ken thompson and dennis ritchie both used ctss, and cite it as an inspiration for unix. and we all know unix is linux's father's former roommate. what does that make linux?...absolutely nothing. ... which is what SCO is about to become.
Sorry Brandybuck, but perhaps you might want to read a bit ore on trademark law. First, there is the case of international versus local. I have trademarks that are not valid in NZ, or even in Florida.
Second there is the case of a trademark needing to be confined to a particular line of trade.
This is why Bob McDonald can open up McDonald's Barber Shop, even create a franchise out of it, and not infringe on McDonald's the burger joint's trademark.
And no, it isn't necessarily about who gets it first. It is about confusion between competing trade marks.
You may consider getting the real scoop. We, unfortunately have a minimum wage system here. Yes, unfortunately, I leads to higher barriers of entry to new workforce entrants, and to new business startups.
San Francisco's homeless has nothing to do with how we get paid. it has to do with the natural inefficicencies of a city. Read some Jane Jacobs books such as "Life and Death of Great American Cities" and "Economy of Cities" for the details.
Wher eI live, our homeless rate is better than Austrailia's average. Yet our payment system does not differ from San Francisco's. We don't have cities with that number of people in them and all that urban planning crap SF has.
Sydney isn't exactly stellar on it's homeless. You likely just get sheltered from them.. kind alike how they planned to ship them out for the Olympics. It's getting worse, too in that betwen 1994 and 1998, homeless numbers in Sydney grew by 340% or so.
BTW, the US homeless rates are about 1% of the population. It sucks ass to be homless (been there!), but that it an astonishingly small number. What is the number for Australia?.5-.1.2% (depending on who was reporting it). Not that much of a difference, IMO.
Regarding the taxes, the countries are fully incomparable. Regardless of cause, face it Aussie just is not a very big target. Did Aussie face down the USSR, Japan, Hitler, etc.? Nope. Austrailia also benefits from a sigificant portion of that spending. Some 50B of it goes to keeping oil lines open; AU directly benefits there. A portion of it goes to training AU units (I know, I've trained with a few international units). Not to mention benefitting from the R&D that the US military does.
It may suprise people to know that the US doesn't spend the most on defense per-capita it actually comes in third. AU comes in 14th, spending around 60% per capita as the US.
Regarding welfare, IIRC, AU pays out about 2-5% of it's GDP; whereas the US pays around 10-12%.
In effect, none of your arguments supports your conclusion.
Next thing you know companies will just ask, "Ok, before we hire you we need your salary requirements and the salary requirements of 4 of your peers."
Yeah that'd be great! They could call it "submit your resume with salary expectations/requirements" then they could look over yours and all the others they get.
And to paraphrase a Dell commercial they could just have you call 1800-theydoitalready
I'm a PERSON - not a thing. My services will be charged what I feel are appropriate, and not being forced to BID like a slave.
1: Slaves don't get to bid, they get what they get. 2: So you don't interview with companies unless they ONLY consider you?
What do you think you do during an interview/hire process? You lay out a case for the cost of your services. The potential employer takes this into account with everyone else applying for the job. Given two people of equal ability, motivation, etc. but one is willing to work for a bit less (by stating his salary requirements) will get the job.
You do bid on your job. You just fail to realize it. If a prospectiv eemploter offers you 15/hour and you want 17, do you counter with 17 or just accept it (*cough* like a "slave" *cough*;) )? If you counter, you are engaged in a bidding process.
The nurses are likewise bidding for what they feel is appropriate for them. Why do people like you assume that only you have the brains to do that?
It isn't Python causing the problem there. Unless you are doing this for a very low level site, it's all of that combined causing memory use. Besides, of that list, 60% is in C. Besides, I'd expect bittorrent given what it is to be the biggest resource drain in that list.;)
I'v ebeen muckign with mailman and have been testing lists with upwards of 1 to 1.5Million subscribers on a machine with 256MB RAm on an old HP 550MHz (it also runs apache, postfix, and djbdns).
Btw, SA is in Perl, not Python.
And finally, it isn't the language, it is the never ending desire to have servers do more stuff dynamically.
