Re:Internet TV will Kill ISP Tracking
on
ISP Sued By Irish RIAA
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If large numbers of filesharers begin to send huge transfers amounts of data over SSL, it's going to be pretty noticeable. All web pages must send data to be viewed. All content whatsoever must send data to be viewed. File sizes are going to increases *exponentially*! There will be absolutely no way for the isp to distinguish between phone traffic, "illegal" p2p traffic, and even the isp's own "movie" file offerings.
It will become nearly impossible for anyone to know the contents of any file by merely looking at size, distribution, origination, etc. ISPs will lose a helluva lot more money with their free speech violations that end up blocking news feeds, public domain library contents, etc. There's a helluva lot of *expired* copyright content to be exchanged and hosted, and the amount of that content will only continue to mammothly exponentially grow.
You might also think it's "quite noticeable" that just the sheer number of files grows every single day. For a microcosmic example, the number of posts on a site like/. grows every day. Now multiply that out over the entire internet, and legitimate "legal" information compendiums on topics will start to dwarf all the "copyrighted" content combined.
If copyright police and ISPs decide to make information flow a war they are living in la la dreamland in they think they can win. Big businesses like Comcast are already having their asses handed to them by minor "scooby-doo kids" groups. These efforts are only going to become more professional, better organized, better funded. The RIAA is doing nothing more than setting up a copyright troll business model to be copied that will screw those with the biggest pockets the hardest.
When the history books are written, this will be regarded as a mammoth world-wide Boston Tea Party-esque Victory for consumers. Copyright is doomed because it's economically inefficient. The costs of filtering and policing will only continue to soar with the sheer size of content available on the internet. The government could 24/7 audio-visual record everyone in the world. Do you have any idea the time and budget constraint costs actually listening to all that would cost? It's practically impossible, and as effective as a police officer on the African planes ordering a stampede of animals to "stop!" The private police going to be run over at best, and pay bankrupting legal settlement costs for the privilege of being run over at worst. In the end, they will choose to just move aside and abandon copyright.
It is the government that is recognizing that we own the land, just as it recognizes that we own literary, music, dramatic, or artistic works. Then you are responsible for your "property" and its effects. If I am annoyed by a jingle played on public air waves, then you must assume financial responsibility for your harm. How about a class action lawsuit for music which causes mental distress? We have evidence of music being played in military operations to cause the enemy psychological distress. And the psychological damage the "property" of the music industry causes is more than the total revenue income it has brought in. So I want big time class action damages assessed against all those involved in putting annoying commercial jingles into peoples' heads.
Not to mention you don't own any of the fundamental pieces of ideas which your claims are circumscribing. Building a house next to your neighbor's houses does not transfer ownership of your neighbor's house as an amendment to your property claim.
Does anybody own the word "The"? Nope. And anytime the word "The" is being circumscribed in a copyright claim it is by definition invalid, and we the public demand you stop infringing on our public domain word "The". The End. For Joo. So multiply every copyright claim infringement of public domain property by $150,000, and all the assets of all artists belong to the public domain. So pay up bitches!
You most certainly can't assume that your tastes represent the whole, or even if they do, that they should be the only taste in music available.
I don't even know why we are discussing this, because the market should (and is) making clear what it wants, and what it can provide. The biggest inhibitor right now is the market cannibalising itself in the form of piracy. Music GENRES exist solely because of copying the ideas of others. You only have different rock and roll band DIVERSITY because they copy musical chord and progression ideas of others. You only have LYRICS in music because singers copy words created by others. So, far from being an inhibitor, so-called "piracy" is the sole liberator of fleshing out musical ideas and interpretations, and stumbling into slight differences of output they have more in common (read: copied) with the output of other musicians than they don't have in common with the output of other musicians.
Every musician alive learned to play music precisely by COPYING. They did not reinvent the wheel, and discover rhythm, notes, musical instruments, musical theory, etc. They "cannibalized" the ideas of those who lived before them, and that's the sole reason they are able to produce any music whatsoever at all.
And the cheaper all music becomes (including FREE), the more musical knowledge everyone can possess. People can now process and inter-relate iPods with 5,000 songs at more times during the day and night rather than trying to inter-relate a few albums now and then on a weekend evening that had massively inefficient amounts of hyper marketing pushing crapola.
And the market knowledge of consumers has advanced greatly to discover 90% of these so-called "artists" are just ripping off the ideas of each other, with some cheap heavy producer mixing gloss lipstick covering the same old pig whilst pretending it's new "talent".
Talk about a "great" band like Led Zeppelin. 90% + of their output was unoriginal "piracy" of the ideas of blues musicians. Boo-hoo-hoo if some hack's copycat band can't gouge the market like they used to for their hack copy-cat "pirated" product. These artists are as much of a middleman on musical ideas as the record companies are middlemen, and all looking for welfare subsidization in the form of copyright protection, which only causes artificial scarcity and the stagnation of musical innovation. The whole 20th century musical catalog from mainstream payola to indie is mostly a pile of pirated musical ideas remixed to shit. And if it wasn't for artist "piracy" they wouldn't have even had *that*.
Eliot Spitzer was just the beginning. With all the massive economic damage lawyers have caused businesses and consumers, it will be interesting to see if similar numbers of lawyers can start receiving similar levels of fines and sentences, not to mention regulatory legislation. As it is, perhaps more lawyers graduate these days than MBAs, engineers, and MDs, and the amount of wealth being parasitically siphoned from productive society is approaching Roman Civilization Bureaucratic Collapse proportions.
I don't think there has ever been such an arrogant caste profession since the days of the Egyptian priesthood. We need to see massive amounts of judges, lawyers, and politicians losing their personal assets and serving lengthy prison terms. Charge them all with bribery, extortion, abuse of power, and put a government ordered price freeze limiting all lawyer wages to $50 hour maximum.
Fuck "sanctions". This guy needs to be stripped of practicing law ever again, as well as being forced to pay a significant 6 figure fine towards his attempted victim. And we need to see much higher standards and harsher penalties of these "officers" of the "Law".
Then we should send a graffiti spray paint probe south to write "Earth Was Here" on the universe "wall", as we can rule out "east" and "west" being the fasted shortest directions to the "edge" of the universe.
