These new web controllable appliances will be vulnerable to exploits, resulting in someone's house burning down a house after a hacker turns on their stove.
Perhaps - if they become commonplace. There (for many years) have been controllable "appliances"... this is just an expansion of something that already existed. With stuff from SmartHome or X10, one could already control lights, AC, heat, security systems (with "back-links" to lights, and other stuff), locks and certain appliances via the web (and of course from home computers and dedicated/semi-dedicated consoles). Dishwashers (washing machines, dryers, etc) are something not yet on the "total control" aspect of such products... but I dont even see a need for that other than the "because I can" factor... why load a dishwasher and then wait to get to work/a friend's to go online to tell it to turn on (again, other than the "because I can" factor)?
It's a slow news day... perhaps you are trying to say that whoever approved the summary on/. should have read the article so they would have gotten the summary correct?
My problem isn't an inability to read the article... whoever wrote the title and summary seem to have had that problem.
But, that aside, this IS Slashdot... I'm pretty sure every geek... I mean Slashdotter here knows what a Class M planet is... and if not, you just provided them with the necessary explanation;-)
Wrong. Even before the Supreme Court decision, MS used to insert minimum prices into their contracts with retailers - I know - we had one at CompUSA (which we subsequently violated during the store closing sale... ooops!!!).
The article makes a lot of assumptions such as: (1) Life on other planets has the same requirements for existence as us (Class M
planet, water, air like ours, gravity like ours, etc) (2) Extra-terrestrials will be using technology similar to ours (as opposed to more advanced tech) (3) (Basing off #1 being true as they did) there are planets suitable for life such as ours that
we haven't yet discovered that are looking in our direction.
It would 'let an attacker corrupt Windows' kernel files, making the laptop unbootable, or with a little more effort, allow hacks that would result in a PC hijack or malware infection.'
3) Running Windows for too long accomplish the same thing...
4) See number 2 above in PP.
5) How is this news when there are exploits out there that do this on any flavor of Windows regardless of the hardware? Why waste time writing an exploit for a specific laptop series when you can write one that doesn't care what laptop or desktop it is - as long as it is running Windows? Yeah... every OS has it's flaws, but MS makes it SOOOO easy.
Well, that would be a relevant possibility if the article title on/. weren't so erroneous.
Curlsman writes to let us know that the fan site startrek.com, operated for 13 years by CBS, is being shut down and its staff laid off. Is this site worth a write-in campaign?
Above is inaccurate...
The current web team has been laid off... no indication has been given that the site is being shut down - and actually, no other announcement as to what happens with the site has been made either.
A more logical scenario is that the team at CBS Interactive, currently responsible for their other online web ventures, will be assuming control of the startrek.com domain. Whether that means it will stay the same, be refocused to reflect it's relationship to the upcoming movie of the same name, or have various changes implemented has yet to be announced.
Add to that the need for inertial dampeners (a la Star Trek) so that people won't be plastered to the seats and walls... though I guess they could just accelerate "slowly" (not that that is any fun!!!)
In my opinion, it is beyond weak. Like you said, their test did not even simulate the conditions they said they were trying to meet. There is no "imminent or perceived danger of death" in their tests. It's like shining a yellow/orange light at someone and saying it simulates close exposure to the sun.
In addition, there are others who have already speculated that a different or greater extent of one's brain is used under such (non-tested) situations. That theory is supported by others in different fields who study such things as dreams - where they have found that the subconscious can process audio and visual and touch stimuli at a much faster rate than when the mind is awake - all at the same time as it is creating that stimuli. Most people who have lucid dreams can tell you that dream-time takes place in far shorter awake time (3 hours in a dream taking place in 5 minutes of real time between hitting snooze on the alarm clock). The key there is, the person's mind is creating the entire dream world, creating the entire "physical" (ie: perceived) stimuli for each human sense, and then sending actual commands to each muscle that correspond with what your dream body is doing (which get shunted before actually reaching the muscle). So, not only is your mind processing input extremely fast, and sending whatever actions you decide on to your muscles at that accelerated speed - but it is also creating that whole world and simulating your senses and nervous system's response to it - all far faster than normal waking responses.
