I was obviously kidding about the filling up space thing. I even mentioned sarcasm. As for cooling, I know you have to radiate heat and you don't have air passing over your radiators, but still, it's quite cheap to build a large radiator (build a heat shield too if you need to block the sun to keep it from heating up). Even very large radiators. And as for spent fuel and deorbiting, it seems that, since you have a local source of power, there's bound to be a relatively easy way to use the spent fuel as a propulsion device to both get rid of it and stay in orbit. Just a though.
Poppycock. You can spout all you want about the merits of green energy, but solar power is a terribly inefficient use of space. What will we do once we've filled up space with solar panels, huh? It'd be much better to just build a bunch of nuclear plants up there instead.
Sarcasm aside, nuclear plants in space might not be such a bad idea if we can actually beam the energy to earth. Nuclear waste is no longer a problem, cooling is no longer a problem, not-in-my-backyard is no longer a problem, if we built a space elevator (which with a budget tied to the energy market [a multi-trillion dollar industry worldwide] would be pretty easy), then upkeep would be much more reasonable. It's worth a thought.
I suppose. I think there's something to be said about the mood set in cinematics that can't be with gameplay alone. Someone mentioned a cinematic of the Zerg attacking a science vessel, and you really get the feeling of how ruthless, unrelenting and uncompromising the Zerg are, and how terrifying engaging an opponent like that might be. Sure, the cinematic is just an example encounter and not terribly important plot-wise, but it adds a great deal to the realism of each individual conflict and a sense of desperation to the war as a whole. If that's not your bag, fine, but don't think that removing them to spend extra money of designers and programmers will make it a better game for everyone; for many it'll make it just an impersonal experience like Tetris or pong.
I'm guessing you've never read a newspaper headline. Using just a comma is a pretty common convention and any linguist will tell you that something is "proper" grammar so long as the reader understands it.
Please don't disingenuously try to claim this is their only effort towards energy savings.
I wasn't aware that I did. I just suggested that banning things isn't always the way to go. If you're really trying to root out a hidden message in my post, it might be something more to the effect of, "solutions that force people to act a certain way are bad; solutions that people would freely choose to embrace are good." But even then, that wouldn't be a "claim", maybe just an implication.
Why ban either? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the question should be what the right thing to ban is with the presumption that "We gotta ban something!" There are better solutions...
Why not take it a step further? Think of the emissions you'd prevent if you banned air conditioning entirely. Come on CA, everybody's got to do their part.
Probably because they handle more traffic than anyone else in the world, and their servers going down is a much more noticeable event than, e.g., GE's. And because the nature of their services probably complicates things as well.
I'm curious how damage is being done to the company in loss of good will. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the outrage caused by this lawsuit alone didn't cost them much more than $300M. I'm not sure whether the whole fiasco will cost them more than $200B, probably not, but I know many people who won't do business with AIG ever again if they can help it. Sometimes money grubbing is a bad business move.
Yes, yes the observer has free will. The alternative is boring, goes against every shred of observable evidence and makes the very question of whether we have free will immaterial. Can we move on as a society now?
FairTax would fix a whole lot of things, that's for sure. But the stimulus is such an absurd blank check for pork barrel politicians that I'd be truly amazed if this doesn't cripple the economy for years longer that it need be. It's just like when the Bush administration pushed through all it's agenda after 9/11 on the pretense of "national security", now the Dems are pushing through everything on the pretense "economic stimulus". I'm convinced that if they just stopped doing shit all the time, the American people, hard working and innovative as they are, would find a way to thrive in the new state of things. It's the constant flux and the uncertainty it breeds that's holding us back now.
Why not give some level of tax breaks to corporations who open source their code. They're essentially donating their code, and we give tax breaks for donations all the time (so long as it's to an applicable entity). Valuing the code for the tax break would be difficult, as it probably should be measured by how much use comes from the code, but it might be easier to work off of how much income the code generates for the company, maybe 5% off taxes for incomes generated from the project or something. But it'd provide a really nice incentive for sharing innovation.
+5 funny? I'd have given it insightful. He's exactly right in his analogy, the flexibility of paper as a writing surface over more rigid surfaces adds a great deal to it's usefulness. An ultra thin and flexible screen would add just as much over these comparably huge and cumbersome LCDs we're using now.
Slashdot Mirror
And nothing beats a recession quite like artificially jacking up the cost of energy for everybody.
Yes, but that only effects people who use energy. Everyone here is so doom and gloom. Geez.
I was obviously kidding about the filling up space thing. I even mentioned sarcasm. As for cooling, I know you have to radiate heat and you don't have air passing over your radiators, but still, it's quite cheap to build a large radiator (build a heat shield too if you need to block the sun to keep it from heating up). Even very large radiators. And as for spent fuel and deorbiting, it seems that, since you have a local source of power, there's bound to be a relatively easy way to use the spent fuel as a propulsion device to both get rid of it and stay in orbit. Just a though.
