Noble metal refineries can out multiple components from ores and make a profit. Materials are enriched in our gadgets when compared to ore. I'm sure there is actually money to be made here.
So, if I read this correctly, NBC is its own owner again, and therefore also in charge of its own contents. Independence is important for a news provider.
Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for
on
Bye ACTA, Hello CETA
·
· Score: 2
I totally agree that a more centralized control and a more powerful government in Brussels is actually a threat to the EU, and more power to Brussels will ultimately make the EU weaker until it fails altogether...
But right now, it still works. It's going the wrong way, but it has not yet failed.
And regarding the blackmail and the costs of the EU and the crisis: A couple thousand euro is nothing in comparison to being bombed or shot. The economic crisis is nothing compared to a war.
Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for
on
Bye ACTA, Hello CETA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
How long will this continue to go on?
Hopefully forever. European counties founded the EU because it's better to keep the politicians talking about money than to have them threaten each other and start a war. First it was a union for coal and steel, now it's apparently music and entertainment. Same thing though: it keeps them occupied, and the results are generally a bit less awful than a world war.
I have no doubt that some grown-ups have talked these poor kids in suing their own father. Alright, the bastard is a murderer. Still, leave the kids out of it, you damned lawyers. What percentage of the sum does the lawyer get? Enough to ignore ethical behaviour, I bet. The cliche that you have to pay the bills has a limit.
If left to themselves, these kids, ages 11 and 12 would never ever have come up with such a plan. It's adult greed, and it's sickening to make these kids go through all this just for money. Sure, it's gonna pay for their college years. And it's gonna leave them with a mental scar for life.
$1200 for just some house is a lot. But add the infrastructure, possibly some furniture, and especially all the extra brains (neighbors, other nerds) and the price might be totally worth it.
But "cheap" is not the word I would use to describe it.
If you put it like that, you have a good point (sorry, can't mod you up). I read it as if the judge proposed to change the law so that software no longer falls under the patent law.
I read the article again, and it's still not clear to me which of the two is the case here.
A judge should check whether someone acts within the limits set by the law. A judge shouldn't be publicly trying to change the laws, just like a politician should not try to get involved in a court case to get someone convicted.
Still, I agree that our patent system is over-used, and it seems that it often inhibits innovation instead of facilitate it.
That's the problem with management with KPIs: they have to report results every 3 months. Cutting some long term projects looks great in the beginning: less overhead and fewer costs, and if you move your researchers to production, you even get a bigger income.
The damage only becomes visible 2-5 years later. And then it's too late.
A 10 minute talk during your coffee break with your boss can influence your rating just as much as that report you've been working on for 4 months. Your boss will spend about the same time on both (10 minutes).
The brilliance of the plan is that by the time the Earth lawyers find out that the Klingons have been listening to our music, a couple of centuries will have past (with the speed of light and the size of our galaxy and all). Imagine the calculations for the lost revenues.:-)
If it is gonna be hacked, you can bet on it that the speed limit signs will be blocked first, and that they will be replaced by more ads. If the internet has taught me anything, it is that hackers increase advertisements, not decrease them.
And btw, if it can be hacked, I'm not gonna sit in that car.
The problem was moved from consumers to the companies and developers. I am sure that software developers can come up with some creative solutions if they want to. The sad thing is that most likely they will try not to comply with this new ruling, and will fight it until the bitter end, instead of just accepting it and solving the problems that they face now.
Totally agree that you should never stop fighting for your rights!
If you're gonna be gaming there, you need to live in your van's basement. Since it probably doesn't have one yet, it stands to reason that this is your new #1 priority.
Also, it will lower your center of gravity and will therefore improve handling.
Eeh. No. Simple fact is that the USA has the largest number of lawyers per head of the population in the world. Add to that a large population in absolute terms, and you end up with a gigantic industry that just absorbs money from your economy to achieve very little in general.
Given the total GDP of the USA (15 T$), I'm surprised that only such a small percentage of lawyers seems to be a complete waste of money.
No. Waiting = Rock. Automatically. They would both wait, play rock by default, and then both respond to play paper. It would probably be a draw all the time, but the games would proceed as quickly as in the movie.
I'm still referring to the space race between US commercial start ups and China's space agency. Of course NASA wouldn't build some mining colony. It's not in their interest to earn money. With NASA out of the picture, the US tax payer won't feel a thing, and nobody needs their support.
Did Shell ask the US public for support when they built their factory in Qatar? Nope.
If there's money to be made, it will happen. And in fact, certain daring entrepreneurs are already looking at asteroid mining.
You're right and wrong at the same time. Yes it's expensive. But chemical factories are expensive anyway. Don't forget that for example Shell have built a gas-to-liquid factory in Qatar at a price tag of 24 billion (google for Pearl GTL). And that's not for fancy minerals, but for ordinary liquid fuels.
Scale matters, and if you make your operation big enough, and you produce long enough, it will have a payback time.
The costs of using a Space Shuttle to get a kg of payload into LEO was around 5000 $/kg. So, for trillions of dollars, you can get 200,000 ton of material into LEO using Space Shuttles. China and SpaceX will do that for a fraction of the cost. And incidentally, a full scale chemical factory will be heavy, but not that heavy.
So, I conclude that you're exaggerating the costs of getting stuff into space and/or on the moon. And I also conclude that you're underestimating the scale and costs of chemical processes.
(But I admit that it's probably not yet economically feasible to do some moon based asteroid mining).
The bulk price of iridium (to take a random example) is 23,000 $/kg. A small asteroid of 1 km3 contains 1 million tons of material. Even if it contains merely 10 ppm iridium, such a space rock is worth 230 million $, and that's excluding other materials.
