Yeah, people use their wireless home networks for more than sharing an internet pipe.
It doesn't take a genius to look up how much faster you can expect traffic to go if you add a median and widen the road.
Something big and proprietary kind of sucks. Some bright, albeit inexperienced kids, have a pretty good idea about how they would rebuild that functionality in new software from the ground up that fixes some of the reason the big, proprietary software sucks. Two things then happen-- first, they're able to get people really interested in what they're doing, allowing them to raise capital. Second, they are able to do some of the initial work to lay out their idea and then draw upon the knowledge of the huge base of people who they just got really interested in their work.
This is precisely how good OSS development should work! Good idea, generate interest and support, seed the process with some code, and then crowdsource the development with the proper centralized decision-making to ensure steady, solid progress and goal setting.
The other thing to remember is that in NY we need more panels to produce the same power.
What would make sense is adjusting a Hulu viewer so they're only worth a fraction of a traditional viewer (i.e., this viewer sees 1/3 the commericals so they're coutned as 0.33 viewers).
So for review, no one got to read others' email for three days, instead, they got to read no email for that time and email sent to the accounts which were routing wrong was bounced back.
However, I think that the call to move toward Wikis for collaborative writing deserves a little criticism as well. First of all, Talk pages are not nearly as convenient as the highlight and comment system in Word. Second, ==subheader== doesn't work well for transferring to other formats.
What I've been wondering for some time now is how can I, a casual user, start writing using XML so that my writing actually can be attractive in various settings while still being content based (and perhaps even more searchable). We have a format that's way better than the Wiki format, and far more extensible. Wikis may be great for collaboration and even for "archiving", but really, I want my writing to be in small files without markup that can be instantly made viewable with the application of some simple rules.
Wolfram|Alpha mining sets like these would just take the whole process one step further by allowing non-expert users access using plain language searches. I'm all for it.
People want accountability from their government, but I think many of those same people a) Don't understand how to read through thousands of pages of complex collected data b) Assume the government knows how to do (a) well, and c) Are often too lazy to do (a) and based on (b) thinks it should just be laid out there in pretty pictures just because they thought that information was important in the moment. This is precisely where a tool like Wolfram|Alpha could be quite useful.
Now if only Wolfram would list their sources and be far more clear about how a data set was collected and interpreted, then we'd really be able to get to work.
The gap between a "good home" and a "bad home" when it comes to education is way, way wider than the gap between successful and failing schools. There's an easy solution to narrowing achievement gaps made obvious by this fact-- keep the kids in school longer. It has shown time and time again to vastly improve performance, and most importantly, and especially at a young age, keeping students in school longer narrows the achievement gap. Our system keeps kids in school for less than 8% of their time each year. We're placing the onus on parents and homes to educate our children and not on the schools. We're creating the environment where parent involvement is necessary for success.
Is that what we want? Will we ever be able to make all homes equal? Of course we can work to improve attitudes at home and to greatly increase parental involvement and investment, but the far easier and more far reaching effect to better education would take parent's attitude more and more out of the equation.
Though this is more about pie-in-the-sky this would be cool and inspiring stuff, practically, our best options right now are solar thermal power.
Concentrated solar power uses no new materials-- glass, steel, mirrors, steam turbines, water, and occasionally fancy salts that we've already invented. It's one of the only renewable alternatives that doesn't want any money for research, just help getting some of the start up money to use materials we already have and make here in the US to build up these plants. Though they're not price-competitive yet, most research suggests that once enough capacity is built, economy of scale will kick in and it'll be competitive with fossil fuel costs within five years.
Talk about the ability to prime pump a market.
Plus, concentrated solar works naturally with usage peaks and can be used for desalinization/purification of water which is great considering regions where there is little rain/cloud coverage is ideal.
Two things need to happen-- we need to build more terrestrial solar capacity, both concentrated thermal and photovoltaic, and more importantly, we need to construct better power infrastructure so we can deliver energy from high solar density areas (which are typically desolate and therefore don't have the power pumping capacity some areas have) across far distances.