Unless you think inserting random words in human authored Mad Libs is "writing".
The supposed "computer generated novel" was actually produced by a program that just substituted words into a set of frameworks prepared by the program's author. To quote the reviewer "None of the long pieces in the book could have been produced except by using elaborate boilerplate templates that are *not* included in the commercially available release of Racter. Nor does the Inrac language include any sort of 'syntax directive' powerful enough to string words together into a form like the published stories."
The actual apparent creativity and absurdity of the prose was entirely the authorship of William Chamberlain, the guy wrote and sold the program "Racter" and wrote all of the frameworks that was the basis of the "prose".
Why doesn't Slashdot block repetitive spam cr@p like this? It is the same posts over and over, day after day. This is a five minute exercise in Perl to kill this spam.
Might it cause the spam to mutate? It might, but the spam-message is clear and can be detected and blocked.
Such things have already appeared, but using solid battery fuel - aluminum plates. It is an Israeli start-up created in 2008 called Phinergy. This is a mature technology, but I don't know how their adoption is going. The company still seems to be around.
That efficiency is including the efficiency of the solar panel. If you can really get 25% efficiency in electricity out of the battery from sunlight (they are currently getting 14.1%) then that is the equivalent of a 29.5% PV cell hooked up to a lead acid battery, or a 25% PV cell hooked up to lithium ion. The best commercial cells are currently about 21.5%.
So there is no "60% more solar panel" required if this technology pays-off. There would be less panel (unless regular PV rises to match or exceed it).
Ok, so any time you take a solar panel and add some kind of energy storage device, that's a story now? There are a lot of ways you can store the energy - many different battery types, pumped water storage, molten salt I suppose. This is just silly.
But that's not what this is. This is a new type of photocell system that converts solar energy directly into stored chemical energy. That is not a solar panel hooked up to a battery. And though the research is at fairly early stage, the sunlight-to-electricity-from-the-battery efficiency is 14.1% better than you would get from hooking a 16% commercial panel (this is mid-low range panel currently on the market) to a lead-acid battery. We will have to see how far this technology can be developed. It took silicon cells 60 years to become commercially viable consumer products.
You seem to have read the article or the original paper yet failed to understand that the solar flow battery is not "two pre-existing ideas" simply combined together but a single device that stores solar energy directly as chemical energy that can be extracted as electricity later. It is not an electric device charging a separate battery. This is a new and different technology.
Not overwhelmed by the overall conversion efficiency of 14.1%? Well, that was about where the best silicon solar cells were stuck at in 1980, after 40 years of development. They are now up to 44%, and solar cells on the market at consumer products right now hit 21.5%. If you charge a lead acid battery from that cell its efficiency is only 18.3%, and with less stellar products (many are in the 15-17% range) this device already beats them in combination with lead-acid.
That's why you research new technologies (yes, an integrated solar flow battery is a new technology), to improve them. You don't get an optimized system right off the bat. This isn't a commercially viable system yet, but was not intended to be. But it is already in the commercially viable efficiency range.
You need lots of research like this, attacking the problem from many different directions, to discovery what is possible, and the best solutions for different problems.
Not so good for indoors, for actual applications, or being able to reproduce what you've done.
True about the indoors part.
It is fine for actual applications if they are of the "one use" sort. Flux compression generators were used to produce huge power pulse in some early nuclear weapons which had 92 exploding bridge wire detonators and needed over 100,000 amps, stat, from a lightweight source.
They are reproducible. You just have to build another set-up like the one you blew up.
Remember the Hostess Twinkies disaster? I'm sure those workers who lost their jobs when Hostess closed didn't feel like the union had *their* best interests in mind, and neither did all those who loved Twinkies at the time.
You mean the 11 January 2012 disaster when Twinkies went bankrupt after a private equity firm Ripplewood Holdings took them private saddling the company with debt, but getting from the two major unions a concession of $110 million in annual wages and benefits, and did so at at a time when sales were falling sharply, being down 20% over the previous year when the bankruptcy was declared?
