Thankfully, there has been building interest in renewables, principally photovoltaics and wind power. At this point, the lifetime cost of a wind power installation (of size greater than, say, 1 MW) is on par or even less than traditional energies like gas and coal-fired plants. Meanwhile, the market cost of 20% silicon-based solar cells is down to something like $3-4/W, depending on how the market for semiconductor-grade silicon goes.
One of the major setbacks in the deployment of such energy is the physical infrastructure in the capital cost. While the solar cells are becoming rather cheap, the structure to support/protect them, and the electronics to interface them with the grid cost at least as much. In both the case of wind and solar, since there is low maintenance and basically no consumables, the lifetime cost of and installation is 90% upfront capital cost. For a coal or gas fired plant, or nuclear, the upfront capital cost is something like 40% of the total cost of running the plant over its lifetime, while maintenance and the cost of consumables take up the rest.
The end result is that people balk at the huge upfront costs of renewable power installations, even though the lifetime costs are nowadays comparable with traditional electrical power generation facilities. However, there are two situations that can give renewables an edge. The first we are already experiencing: the cost of consumables and maintenance are on the rise. Natural gas costs are increasing, coal-fired plants have to run cleaner, and nuclear is an ever-increasing headache.
The second, and more relevant, situation that favors renewables (and the point of TFA), is that there are some situations where one really, really needs electrical power, and is faced either with the choice of an expensive installation cost for renewable power, or a really expensive cost for shipping in the consumable fuel (and someone who can work the power generator itself, which ain't as easy as it sounds). In the case of remote power generation (for relay stations on the side of a mountain, for instance), in very rural areas with little or no road access (developing nations like Afghanistan), or in a disaster situtation where the usual delivery infrastructure has completely gone to hell, the scales tip away from things like petroleum, gas, and coal fired generators and squarely into the arena of renewables.
What these guys are doing is demonstrating that not only is the technology mature enough for long duration, high capacity, low maintenance remote power generation, but that it is rugged enough to be deployed anywhere, anytime, where it is needed. Bravo!
I would propose that not every proposal to guarantee the free speech of ICANN requires US control. I think that one could create an ICANN that is entirely independent of everyone byt setting it up on an abandoned oil platform, in a data haven, or in some tiny country that doesn't give a rat's ass about technology (a la Cryptonomicon). However, I think that, just as the the US is reluctant to give up or share control of ICANN to outside entities like the UN and EU, it would be equally reluctant to allow ICANN to establish itself as totally independent of even US intrusion. I guess the US government has its own reasons for such a stance, and certainly some it has to do with dick-size, but I'd wager that the overriding motivator is fear: fear of what a fully unregulated (and unregulatable) Internet would become, beyond even today's chaos.
An excellent point, and one that probably will mean that it is, in fact, safer to try and avoid spaceflight during high solar activity (when possible). On the other hand, the danger is only there if the CME is directed in your general vicinity. Sure, the Earth gets hit with a solar flare (or its remnants, actually) from time to time, but it does not get hit with every solar flare the Sun produces.
Oh, yeah, I knew that. Or at least, I used to know that the iPod was 1.8" form factor - it was a minor coup that they snatched up that market for the original iPods. Sorry for the bad information and memory lapse.
It is a little difficult to tell from the picture, but I would hazard a guess that they are using 2.5" form factor hard drives, like the iPod. In that case, the upper end of capacity would be about 100 GB. On the other hand, if I am not looking at it right, and they are, in fact, using 3.5" drives, like a desktop computer, then the upper end of capacity would indeed be several hundred GB. In any case, the capacity they put into it probably has a lot to do with what price point they thought they could get away with - part of testing the waters perhaps.
free the slaves
allow women to vote
legalize abortion
Emancipation and Women's Suffrage, however, are entirely about extending rights to a group of people which had previously been denied to them. One could (depending on which side of the argument you are), argue the same for the third item.
In the case of the broadcast flag, it is specifically designed to limit the rights of a person, to limit what the person can do. It should be no wonder that only a few people are clamboring for something like this - it goes against the free spirit of America.
