Yes, we'll run all of our cars directly off of unicorn farts. Look, innovation doesn't happen on schedule and the energy problem is a hard physical problem. It's not a matter of reorganizing matter in some clever way. We can't create energy. We can only use what's available as efficiently as possible. That said, we have a lot of room still, in the efficiency space.
in terms of mileage? Or perhaps as good as a Prius? Well, sounds like quite a stretch for the US auto industry. Do you think the regulations could have been *more* namby pamby?
To build a house, you not only need the architect, but the guy who hammers nails and lays flooring. Similarly, to build a program, you don't necessarily need to know much about virtual void functions, but you'd better be able to handle integers, strings, arrays, if-then statements and loops. These are the hammers and nails portion of the industry.
I graduated in 1975 when dinosaurs and the Bee Gees roamed the earth. School was boring, so I read science fiction in study hall - about one paperback every day or so. I read the hilariously dated "When Harlie was One" by David Gerrold in 1973, which is where I first learned what a computer virus was. I used to try and discuss them with fellow students and professors all the way until the 80s, but nobody knew what the fuck I was talking about. The few that could grasp the concept didn't believe it ("Why would anyone do THAT?"). Worse, the girls were thoroughly unimpressed. While the latter is still true, I sound a lot smarter these days.
It's entirely possible to have a well developed sense of the divine (without knowing exactly what it is and understanding that it may be entirely neurological) and be entirely free of Christianity, Islam, or any other fan club affiliation that requires an unproven belief in invisible friends, holy war, talking snakes, ritual blood drinking and/or body eating or additional taxation in the form of tithing.
You might be right about the positioning, but you wouldn't need too many of them if you know where the satellite was going to be. The reason I suggested this is that nitrogen is a lot cheaper and more abundant, so you might actually make the balloon bigger. Easier targeting and all that.
be safer, cheaper and just as effective? Assuming each balloon decayed (i.e. oriented itself with orifice pointing directly away from Earth and releasing a puff) within a set period so as not to continue to interfere with other traffic.
To get more bang for the buck via a higher energy differential? We might not see any infrared at all. We might as well look for a circular area of complete absence or radiation of any sort.
We may or may not get a mesh or some other kind of network between continents. Gateways of some sort, legal or not, will probably ocur. If you don't understand why the physical layer must be distributed and reinvented, I suggest you think through the implications of dictatorships plus small numbers of easily controlled root servers, powered by a centralized electrical grid.
And yes, they will try and outlaw that too. In case you haven't noticed, we in the USA are already starting down the oppressive regime path and we do indeed have bigger issues than internet regulation. Feel free to consider energy depletion, aging nuclear plants, inevitable hyperinflation of the dollar (assuming it's not abandoned by the oil producing nations first after the Saudi king dies), a possible war (or wars) in the middle east, the rate at which the arctic appears to be melting and the fact that there are still several thousand nuclear weapons in the world, most of which are accounted for.
To avoid wealthy-elite/government domination of communications, you'll need an open source, wireless mesh internet, sort of like these guys (http://www.shareable.net/blog/afghans-build-open-source-internet-from-trash-0), to create an "underground" internet, perhaps literally (http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/FelixRadio/FelixRadio.htm).
Here's a simple list that will keep any unfortunate enough to have to read your "documentation" from tearing their hair out. (I'm looking at you, Microsoft!).
1) Table of contents. Learn to love them. 2) Guess what kids?! Not everyone has immediate access to an internet connection all the time, so no, your cute little wiki page won't cut it as documentation for anything. 3) Index words. They require brains not automation. 4) Never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, discuss a function, property, or other programming language characteristic, no matter how obscure, without being more than ONE click away from a working code sample that demonstrates that function. Ever. Really. The concept is almost never the problem. Idiosyncratic syntax is. 5) All code samples should be as simple as possible, demonstrating ONLY the behaviour of the function, property or feature under discussion. Embedding your single 2 lines of demonstration in 50 lines of irrelevance only proves you know how to cut and paste. 6) Don't be lazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, maybe not *your* wussy little robots.
Yes, we'll run all of our cars directly off of unicorn farts. Look, innovation doesn't happen on schedule and the energy problem is a hard physical problem. It's not a matter of reorganizing matter in some clever way. We can't create energy. We can only use what's available as efficiently as possible. That said, we have a lot of room still, in the efficiency space.
in terms of mileage? Or perhaps as good as a Prius? Well, sounds like quite a stretch for the US auto industry. Do you think the regulations could have been *more* namby pamby?