The system offers unprecedented voice quality, touch-screen technology, dynamic reconfiguration capabilities to meet changing needs, and an operational availability of 0.9999999%
The "natural" value of the land that Ducks Unlimited purchased was limited because of government regulations. You probably couldn't have purchased that land to do oil drilling or pave it over for a parking lot or industrial complex.
You may want to rethink "natural value" of land. Government creates an artificial price hike on land by zoning it. I know of many farmers and people who just had huge tracts of land (as well as large acreages) that found themselves horked when the local government decided to rezone their land from "agricultural" to "subdividable medium residential". Why? Well suddenly the "value" of that natural land was increased by an order of magnitude. Taxes on it were hell.
So you can pull out all that ""natural value of land" claim, because in a libertarian government zoning laws would not exist and ( according to real-world city growth and physics modelling of network development), should not exist. This has the nice effect of not creating artificial scarcity. The result is that the price of the land would not be so inflated.
Also, you forget that corporations would not exist either.
Well, in the past 10 years I have had a number of clients who have had Linux, Unix, Windows, and Mac systems that were critical to their day to day routine and they did nightly/weekly/monthly reboots as part of their maintenance.
I guess when you grow up and get out of high school, you will find that your linux box running as a DSL router is not a good example of a production server.
Yeah they did that to the Linux boxes here, because they didn't know better. Now, with real Linux experts, our Linuxen are not rebooted or taken down for routine maintenance. And no we aren't talking about "DSL Routers". We are talking about systems that process email to the tune of a million message per server per day.
Critical? You bet it is. Merril Lynch, HP, APL, and many others. Planned downtime for "regular maintenance"? Nope. The only time we plan downtime is for hardware replacement/upgrade and kernel upgrades, the occasional (rare) server moves, and full data center shutdowns to perform data center failover verification.
I guess when you grow up and get out of community college, you'll find that running a dormitory quake server is not a good example of a business critical production server./pointed sarcasm.
Basically, counterweight. A good sized wieght ont eh other end will "hold it up".
basically, try this:
Take a piece of string about 4 feet long. Now, spin in a circle. How well does the string go straight out from you? (hint: to do it you'll need to spin really fast, maybe you want to visualize it instead).
Next, take a yoyo, or attach some sort of weight to the end of your string and repeat. Now, you will see the string is "held up" in relation to you.
Given the distance involved for this, Earth's rotation speed, and the "elevator" actually being a static cable, the weight can be suprisingly "small".
Hope that helps.
Now, what I find interesting is the electrical effects from upper level electrical storms.
While your argument looks good on the surface, it relies on the assumption that all of these turbines would be quite close to each other. The larger the geographic spread of these windmills, the more assured you are to be getting at least *some* power *all* of the time. It's the same reason that investors like to keep a variety of stocks in their portfolios. The probability that a single area will not have sufficient wind to generate power is relatively high, but the chance that all the air in the entire country will suddenly just decide to stop moving is basically 0. Yes, this does require building alot more windmills, and thus invest alot more money, but that dosen't stop the concept from feasible.
Uhh yes it does. The more sites you need to have, the more control infrastucture you need. The more variance you have in your power lines from the more locations, the more control problems and conditioning problems you wil need to overcome. The more it costs, the less likely you are to get demand up enough to overcome these.
Thus, it does in fact become infeasible. Theoretically possible, perhaps, but if it costs too much, has too little return, then yes it is infeasible.
Actually, you are missing a few crucial steps. How to get from oil powered cars to hydrogen powered ones.
First, you have the supply problem. Hydrogen in a form usable to us for powering cars and trucks has to be created. That takes energy. And making hydrogen from the sea will be a poor process for mass usage.
Then you have distribution. That takes supplanting the existing extensive and expensive infrastructure.
So I'll offer you my proposed plan.
First, we move to nation to E10 and E85. That is 10% and 85% ethanol/gas mix. This uses the existing infrastructure with minimal changes. indeed, this has started. E85 capable vehicles from GM, DC, and even Ford are on the market. Indeed, as of this year or maybe last, GM's Suburban and Tahoe lines have it as a no-cost option most people don't even know they have, and next year it becomes standard on most of their light duty truck lines.