One other thing to note is that this is hardly the first instance of cars driving themselves. Even in the late 1990's, there were several institutions that had programs to develop cars that could drive themselves. I believe CMU outfitted a minivan to drive coast to coast autonomously. There were some caveats, like having a human driver in the seat, hands poised over the steering wheel, ready to take control in an instance. I also think that, when the team was pulling off the highway to find a motel for the night, that was done by humans, too. But, for the highway stretches, where the car was operating autonomously, the vehicle was able to cruise at highway speeds (i.e., around 65 mph).
The course did have a fair number of twists and turns in it. There were some places, like dried lake beds, where the cars could open up a bit, but for the most part it was bumpy dirt tracks one which even you or I couldn't do more than, say, 40 mph. There were also, intentionally, a fair number of obstacles designed to throw the computer systems off. You and I wouldn't have much difficulty in recognizing a cattle gate on a road, but imagine trying to teach a computer vision system to distinguish that. In other cases, the robots had to drive through tunnels that would not only be dark (making vision systems less accurate) but also lack any GPS signal.
So, yes, it did average out to a pretty slow "race." But, on the other hand, it is a marked improvement over last time, when no one even came close to finishing. I think that, in the interests of trying to ensure that they safely finished the course, let alone win, the various teams were playing it a little conservatively, and not trying to go for pedal-to-the-metal performance. Maybe next year, now that they have some confidence.
Looking at the final stats on the Grand Challenge website, it would seem that only five teams, out of the 23 that made the finals, were able to finish the course. The team that got the farthest before calling it quits managed about 80 miles, which means that the cut between those who made it and those who didn't was still pretty big. Another interesting thing about the final results is that, if you look at the pretty red and blue graph lines, they describe what looks like a sort of decaying function...
I agree that 80 GB of music with any reasonable amount of compression (from ripping) would be a tall order. Imagine having a 'Music' folder on one's computer that was 80 GB in size!
One use for such an iPod that I could see is using it as part mp3 player, part external (firewire) harddrive. I use my 3rd gen, 10 GB iPod for that , but am also looking for a nice, 2.5" external HDD and enclosure for backing up a whole lot of stuff. It is hard to imagine a nicer looking (or more compact) packaging of such a large (80 GB) and small (2.5" form factor) harddrive.
I seem to recall that, at certain times during the post-production, Peter Jackson and others used iPods as inconspicuous harddrives to carry rough cuts of the LotR movies between the editing rooms and special effects shops in New Zealand and the studios in California. Sending hard drives back and forth was sometimes faster than sending it as data over wire.
My final comment would simply be that, any time in the last 50 years that someone has said "No one would ever need something that large/fast?" as it relates to computers, has always been proven wrong within a decade, if not sooner. I guess we'll just have to wait and see just what, in this case, that might be.
I am not a crypto or security expert, but I gather most experts agree that the more pieces of information you need to provide to be authenticated, the better. For instance, the combination of a personal password with some certificate/token on a USB key is (theoretically) better than either acting alone. Many of the comments in this thread make the point that fingreprints are pretty easily lifted and forged. So, perhaps it is not of much use, from a security standpoint, as a stand-alone authenticator. If, however, it was combined with another token, like the credit/debit card itself, then it could serve in place of the customer's written signature or PIN. That would require a perpetrator to have, at least for a little while, physical access to the card, as well as a print, before going out and defrauding the customer. Using a fingerprint would probably be a little better than using a written signature, which no one ever checks anyway, can also be forged, and could easily be lifted from a number of public documents (or, for that matter, the card itself).
Anyone think this idea, of combining fingerprints with a physical token, have any merit? Naturally this system could still be forged or broken, but would it be more or less hard to break than the current system of cards and signature/PINs? I think we all have to recognize that, if a perpetrator specifically targets you, it won't be too difficult for them to nail you, but what about more casual and random defrauders?
If HP was shopping around for an alternate browser to IE, why turn to Netscape? Why not Mozilla (Firefox), Opera, or something else entirely? And why, if there were any rumblings about this beforehand, did the (other) browser companies (even if not seeking a profit), push their own, free products to reach a wider market?
I am not criticizing the HP's decision, I am just genuinely interested to know why. It is interesting in TFA that Netscape 8 can apparently switch between a Firefox and IE core, for widespread compatibility. Can others offer insight?
Still, some local officials, such as Santa Clara County tax assessor Larry Stone, say such a setup would cost local taxing bodies like schools, nearby cities and the county up to $3 million in annual property tax revenue.
