This reminds me of the story of Magic Alex from the Beatles Anthology. He was an electronics geek friend of the band back when they were burning through money via their company, Apple that designed a revolutionary 16 track recording studio for the band in late 1968. The control room contained 16 little speakers, one for each track. It was a travesty in every other send of electrical and audio engineering, based on claims from the EMI audio engineers who patiently waited for their chance to step back in restore order once Alex was fired.
I think the parent of your reply makes a good point. How many of you would be willing to pay, and how much, to see a projection of a 2D in SD resolution in the theatre and at what point is it no longer worth it to see it before it makes its way to home viewing? I think (hope) the studios are looking for increases in technical innovation and picture quality to lure the home theatre crowds into the cinema, rather than a reason to charge premium prices. I go to the cinema for a better experience than I can get at home. I'm therefore, much more selective about which movies I pay to attend. 3D is very subjective, but I'd rather they pushed the quality envelope across the board to justify their current price chart than use a variety of gimmicks to extract even higher prices.
Agreed! A more meaningful metric would be total cost and gross and net revenue per acre, sustainable people and/or livestock per acre, and (more difficult) total quality of produce (taste and nutritional value). These need to be considered over a long-term (years, decades) to determine whether it is sustainable as far as long-term soil condition, water retention, and resistance to pests, weather and precipitation patterns.
If you consider the total cost/net income of any agricultural practice, "conventional" industrial agriculture will lose, and badly. I believe permaculture-based practices will come out on top. If nothing else, based on the real-life examples of one man (and several others who have followed along a similar path).
Sepp Holzer is The Man, when it comes to agriculture. I'm willing to bet he produces more diversity, quality and quantity per acre on his 45 hectare farm in the Austian Alps ( at 1100 to 1500 meters above sea level!) than any other plot on earth, on what used to be a sterile and acidic pine forest. All ON HIS OWN, without any government subsidies. On the contrary, he has spent his adult life fighting for his way against ignorant civil servants and self-serving "Large Ag" lobbyists who are determined to maintain the status quo. His farm has brought him wealth, fetching the highest prices for the quality and rarity of his product and livestock, but he's more in demand these days as a lecturer and to help with international projects to undo the devastation caused by modern industrial agricultural practices.
by lobbyists claiming to be fighting in the interests of "greener" energy.
Bulb manufacturers weren't happy with profits from incandescents, so they lobbied to have them banned in favour of "longer lasting and greener" CFLs. Never mind the mercury, or the fact that they give off crappy light, or the fact that they don't last nearly as long as claimed (even under ideal conditions, such as 24/7 operation), or the fact that they cost a shit-tonne more, even with heavy subsidies. Oh, and Home Depot and other stores claim to discard them in a safe manner. I've been told by folks who work there that they dump them with the rest of the garbage - they just want your ass in their store to buy more stuff.
In case you haven't learned the lessons from the CFL debacle, have a look at Australia, which is about 5 yrs ahead of North America in this sham. They brought in CFLs, heavily subsidized to the point where they were popular enough to be a real threat the incandescents. Then the manufacturers lobbied to have incandescents banned, as inefficient and harmful to the environment (my ass). Once this happened, the subsidies were dropped. Have a look at the prices of a CFL bulb now: http://www.shopbot.com.au/cfl-light/price/australia/38031
Maybe LEDs will be better in some way, but paint me a skeptic. Oh, and here's an incandescent light bulb that has been in continuous operation for 110 yrs. I wonder what they paid for it. http://www.centennialbulb.org/
I had a friend who almost triggered a bomb threat in high school when his science experiment, consisting of a video game controller fashioned from a football helmet, mercury switches and lots of wires, was found during a routine locker inspection.
Agreed, Google the following pioneers in this field and how they are promoting SUSTAINABLE agriculture
Bill Mollison
Geoff Lawton
David Holmgren
Sepp Holzer
Masanobu Fukuoka
I do not have a specialized education or interest in the field of language design, but I agree with the premise that they are all abstractions over the implementation language, which is typically a CPU's micro-code.
Given this, what I fail to understand is why some languages (I'm looking at you, C++) attempt to be the all-purpose language for all (or most) programming paradigms (imperative, generic, procedural, OO). This is sold as a benefit, but I'm not convinced. Why not use the best tool for a given job and design a language that abstracts one paradigm well and concisely. Implement interoperable components so you can mix and match the best of each breed.
Current industrial agriculture practices are not sustainable for many reasons, irrigation being a significant one. It depletes water and soil quality. There are alternatives. Do a search on Sepp Holzer, Bill Mollison, Geoff Lawton, and hugelkulture for a start.
I'll take sides based more on their underlying motives.
