Depends how you define modern windowing OS. As soon as you require modern text rendering, you are in many-MB territory, and just a 1080p framebuffer is fairly large.
Seriously. NetUSB? On a router? WHY the devil would I want that?
Printer sharing. A problem that was solved well in the 80's and since re-solved slightly worse every few years. It is difficult to imagine a worse way than NetUSB, but I am sure there are developers out there with a better imagination than mine.
There has been practically zero progress on handling the demand side. Doing so would require a radical rethink of how Western countries deal with drugs and drug addiction. This is not likely to happen in the next 20 years at least, and it is stupid to condemn other countries to 20 more years of violence by keeping our focus on limiting supply.
If we eliminated the need to grow opium, a some countries would find their economies transformed. Imagine Afghanistan without opium financing various criminal factions. We just need to figure out how to make cocaine without coca, and Middle America would be changed too.
Of course that relies on the secret getting out. Otherwise we are still stuck with the morass of violent crime.
You want to give up a secret ballot? Well, next election, if you don't vote for what your employer or family member or local thug want, you get the consequences.
That is exactly the tradeoff. If you do not like it, do not allow electronic voting.
b) someone isn't forcing them
Defending against this requires secret ballots. If you can verify how a person voted, then that person is at risk of coercion. Online voting cannot provide secret ballots. If you want secret ballots, do not use online voting.
I thought I wrote that clearly enough in my first attempt, but apparently not
We are really really good at handling online transactions of various kinds. Voting is easy. You just have to give up the secret ballot...
Anonymous secure verifiable voting is a bad joke.
The washer and dryer primarily spend their energy on heating, not on running the motor. Using less water means savings on electricity because there is less water to heat. Dryers jump dramatically in efficiency when you switch to a condensing dryer, since you save most of the heat that went into turning water into steam.
Clothes dryers made an enormous jump when they switched to condensing operation. After that, the improvements have been smaller. It is quite likely that a 10 year old dryer is non-condensing, and so the gains are huge.
They did not spend millions of dollars looking for the microwave oven, and they knew all along that the signal was man-made. Figuring out precisely which item made it is the kind of thing that gets you in the newspapers, so they did a little PR stunt.
Their usual work changes our understanding of the universe but does not have a chance to make it into the mainstream news. Can you begrudge them their 15 minutes of fame?
If you have a 10 year old washing machine, the likelihood is that a new one will pay itself back in energy + water savings in a few years. The efficiency improvements in white goods over the last decade have been astounding.
Plus those installations can provide a shedload of REACTIVE power, very, very useful for grid stabilization.
They can, but are they? I have only seen residential solar which reacted to grid overload/underload situations (i.e. situations which should never occur in an ideal world), not any which reacted to constant requirements for reactive power. Do you know of any which take part in the standard grid stabilization in normal use, outside of grid emergencies?
Will Windows Phone thrive by being a better iOS than iOS and a better Android than Android? It did not work for OS/2 20 years ago.
With the same reasoning, schools in Europe are taking the holocaust out of the history lessons, to avoid nasty remarks from muslim kids in the classroom.
No, they are not. You may be thinking of this: http://www.snopes.com/politics...
When electricity is cheap, it is because the marginal cost of producing it is low. The marginal cost is low because it does not take very much extra fuel to produce it. In other words, when electricity is cheap, its production is also less environmentally harmful. (This only holds as long as the power stations are unchanged of course.)
The Economist regularly gets this wrong by saying that electric cars are polluting more if they charge at night rather than during the day. They base this on the average pollution per kWh being higher at night. However, the average pollution does not matter. It is the marginal pollution which matters, and that is very low at night. This is really the kind of thing that economists should be specializing in getting right; I do not understand how you can be an economist and get it wrong.