It can't really be costing the local taxing bodies much if they aren't already collecting those taxes. I could see this as an argument if Google somehow worked out a deal where they build the new facility, paid full local taxes for a few years, then worked out a sweetheart deal to then have the thing declared part of a federal enclave.
In short, can you lose something that you don't already have?
We have $30 million in unfunded retirement liabilities. We need the money.
This is one of the whiniest, most pedantic statements I've heard coming from a government official in a long time. That's really something, considering all the things officials seem to have to whine about these days. I agree with whoda, bad municipal planning is hardly a justification for going after Google for new tax revenue. There may be other, more justifiably reasons for doing so, but IANAL.
An even better thing to do, which would avoid the problems of him outright copying their image and posting it elsewhere for people to download, would be for him to spend some time at his computer and make his own map from scratch. This is something that one or two of my old professors did when they were writing a textbook: generate their own images and figures rather than have to go through the hassle of getting permission to use others'. Hell, even if he didn't want to do it on a computer, he could do it with some thick markers and then scan it. In doing so, he would simply be distributing an original work. If anyone pressed him on its obvious resemblance to the MTA's map, he could just say "Well, I rode around on the subway and mapped out all the connections and stations, and all the lines have a particular color, so..."
I agree, him posting the MTA's map as his own (and outdated at that, according to earlier comments), is what has gotten him into trouble in the first place.
I will now turn the sarcasm and satire dial up a notch or two: In truth, I'm not surprised that the Dept. of Homeland Security, TSA, or local law enforcement hasn't already broken down his door. Not that they would be justified in doing so, but it seems like the kind of knee-jerk reaction they'd have, simply because he was spreading critical information about the workings of the subway system. Imagine the suspicious looks he would have gotten if a cop saw him riding the subway and jotting down his own hand-drawn map. Nevermind that the maps are freely available to people - that he was making his own would obviously mean he's a terrorist. And then to distribute such information to all his terrorist friends (i.e., ordinary citizens) - he must be a f*&#ing anarchist!
As I pointed out when the last article about this was posted, the current consensus is that the music industry is paid something like 65 cents for each 99 cent download. So, I'd say they are already getting quite a cut from iTunes (Music Store).
I agree with just about every poster that points out the counter argument to the music execs: they haven't ever received money from CD-player manufacturers. As for forcing apple to increase its prices on popular songs, that's just plain greed on the music industry's part. They seemed fit to grant Jobs the terms when iTMS was just a pipe dream in an empty field. Now that it is drawing in huge revenues, though...
It is difficult however to compare that system, which works for a nation of 4 million people[CIA world fact book], whose largest city tops out at just over a 1.2 million, to the system that would be needed for a nation of 300 million.
Scandal? I can't think of anything more scandalous than last year's presidential elections.
I'd agree that there was a lot of fishy business with the 2004 election; in California, in Ohio, etc. In truth, what happened in Florida in 2000 seemed much worse to me, and there was even a paper trail (of sorts) in that case.
I suppose one could look at it as Hegel would: 2000 demonstrated the shortcomings of (one) current paper-based election method, and so things migrated naively to the electronic systems of 2004. Maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to reach a correct equilibrium somewhere in the middle.
I don't hold out much hope, especially since this is California - the land of the Guvernator. On the other hand, it is also the hotbed of the open source movement. So, there might be some hope.
What we really need is a tremendous scandal in an election: something like all votes are lost and Ross Perot gets elected to the school board, or something. Only then will people actually wake up and realize that they vote is easily in jeopardy from proprietary and unresponsive (and partisan, I might add) election powerhouses like Diebold.
2) Fusion engines are very efficient and would allow not just single stage to orbit vehicles, but single stage to Mars surface and back to Earth without refueling and taking only a couple of months for the round trip.
Humans have achieved fusion of the breakeven sort: where the amount of energy output has equaled the amount of energy input required. Existing facilities should be able to actually get some net power output in the next few years, as their ability to control plasmas and "burn times" increases. The Int'l Tokomak Experimental Reactor will almost certainly be able to produce 5x the power input, and eventually 15x if all goes well. I know, the "if all goes well," sound rather hollow to me, too.
An excellent resource about the state of the art in fusion can be found in the latest edition of the IEEE Control Systems Magazine, which is the first in a two-part series about the control of Tokomak plasmas.
