I knew I was not the only one who watched Nova's piece on string theory last night!
is it just me, or did it end rather suddenly. They're talking about the multiple additional dimensions, then the five competing theories fragmenting the community in the late '80s, and then it stops. I thought there might at least be something on the five theories and what might show one or another to be a better model, and whether any progress had been made since 1990.
But I would assume that rate would greatly increase if drugs were cheaper and more easily accessible.
If drugs were legalized, would you use more? Would you get intoxicated more often? Do you know anyone who you think would get intoxicated more often if drugs were legal?
I don't. Maybe I'm unusual in who I know, but I think most people who don't get drunk now aren't going to be interested in getting stoned if drugs were made as legal as booze. And if we weren't spending billions on the War on Some Drugs, perhaps we could enforce drugged driving laws more.
The Sony Grand Wega LCD TVs have a replaceable backlight bulb. $300 for a bulb that probably lasts a couple of years -- not that horrible for a ~$3,000 or more HDTV.
reminds me of a scene; a cell phone beeps the Star Wars tune in my CS lecture
I think cell phones should be required to have circuitry that responds to a signal to go into vibrate mode, and the signal generators should be widely available for theaters, lecture halls, and people who just want relief. (Hearing those d---ed things butcher perfectly good tunes is just such an assault on the senses...)
I think the replacement eyeball like devices may become common, but it won't happen before society thinks that it is damn near abusive not to make the replacement.
Oh, no question, but as artificial eyes improve, people with lesser impairments are going to start to want them, and the social taboo will fade.
Hmm. While leg amputation may seem drastric to us now, if we had levitating pads to zip up around or something, the social aspect may change. Perhaps bionic legs you could put on and remove would make it a more acceptable option.
Would you take a replacement eye that had zoom, split-screen, built in browsing, and the ability to record and playback pictures and video?
Unless it's smack-dab in the middle of a highway, or blocking an ambulance, etc. At the very least the car should warn of the imminent disabling and slowly reduce the throttle, so the perpetrator can pull off the road.
One small problem with that. Running Gigawatts of electricity across an ocean ain't too cheap.
If you have power out the wazoo, you can use it to create somewhat less power in the form of various fuels. (You can also run desalination plants, aluminum and titanium refineries, and various other power-hungry industries, and then export those products.)
I think there are some reasonable government policies, though, that could help improve time issues for many. First, all full-time gov't employees should legally be allowed to switch to and from 40 hours a week to 30-32 hours and vice-versa. Likewise, salary can be traded for increased vacation time, as long as it is done (say) six months in advance. (The GS tables would just need a few extra versions.) Perhaps all workers working on government contracts would be required to have similar rights, although the general "right to work" laws of mosst states would make that meaningless.
Also, I don't know them specifically, but I recall there being various rules about what constitutes a full-time worker for various purposes. Those laws should be relaxed to allow more flexibility in schedule-setting and the like.
The various energy companies I've worked for couldn't care less whether it's oil, gas, hydrogen, or twinkies, as long as the profit margin is high.
You must admit, however, that government actions that could reduce oil dependency could also affect the value of the oil assets of these energy companies. So even if they're wisely diversifying, they still have a vested interest in keeping oil prices high.
Rather than make alternative energy cheaper (by investing in alternative energy R&D) so that the market just goes to alternative energy all by itself, increase the cost of gas so much that it has the same cost as alternative energy.
While I agree in principle, you must admit that we are all paying higher taxes in general due to our use of gasoline, what with subsidizing the Saudis, Iraqis, Iranians, et al, not to mention pollution effects, major spills, etc. So while the target shouldn't be to increase gas taxes until alternative energy is feasible, it would be reasonable to raise taxes enough to pay for the secondary negative effects of gasoline use. (Unfortunately, that's a nigh-impossible thing to measure.) If such a tax increase doesn't raise the cost high enough to make alternative fuels cost-effective, so be it, but we should pay, and preferably pay directly, for the true cost of our gasoline use.
Re:You'll keep wasting gas until you can't afford
on
The End of the Oil Age
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, I did not receive any tax breaks on my TDI.
Except that you pay significantly less gas tax, no?
Incidentally, with wind power I think Australia could be the next Middle East. The bay near Darwin is relatively shallow across hundreds of miles. You could put many thousands of windmills off-shore, out of sight of land, and pump out out gigawatts of electricity.