1. We have no evidence that we as a species will ever be able to deploy enough energy or resources to move beyond this solar system. Except that we know more energy is currently passing through and within the solar system than the combined total of stored and potential forms of energy which exist on the planet Earth. There isn't enough energy on the planet to, for instance simply switch the orbital positions of the planets Mars and Earth. But those planets and our solar system are moving at an incredible speed and hence energy, that dwarfs the resources you could harvest/harness on Earth. Yet "scientists" bemoan "da precious" fossil fuels. We can already manufacture synthetic diamonds but we should believe manufacturing synthetic fossil fuels is impossible, not to mention the complete religious zealotry of man-made "climate change" fundamentalists who can't even deliver a simple primitive formula including any weighted variables related to total average temperature which they claim is changing? (and hence all those claiming knowledge without out on demand reference to such simplicity are wholly and utterly talking out their religious asses). That's why "global warming", now called "climate change", is nothing but a massive religious movement and not at all scientific exposition.
It might be incredibly speculative to believe we've discovered more than one tenth of one percent of the possible energy forms which exist in the Universe, let alone the methods for harnessing and harvesting those energy forms. But yet we have such encompassing delusions of final missing particles/elements/masses like "dark matter" and "god particles". Not to mention the absolutely laughable claim of primitive relativity limiting all moments of the big bang explosion to less than light speed, especially combined with acceleration and expansion theories.
The belief that there is something special about the human race which justifies its long term existence is as "religious" as any theistic religion, and no more defensible. As is the antithesis of that belief. But don't forget to cast some unnecessary incitement on a religious fundamentalist by calling some bacteria his grandparents.
Yes, there are economic laws precisely as scientific as any laws of physics. And such fundamental truths will overlap is disparate scientific disciplines, such as physics, biology, and economics. I'd even wager the number one blind spot prohibiting physics and biological advancement is economic ignorance. Smart people can make fun of flying spaghetti monsters but then fall for such epistemologically impossible nonsense such as "trade deficits".
And it is a fact that all interference with peaceful voluntary trade is causing poverty, causing the world to be net poorer than it otherwise would be. And with socialist government intervention on a massive scaled (all taxation and regulation) we are talking order of magnitude of caused poverty and technological stagnation. Presently we are centuries behind in technological advancement solely due to government interference and taxation.
All trade only occurs because that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. That explains movement and position for absolutely everything, in a different form.
But we have a board full of political realm idiots who would vote for Barack Obama rather than Ron Paul. There is your ignorance inhibiting technological advancement and wealth creation.
Point me in the direction of a single alternative technology that will provide the kind of energy required. Dark matter electro-magnetism.
The Universe is full of energy. Launch a satellite orbiting the Earth and its movement around the Earth is net energy positive as gravity takes over. You have gravity as an energy source. You have a humongous magnetic field covering the Earth such that North-South polarity exists, and that field flips every 600k-800k years.
You have evidence of the distance between stars increasing. A body in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. And that's just the stuff that can be *seen* under light spectrum speed.
So basically you have an infinite (replenishing) energy field in many different forms everywhere in the universe. New stars form. Asteroids move. Light travels.
How fast is our solar system and by definition the Earth traveling right now? A helluva lot faster than all the stored energy in buried natural Earth resources + theoretically harnessed geothermal activity since the planet formed ever could produce.
We are moving *fast* even though we don't feel it because of solar system and Earth gravity. We move X distance around the Sun every 365 days. That's a helluva lot of weight moving for "free".
But I think a better question is the following: how much of that newly available extra money is going into software? All programmers who use OSS have time saved from not having to reinvent the basic wheel. Future programmers then can add their own refinements and advances. This benefits those who were first to create the basic foundational wheel of OSS.
Eventually when open source nano tech programs can build houses from molecular scratch, everybody will be saved the time of having to work for and pay off a mortgage for 30 years to have a roof over their head, even though construction workers and construction companies will be put out of business.
But this is in no uncertain terms creation of economic wealth. And it also serves to wholly cut out the extra inefficiency of the taxman's cut. This is a *huge* competitive advantage to open source. No shipping costs. No tax costs.
How about since Officers of the Court and Government are forced to swear the Oath to the Constitution, every new legislative session of Congress must proceed with a mandatory attendance oral reading of the entire body of Federal Law before any new law can be passed?
It would be exactly like being a juror in a Courtroom forced to listen and see 50,000 pieces of spam evidence actually wholly individually heard to be admitted as evidence.
Any guesses on how long it would take for all the laws on the federal book, including the entirety of the tax code, to be actually read aloud?
Put this on one of those citizen truth in government agenda platforms.
I suppose you won't mind when I move into your house. Feel free to build a copy of any house whatsoever out of your own privately owned land and materials. Oh, you don't want people copying the ideas of doors and windows in their houses? So perhaps you would be in favor of the government seizing and destroying all buildings which have doors and windows? Sounds like the way to progress and economic prosperity for human kind.../sarcasm
Too bad there is no such thing as "intellectual property rights" except in people's fantasy imaginations. So how you can think they are "important" is laughable. There are only time limited grants of monopoly distribution that convey no such titles of Property or Personhood. And those grants must at all times be factually promoting the progress of science and useful arts for the grants to be constitutional.
Not only is it not property, but neither is it an inalienable right. The Congress could eliminate copyright and patent monopoly grants entirely with no tort harm whatsoever to anyone.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; And by setting the term to length = 0, Congress would indeed be promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. It's a purely a question of economic demonstration.
Also, note, the constitution does not grant protection to *ALL* arts, only to "useful" arts. So those artistic works which are purely for entertainment purposes are likely unconstitutionally given copyright protection. This means RIAA songs, and MPAA movies may possible have wholly unconstitutional copyright protection. They are mere *ENTERTAINMENT*. Also the Constitution explicitly mentions writings and discoveries, it does not explicitly mention music or movies. And music was certainly around at the time of the writing of the Constitution. I'd be interested if anyone could make a case that music was not regarded as a "useful art".
What was the date of the very first copyrighted piece of music in the US?
I've also previously on other sites made the legal argument that banning cell phones in high school classrooms is felony child endangerment. And as I know for a fact that the University of Chicago has an emergency email warning notification program spawned because of the shooting spree at Virginia Tech (as I'm sure do many universities), the University of Chicago Law School is GUILTY of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND ENDANGERMENT, similar to chaining by lock fire exit doors in schools.