I agree with you 100%... the problem (currently) being that the RIAA apparently knows and understands everything you pointed out... and are trying to revise the laws (and interpretation of existing ones) to ensure that their business model is not "obsolete" - and if they win such cases, then that will be the case - to the detriment of everyone you listed (while at the same time breathing further life into their obsolete business model).
The trend I see is that if they have their way [and they have in enough critical areas already that I think it possible (SoundExchange & Internet Radio anyone? XM Radio? Re-interpretations of the DMCA?)], then they will control how people can buy, listen to and use music. That will either make many people criminals or ensure that people are required to pay for every method they wish to use for listening to music - or a combination of the two. "Fair Use", backup copies, space shifting, etc will all become illegal. Worse yet is the method being used will ensure that the RIAA members have control over all "acceptable" (by them) methods of listening to music.
It would be bad enough if space/device shifting is ruled illegal (ie: transferring your songs from a CD to your computer or a compilation DVD to play via a DVD MP3 Player, etc)... but it will be even worse since this is actually a multi-pronged attack by the RIAA - to (1) make such things illegal while (2) ensuring that the RIAA has control over every other release method/venue.
This sadly is a threat from the MPAA (that I guarantee you will be followed by the RIAA) that is a double-edged sword for any ISP....
Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue and told the audience that it cost the studios $6 billion annually. His solution: technology, especially in the form of ISP filtering. 'The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected... and I think that's a great opportunity.'
This to me is a threat. The only "everything to lose" that an ISP (who is currently protected by the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA) is the **AA getting laws changed to hold an ISP liable (or winning a precedent setting case that ignores those laws - which they keep trying).
...but others may be more reluctant to go along, notes Ars Technica: 'ISPs that are concerned with being, well, ISPs aren't likely to see many benefits from installing some sort of industrial-strength packet-sniffing and filtering solution at the core of their network. It costs money, customers won't like the idea, and the potential for backlash remains high.'"
Which brings us to the above part, which I think Ars is on target with. If an ISP/OSP (becomes required to and) starts filtering their content, then the **AA can hold them liable for whatever content they miss... and even if they miss nothing, it still is at a greatly increased cost to the ISP and their customers.
Basically, the **AA is saying "We are going to force you to do this or you lose everything because we sue you out of existence... and if you do follow through and do this, then we still may sue you if you miss something... so, please pick option (a) You (the ISP) Lose, or option (b) You (the ISP) Lose."
This has been something the **AA has been trying for years... it's a lot more profitable to be able to hold an ISP that has money liable for their customers' infringement - than to hold Joe Citizen liable who cant pay the amount the **AA wants. (I wonder) how much longer before the **AA actually sneaks a win through in one of their cases against an ISP - a win that violates the Safe Harbor provision...
Not just do I agree with timster and the person he was responding to, but, from what I have seen, enough investors will read idiotic things like what the "analyst" wrote, and actually cause (to some extent) the stock inflation/deflation he is trying to "predict". Some (many?) investors seem to jump on this sort of "news" without actually checking for basis in solid fact - much akin to when a company announces a piece of vaporware or cost savings discovery and their stocks jump ridiculously - followed by the vaporware never being released or that discovery never being able to be implemented.
It all equals out eventually... but (and I could be wrong) in the meantime, it seems a "great" way of driving stocks to perform how one wants them to in order to make a few bucks on the peaks or drops...
I think if that weren't the case, such "news" wouldn't be picked up all over the place (like this piece has). "Gee, we'll change our envelopes... done deal" should have been the end of this, and not make it a noteworthy news item by anyone... I know I would have laughed at the "analyst" and never repeated his story anywhere... after all, what would happen first? The USPS sets up the guidelines, and gets approval for a rate increase/surcharge addition - before NetFlix uses a different type of envelope? The USPS can't just tack on a new charge or change a rate without having to go through a whole bunch of steps that take quite a bit of time - including (assuming the measure was approved) setting an implementation date sometime in the future - all of which would give any company plenty of time to tell their printer "We need _____ type of envelope".