That disaster?
It is clear that the shutdown in November 2012 was planned, to rid itself of debt. The escalating demands for concessions from Ripplewood that continued throughout the spring, summer and fall were intended to force the unions to take some sort of action, and the plan was as soon as they did they would shut down operations and declare the union was to blame.
All the fires they've had this year made things worse too.
The two things go together. We had the hottest summer in Southern California history this year, in inland valleys (not the desert) it hit 118 F. I have lived years of my life in deserts around the world and have never seen a temperature that high before.
And when it is really, really hot everything gets really, really dry. Then all it takes is an ignition source.
You are force to write things on another tool (like a word processor or text editor) and then when you are done you cut and paste in the finished product. Many messenger/chat features on other platforms are annoyingly misfeatured also (messenging in LinkedIn for example).
This describes my Facebook use exactly, I post nothing. I go on the site only when I need to interact with a couple of clubs I am a member of which use FB as their method of direct member engagement, or very occasionally to "like" performers I want to boost. And it has allowed me to get some current links to people I knew in college that I had lost touch with. But I contact them directly through email.
Indeed. For many jobs, Jevon's Paradox leads to demand going up as productivity improves.
It is notable that the actual evidence available for supporting Jevon's Paradox (a theoretical claim, not one based on data) in the real world is slim and debatable. The problem is although "rebound effects" do definitely occur, the proposition that they actually increase net utilization instead, of modestly offsetting savings, is very difficult to demonstrate since over time many other factors influence utilization. It should definitely not be treated as any sort of law, that efficiency improvements always/normally/frequently lead to increased utilization. No such findings exist in the literature. It may appear sometimes, to some extent, is a far better statement of the situation.
Ah the Cole and Ohanian paper again, but with an extra heaping of customized unhinged exaggeration ("and that's likely an under estimate as it comes from UCLA"). Since the legislation was signed in June 1933, three months after FDR entered office (March 4 in those days), and the Great Depression did in fact end no later than June 1940 when the US per capita GDP had recovered to its pre-depression level (the NBER, who is the semi-official self-designated shot-caller for recessions places it much earlier, but there are good reasons to disregard their definition). I guess since the paper is from UCLA economists he believes FDR actually signed the legislation before he took office perhaps.
“People on the right would say, ‘Hey, look — these guys from UCLA — which is not perceived as some traditionally conservative place — said Roosevelt was to blame for the Depression continuing,’” Ohanian said. “Then people on the left would say, ‘Oh, these guys are conservative, paid mouthpieces for the Koch Foundation,’ which, of course, we were not. But neither side really understands what we did. “
Now this complaint by Ohanian admittedly does nothing to clarify the matter of "what he did" and no explanation at all is found in the entire press release I linked to. You might however want to read this discussion of Ohanian and Cole's claims.
I have had some odd electronic communications events over the years. An email I sent a decade ago bouncing back, or an email sent to me from long ago suddenly arriving. Those are easy to understand though, some email server along the route dredging up old logs, perhaps when a decommissioned server was rebooted.
But I got an iPhone in 2013 for the first time, and last year while going through the photos on the phone, I found pictures taken by someone else of people I did not know at locations I did not recognize. I do not have iCloud set up either, so that is not a related factor as a way the photos could have been miss-synced. The phone has never been out of my possession.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you think inserting random words in human authored Mad Libs is "writing".
The supposed "computer generated novel" was actually produced by a program that just substituted words into a set of frameworks prepared by the program's author. To quote the reviewer "None of the long pieces in the book could have been produced except by using elaborate boilerplate templates that are *not* included in the commercially available release of Racter. Nor does the Inrac language include any sort of 'syntax directive' powerful enough to string words together into a form like the published stories."
The actual apparent creativity and absurdity of the prose was entirely the authorship of William Chamberlain, the guy wrote and sold the program "Racter" and wrote all of the frameworks that was the basis of the "prose".
Can't Slashdot put in some type of cr@p filters? Why do we have to scroll past huge walls of racist spam that is exactly the same day after day?