E85 vehicles are FFV - they can run any combination from 100/0 to the 15/85 mix. Despite DoT "we don't test just assume" claims, E85 powered vehicles are not seeing a significant decrease in performance, and are cleaner per mile travelled than gas, and even hybrids.
With an ethanol infrastructure being converted into being, you now have a viable means of refueling fuel-cell powered cars. Just use ethanol to power the fuel cell. Cleaner and easier than converting oil based, and feasible today, not when some government funded "research" group decides the funding is about dry.
At that point, you would have converted most of the vehicles to at worst an ever-shrinking minority E10 (older non-FFV vehicles still in use) using vehicles, a majority of the vehicles running E85, and a growing number of ethanol powered fuel cell driven vehicles. The step (if needed and economically viable) to hydrogen at that point is a minor one, and not the chasm leaping hurdle it is today.
This is all using proven, existing technology, not spending billions in mythical research. Further, increasing crop usage would lead to more CO2 absorption.;) E85 costs are already on par w/gas costs, and we haven't yet hit the quantities of scale for much lower costs.
Erecting such massive barriers that diffuse and absorb wind energy would also have deterimental effects on weather and localized pollution not being accoutned for. Wind is one of the earth's thermal regulators. Start interfering with that and watch the specific variance begin to increase.
To get an idea, say you have a valley that at one end (the windy end) you put up a wind farm. This barrier will diffuse and absorb much of the wind energy, by design. Now, you have decreased the thermal redistribution effect of that wind on the valley (or the other end of the valley depending on location). In some cases, you'll see a higher temp as the cooling effect is decreased. In others you will see a warming trend as the wand that formerly carried warm air has lost it's punch.
This is a greater specific varience, areas with a much greater difference in thermals. Now, over time you will see these differences lead to even more dramatic effects. Thunderstorms and other forms of severe weather are possible, even likely results as the differential increases.
Further, decrease of wind currents can lead to changes in air pressure creating a variety of effects ranging from more pollution density to shifts in the jet stream (location dependent obviously).
At best we should be able to somewhat model these on the computer, but not with much accuracy. Still, I'd hope we would at least try to model them accurately prior to moving blindly into another one.
Any way you slice it, energy consumption will occur, and any time you extract energy from an ecosystem in any way, there will be negative, and often unforseen, effects -- even solar. Given enough solar cells, you change the albedo of the planet, directly affecting the amount of light-heat the earth absorbs and radiates.
Sometimes, the grasss really isn't greener on the other side. It's just a different shade of green.
Or (shock, horror) reduce the population's energy consumption.
Clearly (one hopes), you are unaware of the correlation between health, freedom, and economic benefits; and energy consumption.
That said: "Globally, per capita consumption has changed relatively little over the past 30 years although total consumption grew by some 70 per cent during 1972-99. At the regional level, per capita consumption has fallen in North America, the greatest consumer, and risen most sharply in West Asia." -- UN
Note, however, the Un has the goal of not just wealth redistribution, but energy consumption redistribution. The above data shows that despite press accounts to the contrary, N. Americans have actually become *MORE* efficient, while other developing countries have been consuming more per capita.
This is not unexpected. As countries/societies developm they will go through a stage of higher and higher per-capita energy consumption until they reach a point where higher efficiencies are possible (due to more than technological reasons, btw) and the trend reverses itsself.
This phenomenon is reflected in pollution levels, and crime levels too. The more wealthy a society is per-capita, the less likely crime becomes, and the more likely they have the time to be concerned with environmental effects.
Want to *continue* the downward per capita energy consumption then you need to get government out of the way of higher per-capita wealth.
Given that Americans consume energy at the rate of Five Earths,
Until such times as Americans have established extra-terrestrial colonies (Mars, Luna, free-orbit, etc.), it is not possibly for Americans to consume mor energy than "an Earth". Either way you mean an "Earth".
You clearly have no idea how much energy is consumed by the plants on this planet. IIRC, the solar energy consumed by a field of wheat, corn, or what have you in a year is more than we as a race produce.
What about the research costs of wind power, the health concerns resulting from the workers for that industry (as well as the resultant climatic changes), and the economy depressive costs provided by the higher taxes to pay for the research budget?
They do work. The flywheel in my car transfers nearly 400HP to the driveshaft.;)
Europe is having a great deal of success working wind into the mix.
