. This was just a fancy version of a contest (not a random-lottery style one), whereby skilled competitors vie for the prize, but one without an entry fee, and no signup form. The data is inherently useless (in terms of mineral rights) to anyone that is not the property owner, or interested in control over what happends to the property (hostile takeover threat).
If Microsoft had been the property owner, this story would have been on Slashdot, decrying the shameless use of skilled dupes working for Microsoft and getting a small return on their investment of time & talent. The mine owners were clever enough to capitalize on the positive name association with "Open Source" more than anything. A smart business that take a gamble (hostile takeover threat, etc.) that paid off well.
My father was a very smart man (though not particularly computer literate). I remember getting him set up for email, etc. and explaining how things worked many years ago.
He then asked the big question, "Who pays for the email?". I of course glibly explained that email was so cheap to send that no-one bothers to meter it.
He then explained a little history to me. When mail (dead-tree kind) was first invented, the receiver had to pay the freight. This system was unstable and was quikly replaced with a system where the sender paid the freight. He made the observation that though the cost was low, it was inherently unstable, just like the original version. Price may be so low it takes a while to topple, but the system is broken.
There is only one way to prevent spam, make the spammers pay for delivery. In this case, the freight cost is not the cost of men, horses, and trucks to carry the mail. The biggest cost is the time it takes to discard or filter the mail.
1) Eliminate the free (or very low cost) ride that spammers get and spam will cease to exist.
2) Policies to enforce step 1 are a mixture of technical and political. A) No more open relays, B) Black-listing, C) Similar steps for hotmail style email sources, D) public executions of spammers (OK, its just a pipe dream), etc. E)ISP's need enforced policies that cause spammers to get hit hard in the pocketbook -- ISP's that don't get blacklisted.
Fine tune the algorithm until all spammers cease to exist. Just think, if a spammer had to pay $.25 per spam mail sent it would eliminate the problem. Those few that sent UBE would have to be well-funded, and would probably be well-targeted, or at least farily rare (about like junk snail mail). I would gladly hit delete knowing the spammer spent $.25 trying to get me to buy some useless junk. You can rest assured that the "opt-out" would actually work if them saves the sender a quarter for skipping future messages for stuff you would not buy.
BTW, all of the quarters should go to the recievers of the junk mail.
Let's see, GM (and the rest) sell me a car and with part of the profits, throw in a "free" transmitter/receiver.
Then, 4 years later, GM throws a switch and my car is now part of a mesh network worth $100 billion.
Now, why would I waste any time filing a class action suit againt GM, claiming damages for using my resources without my permission. 1) They could have sold me the car for $30 less, 2) They use up energy that I have to pay for to run the node and to haul it around whereever I go, 3) They steal the use of my resources to make huge profits.
Yep, this class action suit is going to be fun.
Oh wait, all is disclosed in the EULA, and I'm not allowed to resell me car anymore either. It all makes sense now. The only part I have not figured out yet is where Microsoft is involved here.
With that many moons, Jovian werewolves cannot revert to their non-lupine form except on the rarest of occasions. They probably forget how to change back entirely, probably going years with at a couple of full moons in the sky.
I think we should establish a charitable organazation dedicated to the plight of the Jovian werewolf, deprived of the right to exist in their original form.
That's interesting. Here in the states, unsolicited FAX is fairly rare because Congress made it illegal with suitable penalties, but regular phone calls are much more intrusive and happen all the time (unless you take measures such as caller ID, do not call lists, etc.)
I personally use the simple measure of having my answering machine answer on the 1st ring, any friend can start talking and I'll pick up. Non-machine telemarketers hang up about 99% of the time when they hear my machine, machines are usually a little more chatty.
Fire up Windows Calculator and dividing by zero yields:
A) 0 B) E C) BSOD D) 42 E) Domain Error F) Error Positive Infinity G) Undefined H) None of the above
The correct answer (according to my test on Win98) was F, though I think G would be more accurate.
If the fine engineers at MS could avoid a BSOD in the calc application, it's fair to assume that division by zero is not a characteristic problem of Windows.
A GPF (or whaterver it is called) means Windows is doing it job as an O/S.
