Absolutely we should be working on fusion. We already are, and there are a number of competing approaches (laser induced, magnetic containment "sun in a bottle", high current discharge methods etc).
We spent more money on ringtones in 2010 in just the UK than we spent on fusion power research, despite having the JET experiment running in Oxfordshire.
Fusion eventually will become a viable power source. The JET has shown that it is possible to build a net-power-positive reactor, with future work going into the design and operation of something that may eventually become a commercial power plant, especially research into materials that can withstand high neutron bombardment for extended periods.
My own focus is on water splitting, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see further work into pure electric solutions, or improved bio fuels, or more efficient versions of the syngas process.
We sent three hydrogen fuel cells to the moon (per trip) and they worked just fine. That was 40 years ago. They were fed with hydrogen and oxygen stored cryogenically which solved many of the energy density problems but are impractical for modern widespread use, but we are not Star Trek Warp Drive levels of distance away from creating something that will work for the current generation of humanity.
I should probably let you know that this is my current research area - I'm a chemist working with other chemists on replicating plant [the green growing kind] catalytic cycles, on using metal organic frameworks for H2 storage, and various other things relating to energy production and storage, so take my answers with whatever bias you feel is appropriate.
No, we have nothing at commercial scale yet, in the same way that we don't have a handle on nitrogen fixing (again, something that plants do at STP all the time, but that we do with the Haber Process currently). There are no plants (the green growing kind) producing hydrogen commercially either because that's not what they do - they produce protons at the water reduction site to drive a proton gradient that is a key step in photosynthesis. The oxygen is a waste product of this process that uses electrons that have been pushed up in energy by the sun. What we want to do is recombine those two protons, so it's not just a case of planting a bunch of green stuff under a vent and sucking the gas up.
It's all transition metal chemistry and producing compounds that act as metal centres that mimic those found in plant enzymes. It's just very difficult to determine the structure of those sites because XRD and other techniques are not very good for looking at them. We're getting better though - just last year we identified a carbon atom present in a key location in the N2 fixing site that we couldn't see before that changes certain things about how we think about the site's mode of operation. The water site is a little more understood, but it has a geometry that is tricky to replicate (and we still don't want to reproduce its function in exactly the same way).
To say it will "likely never" make it past the benchtop is just armchair quarterbacking of the most defeatist nature. This sort of defeatist and dismissive handwaving from people without vision was heard by the guys who invented the steam locomotive. "Smooth wheels on smooth rails! You must surely jest, sir! That'll never take off! It will never proceed beyond the small scale prototype!"
"Douchey", but at least intelligent. I get called a douche all the time by various people; often overly passionate devotees of a software platform that they feel is anathema to the one I selected. That I don't mind. I never get called an idiot for my lack of command of first grade English though.
We're working on the hydrogen production and storage issues.
Plants crack water at room temperature and pressure all day every day (well, for half the day, every day) and we're getting closer to being able to replicate that catalytic cycle.
The storage problem is also being worked on with new materials to increase the energy density of H2 systems and to address the leaking.
Hydrogen is not dead yet, it just has issues to solve... much like battery electric (which we're also obviously working on).
No, you really don't. Your total lack of care with second grade English on a discussion forum in a post aimed to poke fun at people for being "retards" clearly demonstrates that.
It's never too late to learn how to use the language though. When you do, you'll look less like a high school dropout and your posts will look less stupid.
Actually he got banned for breaking the store terms and conditions, not for discovering a security hole.
The headline is just linkbait - Apple does not hate people who discover security holes in its software, it's quite the opposite. They take time to mention and thank people who find specific bugs in their security update notes and have been doing for many years when they close that particular hole.
The UK spends approximately 8% of it's GDP per capita on healthcare. The US is double that, despite the supposedly "superior" system.
Trying to claim that you are subsidising the entire world's healthcare due to being the "world police" (America, Fuck Yeah!) is the most hilariously stupid thing I have ever heard.
You think the UK is protected from whatever it is you think the US military supposedly protects it from? Terrorism I guess? This is not our first go around the block with terrorism, both domestic and international. Nice to see the US military "protecting" us so effectively from the IRA in the 70s, 80s and 90s, or from the terrorist bombs in London on 7/7. Mmmm. Real good job you did there.