Europe is smaller. Yes, it matters. The shorter the distance between power generation and utilization the less loss. The greater the distance, the more loss and thus the more the net cost is.
California and Sweden have about the same area. So logic states that if you should be able to identify/place on on a map, you should be able toplacethe other.
It's funny how many people slam Americans for not knowing where masny small countries are; they call them arrogant for only being concerned about "their own lives".
But what of the arrogance of expecting someone in Miami Florida to ave any need to know where Sweden is. I'd rather people of all nations spend their educational time on learning things that have usefulness for them than memorizing facts and calling themselves superior.
If you have a need to know where Sweden, Miami, South Wales, or the Dakotas are you'll learn it.
What you claim is not what the documents claim. It does not say "Interstate commerce". It says:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
That is commerce among the States, not the people of the states. it was intended to regulate the states' dealings with each other, not the people of the state. That hasn't stopped them. Hell they've tried to make arson of a home in which teh owner was conducting business with other businesses/people in other states as falling under the so-called "interstate commerce clause", or saying that intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce and therefore is within the clause.
That's becuase there was no incentive to hijack a plane. Even terrorists and hijackers need a return on investment. Hijack a plane to try to get to Cuba? No good if you know it won't work. Want to hijack a plane to fly into a building? Won't work if the people on board assume you might want to do that and will therefore fight you.
Hijackings in this country stopped when it became clear it would not pay off. Unfortunately, in the process, people were taught to be sheep, Just sit and be patient. Now, that is gone (for now). When you are convinced you are about to die, attacking a hijacker is now a much easier to swallow proposition.
Add to it that the crash of the plane will likely kill many others, and it is nearly a no-brainer. This is the sole reason why the events of 9/11 will not happen again in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
ken thompson and dennis ritchie both used ctss, and cite it as an inspiration for unix. and we all know unix is linux's father's former roommate. what does that make linux? ...absolutely nothing. ... which is what SCO is about to become.
Sorry Brandybuck, but perhaps you might want to read a bit ore on trademark law. First, there is the case of international versus local. I have trademarks that are not valid in NZ, or even in Florida.
Second there is the case of a trademark needing to be confined to a particular line of trade.
This is why Bob McDonald can open up McDonald's Barber Shop, even create a franchise out of it, and not infringe on McDonald's the burger joint's trademark.
And no, it isn't necessarily about who gets it first. It is about confusion between competing trade marks.
You may consider getting the real scoop. We, unfortunately have a minimum wage system here. Yes, unfortunately, I leads to higher barriers of entry to new workforce entrants, and to new business startups.
.. kind alike how they planned to ship them out for the Olympics. It's getting worse, too in that betwen 1994 and 1998, homeless numbers in Sydney grew by 340% or so.
.5-.1.2% (depending on who was reporting it). Not that much of a difference, IMO.
San Francisco's homeless has nothing to do with how we get paid. it has to do with the natural inefficicencies of a city. Read some Jane Jacobs books such as "Life and Death of Great American Cities" and "Economy of Cities" for the details.
Wher eI live, our homeless rate is better than Austrailia's average. Yet our payment system does not differ from San Francisco's. We don't have cities with that number of people in them and all that urban planning crap SF has.
Sydney isn't exactly stellar on it's homeless. You likely just get sheltered from them
BTW, the US homeless rates are about 1% of the population. It sucks ass to be homless (been there!), but that it an astonishingly small number. What is the number for Australia?
Regarding the taxes, the countries are fully incomparable. Regardless of cause, face it Aussie just is not a very big target. Did Aussie face down the USSR, Japan, Hitler, etc.? Nope. Austrailia also benefits from a sigificant portion of that spending. Some 50B of it goes to keeping oil lines open; AU directly benefits there. A portion of it goes to training AU units (I know, I've trained with a few international units). Not to mention benefitting from the R&D that the US military does.
It may suprise people to know that the US doesn't spend the most on defense per-capita it actually comes in third. AU comes in 14th, spending around 60% per capita as the US.
Regarding welfare, IIRC, AU pays out about 2-5% of it's GDP; whereas the US pays around 10-12%.
In effect, none of your arguments supports your conclusion.