A BSOD means one of 2 things: 1) Windows failed to do its job 2) Windows is doing its job, protecting you from further damage due to a buggy device driver.
In practice, you as the consumer are pretty much hosed in any of the above cases.
Windows also fails to do it job in other ways, even on Win2K (usually considered the most stable), I've seen lost network connections, lost removable drive connections, Messed up screen font's, blank Icons, resource leaks (in the O/S),
Windows (including Solitaire) is the probably the greatest technological disaster of all time when measured in terms of dollars wasted.
Actually, it is fairly easy to be anonymous, all you have to do is use the account of someone else, and post via a public telephone or your local public library or internet coffee shop.
When the next round of AOL CD's hit, do some trolling on trash day in the neighborhood and you should have several anonymous accounts for your use.
Yes, Microsoft is doing a good thing by cutting RealNames off. Maybe people using this will discover the Google is the search engine they should be using instead of RealNames (or MS, or any of the rest of those marketing based "search engines" posing as a regular search engine.
Now, not to say that MS actively decided to do something nice or anything. They only have about 30 years practice being evil, and they are bound to slip up occasionally. Even Hitler liked dogs and kids (I have an acquaintence who remembers visiting Hitler on vacation when she was young quite fondly. She does not seem to understand why he was so disliked.)
Re:One word: Spider strength
on
Comic Book Physics
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah, yeah physics again. You might at least reference the square-cube law, such as here for anatomy if you want to educate people on why ants and spiders are so strong. It is also a clue as to why you don't find realy big or tall land animals.
There is also a significant problem with flying dinosaurs & even standing up because of square cube law arguments. Some have seriously proposed that oxygen content was higher for the dino's, other suggest that gravity was lower. Point is, that they are so big, square cube law is a problem for us to understand their existence. There are also huge forms of many modern animals in the fossil record that are a problem for us to understannd because of square-cube law (3 ft wingspan dragonflies, foot long cockroaches, sharks with a 12 ft wide jaw, etc.) Really some interesting problems, albeit somewhat off-topic.
Square cube law is a problem in muscle strenth, bone strength, respiriration, reaction speed, heat dissipation, etc. Unfortunately don't know a really good godd/article to recommend.
Why do you feel compelled to persuade the customer to open source the software you intend to deliver?
1) Moral objection -- then do or do not (sorry Yoda). You may choose to express you moral view or not to client depending on whether proseltyzing is worth the effort/benefit ratio. If you fail to persuade, do you turn down the job?, if not, see point 3
2) Don't want to support -- then don't support, let customer know this, and why (at least if they ask). If you feel OSS makes a different in support, see point 3.
3) Anticipated benefit to customer -- explain your view of benefit, let customer choose.
4) Want to use exising OSS, see #3
If all you want is additional bullet points for #3, I'm sure you'll get plenty of opinions on slashdot. But, I would recommend sticking to things I believe in and understand (preferably have experience with) when making the case for OSS.
Hmm, point 3 seems to be pretty important. Give the customer a rational (or emotional) basis for making a decision. And let them make a decision. It's their money, their project, not yours. Of course, if its a moral issue with you, don't violate your morals. Don't come crying to anyone if you have to sacrifce though, high morality requires that you be consistent and be willing to accept the sacrifice it may involve.
My life is complicated enough without having to convert others. Matters of religion, politics, etc. are very similar to the arguments we coders get into -- We believe strongly in what we believe, for waht we believe to be good reasons, others believe just as strongly differently. You may convince some, other's you just make mad.
I may believe it's worth arguing religion (save their soul, or save the waste of their time/beliefe in myths, not saying which i follow). Politics -- you get morality and economics. But coding... Sorry, I take option 3 -- I have enough hassles in my life.
The article does say that the current process is based on a laser etching in a polymer, but Paul Braun also suggests that the ultimate goal of usefulness will would probably be made of a material "such as silicon" that transmit light more reliably.
I fail to see a huge advantage in a photonics circuit based on this technology. Braun has perhaps developed a new method that could replace the complex multistep photochemical etching process of todays microprocessors. But it would appear to be harder to scale for production if the laser has to draw the circuit (or the inverse of the circuit) on the chip. Its like the difference between stamping a CD & burning a CDR. Stamping scales for production, and burning one at a time does not. Could be a real innovation for small-run custom circuits, but that does not seem to be where the money is.