The real problem with fusion is that the best technology we have, and can hope to have in this generation or so, is that it is big. Really, really BIG. It also requires a tremendous power input to get things going (something like a MW or two for several seconds). So, it is unlikely to ever be suitable as a replacement for rockets; at least not in our lifetimes. It is possible that it might provide a useful power and propulsion source to interplanetary craft, but that is still a bit of a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.
I often wonder where they get these names for missions from. There are some mission acronyms out there that are so ridiculous, they make you wonder if they didn't start with the abbreviated word first and then fill things in from there.
In this case, they've decided to name this mission after an old man off his rocker who thought he was a chivalrous knight of old. One of his more famous skirmishes was against a windmill he thought was a giant. Amazingly enough, he only damaged himself when he charged it. Perhaps that is where they have derived their inspiration. Let us hope they have a little more luck.
The problem is, as moonbender already pointed out, is that PSUs (not just for computers, but power converters of almost any sort) have wrose efficiency the farther you operate from their rated load. Stated differently, their peak efficiency usually comes near max power output. So, that 600 W PSU, even if its rated efficiency is 10 percentage points higher than that 300 W unit [note that, in either case, the rated efficiency they stamp on the box is almost categorically a lie], the smaller unit will more efficiently deliver the ~200 W needed to actually run the computer for most things.
Another thing that one ought to consider when buying that ultra-mega-PSU, aside from whether it can actually deliver the power it claims, is what its standby power draw is. When operating under no-load conditions (such as when the computer is on standby, or off), those larger PSUs will tend to draw more power than smaller ones. That power is a complete loss, because it's not actually doing anything useful except keeping the transformer nice and toasty. The best thing to do would be to simply unplug the computer when turned off, or flick the switch on that power strip.
Any idea how much power your house uses even when everything in it is "off"?
I am not saying that the notion of a government DNA database doesn't scare the crap out of me, but the "So?" poster has a decent point. If I am picked up on suspicion of any crime, or ask for a gun permit, or any number of other licenses, I must submit my fingerprints - I don't need to be convicted of a crime first. Those fingerprint records are entered into a national database along with with terrorists, murderers, and petty criminals.
Let us not forget that, if someone is picked up for some petty crime and has their fingerprints run through the database, they may very well be identified as someone involved in another crime. Now consider that there's a serial rapist out there - a national DNA database would go a long way towards nabbing that guy for every crime he's committed.
Now that I've played the devil's advocate and must now wash my hands vigorously, I have a counterpoint. The key difference here is that DNA is not merely a fingerprint, but contains a tremendous amount of information about you. One cannot tell, from looking at a fingerprint, the owner's gender, age, race, etc. Let's set aside the fact that all that information appears alongside the fingerprint record. When one has a DNA sample of someone, one can run it screen it for a number of things beyond just physical characteristics: it can pinpoint you as someone that has a predisposition to some disease, reveal race and ethnic details beyond one's appearance, could even show you have a predisposition to rage and mental illness.
That notion - that the government could have a searchable database of anyone ever brought in to the station with such information - really scares me. About the only person I think would be worse off having such a database would be my insurance company - but that's a different topic.
It is true that we keep hearing about combat robots, but the simple truth is that it is incredible difficult to reproduce what boots on the ground can do. Let's face it, even when stumbling drunk, human beings are better at negotiating difficult terrain (such as a combat zone) than even the most sophistocated robots. Just consider the amount of brainpower and resources are being poured into the DARPA Grand Challenge. How many years, millions of dollars, and engineers has Honda spent just to get the Asimo to walk around on its own, on a perfectly flat floor or up a preprogrammed flight of stairs?
The difficulties of over-land mobility in robotics are just too great to think that $32 million in development funds (as mentioned in the article) will be able to develop a robot that is even half as capable, or intelligent, as a grunt that spent a few months in basic. This is why the greatest advances in military robotics have come in aircraft - the mobility issues are much simpler. It is a lot easier to program an autopilot for a drone than it is to program an autodrive for an off-road Humvee (which, incidentally, they haven't yet been able to do, hence the Grand Challenge).
I'll call it vaporware.
