The practical limit is when the energy harvested equals the energy spent to do the harvesting.
For a hundred years it's been standard practice in the industry to abandon coal mines, oil wells, and gas deposits as they approach the stage of zero net energy return. In the future the industry may tolerate smaller net energy returns than in the past, but no industry can long tolerate zero or negative returns.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply grant anybody any patent they want, and then revoke it if another party produces evidence of obviousness or prior art?
We already have its worst-case scenario - ridiculous patents, virtually the same one granted to several different parties, and the parties suing each other over their "portfolios".
Might as well skip the years of up-front research that do nobody any good, and cut straight to the lawsuits.
and the only limitation is the cost of converting the energy into usable forms of electricity.
Ok. Try calculating the cost in joules instead of dollars. I think you'll find that once we have to expend 1 joule of energy to extract one joule of electricity, this virtually infinite commodity will be quite useless.
They didn't really "flame", they just made a big white flash and a loud sound somewhere between a pop and a boom. But with lots of them,going off, it was pretty lively.
Our energy supply is finite, and so our energy usage should be measured in units of energy, not dollars.
Prices are not based on market forces or total costs, they are based on government policies.
And our money supply itself is schizophrenic, as in disconnected from reality. It's value fluctuates by moods, it's continually debased by printing more, it's backed only fractionally, and then only by the good faith and credit of future taxes on today's kindergartners
Measuring energy with dollars is like scoring sporting events by the applause of drunken fans.
My dad was from a small town in the southwest founded by his ancestors, a town whose major industry was farming tumbleweeds, juniper, mesquite, and other naturally occurring firewoods and tinder. Fireworks were understandably illegal.
Most residents were kinfolk in some way or another, including the town marshal, who, many years ago, not knowing us out-of-staters well, misguidedly invited us to his son's birthday party.
Uncle Buzz was fairly skilled at extracting hydrogen from mixing household chemicals, and was pleased to offer his services in inflating a small flotilla of balloons for us. We saw no need to disclose to the good Marshal they were filled with gas less noble than Helium.
Come time, we all sing happy birthday. Young Sam blows out the candles, and we lit the balloon strings and released the bundle.
That kid's all grown up now, but he tells me he never had a better birthday present.
No, but it doesn't matter! As things get more scarcer they get more expensiver. So we just print more money, and buy it! Economy 3.0, baby!
Or we substitute things. Run out of oil? Burn Hydrogen! Run out of bread? Eat cake!
As long as our rate of breeding is at least twice our GDP, there's nothing humans can really do to affect our ecosystem. And even if we could, surely the ingenuity of our children will solve any problem we could possibly cause them.
1) Rights apply everywhere. Consequences of exercising them may vary.
2) Rights are not granted by amendments - they are "inalienable". The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to say what citizens can do, but to clarify what the government can't do.
I don't have a problem with anthropomorphism. The way I figure it, we're primates that exhibit behaviors, social and anti-social, seen in many other species.
Observing reflections of ourselves throughout nature seems appropriate and accurate.
When we understand how something works, it often seems reasonable to think everybody should understand it. But to the majority who feels no need to learn its inner workings, it seems reasonable to just use it and spend their time on what they care about.
So like many things legal or linguistic, we need a clear definition for "reasonable." I suspect there is no objective algorithmic or even legal test for it. If there is one, I'd love to learn it.
when an author like JRR Tolkien dies, his heirs should no longer get paid, because the kids are not the ones who did the work
Are you saying at the moment of death it should become public domain?
If copyright still stands until its original expiration date, or even if there are just some undisbursed royalties, do you think the author would want them to go to his kids, or his publisher? What do you expect the standard contract says?
Economics (and the automotive industry) work on the implicit assumption that people are in a survivable habitat.
Ecology doesn't take that for granted, and indeed studies overpopulation and habitat destruction.
If you were unsatisfied by Dr. Bartlett's presentation, it could be that you approached it in a hurried, guarded, or defensive frame of mind. Watch the other 7 parts with no time pressure and a curious and open mind, and it can be one of the most informative 80 minutes or so you ever spent.
I've been writing on the assumption that we're both willing to consider new information and perspectives, and re-evaluate our opinions.
But my mind is, I suppose, mostly closed to the idea that economics can prevent, or soon enough predict, overpopulation.
Your mind appears to be closed to the idea that humans can and are destroying their own habitat.
The scope of economics is limited to the domain of human behavior. It has no concept of physics, biology, or ecosystems, and those are what's in question here.
Overpopulation is a scientific issue, and the competent scientists have pretty much settled it. Denying it makes it costlier.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, but I'll probably need your snail mail address.
The practical limit is when the energy harvested equals the energy spent to do the harvesting.
For a hundred years it's been standard practice in the industry to abandon coal mines, oil wells, and gas deposits as they approach the stage of zero net energy return. In the future the industry may tolerate smaller net energy returns than in the past, but no industry can long tolerate zero or negative returns.
I agree. Patents were well-intended, but they've taken us to hell.
In a world that's not fair, patents are a really expensive obstacle to get to a twisted world that's ... not fair.
Might as well get rid of the patent industry and let them all get a job actually producing something.
No, I was suggesting that skipping the years of whatever they do before granting patents would be an improvement in efficiency.
Trolls can always sue little guys. But this way, at least little guys could patent their work without making patent pursuit their full time job.
I'm not talking about storing and transporting energy, I'm talking about extracting the energy you want to store or transport.
Would you burn 100 joules to extract 100 joules? If you're in the energy production business, you'll soon be out of business.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply grant anybody any patent they want, and then revoke it if another party produces evidence of obviousness or prior art?
