For a small car it takes about 170kwh to go 500 miles on average. That means If there were 12 electrical "gas pumps" to charge 12 such ultra capacitor cars in 5 minutes, it would take a power line that could carry 24 million watts of electricity to service ONE such station!
The gasoline equivalent to what you're proposing is that you pull up to the pump, the gas station calls for a tanker truck, it comes and fills up your car. Pretty impractical. Except that, of course, the gas station has its own tanks to even things out - just as electricity stations surely would. The average influx of energy to the "gas" station would be no different than today.
If that fully charged capacitor shorts and dumps all its energy suddenly, a blast like that made by about 350 pounds of dynamite would occur.
The only relevant comparison is to thousands of gallons of gasoline hauling down the highway at 70 mph in the back of a tanker truck. After that everything else looks much safer.
IMHO, the next generation in artifical intelligence - ie, going beyound anthropomorphic trickery - isn't going to happen until we actually understand what intelligence is. And to that we neen philosophers, not engineers.
OK, now tell us why you think that.
Personally, I think computer science has a better shot at it than anything else. Neuroscience is, at best, going to give us another type of computer (made of cells) to program. Psychology is too descriptive and abstract to implement. Philosophy is important, but until you can build something, you can't do experiments and make real progress. I don't think AI will come about through some new breakthrough or equation like e=mc^2, but rather through decades of successively better products in the commercial space, combining all sorts of ad-hoc solutions to specific problems. And at some point we (or our descendents) will look back and think intelligence was never such a grandiose thing after all.
Did you look at the surf shot on the homepage? Either that picture is fake, or the camera has insane dynamic range. A normal camera could never capture both the clouds and the foreground and correctly expose both. I think it must be a composite shot. (I'm also skeptical that they could get so many surfers so close together, with two in the air at the same time, but that's another matter...)
Since we thankfully never fought a full war with the Soviet Union, we never had a chance to use the Tomcat for its intended purpose (in the Gulf War, Iraq refused to face our Tomcats, knowing its air force would be slaughtered).
I know there is truth to the deterrence argument. On the other hand, here are two observations:
1) Wouldn't you be saying the same thing if we had spent $100 BN on the F14 instead of $50 BN? Don't we have to draw the line somewhere?
2) It's not like the US was never in a war during the 34 years of the F14, actually there were quite a few: Vietnam (barely), Panama, Bosnia, the Gulf War, invasion of Afghanistan, and the Iraq War. (Any more?) So the argument that our carriers, subs, and air superiority fighters brought peace is a half-truth at best. Some weapons systems, from the Abrahms tank to the A10 Warthog and C130 airplane, seem to be workhorses that carry the load. Others, ironically some of the more expensive and highly capable(?) platforms like the F14 and Apache helicopter, cost a lot yet often seem fragile or inappropriate. I am reminded of this guy (a Democrat I might add), shrieking and red-faced, at Kerry for opposing a buildup in B-1 bombers, F14 air superiority fighers, and Apache helicopters in order to combat (of all things) terrorism. None of those exotic weapons has been worth its weight in tin in the fight against terror!
Just so you know what we actually got for our money...
The US navy at one point had at least 699 F14's in service or on order (that sounds incredibly high, is it a typo on fas.org?), at a per-copy cost of $38,000,000, plus maintainence costs with exceed procurement costs over the lifetime of each aircraft. So figure $56,000,000,000.
Now here's a little quiz for your flight-sim jockeys out there. Guess how many bogeys the F14 shot down 34 year run, in total? Guess before you read the answer.
But if it is so good, everybody will use it, and it will be infected with Joe Sixpack cooties. It's like nose and tongue piercing, it's such a stupid idea it will never catch on with the mainstream, therefore it's cool.
You argue convincingly that the story is overblown. But that could be in the interest of any of the involved parties, not just Hezbollah:
Hezbollah: We resisted the Israel/US agression and beat them where they are strongest: high technology.
Iran: Don't screw with us America
Israel: It's not our fault we didn't trounce Hezbollah, we trusted the American equipment!
US: Iran is a threat to the world and we must act quickly and decisively against them.