Slashdot Mirror
Thankfully, there has been building interest in renewables, principally photovoltaics and wind power. At this point, the lifetime cost of a wind power installation (of size greater than, say, 1 MW) is on par or even less than traditional energies like gas and coal-fired plants. Meanwhile, the market cost of 20% silicon-based solar cells is down to something like $3-4/W, depending on how the market for semiconductor-grade silicon goes.
One of the major setbacks in the deployment of such energy is the physical infrastructure in the capital cost. While the solar cells are becoming rather cheap, the structure to support/protect them, and the electronics to interface them with the grid cost at least as much. In both the case of wind and solar, since there is low maintenance and basically no consumables, the lifetime cost of and installation is 90% upfront capital cost. For a coal or gas fired plant, or nuclear, the upfront capital cost is something like 40% of the total cost of running the plant over its lifetime, while maintenance and the cost of consumables take up the rest.
The end result is that people balk at the huge upfront costs of renewable power installations, even though the lifetime costs are nowadays comparable with traditional electrical power generation facilities. However, there are two situations that can give renewables an edge. The first we are already experiencing: the cost of consumables and maintenance are on the rise. Natural gas costs are increasing, coal-fired plants have to run cleaner, and nuclear is an ever-increasing headache.
The second, and more relevant, situation that favors renewables (and the point of TFA), is that there are some situations where one really, really needs electrical power, and is faced either with the choice of an expensive installation cost for renewable power, or a really expensive cost for shipping in the consumable fuel (and someone who can work the power generator itself, which ain't as easy as it sounds). In the case of remote power generation (for relay stations on the side of a mountain, for instance), in very rural areas with little or no road access (developing nations like Afghanistan), or in a disaster situtation where the usual delivery infrastructure has completely gone to hell, the scales tip away from things like petroleum, gas, and coal fired generators and squarely into the arena of renewables.
What these guys are doing is demonstrating that not only is the technology mature enough for long duration, high capacity, low maintenance remote power generation, but that it is rugged enough to be deployed anywhere, anytime, where it is needed. Bravo!
I would propose that not every proposal to guarantee the free speech of ICANN requires US control. I think that one could create an ICANN that is entirely independent of everyone byt setting it up on an abandoned oil platform, in a data haven, or in some tiny country that doesn't give a rat's ass about technology (a la Cryptonomicon). However, I think that, just as the the US is reluctant to give up or share control of ICANN to outside entities like the UN and EU, it would be equally reluctant to allow ICANN to establish itself as totally independent of even US intrusion. I guess the US government has its own reasons for such a stance, and certainly some it has to do with dick-size, but I'd wager that the overriding motivator is fear: fear of what a fully unregulated (and unregulatable) Internet would become, beyond even today's chaos.
An excellent point, and one that probably will mean that it is, in fact, safer to try and avoid spaceflight during high solar activity (when possible). On the other hand, the danger is only there if the CME is directed in your general vicinity. Sure, the Earth gets hit with a solar flare (or its remnants, actually) from time to time, but it does not get hit with every solar flare the Sun produces.
Oh, yeah, I knew that. Or at least, I used to know that the iPod was 1.8" form factor - it was a minor coup that they snatched up that market for the original iPods. Sorry for the bad information and memory lapse.
As for the rest - very informative!
It is a little difficult to tell from the picture, but I would hazard a guess that they are using 2.5" form factor hard drives, like the iPod. In that case, the upper end of capacity would be about 100 GB. On the other hand, if I am not looking at it right, and they are, in fact, using 3.5" drives, like a desktop computer, then the upper end of capacity would indeed be several hundred GB. In any case, the capacity they put into it probably has a lot to do with what price point they thought they could get away with - part of testing the waters perhaps.
free the slaves
allow women to vote
legalize abortion
Emancipation and Women's Suffrage, however, are entirely about extending rights to a group of people which had previously been denied to them. One could (depending on which side of the argument you are), argue the same for the third item.
In the case of the broadcast flag, it is specifically designed to limit the rights of a person, to limit what the person can do. It should be no wonder that only a few people are clamboring for something like this - it goes against the free spirit of America.
One other thing to note is that this is hardly the first instance of cars driving themselves. Even in the late 1990's, there were several institutions that had programs to develop cars that could drive themselves. I believe CMU outfitted a minivan to drive coast to coast autonomously. There were some caveats, like having a human driver in the seat, hands poised over the steering wheel, ready to take control in an instance. I also think that, when the team was pulling off the highway to find a motel for the night, that was done by humans, too. But, for the highway stretches, where the car was operating autonomously, the vehicle was able to cruise at highway speeds (i.e., around 65 mph).
