Hmm. And so they do indeed need to roof all roads with solar panels in order to replace nuclear with that.
Putting it into the Pacific might well be a better idea;-)
Mind that Japan actualy has quite a lot of inaccessible land. Of course if they could access it to place solar panels there... They'd plant rice instead!
In America there is enough land that wind can do 25% and solar can do another 25%
The USA could easily accomodate 100% solar in some corner of one of the desert states, there are other reasons why going fully solar is a bad short term solution, but lack of land is not one of them. Not even in Japan.
In the long run solar under one form or another is likely to be as dominant an energy supply as fossil is today.
I agree with the Parent that Martin Luther King would not be as effective today hiding behind a pseudonym and a faceless blog as he was when he took the National Mall.
Not as effective, perhaps, but then again, mayby more alive!
So, excuse me for putting a hypotheses out there, but are the strongest, highest ranking member of a gang, the last one to have a go during a gang rape?
I don't think so, many of us outside the US are well aware that we are being asked to sit in the back of the bus - because of being you know... ethnic.
Now, no-one was ever hurt by sitting in the back of the bus, but we're not going to fork over money to corporation that insist on treating us as second rate humans.
The problem is that Google does NOT like free apps. Google make their money from advertizing, and on Google Play they're actively hiding whether are apps paid for by advertizing. This means that FOSS is having a hard time there. And cheap rip-offs of various kinds are having a field day. Once a thriving community of rip-off artists have been gathered bad things(tm) happen (even more).
By the way. Congratulations, the professional anti-Google scaremongers found a semi-reasonable point to criticize. Well done.
And just enough off-center from the real problems not to bother your Corporate Overlords, nice.
Many years ago I stopped paying for non-free software. I don't want it. I don't need it. And I'm not going to pay for it unless it's (going to be) free.
After all, for most software the major part of the value comes from all the other lemmings.
(And, yeah, I know, that means I should be running (pirated) Windows.... But I'm not, I'm on Debian atm.)
So only legislation (or serious liabilty) is left to get this off the ground.
You would really rely on legislatures to get the wording of such a law correct and not impede what we can do with mobile devices?
Who said anything about not impeding? Security does impede what you can do if you care about it at all.
As for the politcos. No, I don't have high hopes. They'll understand and care about these issues shortly after the electorate starts doing so, at best.
Apple is already changing the system to require user permission when accessing contacts. One of the main apps at fault, Path, has already switched voluntarily to using hashes.
So why go the trouble of crafting regulation to solve a problem taking care of itself already? All you can do is make things more annoying for people.
I would argue that Apple is acting more like a legislature here. It's what people are paying them for, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice.
But we really need these things to already be at the scene, or at least not half a world away in some warehouse.
So what would you buy one of these for?
Racing?
Hmm. And so they do indeed need to roof all roads with solar panels in order to replace nuclear with that.
Putting it into the Pacific might well be a better idea ;-)
Mind that Japan actualy has quite a lot of inaccessible land. Of course if they could access it to place solar panels there ... They'd plant rice instead!
No. I got that from 160 hectares yields 6MW -> so to get 4.7GW we need 4.7GW / 6MW * 0.160km^2 = 125.3km^2
Rounded to nearest "easy to calculate in my head" number. ;-)
Japan is quite cloudy, though. We might as well just use the real numbers.
Landing at 128km^2 to replace Daiichi.
By the time they've roofed over every road, they're at more than a hundred times that. And again rooftops haven't been counted.
My point is simply that land use is in no way a deal killer for solar.
In America there is enough land that wind can do 25% and solar can do another 25%
The USA could easily accomodate 100% solar in some corner of one of the desert states, there are other reasons why going fully solar is a bad short term solution, but lack of land is not one of them. Not even in Japan.
In the long run solar under one form or another is likely to be as dominant an energy supply as fossil is today.
Just did the numbers
Daiichi was 4.7 GW, solar is 1kw/m^2 at peak insolation, average is .25 kw/m^2, so 18.8 kw/m^2.
That's asuming total cover and no clouds or other inefficiencies. In other words multiply land need by the inverse of your efficincy.
Now compare that to the 13,400 km^2 that Japan used for roads in 2007 (source). And I'm sorry, but I couldn't find a reliable number for rooftops.
Ye, gods, you mean they'd have to roof over ten! parking lots.
The Horror!
Ok, so huge parking lots, but still ...