Secrecy/surprise are just one element of winning a conflict. Kennedy knew this when he revealed our spy plane photos of Russian missile sites in Cuba to the the world. Secrecy is also inherently incompatible with democracy. Of course in the real world some secrecy is vital. But it's not as simple as a card game.
Says who? If I want to take my phone and snap it in half and post a video of it, there's no reason I shouldn't be free to do so.
The article states: "According to some reports, Samsung says the phone must have been artificially rigged to snap." Wow, that's an air-tight case if ever I've seen one. The article continues: "The video has now been removed from YouTube. Whose agenda does this video serve?" Now I will ask an easier question, who's agenda does pulling the video serve? The take-home here is that YouTube pulled the video because Samsung didn't like it.
If youtube gives in to every narrow interest that wants something pulled, it will definitely lose its edge and some of its market share.
Especially since YouTube (and the videos on it) never presented themselves as "home movies." Some are, some aren't. It's just a big grabbag, which personally I think is fine. What I actually learned from this story is that YouTube will take down videos at request of companies (Samsung in this case) who feel they have the right to control any depiction of products they make. This in itself is a bias of the system by businesses that don't want you to see certain things.
Fine, except the doctor's union (AMA) controls how many are permitted to become doctors, and not surprisingly they like to keep the supply a bit short to keep wages high for themselves.
Exactly, it's no worse than living in a city with 4,285,000 bored policemen scrutinizing your every move for "antisocial behavior," any time you step out your front door. As long as you're of one mind with all those cops, and don't mind paying their salaries, everything will be simply marvelous.
Obviously it's not about terrorism as you assumed. Somebody saw that flaming battery picture on the Internet, and thought that would be bad to have on a plane. But effective terrorist weapon? Hardly.
Now you're just begging for somebody to brag about their laptop... I flew all the way from New Mexico to Taiwan on battery power with my T40 Thinkpad. Three 9 cell batteries, and each battery lasts for 5 hours. I gotta have my fix:)
So what about forged currency, such as the excellent fake US currency North Korea is said to manufacture? So long as you can spend them, they are functionally equivalent to those printed in the US. So would you call them "genuine" bills as well?
If it is successful, supporting 6000 users is certainly significant, whether at a university or anywhere else. I think that is the point. Most companies, as you say, are risk averse and won't know if something is better until somebody (yes, often a university) takes the plunge and shows them it is possible. In the long run, I think that makes universities more (not less) influential. Google, Oracle, FedEx... the number of companies that started as school projects or that used a university as an incubator are too numerous to count.
Maybe my observations don't count because I do work at a large company, but from where I sit, yes, we are mostly paperless. From filling out assessments of job applicants (in PeopleSoft), to expense reports, dozens of compliance training programs online, timecards, and financial reporting. And most of my projects require heavy collaboration with people all around the country through good old email and telephone. I hear about these studies "proving" that email wstes time because it distracts from other tasks, and I think "What? Email is my job!" We waste enough time on beaurocratic requirements now, I can't imagine how it was even possible in a paper-driven system. Or maybe beaurocracy just expands to fill up all the time reclaimed by productivity gains, and things weren't so systematic in the past?
Slashdot Mirror
At least "google" is the name of google, the company. Did Apple even coin the term "podcast" itself?
Personally, I think computer science has a better shot at it than anything else. Neuroscience is, at best, going to give us another type of computer (made of cells) to program. Psychology is too descriptive and abstract to implement. Philosophy is important, but until you can build something, you can't do experiments and make real progress. I don't think AI will come about through some new breakthrough or equation like e=mc^2, but rather through decades of successively better products in the commercial space, combining all sorts of ad-hoc solutions to specific problems. And at some point we (or our descendents) will look back and think intelligence was never such a grandiose thing after all.
Did you look at the surf shot on the homepage? Either that picture is fake, or the camera has insane dynamic range. A normal camera could never capture both the clouds and the foreground and correctly expose both. I think it must be a composite shot. (I'm also skeptical that they could get so many surfers so close together, with two in the air at the same time, but that's another matter...)
1) Wouldn't you be saying the same thing if we had spent $100 BN on the F14 instead of $50 BN? Don't we have to draw the line somewhere?