So if I slide on down to the Cook Country Circuit Court and get an injunction against this policy, can I have an honorary UofC Law Degree for schooling the UofC Law School? How about from any of the other Law Schools I prevent from making the same liability mistake? Not to mention violations against the Americans With Disabilities Act. Will consider full ride scholarships.
Sorry if my legal jargon isn't up to par. For your punishment entertainment, I sentence the UofC Law School to a 5 year pro bono legal clinic assistance helping victims of the RIAA.
Any lawyers want to mock represent the defense?:P
"I've always been fascinated by the law." "Oh really? What areas?" "Oh all areas. Personal privacy, noise statutes..."
It's not supposed to be a "graduation business" where you can exchange tuition fees for a degree (that will hopefully get you a better paying job in the future). Too bad, but that's exactly what 99% of institutions of higher education are. If it ceases to be that, Harvard and the University of Chicago will cease to have mutli-billion dollar endowment funds.
Rather, students are supposed to be taught how to think systematically, how to approach the solving of problems, in other words how to do research (as a side effect, knowing how to go about solving problems in general is also highly valuable for future employers). This can all be done for FREE for EVERYBODY on the internet, especially easily so in subject matter of Law.
The reason why you should be there, as a student, is because you want to learn something. If that's not the case please simply don't bother showing up at all rather than distracting everyone else, kthxbye. Brilliant legal case precedent. I'm sure the pretty female student will have no objections to being voted off the island, or voted out of the classroom, for the same alleged subjective "distraction" basis.
By the way, if you honestly believe most of those people using laptops are actually "multitasking" or somehow able to unconsciously decide just when it is important to pay attention, I'm not sure whose viewpoints are failing any "rational test", to be honest. Perhaps mandatory brain wave monitoring devices can also ensure they aren't at any moment daydreaming.
I've also previously on other sites made the legal argument that banning cell phones in high school classrooms is felony child endangerment. And as I know for a fact that the University of Chicago has an emergency email warning notification program spawned because of the shooting spree at Virginia Tech (as I'm sure do many universities), the University of Chicago Law School is GUILTY of NEGLIGENCE AND ENDANGERMENT, similar to chaining by lock fire exit doors. In fact if I so desired, and was a UofC law student who disagreed with the no internet policy I would easily get a court injunction barring this policy, and school the whole Law School, muwahahaha. Guess my UofC Economics and the Law class wasn't an entire waste.
There is no scarcity of work to be done. Hiring 9,000 duplicate professors to do the exact same job as the best 1 of them does is throwing money down the toilet. The ratio is even more obscene for K-12 education. It's exactly as silly as transferring these future unemployed professors into a Public Works Ditch Digging Program where the day shift digs a ditch and the night shift fills in that exact same ditch -- every single 24 hour period -- just so they all can have "jobs".
Sure, there are more factors keeping colleges running, but those factors aren't worth the 4-year 6 figure tuition costs so kids can have a dormitory church camp nature experience. The vast majority of the education students who get most degrees today can be replicated in the 4 figure range for 4-year degrees, and it constantly gets cheaper and higher quality as replication grants simultaneous unlimited access. With those savings, students can pay for new History and Discovery Channel entertainment/education content to be created by these professors who need new jobs, even at jacked $19.95 per hour of content rates.
How can you argue against HIGHER, EQUAL, UNIVERSAL, QUALITY for 90% slashed prices? Make me the Education Czar and I'll happily throw in a middle finger with the pink slips.:P
Don't know why you were moderated troll. That was a perfect economic demonstration of Substitute Goods, which satisfy a demand to be paying attention to something else because paying attention to something else can be subjectively more valuable than paying attention to what the professor wants you to be paying attention to.
Don't worry. These professors will end up eliminated in the exact same way purchasing plastic cds for $17 is being eliminated. The whole idea of a Law Degree is pure protectionist unionism shutting out competition. Every field of academic endeavor will little by little have its knowledge set free and open.
The lectures and in class Socratic methodology is priced FAR above its actual value, FOR 1 STUDENT, LET ALONE A FULL LECTURE HALL OF STUDENTS!
A perfect example of professorial negligence. Perhaps a classROOM civil suit for services not rendered could get them a 50% (or even greater) tuition refund. What portion of classroom time that is allegedly being billed at $500/hour is spent wasted having to listen to idiot class mates speak?
These are $0.99.mp3 lectures which are being billed at hundreds of dollars. Call them ProfesoRIAA.
The information is out there, and many people are self educated; people will always pay large amounts of money to get their paper certificate to "prove" their knowledge. Sure, but competition can bring those costs of proving knowledge way down, especially in professions that don't require hands technical demonstration, like surgery.
Knowledge is already not scarce; what copyright has done is give incentive to compile that knowledge in more approachable ways. There's nothing in a textbook you can't get anywhere else, the value is how that informtion is distilled and presented. Getting rid of copyright means there is less incentive to make knowledge more accessible. Copyright doesn't "give" any new incentive that doesn't already a priori exist without copyright protection. Getting rid of copyright would completely free all knowledge. A perfect example is seen in music.mp3 files which are shared on the internet. No prior generation before has come close to having this much music knowledge. And copyright is preventing it from being better categorized, remixed, reviewed, and displayed. Having access to the entire music catalog created throughout history is cheaper than ever, by definition making it more accessible and therefore the population better educated. This has all occurred *in spite of* copyright suppressing this knowledge. The absence of copyright doesn't prevent anyone from voluntarily rewarding anybody they want to voluntarily reward, nor from creators seeking voluntary payment to continue creating. It certainly massively frees competition and results in higher quality and lower prices.
Peer review by the masses isn't always the best thing - look at the problems with Wikipedia, or even this site where politics can have a greater impact on the review process than actual expertise and insight. There's nothing preventing all sorts of competing wikipedias, with all sorts of differing filters and contribution requirements. If you are a professor of economics, you could restrict your economics knowledge super editing qualifications to those with PhDs. You could even simultaneously allow contributions by everyone, but color code material that is vetted and peer reviewed by PhDs as "green", for instance. And pages behind controversial pages can point out political obfuscation. People will still judge, and people can easily judge the value of such a super qualified moderating power system. The tree branches and roots system become infinitely detailed for those who wish to delve at the deepest levels.
