Ok still a long way to go but here is a link to a MIT Review article with panels getting over 40% and hopefully expected to get up to 50%
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18910/
Understanding that there would be an additional cost but why not solar panels on the roof of the cars. Some panels are now getting near 50% efficiency. Most people drive their car to work and park it. It might as well recharge during these eight hours vs. being plugged into the grid for eight hours.
I agree with those who see Google having the right to not talk to whomever they choose.
In Canada during a Telco labor dispute the company removed access to a site that displayed information they found objectionable. As the owner the ISP they had the power to do so, but did they have the right? Should they have contacted the site owner first state their intentions.
If you put garbage out on the sidewalk in most areas it is then considered public. Is it right for someone to route through this "public" information and post this somewhere. Even though it may be deemed public, we have an expectation of privacy! Yes it can be found, no it is not alright to group it all together in one esy package for everyone to see.
If CNet had done the article in a manner to show what information could be found about themself this would not have been an issue, but I note that personal information about the authors was not provided, likely due to their expectation of privacy!
I thought Microsoft had to create two divisions. One to do OS's and one to do applications.
The Application division was not supposed to use OS's secrets to aid the sale of their applications.
Why should Intel be differernt?
One division to create the best hardware they can and a separate to create the best compiler they can. The separation should ensure the software division does not use hardware specific knowledge they have on the Intel chips.
If this doesn't/hasn't happened then would AMD not have cause to include the software component in its suit?
We seldom legislate new technologies into being. They emerge, and we plunge with them into whatever vortices of change they generate. We legislate after the fact, in a perpetual game of catch-up, as best we can, while our new technologies redefine us - as surely and perhaps as terribly as we've been redefined by broadcast television.
This should be the role of governments. Rules after the fact allow inovation to advance at its own pace. This has lead to people who are alive today that predate automobiles.
The upcoming problem for society as a whole appears to be governments passing laws to attempt to control inovation prior to its development.
All the concerns over software patent law, genode patents, stem cell research limit the advance (whether good or bad) of inovation. More importantly they distort the natural cycle of inovation by artificually limiting some research and advancement based on todays societies values.
There was the recent SlashDot on Newton being faced with these same issues in his life. Galileo and so may others faced the same issues.
However in the end governments come and go, science, research and innovation is what endures.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with some of what you say, infant deaths rates are LOWER in Cuba then the US https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world -factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Cuba has invested in educating the people. On a trip there last year I required a hospital stay and will clearly state that their health system is well run, funded and staffed.
Compare the health related section between Cuba http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/country.cfm?country=CU and the US http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/country.cfm?country=US and it is clear that they while they may do a lot of stuff to the negative of their people, health care is not one of them.
Ok still a long way to go but here is a link to a MIT Review article with panels getting over 40% and hopefully expected to get up to 50% http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18910/
Understanding that there would be an additional cost but why not solar panels on the roof of the cars. Some panels are now getting near 50% efficiency. Most people drive their car to work and park it. It might as well recharge during these eight hours vs. being plugged into the grid for eight hours.
I agree with those who see Google having the right to not talk to whomever they choose.
In Canada during a Telco labor dispute the company removed access to a site that displayed information they found objectionable. As the owner the ISP they had the power to do so, but did they have the right? Should they have contacted the site owner first state their intentions.
If you put garbage out on the sidewalk in most areas it is then considered public. Is it right for someone to route through this "public" information and post this somewhere. Even though it may be deemed public, we have an expectation of privacy! Yes it can be found, no it is not alright to group it all together in one esy package for everyone to see.
If CNet had done the article in a manner to show what information could be found about themself this would not have been an issue, but I note that personal information about the authors was not provided, likely due to their expectation of privacy!
I thought Microsoft had to create two divisions. One to do OS's and one to do applications.
The Application division was not supposed to use OS's secrets to aid the sale of their applications.
Why should Intel be differernt?
One division to create the best hardware they can and a separate to create the best compiler they can. The separation should ensure the software division does not use hardware specific knowledge they have on the Intel chips.
If this doesn't/hasn't happened then would AMD not have cause to include the software component in its suit?
This should be the role of governments. Rules after the fact allow inovation to advance at its own pace. This has lead to people who are alive today that predate automobiles.
The upcoming problem for society as a whole appears to be governments passing laws to attempt to control inovation prior to its development.
All the concerns over software patent law, genode patents, stem cell research limit the advance (whether good or bad) of inovation. More importantly they distort the natural cycle of inovation by artificually limiting some research and advancement based on todays societies values.
There was the recent SlashDot on Newton being faced with these same issues in his life. Galileo and so may others faced the same issues.
However in the end governments come and go, science, research and innovation is what endures.