Poppycock. You can spout all you want about the merits of green energy, but solar power is a terribly inefficient use of space. What will we do once we've filled up space with solar panels, huh? It'd be much better to just build a bunch of nuclear plants up there instead. Sarcasm aside, nuclear plants in space might not be such a bad idea if we can actually beam the energy to earth. Nuclear waste is no longer a problem, cooling is no longer a problem, not-in-my-backyard is no longer a problem, if we built a space elevator (which with a budget tied to the energy market [a multi-trillion dollar industry worldwide] would be pretty easy), then upkeep would be much more reasonable. It's worth a thought.
I suppose. I think there's something to be said about the mood set in cinematics that can't be with gameplay alone. Someone mentioned a cinematic of the Zerg attacking a science vessel, and you really get the feeling of how ruthless, unrelenting and uncompromising the Zerg are, and how terrifying engaging an opponent like that might be. Sure, the cinematic is just an example encounter and not terribly important plot-wise, but it adds a great deal to the realism of each individual conflict and a sense of desperation to the war as a whole. If that's not your bag, fine, but don't think that removing them to spend extra money of designers and programmers will make it a better game for everyone; for many it'll make it just an impersonal experience like Tetris or pong.
I'm guessing you've never read a newspaper headline. Using just a comma is a pretty common convention and any linguist will tell you that something is "proper" grammar so long as the reader understands it.
I don't know if those will make your laptop look more manly, but reading slashdot on it can't be helping.
Double wrong! It's a misspelling of the shocked question, "Jack eloped?!?"
Very clever :-)
They're fun to drive.
Please don't disingenuously try to claim this is their only effort towards energy savings.
I wasn't aware that I did. I just suggested that banning things isn't always the way to go. If you're really trying to root out a hidden message in my post, it might be something more to the effect of, "solutions that force people to act a certain way are bad; solutions that people would freely choose to embrace are good." But even then, that wouldn't be a "claim", maybe just an implication.
Why ban either? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the question should be what the right thing to ban is with the presumption that "We gotta ban something!" There are better solutions...
Why not take it a step further? Think of the emissions you'd prevent if you banned air conditioning entirely. Come on CA, everybody's got to do their part.
Bollocks! I tried learning from my mistakes once, and boy did that ever turn out bad. Now I know better than to try that again.
Probably because they handle more traffic than anyone else in the world, and their servers going down is a much more noticeable event than, e.g., GE's. And because the nature of their services probably complicates things as well.
Why would we need a more in-depth description? We already got our car metaphor!
You have the compact file size of a lossless codec with the crystal clear playback of a lossy one! Everybody wins!
I'm curious how damage is being done to the company in loss of good will. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the outrage caused by this lawsuit alone didn't cost them much more than $300M. I'm not sure whether the whole fiasco will cost them more than $200B, probably not, but I know many people who won't do business with AIG ever again if they can help it. Sometimes money grubbing is a bad business move.
Yes, yes the observer has free will. The alternative is boring, goes against every shred of observable evidence and makes the very question of whether we have free will immaterial. Can we move on as a society now?
Did they just ask /. that?
FairTax would fix a whole lot of things, that's for sure. But the stimulus is such an absurd blank check for pork barrel politicians that I'd be truly amazed if this doesn't cripple the economy for years longer that it need be. It's just like when the Bush administration pushed through all it's agenda after 9/11 on the pretense of "national security", now the Dems are pushing through everything on the pretense "economic stimulus". I'm convinced that if they just stopped doing shit all the time, the American people, hard working and innovative as they are, would find a way to thrive in the new state of things. It's the constant flux and the uncertainty it breeds that's holding us back now.
Why not give some level of tax breaks to corporations who open source their code. They're essentially donating their code, and we give tax breaks for donations all the time (so long as it's to an applicable entity). Valuing the code for the tax break would be difficult, as it probably should be measured by how much use comes from the code, but it might be easier to work off of how much income the code generates for the company, maybe 5% off taxes for incomes generated from the project or something. But it'd provide a really nice incentive for sharing innovation.
The thing is huge, look at the size of the person's hand: http://www.informationweek.com/galleries/showImage.jhtml?galleryID=297&imageID=2&articleID=202103424
+5 funny? I'd have given it insightful. He's exactly right in his analogy, the flexibility of paper as a writing surface over more rigid surfaces adds a great deal to it's usefulness. An ultra thin and flexible screen would add just as much over these comparably huge and cumbersome LCDs we're using now.
The flaw in your argument you seemed to have missed is that there are no beautiful intelligent women. SeePage87 1, MBraynard 0.
+5 informative for a commonly know fact, eh? Let me give it a try:
Cats are mammals. Mod points, please!