The question is why even go to class if you aren't going to pay attention; it's better to just not go than sit there and distract others with mouse and keyboard clicks. Or maybe other students are too weak, and are allowing themselves to be distracted by "keyboard and mouse clicks". Take a look at workplace cubicles. You can hear keyboard and mouse clicks, phone conversations, employee to employee conversations. Ever visit a floor trading exchange like the NYSE? Voluntary arrangements could solve classroom problems, such as those that don't want to see computer screens sit up front, those that want to use computers and look at screens sit in back.
Complaining about mouse and keyboard clicks is just as silly as complaining that a female student is too pretty, causing distraction, and should therefore be banned from sitting in the class.
No, failing people permanently is a failure of the educational system. Not everybody learns at the same speed nor in the same methodological manner, or is as interested at the same time as others for whatever reasons.
Most education is mere rote memorization of fact. In the 21st century, access to all kinds of information is widely available. Professors and lectures cannot compete with the internet. Somebody better than themselves can address a topic better, and everyone can access those best in breed demonstrations stored permanently and perpetually freshened on the internet.
You could also observe recorded question and answer sessions that have been duplicated every year in every university. Eventually things will click for even the slowest students. At any time in a topic "thread" a new question or a different answer could be added and moderated. It's a complete waste of duplicating human effort for 1000 law classes to simultaneously build that process from scratch and attempt to repeat it every semester, especially for classes that have more than 5 or more than 10 students. You're just synthetically inefficiently broadcasting, wasting building and maintenance costs of classrooms. We should dramatically increase the quality of education while cutting costs by 90%. The internet and elimination of copyrights is the way to do this.
Then everybody can pass when they are ready to pass, to a much higher level than the majority of the population can today, either due to distractions (bullying in grammar school, internet surfing in higher education) or unnecessary costs. This would result in an explosion of knowledge for all of human kind.
And nobody would be left permanently behind with an arbitrary sentence of failure.
This is all about creating artificial scarcity to inflate professor salaries. There's no reason the professor couldn't video record his lecture at his leisure and post it to the web, where students could as well view it at their leisure. This would have the effect of eventually eliminating duplicate lecturing work, nationally and internationally, as the best lectures on a topic would be vetted, modded, and amended. And *everyone*, not just those being gouged for piece of paper Union Card Law Degree Certificates, would have access to information, access to education. This is just general commentary on the fact that most educational qualification boils down to paying the six figure medieval guild initiation fee for admittance into a monopoly protected line of work, such as Law.
This is why eliminating copyright completely will lead to a golden age Renaissance of artistic and technological advancement, along with enhanced work profession mobility as training costs come crashing down by eliminating artificial scarcity knowledge.
Sites like slashdot that have moderating systems for posts is just the very wee beginning of genuine peer review and promotion for all sorts of information topics.
If surfing the internet is more interesting than listening to the professor blabber, then that is feedback on the quality of the professor. It's obvious if there's a "problem" with a lot of students ignoring the professors, their lecture acts aren't even as fresh as a Foghat concert. And if I could go back in time and post student feedback on my Economics and the Law class at the University of Chicago, I would say just that.:P
P.S. I'm also very disappointed that the UofC is rolling over for the RIAA. Way to be behind the Harvard curve on everything except economics, still! Nevertheless, it's still a top notch elite school. But the entire US higher education system could use free market competition to increase its quality. And (the synthetic equivalent of) $0.99 recorded.mp3 lectures aren't justifying the 6 figure tuition costs for degrees, especially when that same $0.99 lecture track is recycled each academic year. I also look forward to undercutting every single obscenely priced textbook to torrent file sharing, and eventually undercutting the bulk of every academic institution in the world's majority of course material to free open access.
Lectures + calling on students to answer questions in class = outdated.
If the electrical energy equivalent of a gallon of diesel fuel could be stored in an equal weight and volume battery, most, if not all other forms of energy storage would disappear. And what if technological advancements allowed the electrical energy equivalent of a gallon of diesel fuel to be stored in a far less weight and volume battery?
That would be a true Green Economic Revolution. Digging, mining, pumping becomes uncompetitive too expensive to bother, and the dirty costs of fossil fuels are eliminated by the free market and technological progress.
We also have a huge magnetic field surrounding the Earth.
You mean decentralised GENERATION. Sure decentralized generation could work if you had a privatized (or open source) grid. If 20 power generating companies could plug into a grid serving a local big city, that would be a huge improvement.
Even the electric grid in North America consists of numerous owners and operators. Not at any local level it doesn't. Manual delivery could bypass these localized monopoly grids.
There's never been an on-land pipeline catastrophe on the scale of the Exxon Valdez mess. Wait until an earthquake hits a sensitive network area.
It is only at the retail level where vehicular transport of fuel is preferred (and yes, decentralised filling stations are most efficient--but that requires a network...or grid... of fuel transportation systems). Right, and electricity delivery at the retail level may be more economically efficiently delivered manually by truck, as it is for oil fuel.
Why does solar energy need to be transported? Solar energy hits all habitable areas of the world! We don't need to take over 8400 square miles of Arizona with a complex of solar-thermal generating units--that would be foolish! For the exact same reason that you don't see giant farms within big city limits. Desert land will have a comparative advantage to collecting solar energy. Supply is most economically generated at Point A and demand is greatest at Point B. Sure some amount of solar energy can be collected everywhere, but desert areas will collect more *cheaper*. That will mean desert areas will be economically and technically more efficient for infrastructure investment. Differing shipping methods will similarly compete for the most efficient delivery mechanism. Therefore, desert areas should specialize in solar energy collection, and wetland city areas would be completely wasting resources to try to replicate those infrastructure investments if it's cheaper to trade for desert surplus solar energy.
This just completely defies the laws of physics. The efficiency of transporting power over a line vs. using a truck that is heavier than the "storage cell" you envision, powered by an engine that puts out more energy in heat than as kinetic energy, is just absurd. It depends on the weight of the cells, the weight of the truck, and the amount of energy which can be stored in those cells. And also where the energy is going and its purpose. We certainly are not going to lay cable between Earth and Mars for missions to Mars, or even between Earth and the Moon.
For a similar example, see the delivery of water by manufactured bottle as opposed to delivery by pipe. That shows how economics efficiency can be more important than physics efficiency. Depending upon how many BTUs you can stuff into similar sized containers you have a possible use. Now if the local monopoly power company is charging excessive rates per BTU (to pad the profit margin made on per BTU delivered) such a "manual" delivery system indeed does become economically competitive. Just as "black market" copying of flash memory data drives off the internet grid becomes competitive given the costs of detection and punishment.