I'm sure someone has posted that this is "news" that shouldn't be on/. but in my opinion, it should be. It's (things like this) are a great tool to help judge the intelligence of "experts" in a given field, as well as public perceptions of such (combined with our slightly more technically oriented perceptions).
Microsoft have frequently used biased methods for "security comparisons"...
The sad thing is it's legal. MS is very smart at how they do these things. If they do a study (or pay for one that is intended to come up with the results that they want), then all they need to do is get some journalist to read it and publish an article about it. The journalist isn't even required to quote their sources... but even if they do, it still give no indication that the "source" (whatever firm that MS paid to do the "research") was actually a company that MS paid to find those results.
In advertising, things are just barely different. A company can make almost any claim they want - as long as there is a small, barely readable disclaimer someplace. Much like weight loss ads: BIG "I lost 800 pounds in 10 minutes!" Small: "Not typical results. Avg weight loss is 1 pound a month".
A wonderful example of this is Verizon. I am sure everyone has heard Verizon's claims of having "the nation's most reliable wireless voice and data network" - how many people have read the really tiny, flashed on the screen almost too briefly to read disclaimer that says (paraphrased) "Based on Verizon's own study and Verizon's calling options"?
The added beauty (for Verizon and other companies) is that tons of websites cite Verizon's claim - without the disclaimer that it is Verizon, through their own "study" that thinks they are the most reliable. Very misleading (and sadly legal).
Until laws are changed to hold companies more accountable for their (often ridiculous) claims - and/or requiring companies to only use unbiased third party studies when releasing (on the web, to the press, etc) or making such claims, the situation will remain the same.:-(
If solar starts making significant inroads then the states will probably switch from a fuel tax to a road tax as their primary income (i.e. a cost for owning a car, possibly tied to the number of miles you drive every year).
Gee, thanks a whole hell of a lot for giving them THAT idea!:-)
I have a feeling you are right on the money with your entire post...
I didn't read anything about them not wanting/being able to sell to the American market, it's just that their first order was placed by a European company. Unfortunately I didn't really further research this since I have a Histology exam in 2hrs and I should probably make my way over to campus.
I didnt say they didnt want to. I said (hugely paraphrased) that it sucks that they aren't and it sucks that the solar environment (selling them, etc) in this country is in such a state that their best method is to grab the big corporate sales first before they start selling here.
It makes perfect business sense - but that is because there aren't "Walmart's for Solar" here...
Actually if these cells only last 3 years they are still cheaper. Sure at only 10% of the cost of others and only lasting a 10% as long it seems they would cost just as much over the 30 years however in 5, 10, or even 15 years tyme the price will drop even more, in inflation adjusted dollars Solar cells are dropping in price. And with increased efficiency the price per kilowatt will decline. The problem though is what happens to them once they are no longer any good.
Ummm... Yeah. It was late last night... glad you were up to do my thinking for me.:-) So, then lets add more to your (correct) observation... they'd still be even cheaper because installation and maintenance would be a lot less than with a traditional glass panel... and THAT has to account for a bunch of money on a large, city powering installation...
Umm, I did. And sorry, to clarify... because I sort of short handed that post... but I know people here tend to critique that - especially if they didnt read the other posts...
Nanosolar, which has been heavily invested in by a few of the owners of Google. So, not owned by Google per se. But owned by the people who own Google.
Actually what makes the biggest difference for heating and cooling is insulation. With the right R value a building shouldn't need much energy to cool or heat it so it's comfortable to the occupants.
True... sorry about that... my statement:
The only problem I see is (unless you have a massive yard) I dont think it would matter...
... was kinda tongue in cheek. I was trying to say that if you have a normal yard, it really didnt matter too much where you dug, because the chances are your net results would be the same in spot A, or in Spot B that's only 40 feet away... but if you had a massive yard (ie: many mile farm) it might help to determine the most suitable spot on your land.
Yeah - that is what is so sad. As I pointed out in another post... I think it is smart... get big businesses that will buy lots of them, to further the effort of making more - as opposed to trying to sell them to consumers first and hope you sell enough to stay in business.
