If the OP is looking for a Web-based GUI, then consider OpenLaszlo (http://www.openlaszlo.org/).
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).
I think you are up on to something here. The conclusions are based on the assumption that Arial is the easier to read font.
Well, it's bunk. Arial sucks dead rabbit eyes. It is a poor derivative of the universally derided Helvetica, itself designed only for short signs and since there overabused. Arial is NOT easy to read. Capital i and lowercase L look the same (lI), not to mention a few other glyphs.
Bodoni is much easier to read. It has been selected by a few companies (IBM notably) as the official communication font because it was shown as... wait for it... easier to read than many others.
So Bodoni _is_ considered by many as one of the most readable fonts. This invalidates the whole premises of the conclusion.
Believe me, the next guy who invents a better turbine is going to make a name for himself. It's not like nobody is looking for improvements. It's just that the physics is tough.
You can look online for "ceramic turbine" and "diamond coating" to get an idea of the current state of material science.
Tidal power plants are not new. See La Rance in France, an old project that stayed experimental because of numerous problems.
Basically, you get a very low efficiency because you have to generate power with low-pressure water due tu a small height difference; Also, salt water is not easy on turbines. This means you have a sizable investment and high maintenance costs that have to be amortized on a pitiful amount of power. A bad idea.
This is a bounty for whoever sold this pie-in-the-sky idea to the Dutch. For every one else, a disaster. It'll end up with the taxpayers sponging off the red ink, as usual.
The photo illustrating the article has a caption saying "Trading in CO2 emissions allowances has been hampered in several European countries as a result of a phishing scam." The image shows cooling towers that reject nothing but water vapor. Unfortunately, 99% or the population will conclude that cooling towers reject horrible, polluting CO2.
Scamminess seems highly contagious. Or maybe it's the natural state of most journalists these days.
Very true. A non-profit cannot afford to have a deficit because they are forbidden to accumulate the profits necessary to withstand bad quarters. The "no-profit" requirement also sometimes leads to poor management, if not irresponsible waste. Literally, since there is no profit and no shareholders, nobody is responsible for avoiding waste. This becomes a problem in some large institutions. For example, a very famous Pennsylvania-based charity running an orphanage has repeatedly been accused of wasting donors money because of their non-profit management structure, at a time when there is record poverty in the country.
So finding income sources and assuring the continuity of the institution is not a small matter for a non-profit.
I have doubts about the article's numbers. If that was true, how could China have a huge trade surplus? If the article was correct, all of the export gains would be spent on IP fees to non-Chinese companies, and would reduce their trade surplus. That's not what we observe.
So, while it's important to have a sound R&D and to have plenty of licenses ready to sell for lots of product, this does not replace a good manufacturing basis.
Link to Original Source
I second that. You can track work items, check in code and view the changes made by your team members, and IM/email them, among others. And it's OSS.
I've noticed a pattern in a lot of talent-based industries. On a small scale, or with an upstart CEO you can have talent-driven companies. But, as soon as they hit a critical mass, the bureaucracy becomes the dominate force and turns the talent into powerless labor.
This is very true. It even extends beyond the corporate world into all kind of organizations because it deeply relates to human nature.
It is so prevalent that it has been named "the Iron Law of Bureaucracy". This law states that any organization above a certain size will be taken over by people who use the organization to advance their career instead of contributing to the organization's goals.
This is why you want to keep organizations competing with others so that the rotten ones can be replaced with healthy competitors. When organizations don't have competition (such as monopolies or government), the Iron Law reigns supreme, unchecked and unbound.
Actually, you don't have to "guard he waste". The MOX process "burns" (transmutes, actually) more plutonium than is generated. It's used in Europe and it allows France to reduce its plutonium stockpile. The remaining mass is about 600 liters (two barrels) of medium radioactivity waste per reactor per year, which can be stored in a warehouse until their decay sufficiently. Google "nuclear fuel reprocessing mox" for much more details.
I am against the idea of burying waste (especially the nuclear kind) becausereprocessing technology will improve and we'll find ways to neutralize today's unprocessable waste.
The nuclear waste problem is a political one, not a technical one. Get the stupid politics out of the way. Solutions already exist.
Well, it's a great day for science! Not only we have this news item, but we have an illustration of it too!