Who said anything about more expensive? As for "similar heights", the largest radio tower was the Warsaw Radio Mast, which was 2164 ft before it collapsed. The currently tallest radio mast is the KVLY-TV mast which is 2063 ft. This would be 26% taller than KVLY, would be free-standing (unguyed), and would be solid (wind cannot blow through it). This tower is more comparable to a occupied structure.

The current highest capacity wind turbines are 7.6 MW. I haven't been able to find figures on the area proposed for the collector area of this tower, but it is possible that 30-50 simpler and proven wind turbines or 1 to 5 concentrated solar units might be able to replace this tower.

You know they wanted to build one of these in Australia, right? The proposal stalled and it looks like it will not be built.

-molo

This is a ridiculous idea. The only structure that is taller than 2600 ft is the Burj Khalifa (Burj Dubai), which is 2717 ft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_structures_in_the_world

The idea that we would build the 2nd tallest structure in the world for 200 MW is ridiculous. This doesn't even come CLOSE to being a top producer of energy per power plant. The top 10 power plants in the world all produce more than 6000 MW. Even the largest biofuel, geothermal and tidal plants currently exceed 200MW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations_in_the_world

-molo

Was I offline that week? When did this happen?

-molo

One great project that it seems few people know about is Hugin, which is great for photo stitching (panoramas), perspective correction, etc.

-molo

I'm not looking for a technical fix. Of course if you can view it, you can save it and re-upload it. I'm looking for a fix within the system as designed.

-molo

The issue is whether it is allowed in the system as the system exists, not whether it is technically possible. Of course if you can display it, you can save it and upload it elsewhere.

-molo

There are three levels: public, hidden URL (auth token in the URL), and invite-only for specific accounts. Are you sure you weren't doing the 2nd one?

-molo

It seems that the invite-only PicasaWeb albums (where only specific google accounts have access) would no longer be invite-only. That alone is reason enough to not join G+. When signing up for G+, they gave the following notice:

If they could fix this issue, I would sign up. Otherwise, forget it.

-molo

Of course. But subverting the system requires effort, which shows it is not an intended method of distribution.

-molo

Of course. But subverting the system requires effort, which shows it is not an intended method of distribution.

-molo

No, there were three privacy settings on the old picasa:

1. public and searchable
2. limited access - only those with the URL auth code can view (pass around the URL to your friends)
3. invite-only access - only specific google accounts can access.

The problem is that users of #3 could now re-share pictures they have access to. This breaks the invite-only capability.

-molo

When attempting to sign up for G+, I received a query about whether I wanted to join G+ and change my Picasa settings or leave them as is and not join. Here is what it said:

So invite-only albums would now allow re-sharing, which makes them no longer invite-only. This alone made me decide to not join G+.

-molo

This is less of a concern, this is the wiretaps requiring a warrant (meaning judicial oversight). The bigger concern is the warrantless wiretapping. All international calls, traffic analysis on all domestic calls, and who knows what else. It is safer to just asume everything is tapped. I can't count the number of times I've made a disparaging comment about the government on an international call (friends overseas) and added in a "Just kidding, NSA!" I'm ashamed of what this country has become.

-molo

It sounds like they reinvented JT65.

-molo

NoScript and AdBlock both needed updates.

-molo