Well, back in the bad old days of Windows 3.1, some vendors did stuff exactly like this. Some replaced program manager (the program that managed program groups and had icons for programs and documents.) Guess what, a lot of people called MS for support, and MS support costs were higher because all of the wierdness in the custom versions of Windows. So I guess the answer is, yes. Some OEMs are that stupid. Some of the more succesful ones in the Windows 3.1 days as I recall (HP, Compaq, Packard Bell all customized more Windows to some extent).
This experience is one of the actual reasons the new license agreements mean the OEM's have to make sure Windows comes up initially as MS intended, but were allowed to add an icon that converted the Windows interface into whatever the manufacturer thought appropriate.
This is not to say that MS does not have more "market dominiation" motives to do this, but simply that there is an element of truth to the desire.
Actually, there is a perfectly good answer. It's called capitalism. Of course, it is a regulated kind of capitalism.
You the regulator, add a recycling fee to be paid by the manufacturer that is added to the cost of the product. This fee is based on the estimated disposal/recycling cost of the product. The fee applies to circuit boards, etc. anything that qualifies as end-use form.
Now the capitalist has incentive to reduce end-use waste disposal/recycling costs. Many items could be recycled more cheaply if the were designed to be recycled. Many monitors get a bunch of lead added to them (as balast), yet the lead is not easily recycled at the end. If the lead could be eaily recycled (ease of breakdown) the recyling fee would be smaller. Or, the manufacturer would try to redesign to reduce the dependence upon lead ballast.
By being recycle friendly (reducing the recycling fee), the product would be comparitivly cheaper than the competition who is not recycling friendly.
I'm not a big fan of government regulation. I am a fan of appropriate regulation (government or otherwise). If an industry shows itself to self-police well, government involvement can be light (and vice-versa)
Well, Spider-Man is coming out next week. Maybe the box for that is an indication of how many of us still phantasize about the possibilities of bio-enhancment.
Superman, X-Men, Batman, etc. have a pretty faithful following at the box-office. Even 2nd-tier heroes (in terms of physical abilities) such as James Bond, appeal to quite a broad audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Gasoline burns like gangbusters. Safety concern is not that hydrogen burns. Concern is focused on hydrogen in the gaseous form (which burns explosively when mixed with oxygen). For gasoline to be explosive, you have to heat it enough to vaporize.
I do get tired of reading that burning hydrogen produces no emissions (NOx and others), but ignoring the fact that hydrogen as to come from somewhere (you can't just pump H2 out of a hole in the ground) that tends to be fossil fuels today in another forms.
Hydrogen is a storage technology, not an energy source. Now, methane based fuel cells are much more interesting because we've got lots of methane (pumped from the ground), but there is not an infinite supply of methane, and lots of CO2 is added to the exhaust mix.
I'm no Luddite. I want microfusion powered cars, or more realistically, some decent storage technology for transportation use, and nuclear or renewable resource for evergy generation.
There is little that I HATE more that trying to deal with an app that's thinking for me.
Um, maybe if MS Office were actually thinking, it would not be a problem After you dismissing the dancing paper-clip (which would not be annoying if it were actually thinking) a few times, the software would notice that you really don't like it. And it would notice that you don't like automatic smart tabbing and list numbering.
When we get real AI, you better bet that I want my computer thinking for me, just as if I had a good editor working on my behave. The "intelligence" in MS Office is a far cry from actual thinking.
As far as app quality is concerned, the dancing paperclick is unimportant (except that it must die) to most of us. But, many users perceive auto-numbered lists, smart tabbing, etc. as useful. I might even do so if it were easily flipped on/off and you could easily undo last autoformat, which would also prevent it from trying to do the exact same autoformat 3 seconds later.
When we mean quality, we tend to focus on core features, consistency, reliability, supportability. When marketing thinks quality, they think feature checklist, dancing paperclips, sizzle and profit margins.
"Too many cooks spoil the pot"
Maybe, but maybe the problem with MS code is that the cooks have a different stew in mind. Their "benevolent dictators goal" has been more features, more integegration, easier to use, easier to market.
