Because Amazon can be *expensive* compared to doing it yourself ($$$ for data in, $$$ for data out, $$$ for monthly storage). But heh, what do I know. I just manage the storage for one of the LHC detectors (5PB spinning disk, 17PB tape). Amazon is good when you've got VC money or have no IT folks.
I'm arguing the best product at the best cost. While Tivo will continue on for a bit, it's going to be hard to justify the need when the content you want is on demand (without the need to time shift).
Seriously, anyone who thinks that streaming will replace regular broadcast TV any time soon are either dreaming or are just deeply confused about the way the world works outside their mom's basement.
Seriously, anyone who thinks people are going to continue to pay $50-$150/month for *TV* in this economy is leaving on their parent's salary. I make six figures, and I'd be damned if I'm going to shell out anywhere near $50/month for hundreds of junk channels when I only watch 5-6 shows.
Keep in mind, there is a $150 transfer fee to transfer your "lifetime" subscription to a new Tivo in the event your Tivo dies outside the 90 (wtf!) day warranty period.
My wife uses two of our PS3s, one in the bedroom and one in the living room, without a problem to watch Netflix streaming and shows via Hulu
I used the same box for 7 years, only issues were HD's dying which can be replaced by the user, can you do that with a PS3?
Yes, easily. I upgraded both of our PS3s to 500GB hard drives to store more music, video, etc. Each one took less than 30 minutes.
And when the PS4 comes out will you still be able to stream or will Sony turn it off to free resources for their next gen device like MS did for the original XBox?
Who cares? We'll cross that bridge when we get there. Tivo, now, charges monthly. My PS3s cost nothing monthly. And Sony has no control if I stream via PlayOn, Netflix (via Bluray disk they provided), etc. unless they bork the functionality via a firmware update (which I have the option of not upgrading to).
Use a laser on the ground reflecting off a mirrored satellite in a high enough orbit to sweep lower orbits. The laser power requirements are going to be huge, so best to use a ground-based power supply instead of trying to use solar power.
Could we not just use power on Earth to use lasers on Earth to incinerate the debris? We already track the debris from the ground with radar, why not use ground-based lasers to eliminate it? I'm aware the laser would need to be more powerful (adaptive optics can be used to correct for the atmosphere) but you benefit from ground-based power, people, and equipment.
If you can get the cost down, there might be a case for replacing methane digesters/cogenerators with the fuel cell. But the price is going to have to come WAY down to displace the heat engine part of the methane digesters. So, there are tons of places it could make sense like dairy farms, land fills, etc. that are currently flaring their methane or burning it in an engine. It's all cost at this point.
At the utility scale, yes. When you're buying millions/billions of btu of power (or hundreds of megawatts of power), the discount adds up. The question is how the bulk discount compares to the efficiency advantage of a fuel cell vs. a heat engine. These devices may only make sense in places like California where they're heavily subsidized.
If you're in the third world, you're going to use renewables, not a fuel cell that requires infrastructure to reliably deliver hydrocarbons (in this case, natural gas).
Slashdot Mirror
Because Amazon can be *expensive* compared to doing it yourself ($$$ for data in, $$$ for data out, $$$ for monthly storage). But heh, what do I know. I just manage the storage for one of the LHC detectors (5PB spinning disk, 17PB tape). Amazon is good when you've got VC money or have no IT folks.
As my first boss and mentor used to say, "You can't fix stupid."
Someone get Woody Harrelson on the line. I've seen what he does to zombies.
I'm arguing the best product at the best cost. While Tivo will continue on for a bit, it's going to be hard to justify the need when the content you want is on demand (without the need to time shift).
s/leaving/living
Seriously, anyone who thinks that streaming will replace regular broadcast TV any time soon are either dreaming or are just deeply confused about the way the world works outside their mom's basement.
Seriously, anyone who thinks people are going to continue to pay $50-$150/month for *TV* in this economy is leaving on their parent's salary. I make six figures, and I'd be damned if I'm going to shell out anywhere near $50/month for hundreds of junk channels when I only watch 5-6 shows.
http://consumerist.com/2009/08/tivo-now-offers-exciting-new-dvr-immortality-transfer-fee.html
Keep in mind, there is a $150 transfer fee to transfer your "lifetime" subscription to a new Tivo in the event your Tivo dies outside the 90 (wtf!) day warranty period.
Wife friendly
My wife uses two of our PS3s, one in the bedroom and one in the living room, without a problem to watch Netflix streaming and shows via Hulu
I used the same box for 7 years, only issues were HD's dying which can be replaced by the user, can you do that with a PS3?
Yes, easily. I upgraded both of our PS3s to 500GB hard drives to store more music, video, etc. Each one took less than 30 minutes.
And when the PS4 comes out will you still be able to stream or will Sony turn it off to free resources for their next gen device like MS did for the original XBox?
Who cares? We'll cross that bridge when we get there. Tivo, now, charges monthly. My PS3s cost nothing monthly. And Sony has no control if I stream via PlayOn, Netflix (via Bluray disk they provided), etc. unless they bork the functionality via a firmware update (which I have the option of not upgrading to).
Pro-tip: You're not a pirate if you don't need a DVR because everything you watch can be streamed online.
Have to pay ~$70 for the wireless adapter though. Why not build it into the device? My Roku does wireless, and it was $100 total.
s/free/fee
Everything you described I can do with my PS3. With no monthly free. Plus, I can play Blu-ray disks.
And that $250,000 amount the FDIC insures is set to drop back down to $100K. Not so with NCUA.
Which *works* and is orders of magnitude cheaper to run that the shuttle program.
All of the items you mentioned rely on software, databases or electronics in one form or another. Next.
Higher orbit = greater flexibility in how you're going to ablate the debris. It also doesn't hurt that you'll have less atmospheric drag.
Use a laser on the ground reflecting off a mirrored satellite in a high enough orbit to sweep lower orbits. The laser power requirements are going to be huge, so best to use a ground-based power supply instead of trying to use solar power.
Could we not just use power on Earth to use lasers on Earth to incinerate the debris? We already track the debris from the ground with radar, why not use ground-based lasers to eliminate it? I'm aware the laser would need to be more powerful (adaptive optics can be used to correct for the atmosphere) but you benefit from ground-based power, people, and equipment.
That defines any alpha or beta emitter ;)
There are not enough mod points in the world for your comment.
If you can get the cost down, there might be a case for replacing methane digesters/cogenerators with the fuel cell. But the price is going to have to come WAY down to displace the heat engine part of the methane digesters. So, there are tons of places it could make sense like dairy farms, land fills, etc. that are currently flaring their methane or burning it in an engine. It's all cost at this point.
When you're buying millions/billions of btu of power
Should've read "When you're buying millions/billions of btus of natural gas"
At the utility scale, yes. When you're buying millions/billions of btu of power (or hundreds of megawatts of power), the discount adds up. The question is how the bulk discount compares to the efficiency advantage of a fuel cell vs. a heat engine. These devices may only make sense in places like California where they're heavily subsidized.
If you're in the third world, you're going to use renewables, not a fuel cell that requires infrastructure to reliably deliver hydrocarbons (in this case, natural gas).