Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
And what you're saying about speculation is a natural side effect of an inelastic supply - or perhaps "slowly elastic" is the better description. When it takes a long time to increase supply and short periods of time for demand to change, it *necessitates* speculation.
When push comes to shove this one made it though because most people don't really care about using CFLs or incandescent, and nobody cares deeply about it. If we can knock a meaningful percent off our energy usage without seriously upsetting people, politicians will do it. Can't blame them.
As a side-note, I'm not sure about the math since it's an ad slogan, but I live in NYC and they had posters up for a while that said:
"If every New Yorker switched to CFL's it would save enough energy to power the MTA."
The subway and buses alone get about 7 million people a day to their jobs - and that's not even counting the massively popular above ground commuter trains. This is a measurable amount of energy we're talking about...
It should never be underestimated what a small change in energy demand can do to raise/lower prices (for all of us). Remember when the recession hit, and energy demand went down a few percent, and oil prices shot down 40%?
Also - thinking of each consumer making their own choice only affecting themselves is not accurate when you're in a market where your neighbors poor choices make it significantly more expensive for everyone.
Even if you say these reason are all arguable, which they are, at least there are solid arguable reasons. I've seen no such arguments for MorphOS.
Because the bolded part isn't true. If it were, then you'd be correct.
Apple isn't refusing to carry porn because they don't want you to view porn. It's because they don't want to carry porn. This is so exceptionally simple.
What exactly isn't true about apple not allowing you to run programs that do things they don't want you to do? They don't want you using google voice, so they don't let google put an app up (aka they don't let you run it). They have a long history of trying to brick peoples devices who get through apples protection - why do that if it was all about the "user experience"? If someone willingly opted out of the user experience, why is apple deliberately destroying that persons user experience to preserve the "user experience"? Take your time responding, I realize you're very busy drinking koolaid these days.
This is absurd. The only thing they are controlling is the apps on their store. They are not trying to control what you think, nor what you do while using their products. AT ALL.
How is "you're not allowed to run programs that do things we don't want you to do" not being controlled "AT ALL"? Please let's not pretend like this is just porn. They rejected a satire app a few months ago, as has been widely publicized. The rejected the google voice app - and you can bet your ass it's not because it would "limit the iphone experience". Google apps are very high quality. The reason they did it is because you're 100% wrong, they DO want to control what you do while using their products. They want to COMPLETELY control what you do - they deny you from doing anything they don't want you to do, that's COMPLETE control, the very opposite of your claim.
You obscure the argument by introducing the concept of 'publication', which implies selectivity in the first place. A place that houses public offerings is more like a forum than a 'publication' - censoring those offerings by their content is certainly censorship.
RTFA - the virus isn't even the thing splitting the water, it's basically just acting as a source to channel sunlight onto the Iridium compound which splits the water. The transition metal compounds that can split water have been around for years (check JACS, you'll find dozens of articles), the thing that keeps this whole thing so far from being feasible is how expensive those compounds are in comparison to the energy they allow you to generate.
The only "story" about this "story" is how computer nerds always easily find ways to convince themselves they're smarter than specialized scientists in other fields after reading a dumbed down summary of a paper.
I'm not quite sure how the progress of ones life being dependent on the wealth of their parents is giving the individual the ability to create their own happiness... Libertarians are every bit as much out of touch with the realities of society as communists are.