OSS has more typically been aligned along. Get it to work, don't break it, add features.
The dictator has been argueably both very successful (Bible's David) and very disastrous (Hitler). Problem with dictators is making sure that they are both benevolent and wise.
I like my Visor Deluxe, but don't ever drop it. Mine was knocked off a desk onto carpet (3 ft?), screen was cracked and would not work (or hotsync off the latest data either). I know others with similar story -- way too easily broken.
Replacement was simple (though the first replacement they sent was defective too), but it cost me about $100 at the time.
They are not talking about the price of gold on the market, rather the cost of producing gold at that this particular mine.
Sorry, this bothers me, just thought of another analogy.
Say Microsoft publishing its source code on the Internet, with the restrictions against using the data for profit (equivalent to mineral rights), and runs a contest whereby cash prizes acrue to winners for quality bug fixes or other enhancements.
Has MS suddenly gone open source? hardly. MS would be exposed to much more financial risk than the mining company in this comparison, as the source code is arguably valuable to competitors wishing to drill in MS fields. MS would be keeping all IP legal rights (just like the mineral rights), and noone would be saying, "Wow another open source success story."
Come, open source as usually perceived and promoted is that by "contributing to the public software" and "scratching an itch", much good comes to all as you everyone can then use this freely.
The valuable use of this data is pretty much restricted to the property owners of the gold mine. This was just a fancy version of a contest (not a random-lottery style one), whereby skilled competitors vie for the prize, but one without an entry fee, and no signup form. The data is inherently useless (in terms of mineral rights) to anyone that is not the property owner, or interested in control over what happends to the property (hostile takeover threat).
If Microsoft had been the property owner, this story would have been on Slashdot, decrying the shameless use of skilled dupes working for Microsoft and getting a small return on their investment of time & talent. The mine owners were clever enough to capitalize on the positive name association with "Open Source" more than anything. A smart business that take a gamble (hostile takeover threat, etc.) that paid off well.
My father was a very smart man (though not particularly computer literate). I remember getting him set up for email, etc. and explaining how things worked many years ago.
He then asked the big question, "Who pays for the email?". I of course glibly explained that email was so cheap to send that no-one bothers to meter it.
He then explained a little history to me. When mail (dead-tree kind) was first invented, the receiver had to pay the freight. This system was unstable and was quikly replaced with a system where the sender paid the freight. He made the observation that though the cost was low, it was inherently unstable, just like the original version. Price may be so low it takes a while to topple, but the system is broken.
There is only one way to prevent spam, make the spammers pay for delivery. In this case, the freight cost is not the cost of men, horses, and trucks to carry the mail. The biggest cost is the time it takes to discard or filter the mail.
1) Eliminate the free (or very low cost) ride that spammers get and spam will cease to exist.
2) Policies to enforce step 1 are a mixture of technical and political. A) No more open relays, B) Black-listing, C) Similar steps for hotmail style email sources, D) public executions of spammers (OK, its just a pipe dream), etc. E)ISP's need enforced policies that cause spammers to get hit hard in the pocketbook -- ISP's that don't get blacklisted.
Fine tune the algorithm until all spammers cease to exist. Just think, if a spammer had to pay $.25 per spam mail sent it would eliminate the problem. Those few that sent UBE would have to be well-funded, and would probably be well-targeted, or at least farily rare (about like junk snail mail). I would gladly hit delete knowing the spammer spent $.25 trying to get me to buy some useless junk. You can rest assured that the "opt-out" would actually work if them saves the sender a quarter for skipping future messages for stuff you would not buy.
BTW, all of the quarters should go to the recievers of the junk mail.
I don't know, but at this kind of pricing, pirating the software and paying the $100K fine when you get caught may be cheaper.
Then again, I don't really care too much. I can't afford a 128 CPU Sun server in the first place.
Let's see, GM (and the rest) sell me a car and with part of the profits, throw in a "free" transmitter/receiver.
Then, 4 years later, GM throws a switch and my car is now part of a mesh network worth $100 billion.
Now, why would I waste any time filing a class action suit againt GM, claiming damages for using my resources without my permission. 1) They could have sold me the car for $30 less, 2) They use up energy that I have to pay for to run the node and to haul it around whereever I go, 3) They steal the use of my resources to make huge profits.