The course did have a fair number of twists and turns in it. There were some places, like dried lake beds, where the cars could open up a bit, but for the most part it was bumpy dirt tracks one which even you or I couldn't do more than, say, 40 mph. There were also, intentionally, a fair number of obstacles designed to throw the computer systems off. You and I wouldn't have much difficulty in recognizing a cattle gate on a road, but imagine trying to teach a computer vision system to distinguish that. In other cases, the robots had to drive through tunnels that would not only be dark (making vision systems less accurate) but also lack any GPS signal.
So, yes, it did average out to a pretty slow "race." But, on the other hand, it is a marked improvement over last time, when no one even came close to finishing. I think that, in the interests of trying to ensure that they safely finished the course, let alone win, the various teams were playing it a little conservatively, and not trying to go for pedal-to-the-metal performance. Maybe next year, now that they have some confidence.
Looking at the final stats on the Grand Challenge website, it would seem that only five teams, out of the 23 that made the finals, were able to finish the course. The team that got the farthest before calling it quits managed about 80 miles, which means that the cut between those who made it and those who didn't was still pretty big. Another interesting thing about the final results is that, if you look at the pretty red and blue graph lines, they describe what looks like a sort of decaying function...
Or perhaps I'm just a dork.
I agree that 80 GB of music with any reasonable amount of compression (from ripping) would be a tall order. Imagine having a 'Music' folder on one's computer that was 80 GB in size!
One use for such an iPod that I could see is using it as part mp3 player, part external (firewire) harddrive. I use my 3rd gen, 10 GB iPod for that , but am also looking for a nice, 2.5" external HDD and enclosure for backing up a whole lot of stuff. It is hard to imagine a nicer looking (or more compact) packaging of such a large (80 GB) and small (2.5" form factor) harddrive.
I seem to recall that, at certain times during the post-production, Peter Jackson and others used iPods as inconspicuous harddrives to carry rough cuts of the LotR movies between the editing rooms and special effects shops in New Zealand and the studios in California. Sending hard drives back and forth was sometimes faster than sending it as data over wire.
My final comment would simply be that, any time in the last 50 years that someone has said "No one would ever need something that large/fast?" as it relates to computers, has always been proven wrong within a decade, if not sooner. I guess we'll just have to wait and see just what, in this case, that might be.
And also, from this afternoon's "All Things Considered" broadcast on national public radio:
y Id=4946718
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
I am not a crypto or security expert, but I gather most experts agree that the more pieces of information you need to provide to be authenticated, the better. For instance, the combination of a personal password with some certificate/token on a USB key is (theoretically) better than either acting alone. Many of the comments in this thread make the point that fingreprints are pretty easily lifted and forged. So, perhaps it is not of much use, from a security standpoint, as a stand-alone authenticator. If, however, it was combined with another token, like the credit/debit card itself, then it could serve in place of the customer's written signature or PIN. That would require a perpetrator to have, at least for a little while, physical access to the card, as well as a print, before going out and defrauding the customer. Using a fingerprint would probably be a little better than using a written signature, which no one ever checks anyway, can also be forged, and could easily be lifted from a number of public documents (or, for that matter, the card itself).
Anyone think this idea, of combining fingerprints with a physical token, have any merit? Naturally this system could still be forged or broken, but would it be more or less hard to break than the current system of cards and signature/PINs? I think we all have to recognize that, if a perpetrator specifically targets you, it won't be too difficult for them to nail you, but what about more casual and random defrauders?
If HP was shopping around for an alternate browser to IE, why turn to Netscape? Why not Mozilla (Firefox), Opera, or something else entirely? And why, if there were any rumblings about this beforehand, did the (other) browser companies (even if not seeking a profit), push their own, free products to reach a wider market?
I am not criticizing the HP's decision, I am just genuinely interested to know why. It is interesting in TFA that Netscape 8 can apparently switch between a Firefox and IE core, for widespread compatibility. Can others offer insight?
