if you can estimate manufacturing costs and sales, you can get a good idea of Amazon's revenue and costs - this is important if you are interested in investing in AMZN
Everyone seems to be confused about what an x-ray laser is. It isn't like a laser pointer that can be focused down to a small dot. X-ray's can't readily be focused, except by clever uses of beryllium, and even those aren't very efficient.
No, the applications of this are quite different. Think about an expanded laser beam. What can you do with that? Well, you can make holograms, for one. An interesting thing about holograms is that the size of the image scales with the light that illuminates them. So, if you could record a hologram in X-rays, then view it with red light, it would be magnified by ~700 times. Unfortunately, x-ray holograms are unlikely, because recording a hologram requires redirecting the beam at least once. The best X-ray mirrors (beryllium) are no more than 1% efficient.
So X-ray lasers aren't really that interesting for the layman. However, they are extremely important for science. I don't know specifically what this one will be used for, but you can bet it will lead to new discoveries.
Speaking of Hawking, they should change this so that it is full words. It is probably easier to get the comp to recognize the difference between left or right than A,B,C,D,.... Use the interface that Hawking has on his computer, where it just narrows down the word groups.
In fact, people that think like you do are way in the minority these days.
Yes, unfortunately realists are in the minority.
The fact of the matter is online education will fill a small niche, but will not expand much beyond where it is now.
As far as the idea that people will still pay for Universities so that they can get a degree is only half true. People pay for an education. The degree proves that they received it. It is unlikely that a majority of Universities will ever give out all of there lessons for free. I wish they would, but it won't work in a capitalist society.
Now, what could work is something similar to wikipedia, where professors contribute to a common course repository. The lessons would be free, but no one university would be responsible for upkeep.
Yet people are still learning more than they would without going to college. So is it really a bad thing? Sure, the rich people have to look harder to find a good school, but the less privileged get to go to college and improve their station in life.
Try being realistic instead of pessimistic sometime. It's a lot more useful.
It reminds me of early MOSFET technology. No one could get MOSFET's to work on the same level of BJT's because there was horrible leakage in the gate. After several years it became apparent that the gate oxide was contaminated by sodium ions that carried current through the gate.
(Disclamer: This story was relayed to me by one of my professors. I'm not sure how accurate it is.)
I think thats actually a fairly accurate statement. Review papers usually are backed by a deep level of understanding, but initial research papers are not. Most research papers present findings along with an analysis that may or may not be correct.
Books are were you should go if you want to read an author that really understands it.
There are many people with this mindset. Even Richard Feynman seemed to think that his brain was limited, and that he would in his lifetime reach the point when "for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before."
However, in reality, you will never reach the capacity of your brain. With proper mnemonics you could remember every conversation you ever had down to the word. In fact, there are people who do just that. Take Solomon Shereshevskii for example.
The true limit on what you can learn is how much time you have to learn. You can devote your life to learning about science, and learn a tremendous amount. However, unless you took the time to learn about other topics, you would know nothing about art, music, or anything else.
I haven't done the calculation, but I would bet that the energy required to lift a solar panel into orbit (even assuming perfect efficiency, no drag, etc.) would be greater than the amount of energy you can expect to get out in 15 years of operation. Given, there are very few degradation factors for GaAs solar cells in orbit (they are quite radiation hardened), but a payback time of anything greater than 3 years is not going to cut it for any energy source.
Oil has already fallen below the point of wind and solar in terms of energy in to energy out. The near term future of commercial energy is coal, nuclear, wind and G2 solar (thin film Si, CdTe, and CIGS). G3 solar might start to come around, but considering it doesn't even exist in the lab as of yet, it's going to be at least 20 years.
I really hope that hybrid fusion starts getting support. If humanity really wants to last for another few thousand years we need to get fusion working on a massive scale, and I just don't see that happening without an economically viable use for fusion being available in the next century. Hybrid fusion presents us with that use.
The UT endowment dropped nearly 30% over the past year. The state senate has been on a witch hunt to blame everyone but themselves. The man who was running the endowments, Robert Rowling, resigned because he was being criticized for following his contractual obligation to pay bonuses for the previous year. The senate claimed he should have broken this obligation in the face of large losses.
Part of the problem with our political system is that so many of the people in power were born into money. If more of them actually knew what it meant to depend on public education, maybe it would be taken more seriously. From my point of view there are three areas that are worth spending on, and they all fall under the broad category of infrastructure:
1. Energy Independence 2. Education 3. Public Infrastructure
Our nation became powerful because we had the best of all 3 of these areas above any other nation. Now, we are ignoring them for more immediate desires. People seem to think that pumping more money into the economy will solve the problem, but unless you are actually producing goods or improving our ability to produce goods with that money, all it does is cause inflation.