Yep, this class action suit is going to be fun.
Oh wait, all is disclosed in the EULA, and I'm not allowed to resell me car anymore either. It all makes sense now. The only part I have not figured out yet is where Microsoft is involved here.
In no particular order:
1) Roofing contractor
2) Fireman
3) Chimney sweep
4) Blast furnance technician
5) Nuclear plant core cleaner.
6) Boiler stoker
7) Oven inspector.
8) Exhaust system specialist
9) Bomb squad technicial
10) Supervisor in Hell
Maybe so, but if not, he is realizing right about now how big of a mistake he made about the Creation vs. Evolution issue
With that many moons, Jovian werewolves cannot revert to their non-lupine form except on the rarest of occasions. They probably forget how to change back entirely, probably going years with at a couple of full moons in the sky.
I think we should establish a charitable organazation dedicated to the plight of the Jovian werewolf, deprived of the right to exist in their original form.
That's interesting. Here in the states, unsolicited FAX is fairly rare because Congress made it illegal with suitable penalties, but regular phone calls are much more intrusive and happen all the time (unless you take measures such as caller ID, do not call lists, etc.)
I personally use the simple measure of having my answering machine answer on the 1st ring, any friend can start talking and I'll pick up. Non-machine telemarketers hang up about 99% of the time when they hear my machine, machines are usually a little more chatty.
Fire up Windows Calculator and dividing by zero yields:
A) 0
B) E
C) BSOD
D) 42
E) Domain Error
F) Error Positive Infinity
G) Undefined
H) None of the above
The correct answer (according to my test on Win98) was F, though I think G would be more accurate.
If the fine engineers at MS could avoid a BSOD in the calc application, it's fair to assume that division by zero is not a characteristic problem of Windows.
A GPF (or whaterver it is called) means Windows is doing it job as an O/S.
A BSOD means one of 2 things:
1) Windows failed to do its job
2) Windows is doing its job, protecting you from further damage due to a buggy device driver.
In practice, you as the consumer are pretty much hosed in any of the above cases.
Windows also fails to do it job in other ways, even on Win2K (usually considered the most stable), I've seen lost network connections, lost removable drive connections, Messed up screen font's, blank Icons, resource leaks (in the O/S),
Windows (including Solitaire) is the probably the greatest technological disaster of all time when measured in terms of dollars wasted.
Just claim it is the only ISP you can get in your area, then its OK.
Actually, it is fairly easy to be anonymous, all you have to do is use the account of someone else, and post via a public telephone or your local public library or internet coffee shop.
When the next round of AOL CD's hit, do some trolling on trash day in the neighborhood and you should have several anonymous accounts for your use.
Yes, Microsoft is doing a good thing by cutting RealNames off. Maybe people using this will discover the Google is the search engine they should be using instead of RealNames (or MS, or any of the rest of those marketing based "search engines" posing as a regular search engine.
Now, not to say that MS actively decided to do something nice or anything. They only have about 30 years practice being evil, and they are bound to slip up occasionally. Even Hitler liked dogs and kids (I have an acquaintence who remembers visiting Hitler on vacation when she was young quite fondly. She does not seem to understand why he was so disliked.)
Yeah, yeah physics again. You might at least reference the square-cube law, such as here for anatomy if you want to educate people on why ants and spiders are so strong. It is also a clue as to why you don't find realy big or tall land animals.
There is also a significant problem with flying dinosaurs & even standing up because of square cube law arguments. Some have seriously proposed that oxygen content was higher for the dino's, other suggest that gravity was lower. Point is, that they are so big, square cube law is a problem for us to understand their existence. There are also huge forms of many modern animals in the fossil record that are a problem for us to understannd because of square-cube law (3 ft wingspan dragonflies, foot long cockroaches, sharks with a 12 ft wide jaw, etc.) Really some interesting problems, albeit somewhat off-topic.
Square cube law is a problem in muscle strenth, bone strength, respiriration, reaction speed, heat dissipation, etc. Unfortunately don't know a really good godd/article to recommend.
Why do you feel compelled to persuade the customer to open source the software you intend to deliver?
... Sorry, I take option 3 -- I have enough hassles in my life.