Those that argue against global warming tend to have an interest in capitalizing on the exploitation of our environment for their own benefit while those who voice their concerns over the impact of industry to the environment tend to have an interest in the welfare of the rest of the planet.
I'm not saying it's the cause of CCD, but trucking bees across the continent and working them year round doesn't mimic their natural cycles, not to mention the heavy dependence on fossil fuels for all the transportation. Just my gut feeling, but I get the sense we're pushing things a bit too far here.
Ballmer often spews idiotic statements. It's a fairly reliable indicator that he may in fact be an idiot.
The "cheap phone" remark suggests Microsoft cannot compete in the mobile device arena and are desperately attempting to place themselves in the Apple iPhone class and price point. Good luck with that.
Where are the open source ergonomic experts, the usability analysts, the aesthetic artists? Who ever does usability studies, or consistency between apps?
Until the engineers get a clue, open source projects will never be more than a closet of hobbyist projects.
Making good software is more than robust coding.
A damn good question. Why do open source projects attract ONLY coders? Why is this the fault of the engineers?
Who are they hiring as UI designers these days?
on
The Next Firefox UI
·
· Score: 2
FPS level designers or something? Finding common functions requires the equivalent of an epic campaign with every release.
I can't blame my parents for being completely lost these days. I have a hard time helping them out myself and wonder what the hell happened to common sense and usability.
Either Sony is in gross violation of PCI or the credibility of the agency who certified them is in serious jeapardy.
Both parties have some explaining to do.
In the meantime, I should hope any credit agency takes serious notice and revokes any authorization for Sony to perform online payment processing until they can provide compliance.
Remote stores of renewable energy is an ideal solution, but what are the possibilities in space?
Solar energy is plentiful, at least within the inner planets. Conversion to electricity via solar panels is one possibility, but it seems energy storage is the primary issue. What forms of storage (other than chemical batteries which are expensive due to their weight and relatively short lifespan) are possible without depending on elements that are not readily available in space?
Isn't it about time we committed to a plan to install at least one orbiting observatory satellite for each of the major bodies within our solar system?
If we aren't ready to commit to further manned missions, then lets get our remote eyes and ears out there on a permanent basis, rather than the once-in-a-generation flyby mission.
How far would a probe with similar mass but equipped to expend it's energy on thrust at a similar rate make it over a similar period of time? I.e. with even a modest force of acceleration, what would be the current velocity and distance, relative to our sun?
And you've only touched on the 5% of Canada within 50 miles of the U.S. border, though it does tend to get more hostile as you venture north - or south, for that matter:)
Land isn't the limiting resource on Earth, however. If all we needed was a large cold rock to infest, the moon is much closer.
Slashdot Mirror
I could discover sustainable cold fusion in as little as 5 years. Of course, there is always the chance it may take me longer, or forever.
Ludicrous Speed has been deprecated in favour of Absurdicous Speed.
This reminds me of the story of Magic Alex from the Beatles Anthology. He was an electronics geek friend of the band back when they were burning through money via their company, Apple that designed a revolutionary 16 track recording studio for the band in late 1968. The control room contained 16 little speakers, one for each track. It was a travesty in every other send of electrical and audio engineering, based on claims from the EMI audio engineers who patiently waited for their chance to step back in restore order once Alex was fired.
If it's going to happen, I'd give better odds to Jackson and The Hobbit series than, say, the latest Adam Sandler flick as the flagship for change.
I think the parent of your reply makes a good point. How many of you would be willing to pay, and how much, to see a projection of a 2D in SD resolution in the theatre and at what point is it no longer worth it to see it before it makes its way to home viewing?
I think (hope) the studios are looking for increases in technical innovation and picture quality to lure the home theatre crowds into the cinema, rather than a reason to charge premium prices. I go to the cinema for a better experience than I can get at home. I'm therefore, much more selective about which movies I pay to attend. 3D is very subjective, but I'd rather they pushed the quality envelope across the board to justify their current price chart than use a variety of gimmicks to extract even higher prices.
Together, nothing will get done.
Agreed! A more meaningful metric would be total cost and gross and net revenue per acre, sustainable people and/or livestock per acre, and (more difficult) total quality of produce (taste and nutritional value). These need to be considered over a long-term (years, decades) to determine whether it is sustainable as far as long-term soil condition, water retention, and resistance to pests, weather and precipitation patterns.