Still, some local officials, such as Santa Clara County tax assessor Larry Stone, say such a setup would cost local taxing bodies like schools, nearby cities and the county up to $3 million in annual property tax revenue.
It can't really be costing the local taxing bodies much if they aren't already collecting those taxes. I could see this as an argument if Google somehow worked out a deal where they build the new facility, paid full local taxes for a few years, then worked out a sweetheart deal to then have the thing declared part of a federal enclave.
In short, can you lose something that you don't already have?
We have $30 million in unfunded retirement liabilities. We need the money.
This is one of the whiniest, most pedantic statements I've heard coming from a government official in a long time. That's really something, considering all the things officials seem to have to whine about these days. I agree with whoda, bad municipal planning is hardly a justification for going after Google for new tax revenue. There may be other, more justifiably reasons for doing so, but IANAL.
An even better thing to do, which would avoid the problems of him outright copying their image and posting it elsewhere for people to download, would be for him to spend some time at his computer and make his own map from scratch. This is something that one or two of my old professors did when they were writing a textbook: generate their own images and figures rather than have to go through the hassle of getting permission to use others'. Hell, even if he didn't want to do it on a computer, he could do it with some thick markers and then scan it. In doing so, he would simply be distributing an original work. If anyone pressed him on its obvious resemblance to the MTA's map, he could just say "Well, I rode around on the subway and mapped out all the connections and stations, and all the lines have a particular color, so..."
I agree, him posting the MTA's map as his own (and outdated at that, according to earlier comments), is what has gotten him into trouble in the first place.
I will now turn the sarcasm and satire dial up a notch or two: In truth, I'm not surprised that the Dept. of Homeland Security, TSA, or local law enforcement hasn't already broken down his door. Not that they would be justified in doing so, but it seems like the kind of knee-jerk reaction they'd have, simply because he was spreading critical information about the workings of the subway system. Imagine the suspicious looks he would have gotten if a cop saw him riding the subway and jotting down his own hand-drawn map. Nevermind that the maps are freely available to people - that he was making his own would obviously mean he's a terrorist. And then to distribute such information to all his terrorist friends (i.e., ordinary citizens) - he must be a f*&#ing anarchist!
As I pointed out when the last article about this was posted, the current consensus is that the music industry is paid something like 65 cents for each 99 cent download. So, I'd say they are already getting quite a cut from iTunes (Music Store).
I agree with just about every poster that points out the counter argument to the music execs: they haven't ever received money from CD-player manufacturers. As for forcing apple to increase its prices on popular songs, that's just plain greed on the music industry's part. They seemed fit to grant Jobs the terms when iTMS was just a pipe dream in an empty field. Now that it is drawing in huge revenues, though...
It is difficult however to compare that system, which works for a nation of 4 million people[CIA world fact book], whose largest city tops out at just over a 1.2 million, to the system that would be needed for a nation of 300 million.
Scandal? I can't think of anything more scandalous than last year's presidential elections.
I'd agree that there was a lot of fishy business with the 2004 election; in California, in Ohio, etc. In truth, what happened in Florida in 2000 seemed much worse to me, and there was even a paper trail (of sorts) in that case.
I suppose one could look at it as Hegel would: 2000 demonstrated the shortcomings of (one) current paper-based election method, and so things migrated naively to the electronic systems of 2004. Maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to reach a correct equilibrium somewhere in the middle.
I don't hold out much hope, especially since this is California - the land of the Guvernator. On the other hand, it is also the hotbed of the open source movement. So, there might be some hope.
What we really need is a tremendous scandal in an election: something like all votes are lost and Ross Perot gets elected to the school board, or something. Only then will people actually wake up and realize that they vote is easily in jeopardy from proprietary and unresponsive (and partisan, I might add) election powerhouses like Diebold.
let the flamebait mod down begin...
2) Fusion engines are very efficient and would allow not just single stage to orbit vehicles, but single stage to Mars surface and back to Earth without refueling and taking only a couple of months for the round trip.
Humans have achieved fusion of the breakeven sort: where the amount of energy output has equaled the amount of energy input required. Existing facilities should be able to actually get some net power output in the next few years, as their ability to control plasmas and "burn times" increases. The Int'l Tokomak Experimental Reactor will almost certainly be able to produce 5x the power input, and eventually 15x if all goes well. I know, the "if all goes well," sound rather hollow to me, too.