We already have its worst-case scenario - ridiculous patents, virtually the same one granted to several different parties, and the parties suing each other over their "portfolios".
Might as well skip the years of up-front research that do nobody any good, and cut straight to the lawsuits.
and the only limitation is the cost of converting the energy into usable forms of electricity.
Ok. Try calculating the cost in joules instead of dollars. I think you'll find that once we have to expend 1 joule of energy to extract one joule of electricity, this virtually infinite commodity will be quite useless.
Sorry, but the alias is another story.
They didn't really "flame", they just made a big white flash and a loud sound somewhere between a pop and a boom. But with lots of them,going off, it was pretty lively.
The sun's total output is 380YW (trillion trillion Watts). How much of that we can capture and use is limited mainly by how much money we spend.
Oh yeah. I sometimes forget that dollars trump Physics.
I will not have my English judged by as infamously poor a writer as you, Anonymous Coward.
Our energy supply is finite, and so our energy usage should be measured in units of energy, not dollars.
Prices are not based on market forces or total costs, they are based on government policies.
And our money supply itself is schizophrenic, as in disconnected from reality. It's value fluctuates by moods, it's continually debased by printing more, it's backed only fractionally, and then only by the good faith and credit of future taxes on today's kindergartners
Measuring energy with dollars is like scoring sporting events by the applause of drunken fans.
Damn straight.
My dad was from a small town in the southwest founded by his ancestors, a town whose major industry was farming tumbleweeds, juniper, mesquite, and other naturally occurring firewoods and tinder. Fireworks were understandably illegal.
Most residents were kinfolk in some way or another, including the town marshal, who, many years ago, not knowing us out-of-staters well, misguidedly invited us to his son's birthday party.
Uncle Buzz was fairly skilled at extracting hydrogen from mixing household chemicals, and was pleased to offer his services in inflating a small flotilla of balloons for us. We saw no need to disclose to the good Marshal they were filled with gas less noble than Helium.
Come time, we all sing happy birthday. Young Sam blows out the candles, and we lit the balloon strings and released the bundle.
That kid's all grown up now, but he tells me he never had a better birthday present.
We still haven't been invited back, though.
So, legislation can't prevent logging, tracking, and retention, but it can prevent mining, hacking, and leaking?
No, but it doesn't matter! As things get more scarcer they get more expensiver. So we just print more money, and buy it! Economy 3.0, baby!
Or we substitute things. Run out of oil? Burn Hydrogen! Run out of bread? Eat cake!
As long as our rate of breeding is at least twice our GDP, there's nothing humans can really do to affect our ecosystem. And even if we could, surely the ingenuity of our children will solve any problem we could possibly cause them.
Or so I understand conventional wisdom to be.
1) Rights apply everywhere. Consequences of exercising them may vary.
2) Rights are not granted by amendments - they are "inalienable". The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to say what citizens can do, but to clarify what the government can't do.
And Wal-Mart.
I don't have a problem with anthropomorphism. The way I figure it, we're primates that exhibit behaviors, social and anti-social, seen in many other species.
Observing reflections of ourselves throughout nature seems appropriate and accurate.
Android is open so long as you only do what Google wants
Perhaps another way to look at it is Android is open so long as you are Android. Once you cease to comply with OHA standards, you cease to be Android.
Standard-compliance is a good thing. Non-compliant innovation is a good thing, too - unless you falsely advertise you do comply.
When we understand how something works, it often seems reasonable to think everybody should understand it. But to the majority who feels no need to learn its inner workings, it seems reasonable to just use it and spend their time on what they care about.
So like many things legal or linguistic, we need a clear definition for "reasonable." I suspect there is no objective algorithmic or even legal test for it. If there is one, I'd love to learn it.
Exactly. Even if they had implemented it well, within the security community, the concept is thoroughly discredited.
The primary attribute of a user id is that it be unique.
The primary attribute of a password is that it be secret.
Biometrics are (theoretically) unique, but not secret. They make brilliant uids, lousy passwords.
Re-using uids as passwords is lazy/criminal.
"Chances are darn good"?
I don't know the numbers, but I believe the formula would look something like this:
(odds fbi collects apple udids) * (odds udids kept on agent's laptop) * (odds of fbi agent losing laptop) * (odds member of anonymous finds it)
I think that product will be a pretty small number.
I just read that article, and I found no claim like that, and nothing that supports a claim like that.
I'm pretty sure cost is, in fact, really an issue.
when an author like JRR Tolkien dies, his heirs should no longer get paid, because the kids are not the ones who did the work
Are you saying at the moment of death it should become public domain?
If copyright still stands until its original expiration date, or even if there are just some undisbursed royalties, do you think the author would want them to go to his kids, or his publisher? What do you expect the standard contract says?
Economics (and the automotive industry) work on the implicit assumption that people are in a survivable habitat.
Ecology doesn't take that for granted, and indeed studies overpopulation and habitat destruction.
If you were unsatisfied by Dr. Bartlett's presentation, it could be that you approached it in a hurried, guarded, or defensive frame of mind. Watch the other 7 parts with no time pressure and a curious and open mind, and it can be one of the most informative 80 minutes or so you ever spent.
I've been writing on the assumption that we're both willing to consider new information and perspectives, and re-evaluate our opinions.
But my mind is, I suppose, mostly closed to the idea that economics can prevent, or soon enough predict, overpopulation.
Your mind appears to be closed to the idea that humans can and are destroying their own habitat.
I hope history sides with you.
It makes perfect sense to ignore economics.
The scope of economics is limited to the domain of human behavior. It has no concept of physics, biology, or ecosystems, and those are what's in question here.
Overpopulation is a scientific issue, and the competent scientists have pretty much settled it. Denying it makes it costlier.