As "afaik_ianal" (918433) states, it's easy to calculate the actual cost/benefit of solar, compared to doing the same for coal. Further, one should factor in not only PV/turbine life time and energy efficiency, but also the energy required to build the power plant in the first place and then to bring the fuel to the plant. None of these latter categories earn any coal plants any points, though the life time and efficiency can indeed be improved upon.
In that light, it's really not a bad thing to have plants of a relatively short life span, as that ensures plants will be replaced ---by presumably improved technology--- in the foreseeable future. This has to be better than keeping old and inefficient plants running. Check out the split ratios of the black and grey paths in the image below: https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/USEnFlow02-exaj.gif
There's not really any reason to *not* replace plants as fast as we can, and patch up efficiency as technology allows. Every moment delayed is a needless waste of energy.
[...]I'm not interested in entrusting my data (much less my secrets) to $RANDOM_CORPORATION, no matter how convenient that may make things. [...] That's basically what I said in another post in this thread, "allow me to type in the credentials to *my very own* FTP server, tenjewberrymuds". Glad to know I'm not alone.
Incidentally, I had quite the head-to-head with my brother who's the "family webmaster", because he wants to change from Dreamhost to GMail, and I opposed having my data on Google's servers. Dreamhost I trust (and besides, my email must arrive *somewhere*); Google I don't.
Unix was there for the local network 15 years ago. You would walk up to any terminal and could log in with all your settings, preferences intact [...] but the general internet had way to much lag for X applications to run that way. I'm not talking about running apps remotely, which is basically a thin client with or without X-the-windowing-system; when I said X-on-a-stick I meant X as in whatever-app-you-would-be-running ("the X that is seen is not the true X", and all that). Hmm, imprecise wording on my part.
What I am talking about is remote storage between sessions. While logged in your apps would run on the local workstation, only reading your profile from your remote store when logging in, and writing changes back when logging out.
MSFT has done one good thing though, they brought down the cost of the hardware so everyone can afford some. Sorry, but you got that wrong, mate. Columbia Data Products did that, when they clean-room cloned the IBM PC. MS just got the benefit of a wildly expanding market... I see your point, though.
You need to learn Finnish, which has only one word for "(s)he". The finns I know all speak weird English as a consequence, but that's another matter: Finn: She's looking for you. Me: Who is? Finn: Klinger is. Me: O_o I thought Klinger was a... nevermind.
Also, in Sweden, if you ask somebody the time, (s)he'll say "She's 11:37."
I think anything that can make a computer workstation as generic as a television is a good idea; the challenge lies in handling the user data/settings. If everything was online and online again, you would not need X-on-a-stick but only to log in to your online profile from any workstation.
Hm, imagine that. Having a workstation that from the ground up is equipped to handle roaming users, even across the internet. There would be issues with compatibility and installed software, but assuming the basics (OS login, browser bookmarks, yadda yadda) it would be a fair step towards ubiquitous computing. Ah, the future... are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?...
Great to have another choice of vendor to store my browser profile at. I've been asking Mozilla for a roaming feature for years. I've seen the plugins that do this, but they host my data either at a company that's unknown to me, or that I don't trust.
I have suggested the option of entering login info for an FTP server that you own (or have access to), so you don't have to rely on someone else, but it's no surprise that it's not going to happen unless Mozilla themselves go after it (or I write it myself, except my C fu is weak).
If Mozilla finally brings this into the main trunk, then it should be a small(er) step to enable user-provided hosting, too.
I guess the bank owns your money, since they keep it as data in their servers. In a way, they do, yes. For instance, that's how they finance loans: lending your money to someone else, asking a fee for the service, and paying you a prize for letting them use your money while they hold it for you. They earn their money from the fee/prize discrepancy, but your money is what enables their business in the first place.
The difference is that money can't be copied without incurring a loss of value, but information can, and indeed may thereby increase in value....There's "just" the matter of who gets to decide whether, how, and with whom that information is shared.
I'd say you're rather reckless, but I can't argue with your motivation. You're right, the 'net needs some form of measure to counter link spamming, seeing as how links *are* the Internet and those links are what brings --or diminishes-- its value. And, seeing as how the Internet is all but based on anarchy, your solution is quite appropriate. Let's drown those fsckers.
Then maybe you can shed some light --the first thing I look for, before I even look at the price tag-- is the noise level, because I do not want to listen to another set of fans in my home office. The specs don't say. Can you?
Why does there have to be (mazes|single-soldier missions|level-end bosses|etc.) in every game?
It may not be the developer's fault. Not only is there very rarely just *one developer* on a commercial game, there are also hordes of others involved, not all of which actually know what makes a good game. I give you: the marketing department who wants to write (or has written!) that it one-ups everything the other guy did; the senior production manager who insists on pink turtles because his 8-year old kid said it might be fun (true story!); the software house who's funding it all and wants to play comme-il-faut, et cetera ad nauseam...
