Optical fibre amplifiers use a length of erbium-doped glass as the amplification medium. They were invented in the 80s and are used around the world. An external source excites the erbium and as the signal to be amplified comes in it stimulates emission. The result is a signal coming out brighter than the one that went in.

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

Of course, it'd be daft to use one in this application as while they do amplify, it's not like they're >100% efficient.

I think future generations would prefer we left them a mountain or two full of radioactive waste than an entire planet catastrophically altered by global warming.

Or your enemy removing yours. Either way it seems the only way to peace is tyranny.

Greenpeace are a bunch of nutjobs and the more base generation goes nuclear the better, but it's not totally greenhouse-gas-emission free. Mining the ore and enriching it generates GHG. The many, many tonnes of concrete that go into building the plants (~200 cubic metres per MW) generate GHG. Sure, it's the total GHG/kWh is less than just about any other technology, but it's not nothing.

I certainly hope they're a wee bit more complicated than that. Can you imagine the power factor problem we'd have if we replaced all streetlights with LED ones that just use a bridge and large capacitor?

Electrolytic capacitors are one obvious place cost can be cut.

There are a couple of topologies that are applicable. Most computer powersuuplies are (I think) single-switch forward converters. The topologies with more switches provide better performance, but more switches means more expensive transistors.

Higher frequency switching generally provides more stable output, but requires "faster" transistors and transistor drivers, which again, are more expensive than "slower" ones.

I think Sony feels that's exactly what the PS3 is.

http://www.lolife.com/2008/07/that-boing-boing-thing/

Boing Boing deleted any and all mention of Violet Blue for reasons that remain unexplained but are assumed to be a lovers' spat. When people found out that Boing Boing had retroactively censored one of their contributors they felt that this was hypocritical given the editorial content of the site. Boing Boing tried to diffuse the situation by posting a non-explanation calling their actions "unplublishing". The term as used is an ironically Orwellian neologism for censorship, deepening the public outcry that the actions of Boing Boing editors were being childish and deeply hypocritical.

People in your country once used the same sort of rhetoric to defend having doctors' offices with a door for whites and a door for coloureds. It'd be the same service, just different.

The fact of the matter is that marriage is something people world-wide regard as special and important. It has ritual and implications far beyond the legal rights it grants. It carries this importance and tradition for people of a huge range of nationalities, races, and faiths (or lack thereof). Civil Unions have all the gravity and importance of registering a dog. It's wrong to think that denying gay people the right to marriage is of no consequence because civil unions provide the same service, just different.