I am going to drive my car until the pump won't pump no more.
Do you care that it runs on gasoline? All I care about is that it moves at a reasonable speed when I tell it to. Whether it's gasoline, CNG, hydrogen, or electric that is powering the car, I don't care.
I care a bit that electrics aren't good for long trips, but then they can also potentially be "refueled" at home. So having one electric and one gas-powered car makes sense for a lot of families.
Y'know, most of us still consider that quite a long time. So Stonehenge won't quite have doubled in age by the time this thing reaches tolerable levels?
To be honest, I haven't seen it at all. My real point, perhaps overstated in haste, is that digicams and videocams will probably merge in the very near future. The extra cost of a dual-purpose CCD isn't that high, and storage costs halve every 18 months. Once the cost of flash memory is, say, $200 to store an hour of quality video, it pays for most people not to have two separate doohickeys.
Note that the main reason I care about avoiding NTSC video is not having interlacing. I grabbed some DV from a videocam to a computer and converted to AVI, and the weave was intolerable.
Microsoft's complaint seems largely to be whinging that Apple is the sole seller. But does anyone know if the Windows version of iTunes makes it hard for a third party to provide a separate selling service that would automagically work with and update iTunes?
but here, in the US, we must be concerned with them gosh darn Ter'rists.
In general, I'm not convinced of the necessity nor the effectiveness of many so-called anti-terrorism actions, but trying to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on weapons-grade plutonium actually seems like a good idea to me.
If this system does not have anything a terrorist could potentially use and creates a relatively compact amount of waste every 30 years, I'm for it. And I usually denigrate nuke plants on cost, waste, terrorism, and other reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess I was off in another dimension. (Not sure if it was tiny one or a big one.)
I knew I was not the only one who watched Nova's piece on string theory last night!
is it just me, or did it end rather suddenly. They're talking about the multiple additional dimensions, then the five competing theories fragmenting the community in the late '80s, and then it stops. I thought there might at least be something on the five theories and what might show one or another to be a better model, and whether any progress had been made since 1990.
But I would assume that rate would greatly increase if drugs were cheaper and more easily accessible.
If drugs were legalized, would you use more? Would you get intoxicated more often? Do you know anyone who you think would get intoxicated more often if drugs were legal?
I don't. Maybe I'm unusual in who I know, but I think most people who don't get drunk now aren't going to be interested in getting stoned if drugs were made as legal as booze. And if we weren't spending billions on the War on Some Drugs, perhaps we could enforce drugged driving laws more.
Or if you are a student then no need to take notes.
Isn't the point of notes so that you can have something to review that takes less time to review than the class itself?
The Sony Grand Wega LCD TVs have a replaceable backlight bulb. $300 for a bulb that probably lasts a couple of years -- not that horrible for a ~$3,000 or more HDTV.
reminds me of a scene; a cell phone beeps the Star Wars tune in my CS lecture
I think cell phones should be required to have circuitry that responds to a signal to go into vibrate mode, and the signal generators should be widely available for theaters, lecture halls, and people who just want relief. (Hearing those d---ed things butcher perfectly good tunes is just such an assault on the senses...)
"Removed gonad tissue?" They cut off their balls! and this is considered living?!
It's not that you would actually live 500 years... it's just that 50 years without 'nads would feel that long.
I think the replacement eyeball like devices may become common, but it won't happen before society thinks that it is damn near abusive not to make the replacement.
Oh, no question, but as artificial eyes improve, people with lesser impairments are going to start to want them, and the social taboo will fade.
Hmm. While leg amputation may seem drastric to us now, if we had levitating pads to zip up around or something, the social aspect may change. Perhaps bionic legs you could put on and remove would make it a more acceptable option.
Would you take a replacement eye that had zoom, split-screen, built in browsing, and the ability to record and playback pictures and video?
Disabling stolen car = good thing
Unless it's smack-dab in the middle of a highway, or blocking an ambulance, etc. At the very least the car should warn of the imminent disabling and slowly reduce the throttle, so the perpetrator can pull off the road.
I keep trying to order that set and if i Hit the cancel button it won't confirm my order!
....what's wrong with this door?
It keeps trying to get me to Submit, but I refuse to yield!
