How Much Would You Pay For Microsoft Surface?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

In short, don't throw out your physical books and battle mats just yet!

This I agree with. A lot of the rest of your post is a bit out of date.

Paper is an ecological blight upon developing nations rivaled only by textiles, and it isn't doing us any favors, either. Chesapeake Bay isn't exactly enjoying the effect of the toxic waste generated by paper milling and recycling.

Electricity is, potentially, the greenest tech there is since you can produce it from tides, wind, running water, sunlight, bacteria and algae, nuclear reactions, and several other methods. There are plans for a massive solar farm in the Sahara which will generate enough power for meet, at last estimate I saw, 130% of Europe's current electricity needs. And that's using solar tech that is only sort of new-ish. We're discovering new ways to make solar more efficient constantly. We also have dozens of ways around the variability in output. For example, peak production will far exceed usage, and the excess electricity can be used to hydrolyze water to charge hydrogen fuel cells, which then is consumed during the night to meet energy demands when the sun isn't out.

Or look up the tidal power generation going on in the Orkneys.

Using 1991 tech, we could have powered the entire U.S. using wind farms just in Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota. Using modern tech, there's enough usable wind power in Texas alone to meet 100% of the U.S. electricity need. That would require a massive infrastructure change, so I'm not advocating that as a silver bullet solution, but it does suggest that if we start mixing methods better we could generate a LOT of electricity with renewables.

Electricity is potentially 100% renewable, without even getting into elaborate ideas like orbital solar farms. Paper on the other hand... Look up "paper mill pollution" and prepare to get ill.

Also, tree farms are completely ineffective as carbon sinks. If I fly home for the holidays, I can technically offset that carbon by planting a tree. But here's the kicker. It took me 4 hours in the air to release that carbon. It takes the tree almost 100 years to actually offset it. This is a losing proposition, especially if someone cuts it down and makes it into paper in less than 100 years.

If you want a plant that will actually offset carbon, we need to look into algaetecture or algae farming, which are both expensive at this time.

Sorry... this is one of my hot button issues. Energy policy gets my back up. I'll settle down now.

 

[Clavis]

This I agree with. A lot of the rest of your post is a bit out of date.

Paper is an ecological blight upon developing nations rivaled only by textiles, and it isn't doing us any favors, either. Chesapeake Bay isn't exactly enjoying the effect of the toxic waste generated by paper milling and recycling.

Electricity is, potentially, the greenest tech there is since you can produce it from tides, wind, running water, sunlight, bacteria and algae, nuclear reactions, and several other methods. There are plans for a massive solar farm in the Sahara which will generate enough power for meet, at last estimate I saw, 130% of Europe's current electricity needs. And that's using solar tech that is only sort of new-ish. We're discovering new ways to make solar more efficient constantly. We also have dozens of ways around the variability in output. For example, peak production will far exceed usage, and the excess electricity can be used to hydrolyze water to charge hydrogen fuel cells, which then is consumed during the night to meet energy demands when the sun isn't out.

Or look up the tidal power generation going on in the Orkneys.

Using 1991 tech, we could have powered the entire U.S. using wind farms just in Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota. Using modern tech, there's enough usable wind power in Texas alone to meet 100% of the U.S. electricity need. That would require a massive infrastructure change, so I'm not advocating that as a silver bullet solution, but it does suggest that if we start mixing methods better we could generate a LOT of electricity with renewables.

Electricity is potentially 100% renewable, without even getting into elaborate ideas like orbital solar farms. Paper on the other hand... Look up "paper mill pollution" and prepare to get ill.

Also, tree farms are completely ineffective as carbon sinks. If I fly home for the holidays, I can technically offset that carbon by planting a tree. But here's the kicker. It took me 4 hours in the air to release that carbon. It takes the tree almost 100 years to actually offset it. This is a losing proposition, especially if someone cuts it down and makes it into paper in less than 100 years.

If you want a plant that will actually offset carbon, we need to look into algaetecture or algae farming, which are both expensive at this time.

Sorry... this is one of my hot button issues. Energy policy gets my back up. I'll settle down now.

Sure, all of those things are technologically possible. But as the Copenhagen summit is demonstrating, politics will always get in the way, no matter how necessary or possible something is. In short, I'm not betting on human beings actually implementing any of the promising possibilities for green power. Vast solar panels in the Sahara? Terrorists will almost certainly blow them up. Redoing America's electric grid? We can't even rebuild the Twin Towers!

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

Let us not diverge into discussion of current ecological policy politics. Thank you.

 

[Treebore]

Folks, they already have a version priced at $1,500. When they get below $1,000 I'll start considering it.

 

[Dausuul]

Folks, they already have a version priced at $1,500. When they get below $1,000 I'll start considering it.

I think you left out a zero there.

If they actually have a version going for $1,500, point me at it, because for that price I'm buying one ASAP.

 

[jeffh]

Right now it's an expensive luxury I can't even consider, but I answered as though I had the kind of income I anticipate having a couple of years down the road (by which time there will probably be sub-$1000 MS Surface products, so I would be looking at something midrangish by then).

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

More facts to bring to the *cough* table:

The iTable has a version that is priced at $2400, bit it doesn't appear to be as sturdy. I don't think $1500 is happening yet, but consumer versions of this tech (albeit without a real custom interface, they're just running XP) are already available well under $10,000.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Not really interested at the moment. Perhaps eventually, like 10+ years.

The biggest problem I see with any near-future incarnations is simply that it would take less than 10 minutes to find some random limitation or bug ("feature") that would grate on my nerves forever after.

 

[zag01]

Considering what LCD TVs, Computers and even cell phones cost today verses just two years ago, I'll wait for version 3.7 and pick it up for at most $200 with or without mail-in rebate.