GPSed Track "Run track"

View my new track "Run track" started in Canada, Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Powered by GPSed.com - Free Mobile GPS Tracking Service

How Many Solar Panels Would It Take to Power The Entire World? [Data]

In this article, they discuss covering an area the size of Spain with solar panels. Mostly placing them in deserts. I wonder if we could reduce the greenhouse effect by absorbing normally reflected energy into these large panels in the desert. This article also only deals with our current power demand. What happens when we start in with the electric cars? Will there be such a paradigm shift that we will have to start creating more CO2 again to keep the planet warm?

 

 

Sent to you by Worldcoast.ca via Google Reader:

 

 

How Many Solar Panels Would It Take to Power The Entire World? [Data]

via Gizmodo by Jesus Diaz on 9/1/09

After seeing how many nukes would it take to obliterate humanity instantly, I wanted some good news. Like, how many solar panels would it take to power the entire world? The entire surface of Africa, maybe? Actually, it's surprisingly less.

Click on the image to enlarge

Just 496,905 square kilometers. That's really nothing compared to the total world area: Less than the surface of Spain (504,030 square kilometers) covered with solar panels, distributed across deserts and areas with almost 24/7 sun, all year around.

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Gizmodo using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Photography Sekritz

Most of the time you’ll want to set yourself up so that the sun is behind you, watching how the shadows are cast on the eyes and how it generally affects any lighting such as glare off the water’s surface. But why is it that the sun is always right above me and I can’t control it?

 

http://www.golden-hour.com/

 

You can’t control where the sun is, but you can control WHEN you use its light. Generally photos taken later in the day turn out a heck of a lot better. The light is warmer and more consistent as it drops under any cloud cover and has to travel through more atmosphere. The brows stop shading the eyes, the shadows get longer transition zones into light producing a more dramatic photograph.

 

If you notice your photos are turning out shadowy, try taking your pictures in the time frames you’ll get from this site.

 

We've reserved 29 Thrush, you should reserve 28 Thrush.

Reserve 28 Thrush and we'll share some of our shade... maybe.

Site 24 has extra shade too. 25-27 are unfortunately not shaded.

Any questions?

Marriage, it's an institution.

P8225764, originally uploaded by worldcoast.

I played around a bit with the saturation and the shadows were definitely dropped for this one. The result is very pleasing if I do say so myself :)

Life.

Life can be defined as the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. Enter the evolving robot article. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/real-life-decepticons-robots-learn-to-cheat/

So we define life as functions in which metabolism, growth, reproduction, response originating from within the organism. Well, it has a metabolism, but it doesn't grow... yet. It responds, but it doesn't reproduce... yet.

Perhaps we are on the cusp of a new classification in which life will be a secondary consideration. A machine definitely doesn't have to be sentient to reproduce. For that matter neither does a living being. Even humans don't need to be sentient to reproduce. Perhaps this is the mystery of the universe. Machines. After all isn't our solar system just a giant machine? It uses the force of gravity to cycle light/darkness cycles. Sure it's not conventional in the sense of having gears or levers, but neither do chargers that use magnetic induction.

Are we creating the diatomes of a silicone-based life form civilization that will survive past our extinction and is it possible that some long lost technology with evidence directly beneath our noses begat us?

What would you use to describe it?

The problem with the music industry.

The problem with the music industry today is that everyone but the artists get paid. They're fighting tooth and nail to keep it this way. You get distribution, production, markup, tax etc etc etc. That $20 you're paying for a disc doesn't go to the artist, maybe $1 of it if they're lucky.

Enter music "pirating". Sure it's pirating. Sure it's duplicating. But we've been doing this ever since our portable devices could record. In fact, most tape decks had two decks, one for recording other people's music. Blanks were plentiful. So why is it that the music industry is suddenly threatened by software?

It's not. It can track who's making the dubs now. It used to be that only the high profile money makers could be tracked. Bootleggers so to speak. So why isn't it stopping now that it can be tracked? It's become as prolific as riding a bicycle. Everyone knows someone who has downloaded music, or has someone that can do it for them. The record industry makes a few token law suits stick, shuts down a service here or there, but in it's place four more pop up. 

For every dollar fined to a "music pirate" there are 50,000 more downloads going on. People stop buying music when they get wind of this "free music service" shamelessly promoted in the news. Only now that they know they can get caught they install peer guardian or get on a DHT tracker. The people want to download. Music is about as important to human welfare as food and water.

So what about paying for music? $1 a track? $10 an album? That's a good deal right? Not when you can get it for free with little to no fear of repercussion. Album artwork? Well... it's not really all that great most of the time, and half the time it can be downloaded with the album. I'd rather spend $240 on an original piece of artwork locally that I can display on my wall instead of sticking it in a CD case. So what about services that let you stream music for a fee? Well lets get into that.

Last.fm will charge you $5 a month for unlimited streaming music. The only problem with this is that you have to be connected to the internet to access the service. You can't save your favorites or modify the music in any way, you have no access to "unreleased tracks" or non-label artists, and if the site goes down you don't have music. Those are the downsides. The upside is that you have access to an incredible music library with a rating system and community aspect, also the artists you listen to get royalties from your plays.

Royalties paid directly to the artist with only one middle man, no distribution fees. Hmm. And they don't just get paid for the first CD that is purchased then sold to a pawn shop then stolen then given to your cousin. They get paid for every play by how popular their song is. Radio stations don't get to decide what the public listens to in this format.

Now bear with me on this one, we pay a license fee to fish, hunt and drive. This is to compensate for the services provided to monitor the usage of these resources. Music isn't a local resource though, it's global. One might even say universal. Why not a "music hunting" license? Say $50/yr lets you download whatever you like. If you're caught downloading without a license you forfeit any works that are not your own and pay a one-time $500 fine. All of this would go into funds that pay the artists directly. 

That's affordable, reasonable and enforceable. And the "record companies" can still make "records". However now music labels will become just that. Music.

Does the RIAA really think they're going to collect 23 million from a person downloading music? That person would have to clear 500,000/year to pay that amount. Silly.

woah

Windows 7 is soooooo prettty!

iPhone case idea