Man, you're funny. The presence of US bases in the UK does not appreciably change the cost of our national defence because the US military *does not do that anyway*. The fact that you think the presence of a few token bomber bases and locations for eavesdropping equipment acts as some sort of deterrent that allows us to skimp on defence spending... well... I have a bridge to sell you.
I was just being facetious - I admit this issue isn't as big as the story is making out (although any 0 day exploit is serious). I was just bringing up a counter point to the claim that the issue didn't matter because Jelly Bean fixes it, when only a couple of weeks ago slashdot ran a story about how the bulk of Android users are at least one version behind, and in some cases stuck there for good (unless they root their phone).
Right, if grandma has a google account or a gmail account.
If she has an iOS device or a Mac she simply clicks "FaceTime" on her daughter's contact info.
I've used a couple of Android phones (a Galaxy Ace, an S2 and some ZTE atrocity) and they are easy to use... for those who didn't find video chatting with one of the already-established protocols difficult.
Put it this way; I've had AIM, gmail/google talk, skype and others pretty much since they were available (used to have ICQ too, but I lost that sometime in late 99). I've been using the various video features on them since it was feasible - mainly via AIM, since the bulk of my contacts were on there from the old days.
Since the rise of Android and iOS the number of new people contacting me via video chat via Android? Zero. The number using FaceTime? About 5 - my immediate family and friends who are not quite tech savvy enough to hunt down and set up video chatting themselves. Apple made it *dead simple* to use with virtually zero setup and thus people are using it.
FaceTime is different to those other methods though, since it just works (assuming you have a capable connection).
So does Google chat and it has for a loong time. On my phone, on my laptop, or where ever, a green video camera icon shows up next to a contacts name when they are capable of using video chat. You click it to make a video call. It just works and it works well, cellular, wireless, it doesn't matter.
Where does my grandma click on that in her AOL email to make that work?
Accounts may be free, but the very nature of slashdot lends permanence to comments you make while using it since you cannot delete or edit anything you post. Thus, having an account - even a free one that takes no effort to get - does lend credibility to someone who uses it regularly since it gives you a posting history. A history that the AC trolls seem to put a lot of emphasis on when accusations of shilling or "digging for dirt" to look for patterns of bias.
Thus, I'm only judging them by the "standards" they hold me to, so if you post AC, your comments are worthless except under very specific circumstances where an AC comment is justified, such as protecting a whistleblower or something like that.
FaceTime is different to those other methods though, since it just works (assuming you have a capable connection).
It's trivial for most tech-savvy people to set up and use video chatting software - like you say, it's hardly new. What Apple did with FaceTime was make it easy for your grandma to be able to video call her grandkids without having to worry about installing a webcam, or making sure the microphone works and is selected as the right input, or have to download an app for her tablet/phone and make an account.
All of those things are relatively trivial (especially if you walk her through them on the phone), but it can't compare to selecting your daughter's name in your contacts and tapping "FaceTime".
Like many of Apple's selling points, you can drop the "U" from the term "USP" since they are hardly unique - they just work well with minimal fuss.
I will take them to task for not opening the FaceTime protocol up though. Jobs announced on stage during the demo that they were running it as a beta for that time being and would then open it up for third parties later (with the release of Lion, which was when the beta ended). As it stands now you can only FaceTime between iOS devices and any Mac running Lion or Mountain Lion (or a Mac running Snow Leopard if you pay $0.99 to get the app from the store).
I wonder about this too. That was mentioned way back in the Jobs era when he demoed FaceTime on stage. So far there haven't been any further mentions about them opening it up. It's just H.264 with a private API, so it would hardly be a stretch for others to implement it assuming Apple did open up said API.
I was talking from the point of view of people who already have an iPhone. They already have "a nice bit of kit that works extremely well at what it does". There is very little reason to upgrade to the new version. The best reason someone has given so far is for a better camera.
For people who actually care about picture quality though, I think even the cheapest point and shoot cameras do things better, from my own experience..
