Looks like they have a LaTeX macro or something that's putting a newline after every instance of the word CogPrime in the intro, and a space after each in the main text. It's actually kind of distracting to read. I think the xspace package might help
I've just started at a place that uses a lot of Tcl for embedded scripting and customisation, and I've never used it before so this was very handy.
That said, the document needs work - the syntax highlighting got very confused at some point, and a bunch of the lines are much longer than the width of the document, and don't wrap.
Tcl looks like a nice little language that makes it really easy to write really horrible code. Probably with some discipline you could keep it tidy and comprehensible though.
The big question for me is, can this paper be produced cheaply enough to be more effective per dollar than whatever our current best intervention for clean water is?
My totally uninformed speculation is they're in with a shot if they can get the production volume high enough. But I'd like to see the question explored.
I guess most water cleaning is done larger scale for better effectiveness and focus of knowledge for maintenance. The book (filters + instructions) could be used by individuals and small families.
Looks like a very promising concept, at least from a technical perspective. I don't rate its chances of success all that highly, since it needs a lot of buy-in before it gets enough network effects, but it's nice to see someone genuinely trying to find workable solutions to what we can no longer deny are serious privacy and security problems with the current setup.
Something I'm not clear on is the licencing of the code. Is it open-source? For trust reasons I'd want to be able to read it.
Regarding storage, I've read some interesting things about the potential of electric vehicles here. If every car were electric, that's a massive array of large efficient batteries connected to the grid. If utility companies charge varying amounts at different times, depending on supply, you could imagine a smart charger for your car whereby you buy electricity when it's cheap, store it in the battery, and sell it back for a profit when the price goes up (or just use the power in your home, reducing the amount you buy from the grid - the effect is the same). The utility company is effectively renting your electric car battery as short term storage.
There's some opportunity for this, and I've seen discussions of it. The capability is real and is being seriously considered, though with existing EV fleets the effects are too small to consider.
Given the variability of renewables supply, this is a good way to allow for surplus daytime supply (of solar) and possibly overnight supply of wind (though in many areas winds tend to peak during the afternoon/evening due to land heating effects).
The challenge though is that you're still ultimately limited by battery materials. Known lithium reserves would be exhausted within a century even with recycling (about 90% efficient) providing only a fraction of the world's population with a Tesla-sized battery. Other electrolytes, improved recycling, or sourcing lithium from much poorer sources (potentially seawater) might work around this, but it's still a constrained resource.
Not really. Claire Perry was elected as Conservative Member of Parliament for the constituency of Devizes in Wiltshire. Devizes has elected a Conservative candidate in every single election since 1924, so running for election there as a Conservative is kind of a formality.
She was then appointed to the position of Parliamentary Private Secretary to Philip Hammond, the Secretary of Defence. My understanding is she has no official position, qualifications, expertise, or mandate with regards to technology, the internet, or children's welfare.
Whilst I agree with you, one should point out that no politicians have the expertise or mandate with regards to technology, the internet, or children's welfare!
Indeed. There are probably many more who are highly qualified in many different fields. Qualifications and expertise isn't what gets you the job as a politician. Votes do.
The five-star movement in Italy seems to have largely rallied via the internet, so I would imagine there should be a few relatively savvy individuals in there.
Lets call it - the only know counter balance to experts running the show. We have a lot of geniuses on Wall Street and Silicon Valley and it hasn't prevented serious meltdowns that have effected millions of people.
Not to mention a law professor in the White House smart enough to interpret the law which ever way is most convenient.
In the US, now and then persons with a technical background turn up in high office, though not always for long or with the best effect: Herbert Hoover (mining engineer), John Glenn (engineer), and Harrison Schmitt (Ph.D. in geology) come to mind.
Children's welfare? It is probably more common for elected politicians to have children than not to. It is true that some of what one hears about their children makes one wonder about the parents' interest or expertise in the matter.
It doesn't really matter how safe a constituency is, there was an election, we voted, this is what we got.
To change that people will have to change the way people vote. Maybe one of the things the next candidate for Devizes can do is campaign on Claire's lack of understanding of technology and the impact that has on her ability to be an MP.
While I agree that this the way to go, I grew up in the neighboring seat and sadly tech issues are never going to get a foothold there due to the demographics and local political class - if you need a pop culture reference, Simon Pegg's Hot Fuzz is a practically a documentary about the area...
Who is "we". I sure as hell didn't vote for her, and neither did anybody I've ever known. I've never heard of Devizes and never met anybody from there. There's absolutely nothing I could have done to stop her getting elected.
Gold's value, like anything else, is (only) that people are interested in trading it.
The reason for that can be manifold, as you mentioned there may be other uses for the material. But then, Bitcoin also has some of these properties: you may not be able to wear it around your finger, but you can display your digital wealth online quite easily, which may not be so far-fetched in an age that seems to move everything online.
What I meant to say was "as soon as you declare Bitcoin having no intrinsic value, you'll introduce premises that will make it hard to attribute anything else such a value without a no-end argument".
Same!