The next big thing....

[L33F3R]

I just thought of something recently. Anyway:
I've been using the Win7 RC recently and I personally think it sucks. It may be technically superior to Vista, in that compatibility and performance has been greatly improved, and it might be more secure, but it does nothing to resolve the traditional Windows problems: Microsoft is absolutely positive that you are an idiot and treats you as such, and you can only actually make rough changes to the configuration.

im down with the rest of what you said but i can relate to this. Win7 is officially removed from my computer to the degree that i shat on the disk. Does anyone else find the start menu they brought in from vista to be annoying as hell?

They create a restrictive OS. The idea is to tell you what to use your computer for. it will face the same adoption issues as vista I predict.

Actually you know what, im going to spoof the ad's they putting out here. "im a PC and im 6 years old". Well they have made it very clear that the target audience is 6 year olds. I'll do the same thing and just be like, "im a linux user and im 18 years old".

very related. The fall of microshaft would be a very big thing .

[superppl]

I just thought of something recently. Anyway:
I've been using the Win7 RC recently and I personally think it sucks. It may be technically superior to Vista, in that compatibility and performance has been greatly improved, and it might be more secure, but it does nothing to resolve the traditional Windows problems: Microsoft is absolutely positive that you are an idiot and treats you as such, and you can only actually make rough changes to the configuration.

I think this is a bit related because Microsoft is going out of it's way to create a multimedia/home OS, something where the "prettiness" of the interface comes before and frequently interferes with the functionality of the OS.
IMHO, I see this as a pathetic by Microsoft to hold on to whatever corporate desks they can, but I can't believe that such a big company could be so stupid. A lot of people say we haven't had the real computer revolution yet, and that got me thinking.
We have had two computer revolutions so far:
The first revolutionized the way we do business.
The second revolutionized the way we communicate.

Perhaps the third will be a social revolution. Web apps are going crazy, with all this facebook, twitter and pandora stuff. Maybe in the near future everyone will have internet access in the US ('bout damn time) at home and in their pocket, and we can all carry pretty devices to do nice stuff.


In short, the next big thing will be the overdue death of television and crappy, single sided programming.

[L33F3R]

very yummy bits. Thx stevea

[stevea]

http://www.nanovip.com/the-news/169-...create-battery

Sound promising?

Here's the abstract & an article,

http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v8/n6/abs/nmat2460.html

http://www.ecosilly.com/2009/05/18/researchers-develop-electrode-materials-for-high-capacity-li-s-battery-cells/

Like a turbo-charged buggy-whip, this is a substantial incremental improvement to a crummy technology. There are lots of lithium battery varients, w/ vanadium and metal hydrides, phosphates, perhaps Li-S is among the best.

Here is the deal with electro-chem cells energy density ...
720 kJ/kg - commercial lithium ion batteries
9360 kJ/kg - theoretical limit of Li-S cells (Waterloo cells
are about 1/4th this IICC)

So the theoretical limit (which is certainly impractical) is only 13 times better than practical Li-ion batteries. There are already small laptop powering fuel cells around 2700 kJ/kg and larger fuel cells can be highly efficient. These could approach something like 100,000 kJ/kg. There are other issues besides power density wrt battery and fuel cell technology. The cells are currently very expensive, but that isn't a fundamental problem.
===

For massive power storage, like for grid power storage, efficiency of the storage is the biggest issue. Internal resistance losses and small number of recharge cycles make any lithium battery unacceptable.
===
Don't get me wrong - Li-S cells might be a great improvement in hybrid vehicles, but fuel cells with some battery storage will eventually leave electro-chem cells in the dust I think. See the Honda FCX, 107HP, 267 mile range. The hurdle is driving the fuel cell membrane & tank cost down.

[superppl]

Perhaps biochemistry will explode.
Then we can all have flying horses, plants that produce our electricity, and living items that grow stronger with time and recover from injuries.

[bridgman]

Have you read Larry Niven's "Theory and Practice of Teleportation" ?

[DeepDayze]

The next big thing would be that we'll be using teleportation to get from one place to another

[L33F3R]

http://www.nanovip.com/the-news/169-canadian-scientists-rely-on-nanotechnology-to-create-battery

Sound promising?

[stevea]

I'm not impressed by photovoltaics. You need millions of acres of these(environmental impact). They contain doping materials that are horrible for the environment (cadmium for example) or that are extremely rare (tellurium) and I have never seen an honest figure on the life-cycle costs that include re-refining the panels every 25 years to recover the nasties. I think they are toys - worthy of more research but not newrly ready for prime time.

Concentrated solar is readily implementable and has a higher efficiency - so why bother w/ PVs ?

No the big breakthrough needed is energy storage technology. All current electro-chem storage stink quite frankly - heavy, expensive and very low energy density, very limited lifespan. Look at the dismal laptop batteries for example ... all the better electric autos use the same Li-ion technology. Perhaps fuel cell technology is part of the solution - unclear. If you figure out how to store energy at a good density and with high conversion efficiency then things like solar, wind and electric vehicles all become an order of magnitude more practical.

Someday we will have controlled fusion power. In the mean time thorium probably makes more sense than uranium for fission plants (we would use up all known uranium in a century).

BTW compressed air autos are ridiculous - a joke against ppl who never passed a physics class. 1gal of gasoline(petrol) has ~120MJ energy and about 25% can efficiency for a modern auto (30MJ to the wheels). 1 cubic meter of compressed gas a 1000 atmospheres holds about 700kJ energy perhaps optimistically 70% efficient. You'd need a compressed air tank of 60 cubic meters (~15000 gallon) compressed to an outrageous 1000 atmospheres to match the accessible energy in one gallon of gasoline.

[hax0r]

I can think one world military government and private bank, and humanity shifted away from the truth and purpose under the control and possession of elite and rich bastards.