I'm not sure they really do - the iPhone's camera (in the 4 and above) is actually pretty good. Its major weakness is a limited aperture, but it serves as an excellent point and shoot during the day. I just got back from Niagara Falls and the photos taken on my friend's iPhone 4 are at least as good and better in many cases than the point and shoot Canon I had with me (3x optical, 5 MP sensor).
My friend and I remarked that the point and shoot makers were laughing at Kodak when digital took over after we saw an old, faded, orange umbrella with "Kodak photo products" on it stashed behind one of the food stands near the falls, only to find smartphone makers now doing the same thing to them. In the 3 days I spent there, I saw only a few point and shoot cameras in the hands of the tourists. Either people were using smartphones (of all types), tablets (in a few cases, which always looks hilarious) or they were using a DSLR. The point and shoot is losing its niche.
Although, saying that, the iPhone 5 is an improvement over the 4S, although I will wager many of the people upgrading are doing so from older phones, since the US pre-orders (at least on AT&T) were restricted to those with a current contract eligible for an upgrade. Given then the 4S launched a year ago, many 4S users are still halfway through their contracts.
From anecdotal evidence (I know, I know), the people who have pre-ordered the 5 in my circle of friends are upgrading from 4's and 3GS's.
I have not ordered one - I am the beneficiary of a hand-me-down iPhone 4 to replace my aging 3GS. Nothing better than free (and a grandfathered-in unlimited data and texts contract for £20 per month).
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely we should be working on fusion. We already are, and there are a number of competing approaches (laser induced, magnetic containment "sun in a bottle", high current discharge methods etc).
We spent more money on ringtones in 2010 in just the UK than we spent on fusion power research, despite having the JET experiment running in Oxfordshire.
Fusion eventually will become a viable power source. The JET has shown that it is possible to build a net-power-positive reactor, with future work going into the design and operation of something that may eventually become a commercial power plant, especially research into materials that can withstand high neutron bombardment for extended periods.
My own focus is on water splitting, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see further work into pure electric solutions, or improved bio fuels, or more efficient versions of the syngas process.
We sent three hydrogen fuel cells to the moon (per trip) and they worked just fine. That was 40 years ago. They were fed with hydrogen and oxygen stored cryogenically which solved many of the energy density problems but are impractical for modern widespread use, but we are not Star Trek Warp Drive levels of distance away from creating something that will work for the current generation of humanity.
I should probably let you know that this is my current research area - I'm a chemist working with other chemists on replicating plant [the green growing kind] catalytic cycles, on using metal organic frameworks for H2 storage, and various other things relating to energy production and storage, so take my answers with whatever bias you feel is appropriate.
No, we have nothing at commercial scale yet, in the same way that we don't have a handle on nitrogen fixing (again, something that plants do at STP all the time, but that we do with the Haber Process currently). There are no plants (the green growing kind) producing hydrogen commercially either because that's not what they do - they produce protons at the water reduction site to drive a proton gradient that is a key step in photosynthesis. The oxygen is a waste product of this process that uses electrons that have been pushed up in energy by the sun. What we want to do is recombine those two protons, so it's not just a case of planting a bunch of green stuff under a vent and sucking the gas up.
It's all transition metal chemistry and producing compounds that act as metal centres that mimic those found in plant enzymes. It's just very difficult to determine the structure of those sites because XRD and other techniques are not very good for looking at them. We're getting better though - just last year we identified a carbon atom present in a key location in the N2 fixing site that we couldn't see before that changes certain things about how we think about the site's mode of operation. The water site is a little more understood, but it has a geometry that is tricky to replicate (and we still don't want to reproduce its function in exactly the same way).
To say it will "likely never" make it past the benchtop is just armchair quarterbacking of the most defeatist nature. This sort of defeatist and dismissive handwaving from people without vision was heard by the guys who invented the steam locomotive. "Smooth wheels on smooth rails! You must surely jest, sir! That'll never take off! It will never proceed beyond the small scale prototype!"
"Douchey", but at least intelligent. I get called a douche all the time by various people; often overly passionate devotees of a software platform that they feel is anathema to the one I selected. That I don't mind. I never get called an idiot for my lack of command of first grade English though.