To build a house, you not only need the architect, but the guy who hammers nails and lays flooring. Similarly, to build a program, you don't necessarily need to know much about virtual void functions, but you'd better be able to handle integers, strings, arrays, if-then statements and loops. These are the hammers and nails portion of the industry.
I graduated in 1975 when dinosaurs and the Bee Gees roamed the earth. School was boring, so I read science fiction in study hall - about one paperback every day or so. I read the hilariously dated "When Harlie was One" by David Gerrold in 1973, which is where I first learned what a computer virus was. I used to try and discuss them with fellow students and professors all the way until the 80s, but nobody knew what the fuck I was talking about. The few that could grasp the concept didn't believe it ("Why would anyone do THAT?"). Worse, the girls were thoroughly unimpressed. While the latter is still true, I sound a lot smarter these days.
In the beginning was everything. The circumference was constant. The inside started shrinking away from the periphery and it's still shrinking today.
Cheers!
It's entirely possible to have a well developed sense of the divine (without knowing exactly what it is and understanding that it may be entirely neurological) and be entirely free of Christianity, Islam, or any other fan club affiliation that requires an unproven belief in invisible friends, holy war, talking snakes, ritual blood drinking and/or body eating or additional taxation in the form of tithing.
Cheers!
If they can patent the "Jaws of Life" then why not the "Balloon of Death!?" Great fun at parties too.
You might be right about the positioning, but you wouldn't need too many of them if you know where the satellite was going to be. The reason I suggested this is that nitrogen is a lot cheaper and more abundant, so you might actually make the balloon bigger. Easier targeting and all that.
be safer, cheaper and just as effective? Assuming each balloon decayed (i.e. oriented itself with orifice pointing directly away from Earth and releasing a puff) within a set period so as not to continue to interfere with other traffic.
To get more bang for the buck via a higher energy differential? We might not see any infrared at all. We might as well look for a circular area of complete absence or radiation of any sort.
Hey man, I just work here, OK?
We may or may not get a mesh or some other kind of network between continents. Gateways of some sort, legal or not, will probably ocur. If you don't understand why the physical layer must be distributed and reinvented, I suggest you think through the implications of dictatorships plus small numbers of easily controlled root servers, powered by a centralized electrical grid.
And yes, they will try and outlaw that too. In case you haven't noticed, we in the USA are already starting down the oppressive regime path and we do indeed have bigger issues than internet regulation. Feel free to consider energy depletion, aging nuclear plants, inevitable hyperinflation of the dollar (assuming it's not abandoned by the oil producing nations first after the Saudi king dies), a possible war (or wars) in the middle east, the rate at which the arctic appears to be melting and the fact that there are still several thousand nuclear weapons in the world, most of which are accounted for.
God knows....
Please tell me my taxes aren't involved...
To avoid wealthy-elite/government domination of communications, you'll need an open source, wireless mesh internet, sort of like these guys (http://www.shareable.net/blog/afghans-build-open-source-internet-from-trash-0), to create an "underground" internet, perhaps literally (http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/FelixRadio/FelixRadio.htm).
Very awesome analysis. Thanks!
No. Cover the roof AND the sun-facing walls with the panels. Include active tracking.
Can you spell "malinvestment" kids? Yeah. I knew you could....
is once more heard across the land.
Except perhaps, a population of schizoid zombies, giant mutant blue babies, or and army of 4-armed, forewarned lawyers.
It's the only way to be sure...
Two, at least.
Self fulfilling prophecy. People don't read them because they suck. They suck because people don't read them.
Here's a simple list that will keep any unfortunate enough to have to read your "documentation" from tearing their hair out. (I'm looking at you, Microsoft!).
1) Table of contents. Learn to love them.
2) Guess what kids?! Not everyone has immediate access to an internet connection all the time, so no, your cute little wiki page won't cut it as documentation for anything.
3) Index words. They require brains not automation.
4) Never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, discuss a function, property, or other programming language characteristic, no matter how obscure, without being more than ONE click away from a working code sample that demonstrates that function. Ever. Really. The concept is almost never the problem. Idiosyncratic syntax is.
5) All code samples should be as simple as possible, demonstrating ONLY the behaviour of the function, property or feature under discussion. Embedding your single 2 lines of demonstration in 50 lines of irrelevance only proves you know how to cut and paste.
6) Don't be lazy.