If you want to play like a developer (I know you don't, but just bear with me), start by reading a few game development postmortems and see how much (or little) say the actual coders, artists, and scripters have in the matter. It's Dilbert-land so many places.
...and in having learned that, you've ruined the experience for yourself. It's a skill to *not* fucking regard (whatever it is you do) through the eyes of a craftsman.
I for one used to be a CCU operator and off-line editor, and it's been detrimental to my telly-watching-experience. Even before that, I never 'got' horror films because I was amazed (or appalled, as the case may be) at the effects used to make them horrible, as it were.
Should Wikipedia's articles about [x] also hold [detailed copies of x, instead of linking to x elsewhere online]?
Only insofar as x is actually available online in an accessible* format. By accessible, I mean not just the data format, but also the presentation of the information should be understandable to the reader.
For books, it's true that there are numerous (and excellent) existing sources which may be linked to instead of copied verbatim (as it were). I don't know that the same can be said about mathematical proofs. Also, many books represent a solid chunk of disk space, whereas proofs tend to be quite a bit shorter.
Is this not true at any level of detail? The user is free to switch to a different source at any time while digging through Wikipedia if one feels better information can be had elsewhere.
That's not a reason to omit things from the Wikipedia. True it might lull users into thinking they do not need "better" references, but that is up to the users' sense of criticality.
My first thought as I read the headline of this article was "Why on Earth not?" I mean, in a dead-tree dictionary it might well become unwieldy pretty fast, but as Wikipedia is an online medium I really see no reason to exclude proofs.
The only question is where and how to attach the proof. I agree that the main article on "Foo(x)" is most likely not the best place (ref: first paragraph), and am therefore delighted to see the beginnings of "Wikiproofs".
If you think that "/" pages are bad form, simply a symptom of having no better place, well then just start creating Wikiproof pages and migrate the info and links.
Posting that link was my immediate thought, too. I am so in awe of Mel, a little freaked out by him, and so very happy I don't have "a Mel" in my department.;)
I thought the future was about building a better mousetrap. Linux took its time to get out of the hole, so to speak, but has really grown a respectable market share.
I wonder, and hope, that the same will become true for hardware. I wonder, and hope, that the OpenMoko will be a pioneer in opening up a truly closed arena.
I keep all my ripped music in O-V format, which works equally well on my home machine playing Amarok, and on my portable iRiver H330. Just a note/tip: I rip to FLAC (because it's lossless), then I transcode to other (lossy) formats. It takes a bunch of extra HD space, but the quality is worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
As "afaik_ianal" (918433) states, it's easy to calculate the actual cost/benefit of solar, compared to doing the same for coal. Further, one should factor in not only PV/turbine life time and energy efficiency, but also the energy required to build the power plant in the first place and then to bring the fuel to the plant. None of these latter categories earn any coal plants any points, though the life time and efficiency can indeed be improved upon.
In that light, it's really not a bad thing to have plants of a relatively short life span, as that ensures plants will be replaced ---by presumably improved technology--- in the foreseeable future. This has to be better than keeping old and inefficient plants running. Check out the split ratios of the black and grey paths in the image below:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/USEnFlow02-exaj.gif
There's not really any reason to *not* replace plants as fast as we can, and patch up efficiency as technology allows. Every moment delayed is a needless waste of energy.
Incidentally, I had quite the head-to-head with my brother who's the "family webmaster", because he wants to change from Dreamhost to GMail, and I opposed having my data on Google's servers. Dreamhost I trust (and besides, my email must arrive *somewhere*); Google I don't.
What I am talking about is remote storage between sessions. While logged in your apps would run on the local workstation, only reading your profile from your remote store when logging in, and writing changes back when logging out. MSFT has done one good thing though, they brought down the cost of the hardware so everyone can afford some. Sorry, but you got that wrong, mate. Columbia Data Products did that, when they clean-room cloned the IBM PC. MS just got the benefit of a wildly expanding market... I see your point, though.
True, that. The eye candy is always the first thing to go in, and the productivity last (if at all).
You need to learn Finnish, which has only one word for "(s)he". The finns I know all speak weird English as a consequence, but that's another matter: ... nevermind.
Finn: She's looking for you.
Me: Who is?
Finn: Klinger is.
Me: O_o I thought Klinger was a
Also, in Sweden, if you ask somebody the time, (s)he'll say "She's 11:37."
I think anything that can make a computer workstation as generic as a television is a good idea; the challenge lies in handling the user data/settings. If everything was online and online again, you would not need X-on-a-stick but only to log in to your online profile from any workstation.
... are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?...