Next thing you know companies will just ask, "Ok, before we hire you we need your salary requirements and the salary requirements of 4 of your peers."
Yeah that'd be great! They could call it "submit your resume with salary expectations/requirements" then they could look over yours and all the others they get.
And to paraphrase a Dell commercial they could just have you call 1800-theydoitalready
I'm a PERSON - not a thing. My services will be charged what I feel are appropriate, and not being forced to BID like a slave.
;) )? If you counter, you are engaged in a bidding process.
1: Slaves don't get to bid, they get what they get.
2: So you don't interview with companies unless they ONLY consider you?
What do you think you do during an interview/hire process? You lay out a case for the cost of your services. The potential employer takes this into account with everyone else applying for the job. Given two people of equal ability, motivation, etc. but one is willing to work for a bit less (by stating his salary requirements) will get the job.
You do bid on your job. You just fail to realize it. If a prospectiv eemploter offers you 15/hour and you want 17, do you counter with 17 or just accept it (*cough* like a "slave" *cough*
The nurses are likewise bidding for what they feel is appropriate for them. Why do people like you assume that only you have the brains to do that?
(mailman + bittorrent + (apache + exim + samba)
;)
It isn't Python causing the problem there. Unless you are doing this for a very low level site, it's all of that combined causing memory use. Besides, of that list, 60% is in C.
Besides, I'd expect bittorrent given what it is to be the biggest resource drain in that list.
I'v ebeen muckign with mailman and have been testing lists with upwards of 1 to 1.5Million subscribers on a machine with 256MB RAm on an old HP 550MHz (it also runs apache, postfix, and djbdns).
Btw, SA is in Perl, not Python.
And finally, it isn't the language, it is the never ending desire to have servers do more stuff dynamically.
Here, is this better?:
Come on, it awas obvious where the % went.
The "natural" value of the land that Ducks Unlimited purchased was limited because of government regulations. You probably couldn't have purchased that land to do oil drilling or pave it over for a parking lot or industrial complex.
You may want to rethink "natural value" of land. Government creates an artificial price hike on land by zoning it. I know of many farmers and people who just had huge tracts of land (as well as large acreages) that found themselves horked when the local government decided to rezone their land from "agricultural" to "subdividable medium residential". Why? Well suddenly the "value" of that natural land was increased by an order of magnitude. Taxes on it were hell.
So you can pull out all that ""natural value of land" claim, because in a libertarian government zoning laws would not exist and ( according to real-world city growth and physics modelling of network development), should not exist. This has the nice effect of not creating artificial scarcity. The result is that the price of the land would not be so inflated.
Also, you forget that corporations would not exist either.
Well, in the past 10 years I have had a number of clients who have had Linux, Unix, Windows, and Mac systems that were critical to their day to day routine and they did nightly/weekly/monthly reboots as part of their maintenance.
/pointed sarcasm.
I guess when you grow up and get out of high school, you will find that your linux box running as a DSL router is not a good example of a production server.
Yeah they did that to the Linux boxes here, because they didn't know better. Now, with real Linux experts, our Linuxen are not rebooted or taken down for routine maintenance. And no we aren't talking about "DSL Routers". We are talking about systems that process email to the tune of a million message per server per day.
Critical? You bet it is. Merril Lynch, HP, APL, and many others. Planned downtime for "regular maintenance"? Nope. The only time we plan downtime is for hardware replacement/upgrade and kernel upgrades, the occasional (rare) server moves, and full data center shutdowns to perform data center failover verification.
I guess when you grow up and get out of community college, you'll find that running a dormitory quake server is not a good example of a business critical production server.
No flames here, but I'll try to answer it.
Basically, counterweight. A good sized wieght ont eh other end will "hold it up".
basically, try this:
Take a piece of string about 4 feet long. Now, spin in a circle. How well does the string go straight out from you? (hint: to do it you'll need to spin really fast, maybe you want to visualize it instead).
Next, take a yoyo, or attach some sort of weight to the end of your string and repeat. Now, you will see the string is "held up" in relation to you.
Given the distance involved for this, Earth's rotation speed, and the "elevator" actually being a static cable, the weight can be suprisingly "small".
Hope that helps.
Now, what I find interesting is the electrical effects from upper level electrical storms.
