• latest news
  • Car tech
  • Cell phones and smartphones
  • Computers and hardware
  • Digital photo and video
  • Gadgets
  • Gaming
  • Green tech
  • Home theater
  • MP3 and portable video players
  • Televisions
• awards
  • Best of CES
  • People's voice
• video
• photos

About me

My posting summary

1 to 5 of 5

My comments

• Ayup. MikeNMelanie and CLH22793 understand. Google would like nothing better than for potential competition to attack the search marketplace. Google understands that business, it grows slowly, and Google is looking for the next rapidly growing market that it can attack. The more the competition concentrates on search, the less competition Google will have as it tries to crack web applications, mobile telephone applications, or automatically extracting and synthesizing content from existing pages. In reply to: "What would it take to beat Google?"

  January 22, 2009

  0 replies

• If Sony and Microsoft can ignore Nintendo as a competitor, Nintendo, and Amazon, can certainly ignore them. In reply to: "Yep, Microsoft and Sony sell game consoles too"

  December 26, 2008

  0 replies

• Alternatively, for enterprise and cloud computing, a fair amount of dram is typically used for a disk cache. Replacing 16GB of DRAM on each of 32 machines with a 512GB SSD would save a bunch of money. In reply to: "Toshiba to show 512GB solid-state drive at CES"

  December 17, 2008

  1 reply

• 16,000 googlers
  Actually, Nooglers show up at Google on Monday mornings and not throughout the week.
  
  Even though half the company may have been hired in the past year, those are fairly bright people being hired. Software development is a fairly standard process, and Google has better than average mechanisms in place to help people quickly come up to speed in generating new software.
  
  16,000 Googlers are hard at work figuring out how to make the things you want to do faster, easier, and cheaper. In reply to: "What do 16,000 people 'do' at Google?"

  October 24, 2007

  0 replies

• speaking of not understanding...
  But you don't understand energy. As previously noted, stating that PV is useless no matter how efficient it becomes is just moronic. It doesn't matter that PV isn't dispatchable. PV reliably produces electricity during periods of peak demand. Hence, it is far more valuable than wind.
  
  A common misconception is that PV competes against 6 cent/kwh rates such as you find in states that burn coal to produce electricity. PV competes with peak power hot summer daytime rates. PV competes when power lines are full to capacity and rolling brownouts are occuring to reduce load. PV competes when air conditioners are fired up. Because of this, PV is *currently* cost effective.
  
  Maybe solar thermal will beat PV into the ground, but, one thing PV has going for it is that the electricity it produces is consumed at the point of production. This means you don't spend capital buying land and building transmission lines. In fact, you reduce peak demand on existing transmission lines.
  
  PV successfully competes in off-grid applications, and one can argue that many of the applications that are considered to be on-grid are actually off-grid. Many parts of the urban grid grow rapidly, requiring new transmission lines. Thus, neighborhoods that will exist as on-grid in the future are currently off-grid.
  
  In the long term, residential PV will definitely out-compete central solar thermal. In the long term, shingles will be manufactured that generate electricity. Solar shingles will cost the same amount to build and install and non-solar shingles do today. Electricity consumed during daylight hours will be too cheap to meter, something that nuclear advocates frequently wished for but were never able to provide. In reply to: "Bill Joy: Better to be in green tech than Internet"

  October 24, 2007

  0 replies