Hm, imagine that. Having a workstation that from the ground up is equipped to handle roaming users, even across the internet. There would be issues with compatibility and installed software, but assuming the basics (OS login, browser bookmarks, yadda yadda) it would be a fair step towards ubiquitous computing. Ah, the future
Great to have another choice of vendor to store my browser profile at. I've been asking Mozilla for a roaming feature for years. I've seen the plugins that do this, but they host my data either at a company that's unknown to me, or that I don't trust.
I have suggested the option of entering login info for an FTP server that you own (or have access to), so you don't have to rely on someone else, but it's no surprise that it's not going to happen unless Mozilla themselves go after it (or I write it myself, except my C fu is weak).
If Mozilla finally brings this into the main trunk, then it should be a small(er) step to enable user-provided hosting, too.
The difference is in the power consumption. And resolution, probably, and colour as well.
The difference is that money can't be copied without incurring a loss of value, but information can, and indeed may thereby increase in value.
I liked the paper/dynamite analogy way better. New, graphic, and even explosive. That's the kind of analogies we should promote! :-D
I'd say you're rather reckless, but I can't argue with your motivation. You're right, the 'net needs some form of measure to counter link spamming, seeing as how links *are* the Internet and those links are what brings --or diminishes-- its value. And, seeing as how the Internet is all but based on anarchy, your solution is quite appropriate. Let's drown those fsckers.
For once, a first post that's RIGHT to the point. I salute you.
(For the record, I rip exclusively to FLAC (with Grip) and transcode what I need into Ogg Vorbis.)
Mirror of image here: .o
There, fixed it for you...
Good news, thanks for replying!
Then maybe you can shed some light --the first thing I look for, before I even look at the price tag-- is the noise level, because I do not want to listen to another set of fans in my home office. The specs don't say. Can you?
Why does there have to be (mazes|single-soldier missions|level-end bosses|etc.) in every game?
It may not be the developer's fault. Not only is there very rarely just *one developer* on a commercial game, there are also hordes of others involved, not all of which actually know what makes a good game. I give you: the marketing department who wants to write (or has written!) that it one-ups everything the other guy did; the senior production manager who insists on pink turtles because his 8-year old kid said it might be fun (true story!); the software house who's funding it all and wants to play comme-il-faut, et cetera ad nauseam...
If you want to play like a developer (I know you don't, but just bear with me), start by reading a few game development postmortems and see how much (or little) say the actual coders, artists, and scripters have in the matter. It's Dilbert-land so many places.
...and in having learned that, you've ruined the experience for yourself. It's a skill to *not* fucking regard (whatever it is you do) through the eyes of a craftsman.
I for one used to be a CCU operator and off-line editor, and it's been detrimental to my telly-watching-experience. Even before that, I never 'got' horror films because I was amazed (or appalled, as the case may be) at the effects used to make them horrible, as it were.
Only insofar as x is actually available online in an accessible* format. By accessible, I mean not just the data format, but also the presentation of the information should be understandable to the reader.
For books, it's true that there are numerous (and excellent) existing sources which may be linked to instead of copied verbatim (as it were). I don't know that the same can be said about mathematical proofs.
Also, many books represent a solid chunk of disk space, whereas proofs tend to be quite a bit shorter.
Is this not true at any level of detail? The user is free to switch to a different source at any time while digging through Wikipedia if one feels better information can be had elsewhere.
.02
That's not a reason to omit things from the Wikipedia. True it might lull users into thinking they do not need "better" references, but that is up to the users' sense of criticality.
Just my
Well there's your answer, then.
My first thought as I read the headline of this article was "Why on Earth not?" I mean, in a dead-tree dictionary it might well become unwieldy pretty fast, but as Wikipedia is an online medium I really see no reason to exclude proofs.
The only question is where and how to attach the proof. I agree that the main article on "Foo(x)" is most likely not the best place (ref: first paragraph), and am therefore delighted to see the beginnings of "Wikiproofs".
If you think that "/" pages are bad form, simply a symptom of having no better place, well then just start creating Wikiproof pages and migrate the info and links.
Posting that link was my immediate thought, too. I am so in awe of Mel, a little freaked out by him, and so very happy I don't have "a Mel" in my department. ;)
See what happened to Slim Devices. They got bought by Logitech, I'm sure that was profitable.
However, the *real* test is wether they will *remain* as open or if they will let themselves be assimilated and just produce regular consumer boxes.
I thought the future was about building a better mousetrap. Linux took its time to get out of the hole, so to speak, but has really grown a respectable market share.
I wonder, and hope, that the same will become true for hardware.
I wonder, and hope, that the OpenMoko will be a pioneer in opening up a truly closed arena.
Ogg is, explicitly, free. Go to xiph.org and read about it.
MP3, on the other hand, is owned, patented, and licensed by the Fraunhofer Institute.