It's not a BAD thing... it's just a SAD thing (that you or I or Joe HomeOwner can't go buy one).
I guess it's not that sad after all - because it means they are more likely to stick around, having taken that route.
Yes... in some places, the magma layer is closer... but regardless, if you think digging a 2 mile hole isnt deep drilling - at least on a human scale... then there is where our differences lie.
By deep drilling, I mean drilling that is deep for human technology - not "Gee, the earth is 4,000 miles to the core... so deep would be 3,000 miles".
Now I see what we are arguing over - which is nothing more than a difference of opinion as to what we each consider deep. To me, 2 miles down - for a human/human machine - is deep.
Yeah, but I differentiated the two... for water, for a small house, yes... but I think you can do that anywhere. The detection method the article is talking about is for power generation on large scale which requires deeper drilling...
But, I wonder if it could lead to more efficient heating and cooling setups? The only problem I see is (unless you have a massive yard) I dont think it would matter...
Though, it might be good to use for power generation on a small scale... something I have been thinking of... Using a Sterling Engine, and a normal depth geothermal setup... since the shorter depth drilling wont heat water well enough to run a turbine for electricity, maybe it would still be useful for a Sterling Engine?
I think maybe a well thought out combination of all the methods you listed - as well as the capacitor-as-a-battery stuff that keeps popping up on/. might be a good solution...
Deep within Earth is an untapped source of energy: geothermal energy.
Maybe we will use a transporter to get it out... or... wait... what else could we do? Oh, I know! We can DRILL... DEEP! Sorry about the sarcasm... but I even quoted the article and bolded the relevant sections...
And yes, they call it "the power plant" - which as of today, with today's technology, is a deep drill reservoir/plant combo. There isnt ANY other way. I provided a BUNCH of links in my other posts... that is the only known way today to produce geothermally created electricity as of today - which *i* called a "conventional" power plant. Doesnt matter... take the word conventional out... that still leaves you with the ONE method in use today to create large amounts of electricity via geothermal... which thus is the conventional method...
I guess that statement is kind of innaccurate. I should have said the "only style of geothermal power plant that generates that large of a scale of electricity" instead of "the conventional...".
As for the rest... again, this method has nothing to do with generating electricity via geothermal energy... it is about finding locations easier and cheaper to generate electricity on a large scale via geothermal energy. The electricity generation method hasnt changed - just the method of finding it.
I'll address just part -- There's no alternate energy grid because building a second, redundant power grid would be about the most ironic wasteful use of resources imaginable. Instead, power gets fed into one big grid from "clean" and "dirty" sources. Power distribution companies (the ones with their name on your electricity bill) buy power from other companies, both clean and dirty. The way to get clean energy into your home isn't to buy directly from the producer--almost nobody does that--but to buy through the distributor. The distributor owns the copper, there's no reason to build a second set of copper.
Many power distribution companies own all or part of the power creation companies. Many actually require it when they look to buying more from other sources (like LIPA). Even owning only a portion of the plant means they would be hurting themselves by investing in cheaper alternatives that make that investment (in the power creation company) obsolete. It also means that buying power from someone other than themself (or power generation company that they own interests in) hurts them as well.
That means *I* would hazard it would be difficult to enter into the power generation market. (ie: that would be MY uneducated guess, but as I dont own - or intend to own a power company, I have no real clue on the matter).
Yeah, Nanosolar's claims may be puffery... but they've already apparently landed a big sale in Europe that would lead me to surmise it isnt. BUT... as someone else pointed out (which would have the same effect you are talking about), how long will the panels last? They may cost 1/10th the price of conventional panels (assuming - and I will grant you that... assuming Nanosolar's claims are true)... but that doesnt mean anything if the panels dont last as long as conventional ones.
As for land areas... in the US, I dont think that is too big of an issue... desert land cant cost that much... well... renting it for power generation probably would. I know if I owned a plot of desert and a power company wanted to *rent* it from me (instead of buying it), I would factor into that rent the fact that they are going to make a bunch of money off generating power.
