Well, in my own defense, I was just referring to a hypothetical situation. I never implied that it would actually be a good idea to use either mirrors or other solar panels to capture light reflected off of the cells. I have no idea how much light is actually reflected, but unless you're pressed for space, obviously it would be better to use your materials to capture "fresh" sunlight.
Am I the only person looking at that bid history thinking motherloadview was just the seller artificially raising the bid price? Or maybe it's just an idiot who doesn't understand the idea or proxy bidding; after all, they are bidding on the rights to send ads in to space.
Anyone with half a mind can see the only solution is to put as much anti-solar carbon back into the atmosphere as possible. I propose that we switch back to burning coal, and impose maximum fuel efficiencies on cars, to be enforced with a tax on vehicles with a high fuel efficiency. Furthermore, I propse we ban solar, hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear power, and focus on locating more combustible fuel sources, such as trees, animals, and global warming advocates. The National Parks might be a good place to start, as some studies suggest they might have oil under them as well! I propose the United States government provide no less than 400 billion per year on an efficient method to electrolyze carbon dioxide into pure carbon. There are tons of perfectly suitable sources all around us, we just need to use some human ingenuity to tap them! The sun starts by destroying our ozone layer, what next? Where will it end? Stop the sun now or face certain doom!
His net worth is a good deal different from the amount of money he has. Presumably a tremendous proportion of it is tied up in Microsoft stock, and so there is a much smaller proportion of it actually available for his philanthropy. Besides, even if we look at the proportion of his net worth which has been donated to charity, it's still on the order of at least 10% (assuming a net worth of 30 billion), which I'm sure is a lot more than a lot of people here give to such causes. Now, I realize that he still has billions of dollars for himself, but no matter how you look at it, he's still given a huge amount of money to worthy causes. I realize that lots of people argue "If I had 5 billion dollars I'd give 99% of it away because I don't need that much money", but considering it's never happened, I get the impression that's a lot harder to do than one might think. Compared to people of similar net worth, he's still an enormously generous person.
Hmm...I don't think I could possibly guess what the preferred OS of Slashdot is. (I would assume the preferred OS of most would be the one they are most productive with) It's not a particular OS has a majority presence here or anything.
Well, the photoelectric effect is the process in which the energy of a photon causes an electron to jump off of its parent atom. Do this a bunch of times and you have a current. Once a photon is "converted" in this sense, it no longer exists as a photon, and as such you can't complete the procedure a second time. Perhaps such a process might be able to increase the efficiency by capturing the light that was not utilized by the solar cell (since techincally any light that gets reflected off of them is a loss of efficiency), but there's absolutely no way you're going to get more energy out of the system (probably less, since more surfaces mean more loss), than if you just replaced all of the mirrors with photoelectric panels. If this were not the case, it would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
You can just get a digital tuner/decoder meant for use with your TV, which will provide you with an analog component video signal that can in turn be fed right into a computer.
As long as you can still hear it or see it, you can duplicate it. If you have access to the signal itself, in any form, even better. You many not get a *perfect* copy, but it will certainly be close.
But how can you be so certain of this? If we make that assumption, that absolutely *everything* is a direct effect by one or more causes, then theoretically it is possible to predict this event knowing these causes. In an entirely deterministic universe, the complete knowledge of the present state allows for complete prediction of future states for an infinite amount of time. Of course we aren't saved from this, either, so everything we say, do, and even think, is also completely determinable. I'd say there are plenty of people who would disagree with you on that statement.
Well, presumably these same "theoretical conditions" are true for the quoted Gb/sec rate of the proposed media, so in real-world operation in both cases, such speeds will rarely be achieved.
Technically, the article stated that the transfer rates would be up to one gigabit per second, not 1 GB per second, as the summary states. That's certainly fast, but not beyond the capabilities of current hard disk/memory technology.
Instead of spending all the money to rig up all the power lines to support this technology, and potentially causing substantial problems with interference to radio communication (particularly amateur), why not just spend the money on a stronger fiber infrastructure, which presumably can support a great deal more bandwidth than this, and doesn't have the problems with causing or recieving such interference.