Your assumption is power companies base their rates on the physics costs of delivery. I wouldn't be surprised to see a massive layer of bureaucracy in power companies and accounting methods that hide profits as costs.
You seem to suggest that distributed systems are bad, when there are big examples showing the opposite (the internet and the electrical grid actually being very successful examples in fact). They are bad when all the pieces of the grid are monopoly owned (either government or private corporation enabled by government). They become much less malleable, less competitive, and less resilient to damage.
Super light weight trucks transporting super lightweight energy storage cells packing Mega Units of energy becomes competitive on the physics technical side at some distance for some amount of energy delivered given the infrastructure and maintenance costs of both delivery systems. There's certainly a lot of expensive man hours and energy used in laying electrical wiring cables. Those wires require monitoring, inspection, replacement. They have costs beyond the physics technical delivery costs. This makes "manual" energy delivery by truck a theoretical *economic* competitive possibility at some X for some Y given some Z, etc., etc.
Food is energy for human powering. Yet it would be absurd to build expensive network delivery tubes to transport raw food stuffs from farms to the cities, and for restaurants to deliver food by constructing tubes to every possible residence in case they called for a take out order. It might make a lot more economic sense for individual consumer residences to buy their energy at the grocery store while big electric power companies focus on doing business with big factories that consume constant large amounts of energy.
1. Driving a 100,000 lb truck is a more efficient way to transport electricity than a 145,000 V+ three phase line.
Yes, of course it is, or will have to be, for any non-nuclear, non-hydro, or non-fossil fuel source to be even remotely economically feasible as a first use low hanging fruit energy substitute. Electricity is just a *form* of energy. And if it was really the most efficient form of transporting energy, oil companies wouldn't ship oil by tankers and semi-trucks. Oil is just a different form of stored energy. Oil companies would convert oil to electricity and ship it by power lines. Sure, we communicate by satellite, we communicate by electric cables, so oil energy could just as easily have been converted into electricity and shipped by power lines. It never was because it would have been massively cost inefficient.
And all those nuclear, hydro, and fossil fuel energy sources would be vastly more efficient, more profitable if you could eliminate unnecessary infrastructure costs and maintenance, not to mention security costs. Roads are cheap grid substitutes. Power line grids limit your market. Supply (as in delivery area) is artificially constricted, although companies do love the monopoly pricing dependency tentacles. There's a reason all energy forms aren't converted to electricity. There's a reason electric public transportation can't compete in the free market without government subsidies. Infrastructure Grids are inefficient on both the supply and the demand side.
It's just a matter of quality energy storage cells being developed. This will happen. And given the revolution we've seen in a real market competitive technologically innovating industry such as computers with regard to data storage, I would expect similar results for energy storage, which can be regarded as just another form of highly charged data storage. We won't be hooking up million mile tentacle cables to send electricity to power Space Shuttle missions.
So your old tech power generating line delivery industry is going to be economically crushed in the 21st century, just like railroads were crushed in the 20th century.
2. That the current electrical grid was designed and built not with sound engineering and economic principles in mind, but as a way to extract subsidies while laying out real dollars and doing real work.
Absolutely it wasn't, *exactly* as railroad track was built in the 19th century. All you do is subsidize out competition and forever prohibit new competition that won't ever receive the same level of initial infrastructure subsidies. This results in power company tycoons and politician campaign contributions and connected jobs payoffs. They only existed by stealing infrastructure costs from the public taxpayer and then bending the consumer over with monopoly prices.
4. That smaller isolated grids would be more reliable than what we have now.
Complete elimination of grids would be more reliable. Have fully charged flashlight batteries ever failed during a storm outage? Nope. Energy storage cells which can be delivered by trucks traveling roads will serve to keep local power companies monopoly pricing in check, and eventually render wire/cable infrastructure inefficient. Power companies are massively inefficient monopolies, with a horrible record of customer service, pricing, and technological innovation. Why work or take risks when you can sit on your ass collecting monopoly tax rents with your tentacle lines plugged into every home and business?
I work in the power generation business. Please feel free to ask any specific questions you would like answered.
It takes energy to move energy. Which industry is more economically profitable, oil, or electricity power company? What are the relative energy amounts lost per unit of energy moved costs, as varied by distance, for a "145,000 V+ three phase line"? You can guess a percentage efficiency on a scale from 0% to 100%.
Slashdot Mirror
It will become nearly impossible for anyone to know the contents of any file by merely looking at size, distribution, origination, etc. ISPs will lose a helluva lot more money with their free speech violations that end up blocking news feeds, public domain library contents, etc. There's a helluva lot of *expired* copyright content to be exchanged and hosted, and the amount of that content will only continue to mammothly exponentially grow.
You might also think it's "quite noticeable" that just the sheer number of files grows every single day. For a microcosmic example, the number of posts on a site like
If copyright police and ISPs decide to make information flow a war they are living in la la dreamland in they think they can win. Big businesses like Comcast are already having their asses handed to them by minor "scooby-doo kids" groups. These efforts are only going to become more professional, better organized, better funded. The RIAA is doing nothing more than setting up a copyright troll business model to be copied that will screw those with the biggest pockets the hardest.
When the history books are written, this will be regarded as a mammoth world-wide Boston Tea Party-esque Victory for consumers. Copyright is doomed because it's economically inefficient. The costs of filtering and policing will only continue to soar with the sheer size of content available on the internet. The government could 24/7 audio-visual record everyone in the world. Do you have any idea the time and budget constraint costs actually listening to all that would cost? It's practically impossible, and as effective as a police officer on the African planes ordering a stampede of animals to "stop!" The private police going to be run over at best, and pay bankrupting legal settlement costs for the privilege of being run over at worst. In the end, they will choose to just move aside and abandon copyright.
Not to mention you don't own any of the fundamental pieces of ideas which your claims are circumscribing. Building a house next to your neighbor's houses does not transfer ownership of your neighbor's house as an amendment to your property claim.
Does anybody own the word "The"? Nope. And anytime the word "The" is being circumscribed in a copyright claim it is by definition invalid, and we the public demand you stop infringing on our public domain word "The". The End. For Joo. So multiply every copyright claim infringement of public domain property by $150,000, and all the assets of all artists belong to the public domain. So pay up bitches!