This would not be a horrible thing if there were no physical limits to growth, but we are about to hit a huge one - Energy. Now that the production of oil is hitting an inevitable peek, the price will skyrocket (and not because of a bubble this time) until eventually, all the producing nations will stop exporting. We will be forced to rely on our large supply of coal, but it will not be able to scale up fast enough, nor will any of the renewable sources of energy that actually have long-term viability (Solar and Wind, mainly).
Chris Martenson has an amazing ability to view the issue from all of the important angles, and he shows you how they all fit together, and he backs everything up with undeniable facts. If you have time, watch all of it. If not, at least watch the parts on bubbles and peak oil.
So what happens to the problem? Just ignore it and hope it goes away? Where do you think all the crime and poverty comes from? It's not from the two parent households and involved parents. I'm not saying we should forget them, but we already subsidize having a family. What about making it easier for the poor to get an education, and maybe actually improve their station in life?
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." -Mahatma Ghandi
A large number of people seem to be confused on this issue. For some reason people think a bracketed tax screws over the people making more money, when in actuality it is designed based on the idea of decreasing returns on income utility.
On the other hand, businesses do come out ahead (tax-wise) for making less money. If they put all their profits back into the business, they pay fewer taxes. Kinda odd if you think about it, but it has the benefit of promoting growth.
I agree completely. If portability is the goal, you can easily create a foldable device with 2 screens with a minimal seem between each one. This is something I would love to see, by the way. An e-book reader that is nearly letter sized, but folds up to fit in your pocket would be amazing.
I can't believe someone in Obama's camp seriously suggested this. He should be replaced immediately, as his mind is clearly up in the clouds.
There are two renewable energy technologies that are ready for mass deployment - wind and solar (photovoltaic and possibly steam generation). All others should be considered research projects.
The main reason photovoltaics is not a larger industry in the US is because start-up companies have trouble finding experienced workers. The technology is there. It is well developed, and it is scalable. Just take a look at CSG Solar and First Solar.
The US government needs to make a commitment to funding education in current generation renewable energy.
Has anyone suggested making private or home-schooling illegal? That was the worst strawman argument I've seen in ages.
No one thinks people who can afford to put there kids in top notch private schools should be prevented from doing just that. In fact, most people would probably applaud such actions, as it will provide your children with a high quality education - something that benefits all of society. However, ignoring the other 95% of the children in this country is blindingly inhumane and shortsighted. Believe it or not, rich people depend on the other people in this country. They aren't on top of some mountain, isolated from all external influences, no matter how much it may seem so to them.
I'm glad you put the blame on parents, because there is a good reason to do so.
However, placing blame doesn't help all the children who end up dropping out of school at 14 to work the streets. If you want to solve the problem, you have to consider possible solutions, not place blame and walk away.
I agree that educational planning is necessary, but I also think it should be done in local levels of government. Too local, and you end up with slums with horrible education. Too national, and you end up with slums with horrible education.
States seem, to me, to be the appropriate entities to provide educational foundations. If the federal government wants to perform studies to help determine successful educational practices, I'm all for it. However, the current situation of the federal government controlling each states education system by means of threatened withholding of funds, is appalling.
States need to step up, band together and refuse federal education grants. Lower federal taxes, and let the states raise their own money for education. Then, instead of having to put up with horrible educational legislation, people will be able to influence how their children are educated, because it will be decided much more locally.
I'm sick and tired of the federal government generalizing every topic into two possible sides. There are ALWAYS more than two sides to every issue.
I was wondering the same thing. Silicon is not a glass, and cannot be stretched like a glass can.
Glasses have very fuzzy 'melting points'. In other words, they just get gooey rather than becoming a liquid. Silicon on the other hand, has a well defined melting point, and is not gooey.
Now, silicon crystals ARE grown inside of SiO2 lined graphite crucibles. So, I imagine that they might be able to melt the silicon inside of a Si02 layer, and stretch both. Then, when it cools, the silicon will form microcrystals. So, it wouldn't be crystalline, but it would still be transparent to photons with energy below 1.1 eV (wavelength greater than 1.1 um).
Actually, neither one is correct a sentence, as there is no verb. Some might argue that the verb is implied. However, implied verbs are not an accepted part of the English language, though they are sometimes used by writers.
Slashdot Mirror
if you can estimate manufacturing costs and sales, you can get a good idea of Amazon's revenue and costs - this is important if you are interested in investing in AMZN
Or you could.. you know.. just look up their revenue and costs.
Everyone seems to be confused about what an x-ray laser is. It isn't like a laser pointer that can be focused down to a small dot. X-ray's can't readily be focused, except by clever uses of beryllium, and even those aren't very efficient.