One small problem with that. Running Gigawatts of electricity across an ocean ain't too cheap.
If you have power out the wazoo, you can use it to create somewhat less power in the form of various fuels. (You can also run desalination plants, aluminum and titanium refineries, and various other power-hungry industries, and then export those products.)
I think there are some reasonable government policies, though, that could help improve time issues for many. First, all full-time gov't employees should legally be allowed to switch to and from 40 hours a week to 30-32 hours and vice-versa. Likewise, salary can be traded for increased vacation time, as long as it is done (say) six months in advance. (The GS tables would just need a few extra versions.) Perhaps all workers working on government contracts would be required to have similar rights, although the general "right to work" laws of mosst states would make that meaningless.
Also, I don't know them specifically, but I recall there being various rules about what constitutes a full-time worker for various purposes. Those laws should be relaxed to allow more flexibility in schedule-setting and the like.
The various energy companies I've worked for couldn't care less whether it's oil, gas, hydrogen, or twinkies, as long as the profit margin is high.
You must admit, however, that government actions that could reduce oil dependency could also affect the value of the oil assets of these energy companies. So even if they're wisely diversifying, they still have a vested interest in keeping oil prices high.
Rather than make alternative energy cheaper (by investing in alternative energy R&D) so that the market just goes to alternative energy all by itself, increase the cost of gas so much that it has the same cost as alternative energy.
While I agree in principle, you must admit that we are all paying higher taxes in general due to our use of gasoline, what with subsidizing the Saudis, Iraqis, Iranians, et al, not to mention pollution effects, major spills, etc. So while the target shouldn't be to increase gas taxes until alternative energy is feasible, it would be reasonable to raise taxes enough to pay for the secondary negative effects of gasoline use. (Unfortunately, that's a nigh-impossible thing to measure.) If such a tax increase doesn't raise the cost high enough to make alternative fuels cost-effective, so be it, but we should pay, and preferably pay directly, for the true cost of our gasoline use.
Unfortunately, I did not receive any tax breaks on my TDI.
Except that you pay significantly less gas tax, no?
Incidentally, with wind power I think Australia could be the next Middle East. The bay near Darwin is relatively shallow across hundreds of miles. You could put many thousands of windmills off-shore, out of sight of land, and pump out out gigawatts of electricity.
I am going to drive my car until the pump won't pump no more.
Do you care that it runs on gasoline? All I care about is that it moves at a reasonable speed when I tell it to. Whether it's gasoline, CNG, hydrogen, or electric that is powering the car, I don't care.
I care a bit that electrics aren't good for long trips, but then they can also potentially be "refueled" at home. So having one electric and one gas-powered car makes sense for a lot of families.
Don't these people learn anything from reading 'Mostly Harmless?'
Of course they did, they learned how to bilk gullible people out of money...
I think there's a job opening for you at the Mirage...
yeah, but a guy who used to work there says it's a pain in the neck...
No offense was intended. I wasn't trying to mean, just funny.
P.S. My company's tech support team makes my life so much easier. You guys rock.
Hundereds, maybe thousands of years.
Y'know, most of us still consider that quite a long time. So Stonehenge won't quite have doubled in age by the time this thing reaches tolerable levels?
Not in a typical environment.
To be honest, I haven't seen it at all. My real point, perhaps overstated in haste, is that digicams and videocams will probably merge in the very near future. The extra cost of a dual-purpose CCD isn't that high, and storage costs halve every 18 months. Once the cost of flash memory is, say, $200 to store an hour of quality video, it pays for most people not to have two separate doohickeys.
Note that the main reason I care about avoiding NTSC video is not having interlacing. I grabbed some DV from a videocam to a computer and converted to AVI, and the weave was intolerable.
Microsoft's complaint seems largely to be whinging that Apple is the sole seller. But does anyone know if the Windows version of iTunes makes it hard for a third party to provide a separate selling service that would automagically work with and update iTunes?
but here, in the US, we must be concerned with them gosh darn Ter'rists.
In general, I'm not convinced of the necessity nor the effectiveness of many so-called anti-terrorism actions, but trying to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on weapons-grade plutonium actually seems like a good idea to me.
If this system does not have anything a terrorist could potentially use and creates a relatively compact amount of waste every 30 years, I'm for it. And I usually denigrate nuke plants on cost, waste, terrorism, and other reasons.