I don't even know why we are discussing this, because the market should (and is) making clear what it wants, and what it can provide. The biggest inhibitor right now is the market cannibalising itself in the form of piracy. Music GENRES exist solely because of copying the ideas of others. You only have different rock and roll band DIVERSITY because they copy musical chord and progression ideas of others. You only have LYRICS in music because singers copy words created by others. So, far from being an inhibitor, so-called "piracy" is the sole liberator of fleshing out musical ideas and interpretations, and stumbling into slight differences of output they have more in common (read: copied) with the output of other musicians than they don't have in common with the output of other musicians.
Every musician alive learned to play music precisely by COPYING. They did not reinvent the wheel, and discover rhythm, notes, musical instruments, musical theory, etc. They "cannibalized" the ideas of those who lived before them, and that's the sole reason they are able to produce any music whatsoever at all.
And the cheaper all music becomes (including FREE), the more musical knowledge everyone can possess. People can now process and inter-relate iPods with 5,000 songs at more times during the day and night rather than trying to inter-relate a few albums now and then on a weekend evening that had massively inefficient amounts of hyper marketing pushing crapola.
And the market knowledge of consumers has advanced greatly to discover 90% of these so-called "artists" are just ripping off the ideas of each other, with some cheap heavy producer mixing gloss lipstick covering the same old pig whilst pretending it's new "talent".
Talk about a "great" band like Led Zeppelin. 90% + of their output was unoriginal "piracy" of the ideas of blues musicians. Boo-hoo-hoo if some hack's copycat band can't gouge the market like they used to for their hack copy-cat "pirated" product. These artists are as much of a middleman on musical ideas as the record companies are middlemen, and all looking for welfare subsidization in the form of copyright protection, which only causes artificial scarcity and the stagnation of musical innovation. The whole 20th century musical catalog from mainstream payola to indie is mostly a pile of pirated musical ideas remixed to shit. And if it wasn't for artist "piracy" they wouldn't have even had *that*.
Eliot Spitzer was just the beginning. With all the massive economic damage lawyers have caused businesses and consumers, it will be interesting to see if similar numbers of lawyers can start receiving similar levels of fines and sentences, not to mention regulatory legislation. As it is, perhaps more lawyers graduate these days than MBAs, engineers, and MDs, and the amount of wealth being parasitically siphoned from productive society is approaching Roman Civilization Bureaucratic Collapse proportions.
I don't think there has ever been such an arrogant caste profession since the days of the Egyptian priesthood. We need to see massive amounts of judges, lawyers, and politicians losing their personal assets and serving lengthy prison terms. Charge them all with bribery, extortion, abuse of power, and put a government ordered price freeze limiting all lawyer wages to $50 hour maximum.
Fuck "sanctions". This guy needs to be stripped of practicing law ever again, as well as being forced to pay a significant 6 figure fine towards his attempted victim. And we need to see much higher standards and harsher penalties of these "officers" of the "Law".
Then we should send a graffiti spray paint probe south to write "Earth Was Here" on the universe "wall", as we can rule out "east" and "west" being the fasted shortest directions to the "edge" of the universe.
It might be incredibly speculative to believe we've discovered more than one tenth of one percent of the possible energy forms which exist in the Universe, let alone the methods for harnessing and harvesting those energy forms. But yet we have such encompassing delusions of final missing particles/elements/masses like "dark matter" and "god particles". Not to mention the absolutely laughable claim of primitive relativity limiting all moments of the big bang explosion to less than light speed, especially combined with acceleration and expansion theories. The belief that there is something special about the human race which justifies its long term existence is as "religious" as any theistic religion, and no more defensible. As is the antithesis of that belief. But don't forget to cast some unnecessary incitement on a religious fundamentalist by calling some bacteria his grandparents.
Yes, there are economic laws precisely as scientific as any laws of physics. And such fundamental truths will overlap is disparate scientific disciplines, such as physics, biology, and economics. I'd even wager the number one blind spot prohibiting physics and biological advancement is economic ignorance. Smart people can make fun of flying spaghetti monsters but then fall for such epistemologically impossible nonsense such as "trade deficits".
And it is a fact that all interference with peaceful voluntary trade is causing poverty, causing the world to be net poorer than it otherwise would be. And with socialist government intervention on a massive scaled (all taxation and regulation) we are talking order of magnitude of caused poverty and technological stagnation. Presently we are centuries behind in technological advancement solely due to government interference and taxation.
All trade only occurs because that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. That explains movement and position for absolutely everything, in a different form.
But we have a board full of political realm idiots who would vote for Barack Obama rather than Ron Paul. There is your ignorance inhibiting technological advancement and wealth creation.
The Universe is full of energy. Launch a satellite orbiting the Earth and its movement around the Earth is net energy positive as gravity takes over. You have gravity as an energy source. You have a humongous magnetic field covering the Earth such that North-South polarity exists, and that field flips every 600k-800k years.
You have evidence of the distance between stars increasing. A body in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. And that's just the stuff that can be *seen* under light spectrum speed.
So basically you have an infinite (replenishing) energy field in many different forms everywhere in the universe. New stars form. Asteroids move. Light travels.
How fast is our solar system and by definition the Earth traveling right now? A helluva lot faster than all the stored energy in buried natural Earth resources + theoretically harnessed geothermal activity since the planet formed ever could produce.
We are moving *fast* even though we don't feel it because of solar system and Earth gravity. We move X distance around the Sun every 365 days. That's a helluva lot of weight moving for "free".
Eventually when open source nano tech programs can build houses from molecular scratch, everybody will be saved the time of having to work for and pay off a mortgage for 30 years to have a roof over their head, even though construction workers and construction companies will be put out of business.
But this is in no uncertain terms creation of economic wealth. And it also serves to wholly cut out the extra inefficiency of the taxman's cut. This is a *huge* competitive advantage to open source. No shipping costs. No tax costs.
How about since Officers of the Court and Government are forced to swear the Oath to the Constitution, every new legislative session of Congress must proceed with a mandatory attendance oral reading of the entire body of Federal Law before any new law can be passed?
It would be exactly like being a juror in a Courtroom forced to listen and see 50,000 pieces of spam evidence actually wholly individually heard to be admitted as evidence.
Any guesses on how long it would take for all the laws on the federal book, including the entirety of the tax code, to be actually read aloud?
Put this on one of those citizen truth in government agenda platforms.