No, the applications of this are quite different. Think about an expanded laser beam. What can you do with that? Well, you can make holograms, for one. An interesting thing about holograms is that the size of the image scales with the light that illuminates them. So, if you could record a hologram in X-rays, then view it with red light, it would be magnified by ~700 times. Unfortunately, x-ray holograms are unlikely, because recording a hologram requires redirecting the beam at least once. The best X-ray mirrors (beryllium) are no more than 1% efficient.
So X-ray lasers aren't really that interesting for the layman. However, they are extremely important for science. I don't know specifically what this one will be used for, but you can bet it will lead to new discoveries.
When will Hawking get one?
Speaking of Hawking, they should change this so that it is full words. It is probably easier to get the comp to recognize the difference between left or right than A,B,C,D,.... Use the interface that Hawking has on his computer, where it just narrows down the word groups.
In fact, people that think like you do are way in the minority these days.
Yes, unfortunately realists are in the minority.
The fact of the matter is online education will fill a small niche, but will not expand much beyond where it is now.
As far as the idea that people will still pay for Universities so that they can get a degree is only half true. People pay for an education. The degree proves that they received it. It is unlikely that a majority of Universities will ever give out all of there lessons for free. I wish they would, but it won't work in a capitalist society.
Now, what could work is something similar to wikipedia, where professors contribute to a common course repository. The lessons would be free, but no one university would be responsible for upkeep.
Examples are already available:
http://www.plasma.uu.se/CED/Book/
http://www.wikitextbook.co.uk/index.php/Main_Page
In summary, I hope ya'll are right. I hope education will be free to the masses. I just don't expect it to happen anytime soon.
Yet people are still learning more than they would without going to college. So is it really a bad thing? Sure, the rich people have to look harder to find a good school, but the less privileged get to go to college and improve their station in life.
Try being realistic instead of pessimistic sometime. It's a lot more useful.
It reminds me of early MOSFET technology. No one could get MOSFET's to work on the same level of BJT's because there was horrible leakage in the gate. After several years it became apparent that the gate oxide was contaminated by sodium ions that carried current through the gate.
(Disclamer: This story was relayed to me by one of my professors. I'm not sure how accurate it is.)
Proof by contradiction is a common tool in mathematics. There is no reason it can't work in a non-mathematical argument.
I think thats actually a fairly accurate statement. Review papers usually are backed by a deep level of understanding, but initial research papers are not. Most research papers present findings along with an analysis that may or may not be correct.
Books are were you should go if you want to read an author that really understands it.
There are many people with this mindset. Even Richard Feynman seemed to think that his brain was limited, and that he would in his lifetime reach the point when "for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before."
However, in reality, you will never reach the capacity of your brain. With proper mnemonics you could remember every conversation you ever had down to the word. In fact, there are people who do just that. Take Solomon Shereshevskii for example.
The true limit on what you can learn is how much time you have to learn. You can devote your life to learning about science, and learn a tremendous amount. However, unless you took the time to learn about other topics, you would know nothing about art, music, or anything else.
I haven't done the calculation, but I would bet that the energy required to lift a solar panel into orbit (even assuming perfect efficiency, no drag, etc.) would be greater than the amount of energy you can expect to get out in 15 years of operation. Given, there are very few degradation factors for GaAs solar cells in orbit (they are quite radiation hardened), but a payback time of anything greater than 3 years is not going to cut it for any energy source.
Oil has already fallen below the point of wind and solar in terms of energy in to energy out. The near term future of commercial energy is coal, nuclear, wind and G2 solar (thin film Si, CdTe, and CIGS). G3 solar might start to come around, but considering it doesn't even exist in the lab as of yet, it's going to be at least 20 years.
I really hope that hybrid fusion starts getting support. If humanity really wants to last for another few thousand years we need to get fusion working on a massive scale, and I just don't see that happening without an economically viable use for fusion being available in the next century. Hybrid fusion presents us with that use.
The UT endowment dropped nearly 30% over the past year. The state senate has been on a witch hunt to blame everyone but themselves. The man who was running the endowments, Robert Rowling, resigned because he was being criticized for following his contractual obligation to pay bonuses for the previous year. The senate claimed he should have broken this obligation in the face of large losses.
Part of the problem with our political system is that so many of the people in power were born into money. If more of them actually knew what it meant to depend on public education, maybe it would be taken more seriously. From my point of view there are three areas that are worth spending on, and they all fall under the broad category of infrastructure:
1. Energy Independence
2. Education
3. Public Infrastructure
Our nation became powerful because we had the best of all 3 of these areas above any other nation. Now, we are ignoring them for more immediate desires. People seem to think that pumping more money into the economy will solve the problem, but unless you are actually producing goods or improving our ability to produce goods with that money, all it does is cause inflation.