As for maintenance, there is always that... but that affects every form of power generation we have. Of course, these panels are *supposed* to be more durable... but I wont buy into that claim until a bunch of them are installed and we see what happens under normal (greatly varying) conditions...
I have no idea why Baltimore sucks either...:-) and I wouldnt think it would have to do with any vast multi-national oil company there either... but it might have to do with a vast gas and electric company that knows it can sit on the money - apparently forever... with no intervention from the state to change the current situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps - if they become commonplace. There (for many years) have been controllable "appliances"... this is just an expansion of something that already existed. With stuff from SmartHome or X10, one could already control lights, AC, heat, security systems (with "back-links" to lights, and other stuff), locks and certain appliances via the web (and of course from home computers and dedicated/semi-dedicated consoles). Dishwashers (washing machines, dryers, etc) are something not yet on the "total control" aspect of such products... but I dont even see a need for that other than the "because I can" factor... why load a dishwasher and then wait to get to work/a friend's to go online to tell it to turn on (again, other than the "because I can" factor)?
It's a slow news day... perhaps you are trying to say that whoever approved the summary on /. should have read the article so they would have gotten the summary correct?
My problem isn't an inability to read the article... whoever wrote the title and summary seem to have had that problem.
"provides no details of those built in North America in the early 1800s. Man-in-the-middle attacks were dead easy"
The "early 1800's" is the 19th Century - not 18th.
Well, I live in the Star Trek Universe quite often lately (check out http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/)...
But, that aside, this IS Slashdot... I'm pretty sure every geek... I mean Slashdotter here knows what a Class M planet is... and if not, you just provided them with the necessary explanation ;-)
Wrong. Even before the Supreme Court decision, MS used to insert minimum prices into their contracts with retailers - I know - we had one at CompUSA (which we subsequently violated during the store closing sale... ooops!!!).
The article makes a lot of assumptions such as:
(1) Life on other planets has the same requirements for existence as us (Class M
planet, water, air like ours, gravity like ours, etc)
(2) Extra-terrestrials will be using technology similar to ours (as opposed to more advanced tech)
(3) (Basing off #1 being true as they did) there are planets suitable for life such as ours that
we haven't yet discovered that are looking in our direction.
Here goes my karma...
It would 'let an attacker corrupt Windows' kernel files, making the laptop unbootable, or with a little more effort, allow hacks that would result in a PC hijack or malware infection.'3) Running Windows for too long accomplish the same thing...
4) See number 2 above in PP.
5) How is this news when there are exploits out there that do this on any flavor of Windows regardless of the hardware? Why waste time writing an exploit for a specific laptop series when you can write one that doesn't care what laptop or desktop it is - as long as it is running Windows? Yeah... every OS has it's flaws, but MS makes it SOOOO easy.
6) There goes my karma!
Well, that would be a relevant possibility if the article title on /. weren't so erroneous.
Curlsman writes to let us know that the fan site startrek.com, operated for 13 years by CBS, is being shut down and its staff laid off. Is this site worth a write-in campaign?Above is inaccurate...
The current web team has been laid off... no indication has been given that the site is being shut down - and actually, no other announcement as to what happens with the site has been made either.
A more logical scenario is that the team at CBS Interactive, currently responsible for their other online web ventures, will be assuming control of the startrek.com domain. Whether that means it will stay the same, be refocused to reflect it's relationship to the upcoming movie of the same name, or have various changes implemented has yet to be announced.
Robert
In the meantime, feel free to watch the rest of Kirk's 5 year mission (Seasons 4-5) at:
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/
Add to that the need for inertial dampeners (a la Star Trek) so that people won't be plastered to the seats and walls... though I guess they could just accelerate "slowly" (not that that is any fun!!!)
In my opinion, it is beyond weak. Like you said, their test did not even simulate the conditions they said they were trying to meet. There is no "imminent or perceived danger of death" in their tests. It's like shining a yellow/orange light at someone and saying it simulates close exposure to the sun.