If current trends continue world solar panel production will surpass world energy needs by 2023-24.
(Ok, so this cause so much change in energy prices and the ways we do things, that obviously current trends wont continue.)
Tokyo obviously have little room for solar in Tokyo, but we do know how to move electricity.
... and the Pacific is rather large, maybe there's room for a solar panel or two.
I'm really not very good at Japanese, and I remember trying to check my understanding of the news coming out of Japan agaist the BBC.
In my assesment and as far as I recall the BBC reported quite faithfully and very slowly what was happening in Japan.
I agree with the Parent that Martin Luther King would not be as effective today hiding behind a pseudonym and a faceless blog as he was when he took the National Mall.
Not as effective, perhaps, but then again, mayby more alive!
Oh my goodness, because I'm black I have to sit in the back of the bus?
Yes, all the other crap surrounding that is far less severe for Australians, but at heart it's the same issue.
Should we or should we not treat a bunch of bloody transportees with the same diginity as real people?
So, excuse me for putting a hypotheses out there, but are the strongest, highest ranking member of a gang, the last one to have a go during a gang rape?
I don't think so, many of us outside the US are well aware that we are being asked to sit in the back of the bus - because of being you know ... ethnic.
Now, no-one was ever hurt by sitting in the back of the bus, but we're not going to fork over money to corporation that insist on treating us as second rate humans.
What about allowing either of the parties in a lawsuit to claim that the other is atempting to abuse it's monetary clout to 'buy' justice.
If the court agrees, the big player gets to pay the little guys costs along with their own. Even if they win!
Stuff that matters, surely. Certainly not news.
Yes, there's a significant problem here.
The problem is that Google does NOT like free apps. Google make their money from advertizing, and on Google Play they're actively hiding whether are apps paid for by advertizing. This means that FOSS is having a hard time there. And cheap rip-offs of various kinds are having a field day. Once a thriving community of rip-off artists have been gathered bad things(tm) happen (even more).
By the way. Congratulations, the professional anti-Google scaremongers found a semi-reasonable point to criticize. Well done.
And just enough off-center from the real problems not to bother your Corporate Overlords, nice.
While I agree with all you good people who say that auto-complete should not be disable. That would be disabling free speech.
The fact is that Google already disables auto-complete for certain terms (like "nude").
Refusing to do so now, when it's a real person getting hurt, not pseudo-christian pseudo-morality[1], is nasty.
[1]: This is not meant as a slur on real christian morality.
That statement holds true for every last one of us. Not just people who buy non-free software.
So if you’re feeling belittled, at least you have company.
Many years ago I stopped paying for non-free software. I don't want it. I don't need it. And I'm not going to pay for it unless it's (going to be) free.
After all, for most software the major part of the value comes from all the other lemmings.
(And, yeah, I know, that means I should be running (pirated) Windows .... But I'm not, I'm on Debian atm.)
You are quite right of course.
Do you think that's going to make it happen?
Just because Europeans are willing to submit to tyranny why should the U.S.? Why should anyone?
Let's also bring over the vast array of cameras from the U.K. while w are at it!
We're not the ones submitting to tyranny. Regulation of industry is part of the price we pay for not submitting.
I'll grant you that the Brits seem a bit lax when it comes to protecting themselves from government, though.
Then again, neither do they seem likely to elect quite the same quality of nutters to lead them?
Nevermind, we'll just blame Micro$oft for making your computer slow
More seriously. What are you planning to match all that to? Don't you think just headers/filenames will do?
So only legislation (or serious liabilty) is left to get this off the ground.
You would really rely on legislatures to get the wording of such a law correct and not impede what we can do with mobile devices?
Who said anything about not impeding? Security does impede what you can do if you care about it at all.
As for the politcos. No, I don't have high hopes. They'll understand and care about these issues shortly after the electorate starts doing so, at best.
Apple is already changing the system to require user permission when accessing contacts. One of the main apps at fault, Path, has already switched voluntarily to using hashes.
So why go the trouble of crafting regulation to solve a problem taking care of itself already? All you can do is make things more annoying for people.
I would argue that Apple is acting more like a legislature here. It's what people are paying them for, after all.
A setup where uncle bob will only be found if he wants to is not necessarily a step in the wrong direction.
A step backwards to be sure, but that's not always the wrong direction.
Hashing is more difficult than not hashing.
Customers are not going to stay away just because your security is atrocious.
So only legislation (or serious liabilty) is left to get this off the ground.