Bio-fuels are not the solution to anything (unless you are reclaiming a waste stream that would otherwise be burned or something).
Photosynthesis is less than 1% efficient in producing electricity. Commercial solar cells are currently 21% efficient.
Why doesn't Slashdot block repetitive spam cr@p like this? It is the same posts over and over, day after day. This is a five minute exercise in Perl to kill this spam.
Might it cause the spam to mutate? It might, but the spam-message is clear and can be detected and blocked.
Such things have already appeared, but using solid battery fuel - aluminum plates. It is an Israeli start-up created in 2008 called Phinergy. This is a mature technology, but I don't know how their adoption is going. The company still seems to be around.
That efficiency is including the efficiency of the solar panel. If you can really get 25% efficiency in electricity out of the battery from sunlight (they are currently getting 14.1%) then that is the equivalent of a 29.5% PV cell hooked up to a lead acid battery, or a 25% PV cell hooked up to lithium ion. The best commercial cells are currently about 21.5%.
So there is no "60% more solar panel" required if this technology pays-off. There would be less panel (unless regular PV rises to match or exceed it).
Ok, so any time you take a solar panel and add some kind of energy storage device, that's a story now? There are a lot of ways you can store the energy - many different battery types, pumped water storage, molten salt I suppose. This is just silly.
But that's not what this is. This is a new type of photocell system that converts solar energy directly into stored chemical energy. That is not a solar panel hooked up to a battery. And though the research is at fairly early stage, the sunlight-to-electricity-from-the-battery efficiency is 14.1% better than you would get from hooking a 16% commercial panel (this is mid-low range panel currently on the market) to a lead-acid battery. We will have to see how far this technology can be developed. It took silicon cells 60 years to become commercially viable consumer products.
You seem to have read the article or the original paper yet failed to understand that the solar flow battery is not "two pre-existing ideas" simply combined together but a single device that stores solar energy directly as chemical energy that can be extracted as electricity later. It is not an electric device charging a separate battery. This is a new and different technology.
Not overwhelmed by the overall conversion efficiency of 14.1%? Well, that was about where the best silicon solar cells were stuck at in 1980, after 40 years of development. They are now up to 44%, and solar cells on the market at consumer products right now hit 21.5%. If you charge a lead acid battery from that cell its efficiency is only 18.3%, and with less stellar products (many are in the 15-17% range) this device already beats them in combination with lead-acid.
That's why you research new technologies (yes, an integrated solar flow battery is a new technology), to improve them. You don't get an optimized system right off the bat. This isn't a commercially viable system yet, but was not intended to be. But it is already in the commercially viable efficiency range.
You need lots of research like this, attacking the problem from many different directions, to discovery what is possible, and the best solutions for different problems.
Not so good for indoors, for actual applications, or being able to reproduce what you've done.
True about the indoors part.
It is fine for actual applications if they are of the "one use" sort. Flux compression generators were used to produce huge power pulse in some early nuclear weapons which had 92 exploding bridge wire detonators and needed over 100,000 amps, stat, from a lightweight source.
They are reproducible. You just have to build another set-up like the one you blew up.
This was the strongest *indoor* field... Not really sure why that matters, I suppose it's more risky.
Because of the way that strongest magnetic field ever was generated.
It involved detonating 170 kg of Composition B high explosive. Don't try this at home (or in the lab) folks!
I have long-term plans to develop a sexual relationship with Jenna Coleman.
I have a better chance.
(Although this is currently voted down -1:)
First - good choice.
Second - you are correct sir (or madame)! You do have a much better chance than this project does of succeeding.
Remember the Hostess Twinkies disaster? I'm sure those workers who lost their jobs when Hostess closed didn't feel like the union had *their* best interests in mind, and neither did all those who loved Twinkies at the time.
You mean the 11 January 2012 disaster when Twinkies went bankrupt after a private equity firm Ripplewood Holdings took them private saddling the company with debt, but getting from the two major unions a concession of $110 million in annual wages and benefits, and did so at at a time when sales were falling sharply, being down 20% over the previous year when the bankruptcy was declared?