If you consider the total cost/net income of any agricultural practice, "conventional" industrial agriculture will lose, and badly. I believe permaculture-based practices will come out on top. If nothing else, based on the real-life examples of one man (and several others who have followed along a similar path).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepp_Holzer
Sepp Holzer is The Man, when it comes to agriculture. I'm willing to bet he produces more diversity, quality and quantity per acre on his 45 hectare farm in the Austian Alps ( at 1100 to 1500 meters above sea level!) than any other plot on earth, on what used to be a sterile and acidic pine forest. All ON HIS OWN, without any government subsidies. On the contrary, he has spent his adult life fighting for his way against ignorant civil servants and self-serving "Large Ag" lobbyists who are determined to maintain the status quo. His farm has brought him wealth, fetching the highest prices for the quality and rarity of his product and livestock, but he's more in demand these days as a lecturer and to help with international projects to undo the devastation caused by modern industrial agricultural practices.
Maybe LEDs will be better in some way, but paint me a skeptic. Oh, and here's an incandescent light bulb that has been in continuous operation for 110 yrs. I wonder what they paid for it. http://www.centennialbulb.org/
I had a friend who almost triggered a bomb threat in high school when his science experiment, consisting of a video game controller fashioned from a football helmet, mercury switches and lots of wires, was found during a routine locker inspection.
Agreed, Google the following pioneers in this field and how they are promoting SUSTAINABLE agriculture Bill Mollison Geoff Lawton David Holmgren Sepp Holzer Masanobu Fukuoka
Are they also asking to log into my bank accounts so they can monitor my financial status and transaction history?
I do not have a specialized education or interest in the field of language design, but I agree with the premise that they are all abstractions over the implementation language, which is typically a CPU's micro-code. Given this, what I fail to understand is why some languages (I'm looking at you, C++) attempt to be the all-purpose language for all (or most) programming paradigms (imperative, generic, procedural, OO). This is sold as a benefit, but I'm not convinced. Why not use the best tool for a given job and design a language that abstracts one paradigm well and concisely. Implement interoperable components so you can mix and match the best of each breed.
Current industrial agriculture practices are not sustainable for many reasons, irrigation being a significant one. It depletes water and soil quality. There are alternatives. Do a search on Sepp Holzer, Bill Mollison, Geoff Lawton, and hugelkulture for a start.
I'll take sides based more on their underlying motives. Those that argue against global warming tend to have an interest in capitalizing on the exploitation of our environment for their own benefit while those who voice their concerns over the impact of industry to the environment tend to have an interest in the welfare of the rest of the planet.
I'm not saying it's the cause of CCD, but trucking bees across the continent and working them year round doesn't mimic their natural cycles, not to mention the heavy dependence on fossil fuels for all the transportation. Just my gut feeling, but I get the sense we're pushing things a bit too far here.
Ballmer often spews idiotic statements. It's a fairly reliable indicator that he may in fact be an idiot. The "cheap phone" remark suggests Microsoft cannot compete in the mobile device arena and are desperately attempting to place themselves in the Apple iPhone class and price point. Good luck with that.
Where are the open source ergonomic experts, the usability analysts, the aesthetic artists? Who ever does usability studies, or consistency between apps?
Until the engineers get a clue, open source projects will never be more than a closet of hobbyist projects.
Making good software is more than robust coding.
A damn good question. Why do open source projects attract ONLY coders? Why is this the fault of the engineers?
FPS level designers or something? Finding common functions requires the equivalent of an epic campaign with every release. I can't blame my parents for being completely lost these days. I have a hard time helping them out myself and wonder what the hell happened to common sense and usability.
Either Sony is in gross violation of PCI or the credibility of the agency who certified them is in serious jeapardy. Both parties have some explaining to do. In the meantime, I should hope any credit agency takes serious notice and revokes any authorization for Sony to perform online payment processing until they can provide compliance.
Remote stores of renewable energy is an ideal solution, but what are the possibilities in space? Solar energy is plentiful, at least within the inner planets. Conversion to electricity via solar panels is one possibility, but it seems energy storage is the primary issue. What forms of storage (other than chemical batteries which are expensive due to their weight and relatively short lifespan) are possible without depending on elements that are not readily available in space?
Isn't it about time we committed to a plan to install at least one orbiting observatory satellite for each of the major bodies within our solar system? If we aren't ready to commit to further manned missions, then lets get our remote eyes and ears out there on a permanent basis, rather than the once-in-a-generation flyby mission.
How far would a probe with similar mass but equipped to expend it's energy on thrust at a similar rate make it over a similar period of time? I.e. with even a modest force of acceleration, what would be the current velocity and distance, relative to our sun?
Superman!
And you've only touched on the 5% of Canada within 50 miles of the U.S. border, though it does tend to get more hostile as you venture north - or south, for that matter :)
Land isn't the limiting resource on Earth, however. If all we needed was a large cold rock to infest, the moon is much closer.