"What's a qubit?" -- Noah (Bill Cosby)
While your argument looks good on the surface, it relies on the assumption that all of these turbines would be quite close to each other. The larger the geographic spread of these windmills, the more assured you are to be getting at least *some* power *all* of the time. It's the same reason that investors like to keep a variety of stocks in their portfolios. The probability that a single area will not have sufficient wind to generate power is relatively high, but the chance that all the air in the entire country will suddenly just decide to stop moving is basically 0. Yes, this does require building alot more windmills, and thus invest alot more money, but that dosen't stop the concept from feasible.
Uhh yes it does. The more sites you need to have, the more control infrastucture you need. The more variance you have in your power lines from the more locations, the more control problems and conditioning problems you wil need to overcome. The more it costs, the less likely you are to get demand up enough to overcome these.
Thus, it does in fact become infeasible. Theoretically possible, perhaps, but if it costs too much, has too little return, then yes it is infeasible.
Actually, you are missing a few crucial steps. How to get from oil powered cars to hydrogen powered ones.
;) E85 costs are already on par w/gas costs, and we haven't yet hit the quantities of scale for much lower costs.
First, you have the supply problem. Hydrogen in a form usable to us for powering cars and trucks has to be created. That takes energy. And making hydrogen from the sea will be a poor process for mass usage.
Then you have distribution. That takes supplanting the existing extensive and expensive infrastructure.
So I'll offer you my proposed plan.
First, we move to nation to E10 and E85. That is 10% and 85% ethanol/gas mix. This uses the existing infrastructure with minimal changes. indeed, this has started. E85 capable vehicles from GM, DC, and even Ford are on the market. Indeed, as of this year or maybe last, GM's Suburban and Tahoe lines have it as a no-cost option most people don't even know they have, and next year it becomes standard on most of their light duty truck lines.
E85 vehicles are FFV - they can run any combination from 100/0 to the 15/85 mix. Despite DoT "we don't test just assume" claims, E85 powered vehicles are not seeing a significant decrease in performance, and are cleaner per mile travelled than gas, and even hybrids.
With an ethanol infrastructure being converted into being, you now have a viable means of refueling fuel-cell powered cars. Just use ethanol to power the fuel cell. Cleaner and easier than converting oil based, and feasible today, not when some government funded "research" group decides the funding is about dry.
At that point, you would have converted most of the vehicles to at worst an ever-shrinking minority E10 (older non-FFV vehicles still in use) using vehicles, a majority of the vehicles running E85, and a growing number of ethanol powered fuel cell driven vehicles. The step (if needed and economically viable) to hydrogen at that point is a minor one, and not the chasm leaping hurdle it is today.
This is all using proven, existing technology, not spending billions in mythical research. Further, increasing crop usage would lead to more CO2 absorption.
That may be, but ...
Erecting such massive barriers that diffuse and absorb wind energy would also have deterimental effects on weather and localized pollution not being accoutned for. Wind is one of the earth's thermal regulators. Start interfering with that and watch the specific variance begin to increase.
To get an idea, say you have a valley that at one end (the windy end) you put up a wind farm. This barrier will diffuse and absorb much of the wind energy, by design. Now, you have decreased the thermal redistribution effect of that wind on the valley (or the other end of the valley depending on location). In some cases, you'll see a higher temp as the cooling effect is decreased. In others you will see a warming trend as the wand that formerly carried warm air has lost it's punch.
This is a greater specific varience, areas with a much greater difference in thermals. Now, over time you will see these differences lead to even more dramatic effects. Thunderstorms and other forms of severe weather are possible, even likely results as the differential increases.
Further, decrease of wind currents can lead to changes in air pressure creating a variety of effects ranging from more pollution density to shifts in the jet stream (location dependent obviously).
At best we should be able to somewhat model these on the computer, but not with much accuracy. Still, I'd hope we would at least try to model them accurately prior to moving blindly into another one.
Any way you slice it, energy consumption will occur, and any time you extract energy from an ecosystem in any way, there will be negative, and often unforseen, effects -- even solar. Given enough solar cells, you change the albedo of the planet, directly affecting the amount of light-heat the earth absorbs and radiates.
Sometimes, the grasss really isn't greener on the other side. It's just a different shade of green.