2) It's not like the US was never in a war during the 34 years of the F14, actually there were quite a few: Vietnam (barely), Panama, Bosnia, the Gulf War, invasion of Afghanistan, and the Iraq War. (Any more?) So the argument that our carriers, subs, and air superiority fighters brought peace is a half-truth at best. Some weapons systems, from the Abrahms tank to the A10 Warthog and C130 airplane, seem to be workhorses that carry the load. Others, ironically some of the more expensive and highly capable(?) platforms like the F14 and Apache helicopter, cost a lot yet often seem fragile or inappropriate. I am reminded of this guy (a Democrat I might add), shrieking and red-faced, at Kerry for opposing a buildup in B-1 bombers, F14 air superiority fighers, and Apache helicopters in order to combat (of all things) terrorism. None of those exotic weapons has been worth its weight in tin in the fight against terror!
The US navy at one point had at least 699 F14's in service or on order (that sounds incredibly high, is it a typo on fas.org?), at a per-copy cost of $38,000,000, plus maintainence costs with exceed procurement costs over the lifetime of each aircraft. So figure $56,000,000,000.
Now here's a little quiz for your flight-sim jockeys out there. Guess how many bogeys the F14 shot down 34 year run, in total? Guess before you read the answer.
Answer: 4 jets and 1 helicopter.
I wouldn't be too quick to judge China's scientific community based on a translation of a one-line project synopsis by a buearocrat.
It is just Microsoft stealing bragging rights from Sony. One less way for Sony to argue the PS3 is worth the high price.
We know they're at least as good as whatever we've told/given them, which may be quite a lot.
If youtube gives in to every narrow interest that wants something pulled, it will definitely lose its edge and some of its market share.
Especially since YouTube (and the videos on it) never presented themselves as "home movies." Some are, some aren't. It's just a big grabbag, which personally I think is fine. What I actually learned from this story is that YouTube will take down videos at request of companies (Samsung in this case) who feel they have the right to control any depiction of products they make. This in itself is a bias of the system by businesses that don't want you to see certain things.
Fine, except the doctor's union (AMA) controls how many are permitted to become doctors, and not surprisingly they like to keep the supply a bit short to keep wages high for themselves.
Exactly, it's no worse than living in a city with 4,285,000 bored policemen scrutinizing your every move for "antisocial behavior," any time you step out your front door. As long as you're of one mind with all those cops, and don't mind paying their salaries, everything will be simply marvelous.
I have to wonder how many of those top passwords were just the same person repeatedly trying without success to get into a fake site?
Wouldn't it would be easier simply to change the rules at the roulette table so you can't place bets after the ball is in play?
Obviously it's not about terrorism as you assumed. Somebody saw that flaming battery picture on the Internet, and thought that would be bad to have on a plane. But effective terrorist weapon? Hardly.
Now you're just begging for somebody to brag about their laptop... I flew all the way from New Mexico to Taiwan on battery power with my T40 Thinkpad. Three 9 cell batteries, and each battery lasts for 5 hours. I gotta have my fix :)
So what about forged currency, such as the excellent fake US currency North Korea is said to manufacture? So long as you can spend them, they are functionally equivalent to those printed in the US. So would you call them "genuine" bills as well?
If it is successful, supporting 6000 users is certainly significant, whether at a university or anywhere else. I think that is the point. Most companies, as you say, are risk averse and won't know if something is better until somebody (yes, often a university) takes the plunge and shows them it is possible. In the long run, I think that makes universities more (not less) influential. Google, Oracle, FedEx... the number of companies that started as school projects or that used a university as an incubator are too numerous to count.
Actually I really learned to program on an HP calculator. I had previously done some C, but the simple metaphor of the stack was alluring.
Maybe my observations don't count because I do work at a large company, but from where I sit, yes, we are mostly paperless. From filling out assessments of job applicants (in PeopleSoft), to expense reports, dozens of compliance training programs online, timecards, and financial reporting. And most of my projects require heavy collaboration with people all around the country through good old email and telephone. I hear about these studies "proving" that email wstes time because it distracts from other tasks, and I think "What? Email is my job!" We waste enough time on beaurocratic requirements now, I can't imagine how it was even possible in a paper-driven system. Or maybe beaurocracy just expands to fill up all the time reclaimed by productivity gains, and things weren't so systematic in the past?