Everyone who uses a computer with a network interface uses a MAC.
We're working on the hydrogen production and storage issues.
Plants crack water at room temperature and pressure all day every day (well, for half the day, every day) and we're getting closer to being able to replicate that catalytic cycle.
The storage problem is also being worked on with new materials to increase the energy density of H2 systems and to address the leaking.
Hydrogen is not dead yet, it just has issues to solve... much like battery electric (which we're also obviously working on).
No, you really don't. Your total lack of care with second grade English on a discussion forum in a post aimed to poke fun at people for being "retards" clearly demonstrates that.
It's never too late to learn how to use the language though. When you do, you'll look less like a high school dropout and your posts will look less stupid.
*Then
*Apple
*won't
*experience
*.
Are you trying to type like these supposed "retard" Apple users? If so, expertly trolled sir. If not, I'm so sorry for your carer.
You must be new here.
Well, they did get free copies of OS X and they do get thanked in security release notes.
Maybe they should submit resumes if they want to be paid though.
You forgot to log in.
Actually he got banned for breaking the store terms and conditions, not for discovering a security hole.
The headline is just linkbait - Apple does not hate people who discover security holes in its software, it's quite the opposite. They take time to mention and thank people who find specific bugs in their security update notes and have been doing for many years when they close that particular hole.
The UK spends approximately 8% of it's GDP per capita on healthcare. The US is double that, despite the supposedly "superior" system.
Trying to claim that you are subsidising the entire world's healthcare due to being the "world police" (America, Fuck Yeah!) is the most hilariously stupid thing I have ever heard.
You think the UK is protected from whatever it is you think the US military supposedly protects it from? Terrorism I guess? This is not our first go around the block with terrorism, both domestic and international. Nice to see the US military "protecting" us so effectively from the IRA in the 70s, 80s and 90s, or from the terrorist bombs in London on 7/7. Mmmm. Real good job you did there.
Man, you're funny. The presence of US bases in the UK does not appreciably change the cost of our national defence because the US military *does not do that anyway*. The fact that you think the presence of a few token bomber bases and locations for eavesdropping equipment acts as some sort of deterrent that allows us to skimp on defence spending... well... I have a bridge to sell you.
It worked just fine for me before Obamacare.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh, wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder.
It still isn't quite there post-obamacare, but it's a start.
What you had pre-obamacare could never, ever, ever be described as "work[ing] just fine".
I was just being facetious - I admit this issue isn't as big as the story is making out (although any 0 day exploit is serious). I was just bringing up a counter point to the claim that the issue didn't matter because Jelly Bean fixes it, when only a couple of weeks ago slashdot ran a story about how the bulk of Android users are at least one version behind, and in some cases stuck there for good (unless they root their phone).
Well based on the article it sounds like its already fixed in the current version of Android. So not much to focus on I suppose?
The 2% of Android users that have the current version are safe then!
Right, if grandma has a google account or a gmail account.
If she has an iOS device or a Mac she simply clicks "FaceTime" on her daughter's contact info.
I've used a couple of Android phones (a Galaxy Ace, an S2 and some ZTE atrocity) and they are easy to use... for those who didn't find video chatting with one of the already-established protocols difficult.
Put it this way; I've had AIM, gmail/google talk, skype and others pretty much since they were available (used to have ICQ too, but I lost that sometime in late 99). I've been using the various video features on them since it was feasible - mainly via AIM, since the bulk of my contacts were on there from the old days.
Since the rise of Android and iOS the number of new people contacting me via video chat via Android? Zero. The number using FaceTime? About 5 - my immediate family and friends who are not quite tech savvy enough to hunt down and set up video chatting themselves. Apple made it *dead simple* to use with virtually zero setup and thus people are using it.
FaceTime is different to those other methods though, since it just works (assuming you have a capable connection).
So does Google chat and it has for a loong time. On my phone, on my laptop, or where ever, a green video camera icon shows up next to a contacts name when they are capable of using video chat. You click it to make a video call. It just works and it works well, cellular, wireless, it doesn't matter.