Or (shock, horror) reduce the population's energy consumption.
Clearly (one hopes), you are unaware of the correlation between health, freedom, and economic benefits; and energy consumption.
That said:
"Globally, per capita consumption has changed relatively little over the past 30 years although total consumption grew by some 70 per cent during 1972-99. At the regional level, per capita consumption has fallen in North America, the greatest consumer, and risen most sharply in West Asia." -- UN
Note, however, the Un has the goal of not just wealth redistribution, but energy consumption redistribution. The above data shows that despite press accounts to the contrary, N. Americans have actually become *MORE* efficient, while other developing countries have been consuming more per capita.
This is not unexpected. As countries/societies developm they will go through a stage of higher and higher per-capita energy consumption until they reach a point where higher efficiencies are possible (due to more than technological reasons, btw) and the trend reverses itsself.
This phenomenon is reflected in pollution levels, and crime levels too. The more wealthy a society is per-capita, the less likely crime becomes, and the more likely they have the time to be concerned with environmental effects.
Want to *continue* the downward per capita energy consumption then you need to get government out of the way of higher per-capita wealth.
Given that Americans consume energy at the rate of Five Earths,
Until such times as Americans have established extra-terrestrial colonies (Mars, Luna, free-orbit, etc.), it is not possibly for Americans to consume mor energy than "an Earth". Either way you mean an "Earth".
You clearly have no idea how much energy is consumed by the plants on this planet. IIRC, the solar energy consumed by a field of wheat, corn, or what have you in a year is more than we as a race produce.
Or better yet, just make the move to Python and leave java behind.
So, all we have to do is prove that the DMCA violates the DMCA and it will disappear in a puff of illogic, right?
No, that's how it appeared in a puff of congressional law.
Basically, they call it a loss which under the current accounting rules, results in a more favorable bottom line ... on paper.
What about the research costs of wind power, the health concerns resulting from the workers for that industry (as well as the resultant climatic changes), and the economy depressive costs provided by the higher taxes to pay for the research budget?
TNSTAAFL even in wind/solar/nuclear/etc..
Someone get us working flywheels, please!
;)
They do work. The flywheel in my car transfers nearly 400HP to the driveshaft.
Europe is having a great deal of success working wind into the mix.
Europe is smaller. Yes, it matters. The shorter the distance between power generation and utilization the less loss. The greater the distance, the more loss and thus the more the net cost is.
Well here we are *charged * about 5.5 cents per kw/hr. Clearly, the *cost* is less. Prices vary across the US.
California and Sweden have about the same area. So logic states that if you should be able to identify/place on on a map, you should be able toplacethe other.
It's funny how many people slam Americans for not knowing where masny small countries are; they call them arrogant for only being concerned about "their own lives".
But what of the arrogance of expecting someone in Miami Florida to ave any need to know where Sweden is. I'd rather people of all nations spend their educational time on learning things that have usefulness for them than memorizing facts and calling themselves superior.
If you have a need to know where Sweden, Miami, South Wales, or the Dakotas are you'll learn it.
Read the aforementioned references.
What you claim is not what the documents claim. It does not say "Interstate commerce". It says:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
That is commerce among the States, not the people of the states. it was intended to regulate the states' dealings with each other, not the people of the state. That hasn't stopped them. Hell they've tried to make arson of a home in which teh owner was conducting business with other businesses/people in other states as falling under the so-called "interstate commerce clause", or saying that intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce and therefore is within the clause.
But that still doesn't make it right.
It was also the safest before they checked IDs.
That's becuase there was no incentive to hijack a plane. Even terrorists and hijackers need a return on investment. Hijack a plane to try to get to Cuba? No good if you know it won't work. Want to hijack a plane to fly into a building? Won't work if the people on board assume you might want to do that and will therefore fight you.
Hijackings in this country stopped when it became clear it would not pay off. Unfortunately, in the process, people were taught to be sheep, Just sit and be patient. Now, that is gone (for now). When you are convinced you are about to die, attacking a hijacker is now a much easier to swallow proposition.
Add to it that the crash of the plane will likely kill many others, and it is nearly a no-brainer. This is the sole reason why the events of 9/11 will not happen again in the near future.