Too bad there is no such thing as "intellectual property rights" except in people's fantasy imaginations. So how you can think they are "important" is laughable. There are only time limited grants of monopoly distribution that convey no such titles of Property or Personhood. And those grants must at all times be factually promoting the progress of science and useful arts for the grants to be constitutional.
Also, note, the constitution does not grant protection to *ALL* arts, only to "useful" arts. So those artistic works which are purely for entertainment purposes are likely unconstitutionally given copyright protection. This means RIAA songs, and MPAA movies may possible have wholly unconstitutional copyright protection. They are mere *ENTERTAINMENT*. Also the Constitution explicitly mentions writings and discoveries, it does not explicitly mention music or movies. And music was certainly around at the time of the writing of the Constitution. I'd be interested if anyone could make a case that music was not regarded as a "useful art".
What was the date of the very first copyrighted piece of music in the US?
Quoting another post of mine:
:P
..."
I've also previously on other sites made the legal argument that banning cell phones in high school classrooms is felony child endangerment. And as I know for a fact that the University of Chicago has an emergency email warning notification program spawned because of the shooting spree at Virginia Tech (as I'm sure do many universities), the University of Chicago Law School is GUILTY of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND ENDANGERMENT, similar to chaining by lock fire exit doors in schools.
So if I slide on down to the Cook Country Circuit Court and get an injunction against this policy, can I have an honorary UofC Law Degree for schooling the UofC Law School? How about from any of the other Law Schools I prevent from making the same liability mistake? Not to mention violations against the Americans With Disabilities Act. Will consider full ride scholarships.
Sorry if my legal jargon isn't up to par. For your punishment entertainment, I sentence the UofC Law School to a 5 year pro bono legal clinic assistance helping victims of the RIAA.
Any lawyers want to mock represent the defense?
"I've always been fascinated by the law."
"Oh really? What areas?"
"Oh all areas. Personal privacy, noise statutes
I've also previously on other sites made the legal argument that banning cell phones in high school classrooms is felony child endangerment. And as I know for a fact that the University of Chicago has an emergency email warning notification program spawned because of the shooting spree at Virginia Tech (as I'm sure do many universities), the University of Chicago Law School is GUILTY of NEGLIGENCE AND ENDANGERMENT, similar to chaining by lock fire exit doors. In fact if I so desired, and was a UofC law student who disagreed with the no internet policy I would easily get a court injunction barring this policy, and school the whole Law School, muwahahaha. Guess my UofC Economics and the Law class wasn't an entire waste.
There is no scarcity of work to be done. Hiring 9,000 duplicate professors to do the exact same job as the best 1 of them does is throwing money down the toilet. The ratio is even more obscene for K-12 education. It's exactly as silly as transferring these future unemployed professors into a Public Works Ditch Digging Program where the day shift digs a ditch and the night shift fills in that exact same ditch -- every single 24 hour period -- just so they all can have "jobs".
:P
Sure, there are more factors keeping colleges running, but those factors aren't worth the 4-year 6 figure tuition costs so kids can have a dormitory church camp nature experience. The vast majority of the education students who get most degrees today can be replicated in the 4 figure range for 4-year degrees, and it constantly gets cheaper and higher quality as replication grants simultaneous unlimited access. With those savings, students can pay for new History and Discovery Channel entertainment/education content to be created by these professors who need new jobs, even at jacked $19.95 per hour of content rates.
How can you argue against HIGHER, EQUAL, UNIVERSAL, QUALITY for 90% slashed prices? Make me the Education Czar and I'll happily throw in a middle finger with the pink slips.
Don't know why you were moderated troll. That was a perfect economic demonstration of Substitute Goods, which satisfy a demand to be paying attention to something else because paying attention to something else can be subjectively more valuable than paying attention to what the professor wants you to be paying attention to.
Don't worry. These professors will end up eliminated in the exact same way purchasing plastic cds for $17 is being eliminated. The whole idea of a Law Degree is pure protectionist unionism shutting out competition. Every field of academic endeavor will little by little have its knowledge set free and open.
The lectures and in class Socratic methodology is priced FAR above its actual value, FOR 1 STUDENT, LET ALONE A FULL LECTURE HALL OF STUDENTS!
A perfect example of professorial negligence. Perhaps a classROOM civil suit for services not rendered could get them a 50% (or even greater) tuition refund. What portion of classroom time that is allegedly being billed at $500/hour is spent wasted having to listen to idiot class mates speak?
.mp3 lectures which are being billed at hundreds of dollars. Call them ProfesoRIAA.
These are $0.99
Complaining about mouse and keyboard clicks is just as silly as complaining that a female student is too pretty, causing distraction, and should therefore be banned from sitting in the class.
No, failing people permanently is a failure of the educational system. Not everybody learns at the same speed nor in the same methodological manner, or is as interested at the same time as others for whatever reasons.
Most education is mere rote memorization of fact. In the 21st century, access to all kinds of information is widely available. Professors and lectures cannot compete with the internet. Somebody better than themselves can address a topic better, and everyone can access those best in breed demonstrations stored permanently and perpetually freshened on the internet.
You could also observe recorded question and answer sessions that have been duplicated every year in every university. Eventually things will click for even the slowest students. At any time in a topic "thread" a new question or a different answer could be added and moderated. It's a complete waste of duplicating human effort for 1000 law classes to simultaneously build that process from scratch and attempt to repeat it every semester, especially for classes that have more than 5 or more than 10 students. You're just synthetically inefficiently broadcasting, wasting building and maintenance costs of classrooms. We should dramatically increase the quality of education while cutting costs by 90%. The internet and elimination of copyrights is the way to do this.
Then everybody can pass when they are ready to pass, to a much higher level than the majority of the population can today, either due to distractions (bullying in grammar school, internet surfing in higher education) or unnecessary costs. This would result in an explosion of knowledge for all of human kind.
And nobody would be left permanently behind with an arbitrary sentence of failure.
This is all about creating artificial scarcity to inflate professor salaries. There's no reason the professor couldn't video record his lecture at his leisure and post it to the web, where students could as well view it at their leisure. This would have the effect of eventually eliminating duplicate lecturing work, nationally and internationally, as the best lectures on a topic would be vetted, modded, and amended. And *everyone*, not just those being gouged for piece of paper Union Card Law Degree Certificates, would have access to information, access to education. This is just general commentary on the fact that most educational qualification boils down to paying the six figure medieval guild initiation fee for admittance into a monopoly protected line of work, such as Law.