In addition, there are others who have already speculated that a different or greater extent of one's brain is used under such (non-tested) situations. That theory is supported by others in different fields who study such things as dreams - where they have found that the subconscious can process audio and visual and touch stimuli at a much faster rate than when the mind is awake - all at the same time as it is creating that stimuli. Most people who have lucid dreams can tell you that dream-time takes place in far shorter awake time (3 hours in a dream taking place in 5 minutes of real time between hitting snooze on the alarm clock). The key there is, the person's mind is creating the entire dream world, creating the entire "physical" (ie: perceived) stimuli for each human sense, and then sending actual commands to each muscle that correspond with what your dream body is doing (which get shunted before actually reaching the muscle). So, not only is your mind processing input extremely fast, and sending whatever actions you decide on to your muscles at that accelerated speed - but it is also creating that whole world and simulating your senses and nervous system's response to it - all far faster than normal waking responses.
I agree with you 100%... the problem (currently) being that the RIAA apparently knows and understands everything you pointed out... and are trying to revise the laws (and interpretation of existing ones) to ensure that their business model is not "obsolete" - and if they win such cases, then that will be the case - to the detriment of everyone you listed (while at the same time breathing further life into their obsolete business model).
The trend I see is that if they have their way [and they have in enough critical areas already that I think it possible (SoundExchange & Internet Radio anyone? XM Radio? Re-interpretations of the DMCA?)], then they will control how people can buy, listen to and use music. That will either make many people criminals or ensure that people are required to pay for every method they wish to use for listening to music - or a combination of the two. "Fair Use", backup copies, space shifting, etc will all become illegal. Worse yet is the method being used will ensure that the RIAA members have control over all "acceptable" (by them) methods of listening to music.
It would be bad enough if space/device shifting is ruled illegal (ie: transferring your songs from a CD to your computer or a compilation DVD to play via a DVD MP3 Player, etc)... but it will be even worse since this is actually a multi-pronged attack by the RIAA - to (1) make such things illegal while (2) ensuring that the RIAA has control over every other release method/venue.
This sadly is a threat from the MPAA (that I guarantee you will be followed by the RIAA) that is a double-edged sword for any ISP....
Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue and told the audience that it cost the studios $6 billion annually. His solution: technology, especially in the form of ISP filtering. 'The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protectedThis to me is a threat. The only "everything to lose" that an ISP (who is currently protected by the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA) is the **AA getting laws changed to hold an ISP liable (or winning a precedent setting case that ignores those laws - which they keep trying).
...but others may be more reluctant to go along, notes Ars Technica: 'ISPs that are concerned with being, well, ISPs aren't likely to see many benefits from installing some sort of industrial-strength packet-sniffing and filtering solution at the core of their network. It costs money, customers won't like the idea, and the potential for backlash remains high.'"Which brings us to the above part, which I think Ars is on target with. If an ISP/OSP (becomes required to and) starts filtering their content, then the **AA can hold them liable for whatever content they miss... and even if they miss nothing, it still is at a greatly increased cost to the ISP and their customers.
Basically, the **AA is saying "We are going to force you to do this or you lose everything because we sue you out of existence... and if you do follow through and do this, then we still may sue you if you miss something... so, please pick option (a) You (the ISP) Lose, or option (b) You (the ISP) Lose."
This has been something the **AA has been trying for years... it's a lot more profitable to be able to hold an ISP that has money liable for their customers' infringement - than to hold Joe Citizen liable who cant pay the amount the **AA wants. (I wonder) how much longer before the **AA actually sneaks a win through in one of their cases against an ISP - a win that violates the Safe Harbor provision...
Well, that's the way I read it.
Not just do I agree with timster and the person he was responding to, but, from what I have seen, enough investors will read idiotic things like what the "analyst" wrote, and actually cause (to some extent) the stock inflation/deflation he is trying to "predict". Some (many?) investors seem to jump on this sort of "news" without actually checking for basis in solid fact - much akin to when a company announces a piece of vaporware or cost savings discovery and their stocks jump ridiculously - followed by the vaporware never being released or that discovery never being able to be implemented.