Why not keep our data and power networks separate, and optimize both for their specific purpose?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in my own defense, I was just referring to a hypothetical situation. I never implied that it would actually be a good idea to use either mirrors or other solar panels to capture light reflected off of the cells. I have no idea how much light is actually reflected, but unless you're pressed for space, obviously it would be better to use your materials to capture "fresh" sunlight.
Am I the only person looking at that bid history thinking motherloadview was just the seller artificially raising the bid price? Or maybe it's just an idiot who doesn't understand the idea or proxy bidding; after all, they are bidding on the rights to send ads in to space.
Anyone with half a mind can see the only solution is to put as much anti-solar carbon back into the atmosphere as possible. I propose that we switch back to burning coal, and impose maximum fuel efficiencies on cars, to be enforced with a tax on vehicles with a high fuel efficiency. Furthermore, I propse we ban solar, hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear power, and focus on locating more combustible fuel sources, such as trees, animals, and global warming advocates. The National Parks might be a good place to start, as some studies suggest they might have oil under them as well! I propose the United States government provide no less than 400 billion per year on an efficient method to electrolyze carbon dioxide into pure carbon. There are tons of perfectly suitable sources all around us, we just need to use some human ingenuity to tap them! The sun starts by destroying our ozone layer, what next? Where will it end? Stop the sun now or face certain doom!
His net worth is a good deal different from the amount of money he has. Presumably a tremendous proportion of it is tied up in Microsoft stock, and so there is a much smaller proportion of it actually available for his philanthropy. Besides, even if we look at the proportion of his net worth which has been donated to charity, it's still on the order of at least 10% (assuming a net worth of 30 billion), which I'm sure is a lot more than a lot of people here give to such causes. Now, I realize that he still has billions of dollars for himself, but no matter how you look at it, he's still given a huge amount of money to worthy causes. I realize that lots of people argue "If I had 5 billion dollars I'd give 99% of it away because I don't need that much money", but considering it's never happened, I get the impression that's a lot harder to do than one might think. Compared to people of similar net worth, he's still an enormously generous person.
Hmm...I don't think I could possibly guess what the preferred OS of Slashdot is. (I would assume the preferred OS of most would be the one they are most productive with) It's not a particular OS has a majority presence here or anything.
Well, the photoelectric effect is the process in which the energy of a photon causes an electron to jump off of its parent atom. Do this a bunch of times and you have a current. Once a photon is "converted" in this sense, it no longer exists as a photon, and as such you can't complete the procedure a second time. Perhaps such a process might be able to increase the efficiency by capturing the light that was not utilized by the solar cell (since techincally any light that gets reflected off of them is a loss of efficiency), but there's absolutely no way you're going to get more energy out of the system (probably less, since more surfaces mean more loss), than if you just replaced all of the mirrors with photoelectric panels. If this were not the case, it would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
You can just get a digital tuner/decoder meant for use with your TV, which will provide you with an analog component video signal that can in turn be fed right into a computer.
As long as you can still hear it or see it, you can duplicate it. If you have access to the signal itself, in any form, even better. You many not get a *perfect* copy, but it will certainly be close.
But how can you be so certain of this? If we make that assumption, that absolutely *everything* is a direct effect by one or more causes, then theoretically it is possible to predict this event knowing these causes. In an entirely deterministic universe, the complete knowledge of the present state allows for complete prediction of future states for an infinite amount of time. Of course we aren't saved from this, either, so everything we say, do, and even think, is also completely determinable. I'd say there are plenty of people who would disagree with you on that statement.
Well, presumably these same "theoretical conditions" are true for the quoted Gb/sec rate of the proposed media, so in real-world operation in both cases, such speeds will rarely be achieved.
Technically, the article stated that the transfer rates would be up to one gigabit per second, not 1 GB per second, as the summary states. That's certainly fast, but not beyond the capabilities of current hard disk/memory technology.
Instead of spending all the money to rig up all the power lines to support this technology, and potentially causing substantial problems with interference to radio communication (particularly amateur), why not just spend the money on a stronger fiber infrastructure, which presumably can support a great deal more bandwidth than this, and doesn't have the problems with causing or recieving such interference. Why not keep our data and power networks separate, and optimize both for their specific purpose?