:P
.mp3 lectures aren't justifying the 6 figure tuition costs for degrees, especially when that same $0.99 lecture track is recycled each academic year. I also look forward to undercutting every single obscenely priced textbook to torrent file sharing, and eventually undercutting the bulk of every academic institution in the world's majority of course material to free open access.
This is why eliminating copyright completely will lead to a golden age Renaissance of artistic and technological advancement, along with enhanced work profession mobility as training costs come crashing down by eliminating artificial scarcity knowledge.
Sites like slashdot that have moderating systems for posts is just the very wee beginning of genuine peer review and promotion for all sorts of information topics.
If surfing the internet is more interesting than listening to the professor blabber, then that is feedback on the quality of the professor. It's obvious if there's a "problem" with a lot of students ignoring the professors, their lecture acts aren't even as fresh as a Foghat concert. And if I could go back in time and post student feedback on my Economics and the Law class at the University of Chicago, I would say just that.
P.S. I'm also very disappointed that the UofC is rolling over for the RIAA. Way to be behind the Harvard curve on everything except economics, still! Nevertheless, it's still a top notch elite school. But the entire US higher education system could use free market competition to increase its quality. And (the synthetic equivalent of) $0.99 recorded
Lectures + calling on students to answer questions in class = outdated.
That would be a true Green Economic Revolution. Digging, mining, pumping becomes uncompetitive too expensive to bother, and the dirty costs of fossil fuels are eliminated by the free market and technological progress.
We also have a huge magnetic field surrounding the Earth.
For a similar example, see the delivery of water by manufactured bottle as opposed to delivery by pipe. That shows how economics efficiency can be more important than physics efficiency. Depending upon how many BTUs you can stuff into similar sized containers you have a possible use. Now if the local monopoly power company is charging excessive rates per BTU (to pad the profit margin made on per BTU delivered) such a "manual" delivery system indeed does become economically competitive. Just as "black market" copying of flash memory data drives off the internet grid becomes competitive given the costs of detection and punishment.
Your assumption is power companies base their rates on the physics costs of delivery. I wouldn't be surprised to see a massive layer of bureaucracy in power companies and accounting methods that hide profits as costs. You seem to suggest that distributed systems are bad, when there are big examples showing the opposite (the internet and the electrical grid actually being very successful examples in fact). They are bad when all the pieces of the grid are monopoly owned (either government or private corporation enabled by government). They become much less malleable, less competitive, and less resilient to damage.
Super light weight trucks transporting super lightweight energy storage cells packing Mega Units of energy becomes competitive on the physics technical side at some distance for some amount of energy delivered given the infrastructure and maintenance costs of both delivery systems. There's certainly a lot of expensive man hours and energy used in laying electrical wiring cables. Those wires require monitoring, inspection, replacement. They have costs beyond the physics technical delivery costs. This makes "manual" energy delivery by truck a theoretical *economic* competitive possibility at some X for some Y given some Z, etc., etc.
Food is energy for human powering. Yet it would be absurd to build expensive network delivery tubes to transport raw food stuffs from farms to the cities, and for restaurants to deliver food by constructing tubes to every possible residence in case they called for a take out order. It might make a lot more economic sense for individual consumer residences to buy their energy at the grocery store while big electric power companies focus on doing business with big factories that consume constant large amounts of energy.
1. Driving a 100,000 lb truck is a more efficient way to transport electricity than a 145,000 V+ three phase line.
Yes, of course it is, or will have to be, for any non-nuclear, non-hydro, or non-fossil fuel source to be even remotely economically feasible as a first use low hanging fruit energy substitute. Electricity is just a *form* of energy. And if it was really the most efficient form of transporting energy, oil companies wouldn't ship oil by tankers and semi-trucks. Oil is just a different form of stored energy. Oil companies would convert oil to electricity and ship it by power lines. Sure, we communicate by satellite, we communicate by electric cables, so oil energy could just as easily have been converted into electricity and shipped by power lines. It never was because it would have been massively cost inefficient.
And all those nuclear, hydro, and fossil fuel energy sources would be vastly more efficient, more profitable if you could eliminate unnecessary infrastructure costs and maintenance, not to mention security costs. Roads are cheap grid substitutes. Power line grids limit your market. Supply (as in delivery area) is artificially constricted, although companies do love the monopoly pricing dependency tentacles. There's a reason all energy forms aren't converted to electricity. There's a reason electric public transportation can't compete in the free market without government subsidies. Infrastructure Grids are inefficient on both the supply and the demand side.
It's just a matter of quality energy storage cells being developed. This will happen. And given the revolution we've seen in a real market competitive technologically innovating industry such as computers with regard to data storage, I would expect similar results for energy storage, which can be regarded as just another form of highly charged data storage. We won't be hooking up million mile tentacle cables to send electricity to power Space Shuttle missions.
So your old tech power generating line delivery industry is going to be economically crushed in the 21st century, just like railroads were crushed in the 20th century.
2. That the current electrical grid was designed and built not with sound engineering and economic principles in mind, but as a way to extract subsidies while laying out real dollars and doing real work.
Absolutely it wasn't, *exactly* as railroad track was built in the 19th century. All you do is subsidize out competition and forever prohibit new competition that won't ever receive the same level of initial infrastructure subsidies. This results in power company tycoons and politician campaign contributions and connected jobs payoffs. They only existed by stealing infrastructure costs from the public taxpayer and then bending the consumer over with monopoly prices.
4. That smaller isolated grids would be more reliable than what we have now.
Complete elimination of grids would be more reliable. Have fully charged flashlight batteries ever failed during a storm outage? Nope. Energy storage cells which can be delivered by trucks traveling roads will serve to keep local power companies monopoly pricing in check, and eventually render wire/cable infrastructure inefficient. Power companies are massively inefficient monopolies, with a horrible record of customer service, pricing, and technological innovation. Why work or take risks when you can sit on your ass collecting monopoly tax rents with your tentacle lines plugged into every home and business?
I work in the power generation business. Please feel free to ask any specific questions you would like answered.
It takes energy to move energy. Which industry is more economically profitable, oil, or electricity power company? What are the relative energy amounts lost per unit of energy moved costs, as varied by distance, for a "145,000 V+ three phase line"? You can guess a percentage efficiency on a scale from 0% to 100%.
The closer that "line" get