Where does my grandma click on that in her AOL email to make that work?
Accounts may be free, but the very nature of slashdot lends permanence to comments you make while using it since you cannot delete or edit anything you post. Thus, having an account - even a free one that takes no effort to get - does lend credibility to someone who uses it regularly since it gives you a posting history. A history that the AC trolls seem to put a lot of emphasis on when accusations of shilling or "digging for dirt" to look for patterns of bias.
Thus, I'm only judging them by the "standards" they hold me to, so if you post AC, your comments are worthless except under very specific circumstances where an AC comment is justified, such as protecting a whistleblower or something like that.
FaceTime is different to those other methods though, since it just works (assuming you have a capable connection).
It's trivial for most tech-savvy people to set up and use video chatting software - like you say, it's hardly new. What Apple did with FaceTime was make it easy for your grandma to be able to video call her grandkids without having to worry about installing a webcam, or making sure the microphone works and is selected as the right input, or have to download an app for her tablet/phone and make an account.
All of those things are relatively trivial (especially if you walk her through them on the phone), but it can't compare to selecting your daughter's name in your contacts and tapping "FaceTime".
Like many of Apple's selling points, you can drop the "U" from the term "USP" since they are hardly unique - they just work well with minimal fuss.
I will take them to task for not opening the FaceTime protocol up though. Jobs announced on stage during the demo that they were running it as a beta for that time being and would then open it up for third parties later (with the release of Lion, which was when the beta ended). As it stands now you can only FaceTime between iOS devices and any Mac running Lion or Mountain Lion (or a Mac running Snow Leopard if you pay $0.99 to get the app from the store).
I wonder about this too. That was mentioned way back in the Jobs era when he demoed FaceTime on stage. So far there haven't been any further mentions about them opening it up. It's just H.264 with a private API, so it would hardly be a stretch for others to implement it assuming Apple did open up said API.
The Cray 2 was a child's toy?
I guess that kid grew up to be a programmer or something.
Same price as an unlocked Galaxy SIII.
It's weird - it's like really small electronic devices with miniature computers inside and a large touch screen are expensive to make or something.
Who knew?!
Or maybe Samsung is copying the iPhone's price? *ducks*
I was talking from the point of view of people who already have an iPhone. They already have "a nice bit of kit that works extremely well at what it does". There is very little reason to upgrade to the new version. The best reason someone has given so far is for a better camera.
For people who actually care about picture quality though, I think even the cheapest point and shoot cameras do things better, from my own experience..
I'm not sure they really do - the iPhone's camera (in the 4 and above) is actually pretty good. Its major weakness is a limited aperture, but it serves as an excellent point and shoot during the day. I just got back from Niagara Falls and the photos taken on my friend's iPhone 4 are at least as good and better in many cases than the point and shoot Canon I had with me (3x optical, 5 MP sensor).
My friend and I remarked that the point and shoot makers were laughing at Kodak when digital took over after we saw an old, faded, orange umbrella with "Kodak photo products" on it stashed behind one of the food stands near the falls, only to find smartphone makers now doing the same thing to them. In the 3 days I spent there, I saw only a few point and shoot cameras in the hands of the tourists. Either people were using smartphones (of all types), tablets (in a few cases, which always looks hilarious) or they were using a DSLR. The point and shoot is losing its niche.
You think iPhone users are embarrassed that their phones lag in spec to some top level Android phones?
Do you actually know any iPhone users?
"Looking at the specs"...
The iPhone is not for you.
Although, saying that, the iPhone 5 is an improvement over the 4S, although I will wager many of the people upgrading are doing so from older phones, since the US pre-orders (at least on AT&T) were restricted to those with a current contract eligible for an upgrade. Given then the 4S launched a year ago, many 4S users are still halfway through their contracts.
From anecdotal evidence (I know, I know), the people who have pre-ordered the 5 in my circle of friends are upgrading from 4's and 3GS's.
I have not ordered one - I am the beneficiary of a hand-me-down iPhone 4 to replace my aging 3GS. Nothing better than free (and a grandfathered-in unlimited data and texts contract for £20 per month).