That disaster?
It is clear that the shutdown in November 2012 was planned, to rid itself of debt. The escalating demands for concessions from Ripplewood that continued throughout the spring, summer and fall were intended to force the unions to take some sort of action, and the plan was as soon as they did they would shut down operations and declare the union was to blame.
Isn't your meme how everyone is fleeing California?
All the fires they've had this year made things worse too.
The two things go together. We had the hottest summer in Southern California history this year, in inland valleys (not the desert) it hit 118 F. I have lived years of my life in deserts around the world and have never seen a temperature that high before.
And when it is really, really hot everything gets really, really dry. Then all it takes is an ignition source.
... aside from the feedlot in Ontario.....
I know this place!
... The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated,,,
On present evidence, this is just wishful thinking on C.S. Lewis's part.
It is now: Do Know Evil!
You are force to write things on another tool (like a word processor or text editor) and then when you are done you cut and paste in the finished product. Many messenger/chat features on other platforms are annoyingly misfeatured also (messenging in LinkedIn for example).
Indeed, it amounts to a statement of illegal intent.
This describes my Facebook use exactly, I post nothing. I go on the site only when I need to interact with a couple of clubs I am a member of which use FB as their method of direct member engagement, or very occasionally to "like" performers I want to boost. And it has allowed me to get some current links to people I knew in college that I had lost touch with. But I contact them directly through email.
Indeed. For many jobs, Jevon's Paradox leads to demand going up as productivity improves.
It is notable that the actual evidence available for supporting Jevon's Paradox (a theoretical claim, not one based on data) in the real world is slim and debatable. The problem is although "rebound effects" do definitely occur, the proposition that they actually increase net utilization instead, of modestly offsetting savings, is very difficult to demonstrate since over time many other factors influence utilization. It should definitely not be treated as any sort of law, that efficiency improvements always/normally/frequently lead to increased utilization. No such findings exist in the literature. It may appear sometimes, to some extent, is a far better statement of the situation.
Ah the Cole and Ohanian paper again, but with an extra heaping of customized unhinged exaggeration ("and that's likely an under estimate as it comes from UCLA"). Since the legislation was signed in June 1933, three months after FDR entered office (March 4 in those days), and the Great Depression did in fact end no later than June 1940 when the US per capita GDP had recovered to its pre-depression level (the NBER, who is the semi-official self-designated shot-caller for recessions places it much earlier, but there are good reasons to disregard their definition). I guess since the paper is from UCLA economists he believes FDR actually signed the legislation before he took office perhaps.
As Ohanian himself sighed 12 years after the paper was published:
“People on the right would say, ‘Hey, look — these guys from UCLA — which is not perceived as some traditionally conservative place — said Roosevelt was to blame for the Depression continuing,’” Ohanian said. “Then people on the left would say, ‘Oh, these guys are conservative, paid mouthpieces for the Koch Foundation,’ which, of course, we were not. But neither side really understands what we did. “
Now this complaint by Ohanian admittedly does nothing to clarify the matter of "what he did" and no explanation at all is found in the entire press release I linked to. You might however want to read this discussion of Ohanian and Cole's claims.
I have had some odd electronic communications events over the years. An email I sent a decade ago bouncing back, or an email sent to me from long ago suddenly arriving. Those are easy to understand though, some email server along the route dredging up old logs, perhaps when a decommissioned server was rebooted.
But I got an iPhone in 2013 for the first time, and last year while going through the photos on the phone, I found pictures taken by someone else of people I did not know at locations I did not recognize. I do not have iCloud set up either, so that is not a related factor as a way the photos could have been miss-synced. The phone has never been out of my possession.
Any ideas about how this occurred?
It is bringing men (or women) near the moon. No one is landing on it.
Garbled lyrics cut and paste (a version fairly widespread on the Intertubes for some reason.
The correct line 10 is:
Who robs cavefish of their sight?