1) Moral objection -- then do or do not (sorry Yoda). You may choose to express you moral view or not to client depending on whether proseltyzing is worth the effort/benefit ratio. If you fail to persuade, do you turn down the job?, if not, see point 3
2) Don't want to support -- then don't support, let customer know this, and why (at least if they ask). If you feel OSS makes a different in support, see point 3.
3) Anticipated benefit to customer -- explain your view of benefit, let customer choose.
4) Want to use exising OSS, see #3
If all you want is additional bullet points for #3, I'm sure you'll get plenty of opinions on slashdot. But, I would recommend sticking to things I believe in and understand (preferably have experience with) when making the case for OSS.
Hmm, point 3 seems to be pretty important. Give the customer a rational (or emotional) basis for making a decision. And let them make a decision. It's their money, their project, not yours. Of course, if its a moral issue with you, don't violate your morals. Don't come crying to anyone if you have to sacrifce though, high morality requires that you be consistent and be willing to accept the sacrifice it may involve.
My life is complicated enough without having to convert others. Matters of religion, politics, etc. are very similar to the arguments we coders get into -- We believe strongly in what we believe, for waht we believe to be good reasons, others believe just as strongly differently. You may convince some, other's you just make mad.
I may believe it's worth arguing religion (save their soul, or save the waste of their time/beliefe in myths, not saying which i follow). Politics -- you get morality and economics. But coding
The article does say that the current process is based on a laser etching in a polymer, but Paul Braun also suggests that the ultimate goal of usefulness will would probably be made of a material "such as silicon" that transmit light more reliably.
I fail to see a huge advantage in a photonics circuit based on this technology. Braun has perhaps developed a new method that could replace the complex multistep photochemical etching process of todays microprocessors. But it would appear to be harder to scale for production if the laser has to draw the circuit (or the inverse of the circuit) on the chip. Its like the difference between stamping a CD & burning a CDR. Stamping scales for production, and burning one at a time does not. Could be a real innovation for small-run custom circuits, but that does not seem to be where the money is.
Well, back in the bad old days of Windows 3.1, some vendors did stuff exactly like this. Some replaced program manager (the program that managed program groups and had icons for programs and documents.) Guess what, a lot of people called MS for support, and MS support costs were higher because all of the wierdness in the custom versions of Windows. So I guess the answer is, yes. Some OEMs are that stupid. Some of the more succesful ones in the Windows 3.1 days as I recall (HP, Compaq, Packard Bell all customized more Windows to some extent).
This experience is one of the actual reasons the new license agreements mean the OEM's have to make sure Windows comes up initially as MS intended, but were allowed to add an icon that converted the Windows interface into whatever the manufacturer thought appropriate.
This is not to say that MS does not have more "market dominiation" motives to do this, but simply that there is an element of truth to the desire.
Actually, there is a perfectly good answer. It's called capitalism. Of course, it is a regulated kind of capitalism.
You the regulator, add a recycling fee to be paid by the manufacturer that is added to the cost of the product. This fee is based on the estimated disposal/recycling cost of the product. The fee applies to circuit boards, etc. anything that qualifies as end-use form.
Now the capitalist has incentive to reduce end-use waste disposal/recycling costs. Many items could be recycled more cheaply if the were designed to be recycled. Many monitors get a bunch of lead added to them (as balast), yet the lead is not easily recycled at the end. If the lead could be eaily recycled (ease of breakdown) the recyling fee would be smaller. Or, the manufacturer would try to redesign to reduce the dependence upon lead ballast.
By being recycle friendly (reducing the recycling fee), the product would be comparitivly cheaper than the competition who is not recycling friendly.
I'm not a big fan of government regulation. I am a fan of appropriate regulation (government or otherwise). If an industry shows itself to self-police well, government involvement can be light (and vice-versa)
Well, Spider-Man is coming out next week. Maybe the box for that is an indication of how many of us still phantasize about the possibilities of bio-enhancment.
Superman, X-Men, Batman, etc. have a pretty faithful following at the box-office. Even 2nd-tier heroes (in terms of physical abilities) such as James Bond, appeal to quite a broad audience.
Programming is like prositution.
First you do it for love.
Then you do it for friends.
Then you do it for the money.