It all equals out eventually... but (and I could be wrong) in the meantime, it seems a "great" way of driving stocks to perform how one wants them to in order to make a few bucks on the peaks or drops...
I think if that weren't the case, such "news" wouldn't be picked up all over the place (like this piece has). "Gee, we'll change our envelopes... done deal" should have been the end of this, and not make it a noteworthy news item by anyone... I know I would have laughed at the "analyst" and never repeated his story anywhere... after all, what would happen first? The USPS sets up the guidelines, and gets approval for a rate increase/surcharge addition - before NetFlix uses a different type of envelope? The USPS can't just tack on a new charge or change a rate without having to go through a whole bunch of steps that take quite a bit of time - including (assuming the measure was approved) setting an implementation date sometime in the future - all of which would give any company plenty of time to tell their printer "We need _____ type of envelope".
I'm sure someone has posted that this is "news" that shouldn't be on /. but in my opinion, it should be. It's (things like this) are a great tool to help judge the intelligence of "experts" in a given field, as well as public perceptions of such (combined with our slightly more technically oriented perceptions).
The sad thing is it's legal. MS is very smart at how they do these things. If they do a study (or pay for one that is intended to come up with the results that they want), then all they need to do is get some journalist to read it and publish an article about it. The journalist isn't even required to quote their sources... but even if they do, it still give no indication that the "source" (whatever firm that MS paid to do the "research") was actually a company that MS paid to find those results.
In advertising, things are just barely different. A company can make almost any claim they want - as long as there is a small, barely readable disclaimer someplace. Much like weight loss ads: BIG "I lost 800 pounds in 10 minutes!" Small: "Not typical results. Avg weight loss is 1 pound a month".
A wonderful example of this is Verizon. I am sure everyone has heard Verizon's claims of having "the nation's most reliable wireless voice and data network" - how many people have read the really tiny, flashed on the screen almost too briefly to read disclaimer that says (paraphrased) "Based on Verizon's own study and Verizon's calling options"?
The added beauty (for Verizon and other companies) is that tons of websites cite Verizon's claim - without the disclaimer that it is Verizon, through their own "study" that thinks they are the most reliable. Very misleading (and sadly legal).
Until laws are changed to hold companies more accountable for their (often ridiculous) claims - and/or requiring companies to only use unbiased third party studies when releasing (on the web, to the press, etc) or making such claims, the situation will remain the same. :-(
Yes. Perfect business sense. It's just sad that is the way it needs to start for Nanosolar to remain long-term viable.
Gee, thanks a whole hell of a lot for giving them THAT idea! :-)
I have a feeling you are right on the money with your entire post...
I didnt say they didnt want to. I said (hugely paraphrased) that it sucks that they aren't and it sucks that the solar environment (selling them, etc) in this country is in such a state that their best method is to grab the big corporate sales first before they start selling here.
It makes perfect business sense - but that is because there aren't "Walmart's for Solar" here...
Good luck on your exam!
Ummm... Yeah. It was late last night... glad you were up to do my thinking for me. :-) So, then lets add more to your (correct) observation... they'd still be even cheaper because installation and maintenance would be a lot less than with a traditional glass panel... and THAT has to account for a bunch of money on a large, city powering installation...
Thanks for keeping me thinking.
Umm, I did. And sorry, to clarify... because I sort of short handed that post... but I know people here tend to critique that - especially if they didnt read the other posts...
Nanosolar, which has been heavily invested in by a few of the owners of Google. So, not owned by Google per se. But owned by the people who own Google.
Sorry about that.
True... sorry about that... my statement:
The only problem I see is (unless you have a massive yard) I dont think it would matter...... was kinda tongue in cheek. I was trying to say that if you have a normal yard, it really didnt matter too much where you dug, because the chances are your net results would be the same in spot A, or in Spot B that's only 40 feet away... but if you had a massive yard (ie: many mile farm) it might help to determine the most suitable spot on your land.
Yeah - that is what is so sad. As I pointed out in another post... I think it is smart... get big businesses that will buy lots of them, to further the effort of making more - as opposed to trying to sell them to consumers first and hope you sell enough to stay in business.