An excellent resource about the state of the art in fusion can be found in the latest edition of the IEEE Control Systems Magazine, which is the first in a two-part series about the control of Tokomak plasmas.
The real problem with fusion is that the best technology we have, and can hope to have in this generation or so, is that it is big. Really, really BIG. It also requires a tremendous power input to get things going (something like a MW or two for several seconds). So, it is unlikely to ever be suitable as a replacement for rockets; at least not in our lifetimes. It is possible that it might provide a useful power and propulsion source to interplanetary craft, but that is still a bit of a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.
I often wonder where they get these names for missions from. There are some mission acronyms out there that are so ridiculous, they make you wonder if they didn't start with the abbreviated word first and then fill things in from there.
In this case, they've decided to name this mission after an old man off his rocker who thought he was a chivalrous knight of old. One of his more famous skirmishes was against a windmill he thought was a giant. Amazingly enough, he only damaged himself when he charged it. Perhaps that is where they have derived their inspiration. Let us hope they have a little more luck.
The problem is, as moonbender already pointed out, is that PSUs (not just for computers, but power converters of almost any sort) have wrose efficiency the farther you operate from their rated load. Stated differently, their peak efficiency usually comes near max power output. So, that 600 W PSU, even if its rated efficiency is 10 percentage points higher than that 300 W unit [note that, in either case, the rated efficiency they stamp on the box is almost categorically a lie], the smaller unit will more efficiently deliver the ~200 W needed to actually run the computer for most things.
Another thing that one ought to consider when buying that ultra-mega-PSU, aside from whether it can actually deliver the power it claims, is what its standby power draw is. When operating under no-load conditions (such as when the computer is on standby, or off), those larger PSUs will tend to draw more power than smaller ones. That power is a complete loss, because it's not actually doing anything useful except keeping the transformer nice and toasty. The best thing to do would be to simply unplug the computer when turned off, or flick the switch on that power strip.
Any idea how much power your house uses even when everything in it is "off"?
I am not saying that the notion of a government DNA database doesn't scare the crap out of me, but the "So?" poster has a decent point. If I am picked up on suspicion of any crime, or ask for a gun permit, or any number of other licenses, I must submit my fingerprints - I don't need to be convicted of a crime first. Those fingerprint records are entered into a national database along with with terrorists, murderers, and petty criminals.
Let us not forget that, if someone is picked up for some petty crime and has their fingerprints run through the database, they may very well be identified as someone involved in another crime. Now consider that there's a serial rapist out there - a national DNA database would go a long way towards nabbing that guy for every crime he's committed.
Now that I've played the devil's advocate and must now wash my hands vigorously, I have a counterpoint. The key difference here is that DNA is not merely a fingerprint, but contains a tremendous amount of information about you. One cannot tell, from looking at a fingerprint, the owner's gender, age, race, etc. Let's set aside the fact that all that information appears alongside the fingerprint record. When one has a DNA sample of someone, one can run it screen it for a number of things beyond just physical characteristics: it can pinpoint you as someone that has a predisposition to some disease, reveal race and ethnic details beyond one's appearance, could even show you have a predisposition to rage and mental illness.
That notion - that the government could have a searchable database of anyone ever brought in to the station with such information - really scares me. About the only person I think would be worse off having such a database would be my insurance company - but that's a different topic.
It is true that we keep hearing about combat robots, but the simple truth is that it is incredible difficult to reproduce what boots on the ground can do. Let's face it, even when stumbling drunk, human beings are better at negotiating difficult terrain (such as a combat zone) than even the most sophistocated robots. Just consider the amount of brainpower and resources are being poured into the DARPA Grand Challenge. How many years, millions of dollars, and engineers has Honda spent just to get the Asimo to walk around on its own, on a perfectly flat floor or up a preprogrammed flight of stairs? The difficulties of over-land mobility in robotics are just too great to think that $32 million in development funds (as mentioned in the article) will be able to develop a robot that is even half as capable, or intelligent, as a grunt that spent a few months in basic. This is why the greatest advances in military robotics have come in aircraft - the mobility issues are much simpler. It is a lot easier to program an autopilot for a drone than it is to program an autodrive for an off-road Humvee (which, incidentally, they haven't yet been able to do, hence the Grand Challenge). I'll call it vaporware.