This would not be a horrible thing if there were no physical limits to growth, but we are about to hit a huge one - Energy. Now that the production of oil is hitting an inevitable peek, the price will skyrocket (and not because of a bubble this time) until eventually, all the producing nations will stop exporting. We will be forced to rely on our large supply of coal, but it will not be able to scale up fast enough, nor will any of the renewable sources of energy that actually have long-term viability (Solar and Wind, mainly).
If any of you are interested in learning how to think about the economy, I suggest you take a look at this website: http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-17a-peak-oil
Chris Martenson has an amazing ability to view the issue from all of the important angles, and he shows you how they all fit together, and he backs everything up with undeniable facts. If you have time, watch all of it. If not, at least watch the parts on bubbles and peak oil.
So what happens to the problem? Just ignore it and hope it goes away? Where do you think all the crime and poverty comes from? It's not from the two parent households and involved parents. I'm not saying we should forget them, but we already subsidize having a family. What about making it easier for the poor to get an education, and maybe actually improve their station in life?
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
-Mahatma Ghandi
Were you a pilot? That's pretty much the schedule.
A large number of people seem to be confused on this issue. For some reason people think a bracketed tax screws over the people making more money, when in actuality it is designed based on the idea of decreasing returns on income utility.
On the other hand, businesses do come out ahead (tax-wise) for making less money. If they put all their profits back into the business, they pay fewer taxes. Kinda odd if you think about it, but it has the benefit of promoting growth.
I agree completely. If portability is the goal, you can easily create a foldable device with 2 screens with a minimal seem between each one. This is something I would love to see, by the way. An e-book reader that is nearly letter sized, but folds up to fit in your pocket would be amazing.
Talk sense (for long enough) and people will listen.
You have too much faith in the masses, if you ask me.
The door-in-the-face method is a psychologically proven method of manipulation.
Talking sense? The verdict is still out.
The space solar idea requires huge amounts of land to capture the microwave energy.
This proposal is absolutely ridiculous. It's insulting my intelligence just to compare it to land based photovoltaics and wind.
I can't believe someone in Obama's camp seriously suggested this. He should be replaced immediately, as his mind is clearly up in the clouds.
There are two renewable energy technologies that are ready for mass deployment - wind and solar (photovoltaic and possibly steam generation). All others should be considered research projects.
The main reason photovoltaics is not a larger industry in the US is because start-up companies have trouble finding experienced workers. The technology is there. It is well developed, and it is scalable. Just take a look at CSG Solar and First Solar.
The US government needs to make a commitment to funding education in current generation renewable energy.
You already need a license to replace the pipes in your house in most cities. Whats the difference?
Has anyone suggested making private or home-schooling illegal? That was the worst strawman argument I've seen in ages.
No one thinks people who can afford to put there kids in top notch private schools should be prevented from doing just that. In fact, most people would probably applaud such actions, as it will provide your children with a high quality education - something that benefits all of society. However, ignoring the other 95% of the children in this country is blindingly inhumane and shortsighted. Believe it or not, rich people depend on the other people in this country. They aren't on top of some mountain, isolated from all external influences, no matter how much it may seem so to them.
I'm glad you put the blame on parents, because there is a good reason to do so.
However, placing blame doesn't help all the children who end up dropping out of school at 14 to work the streets. If you want to solve the problem, you have to consider possible solutions, not place blame and walk away.
The government exists to provide a foundation for the steady growth of society. Education is possibly the most important piece of foundation we have.
I agree that educational planning is necessary, but I also think it should be done in local levels of government. Too local, and you end up with slums with horrible education. Too national, and you end up with slums with horrible education.
States seem, to me, to be the appropriate entities to provide educational foundations. If the federal government wants to perform studies to help determine successful educational practices, I'm all for it. However, the current situation of the federal government controlling each states education system by means of threatened withholding of funds, is appalling.
States need to step up, band together and refuse federal education grants. Lower federal taxes, and let the states raise their own money for education. Then, instead of having to put up with horrible educational legislation, people will be able to influence how their children are educated, because it will be decided much more locally.
I'm sick and tired of the federal government generalizing every topic into two possible sides. There are ALWAYS more than two sides to every issue.
I was wondering the same thing. Silicon is not a glass, and cannot be stretched like a glass can.
Glasses have very fuzzy 'melting points'. In other words, they just get gooey rather than becoming a liquid. Silicon on the other hand, has a well defined melting point, and is not gooey.
Now, silicon crystals ARE grown inside of SiO2 lined graphite crucibles. So, I imagine that they might be able to melt the silicon inside of a Si02 layer, and stretch both. Then, when it cools, the silicon will form microcrystals. So, it wouldn't be crystalline, but it would still be transparent to photons with energy below 1.1 eV (wavelength greater than 1.1 um).
Actually, neither one is correct a sentence, as there is no verb. Some might argue that the verb is implied. However, implied verbs are not an accepted part of the English language, though they are sometimes used by writers.