It's not a BAD thing... it's just a SAD thing (that you or I or Joe HomeOwner can't go buy one).
I guess it's not that sad after all - because it means they are more likely to stick around, having taken that route.
Yes... in some places, the magma layer is closer... but regardless, if you think digging a 2 mile hole isnt deep drilling - at least on a human scale... then there is where our differences lie.
By deep drilling, I mean drilling that is deep for human technology - not "Gee, the earth is 4,000 miles to the core... so deep would be 3,000 miles".
Now I see what we are arguing over - which is nothing more than a difference of opinion as to what we each consider deep. To me, 2 miles down - for a human/human machine - is deep.
Yeah, but I differentiated the two... for water, for a small house, yes... but I think you can do that anywhere. The detection method the article is talking about is for power generation on large scale which requires deeper drilling...
But, I wonder if it could lead to more efficient heating and cooling setups? The only problem I see is (unless you have a massive yard) I dont think it would matter...
Though, it might be good to use for power generation on a small scale... something I have been thinking of... Using a Sterling Engine, and a normal depth geothermal setup... since the shorter depth drilling wont heat water well enough to run a turbine for electricity, maybe it would still be useful for a Sterling Engine?
I think maybe a well thought out combination of all the methods you listed - as well as the capacitor-as-a-battery stuff that keeps popping up on /. might be a good solution...
Maybe in our lifetimes... :-)
You still havent read the article have you?
Deep within Earth is an untapped source of energy: geothermal energy.Maybe we will use a transporter to get it out... or... wait... what else could we do? Oh, I know! We can DRILL... DEEP! Sorry about the sarcasm... but I even quoted the article and bolded the relevant sections...
And yes, they call it "the power plant" - which as of today, with today's technology, is a deep drill reservoir/plant combo. There isnt ANY other way. I provided a BUNCH of links in my other posts... that is the only known way today to produce geothermally created electricity as of today - which *i* called a "conventional" power plant. Doesnt matter... take the word conventional out... that still leaves you with the ONE method in use today to create large amounts of electricity via geothermal... which thus is the conventional method...
I guess that statement is kind of innaccurate. I should have said the "only style of geothermal power plant that generates that large of a scale of electricity" instead of "the conventional...".
As for the rest... again, this method has nothing to do with generating electricity via geothermal energy... it is about finding locations easier and cheaper to generate electricity on a large scale via geothermal energy. The electricity generation method hasnt changed - just the method of finding it.
Many power distribution companies own all or part of the power creation companies. Many actually require it when they look to buying more from other sources (like LIPA). Even owning only a portion of the plant means they would be hurting themselves by investing in cheaper alternatives that make that investment (in the power creation company) obsolete. It also means that buying power from someone other than themself (or power generation company that they own interests in) hurts them as well.
That means *I* would hazard it would be difficult to enter into the power generation market. (ie: that would be MY uneducated guess, but as I dont own - or intend to own a power company, I have no real clue on the matter).
Yeah, Nanosolar's claims may be puffery... but they've already apparently landed a big sale in Europe that would lead me to surmise it isnt. BUT... as someone else pointed out (which would have the same effect you are talking about), how long will the panels last? They may cost 1/10th the price of conventional panels (assuming - and I will grant you that... assuming Nanosolar's claims are true)... but that doesnt mean anything if the panels dont last as long as conventional ones.
As for land areas... in the US, I dont think that is too big of an issue... desert land cant cost that much... well... renting it for power generation probably would. I know if I owned a plot of desert and a power company wanted to *rent* it from me (instead of buying it), I would factor into that rent the fact that they are going to make a bunch of money off generating power.
As for maintenance, there is always that... but that affects every form of power generation we have. Of course, these panels are *supposed* to be more durable... but I wont buy into that claim until a bunch of them are installed and we see what happens under normal (greatly varying) conditions...
I have no idea why Baltimore sucks either... :-) and I wouldnt think it would have to do with any vast multi-national oil company there either... but it might have to do with a vast gas and electric company that knows it can sit on the money - apparently forever... with no intervention from the state to change the current situation.