However, getting your process up to an asteroid (or getting the ore down to a factory) is still quite hard. That's where your "stepping stone" comes in. That's when it's convenient of you only have to deal with a fraction of earth's gravity.
Hell, perhaps the moon even has some valuable ores itself. It's big enough. If you build products that have sufficient value, you can ship them back to earth and still make profit.
Sure, I know my country makes me pay tax. TFA says (in the title) that the UN itself is gonna tax websites. I don't believe it.
It sounds more like an EU plan to screw some US based companies in favor of European companies. Trade barriers are very common, and both sides of the atlantic use that to strengthen its own economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Noble metal refineries can out multiple components from ores and make a profit. Materials are enriched in our gadgets when compared to ore. I'm sure there is actually money to be made here.
So, if I read this correctly, NBC is its own owner again, and therefore also in charge of its own contents. Independence is important for a news provider.
I totally agree that a more centralized control and a more powerful government in Brussels is actually a threat to the EU, and more power to Brussels will ultimately make the EU weaker until it fails altogether...
But right now, it still works. It's going the wrong way, but it has not yet failed.
And regarding the blackmail and the costs of the EU and the crisis: A couple thousand euro is nothing in comparison to being bombed or shot. The economic crisis is nothing compared to a war.
How long will this continue to go on?
Hopefully forever. European counties founded the EU because it's better to keep the politicians talking about money than to have them threaten each other and start a war. First it was a union for coal and steel, now it's apparently music and entertainment. Same thing though: it keeps them occupied, and the results are generally a bit less awful than a world war.
The more they talk, the less harm is done.
I have no doubt that some grown-ups have talked these poor kids in suing their own father. Alright, the bastard is a murderer. Still, leave the kids out of it, you damned lawyers. What percentage of the sum does the lawyer get? Enough to ignore ethical behaviour, I bet. The cliche that you have to pay the bills has a limit.
If left to themselves, these kids, ages 11 and 12 would never ever have come up with such a plan. It's adult greed, and it's sickening to make these kids go through all this just for money. Sure, it's gonna pay for their college years. And it's gonna leave them with a mental scar for life.
$1200 for just some house is a lot. But add the infrastructure, possibly some furniture, and especially all the extra brains (neighbors, other nerds) and the price might be totally worth it.
But "cheap" is not the word I would use to describe it.
If you put it like that, you have a good point (sorry, can't mod you up).
I read it as if the judge proposed to change the law so that software no longer falls under the patent law.
I read the article again, and it's still not clear to me which of the two is the case here.
A judge should check whether someone acts within the limits set by the law. A judge shouldn't be publicly trying to change the laws, just like a politician should not try to get involved in a court case to get someone convicted.
Still, I agree that our patent system is over-used, and it seems that it often inhibits innovation instead of facilitate it.
That's the problem with management with KPIs: they have to report results every 3 months. Cutting some long term projects looks great in the beginning: less overhead and fewer costs, and if you move your researchers to production, you even get a bigger income.
The damage only becomes visible 2-5 years later. And then it's too late.
Too bad the whole world is focussed on those dan
A 10 minute talk during your coffee break with your boss can influence your rating just as much as that report you've been working on for 4 months. Your boss will spend about the same time on both (10 minutes).
The brilliance of the plan is that by the time the Earth lawyers find out that the Klingons have been listening to our music, a couple of centuries will have past (with the speed of light and the size of our galaxy and all). Imagine the calculations for the lost revenues. :-)
If it is gonna be hacked, you can bet on it that the speed limit signs will be blocked first, and that they will be replaced by more ads. If the internet has taught me anything, it is that hackers increase advertisements, not decrease them.
And btw, if it can be hacked, I'm not gonna sit in that car.
The problem was moved from consumers to the companies and developers. I am sure that software developers can come up with some creative solutions if they want to. The sad thing is that most likely they will try not to comply with this new ruling, and will fight it until the bitter end, instead of just accepting it and solving the problems that they face now.
Totally agree that you should never stop fighting for your rights!
I'm amazed, but also delighted. It shows that Big Business can still lose a case against Common Sense.
Coffee linked to indoor office jobs where exposure to the sun is minimal. Minimal exposure to the sun linked to reduced risk for skin cancer.
Tsk.
If you're gonna be gaming there, you need to live in your van's basement. Since it probably doesn't have one yet, it stands to reason that this is your new #1 priority.
Also, it will lower your center of gravity and will therefore improve handling.
At least you know what just hit you.
Waste of money? Remind me never to hire you to do my risk assessments.
Spending a tiny fraction of your revenues to negate potential show stoppers is usually considered good business practice.
Eeh. No.
Simple fact is that the USA has the largest number of lawyers per head of the population in the world. Add to that a large population in absolute terms, and you end up with a gigantic industry that just absorbs money from your economy to achieve very little in general.
Given the total GDP of the USA (15 T$), I'm surprised that only such a small percentage of lawyers seems to be a complete waste of money.
No. Waiting = Rock. Automatically. They would both wait, play rock by default, and then both respond to play paper. It would probably be a draw all the time, but the games would proceed as quickly as in the movie.
I'm still referring to the space race between US commercial start ups and China's space agency. Of course NASA wouldn't build some mining colony. It's not in their interest to earn money. With NASA out of the picture, the US tax payer won't feel a thing, and nobody needs their support.
Did Shell ask the US public for support when they built their factory in Qatar? Nope.
If there's money to be made, it will happen. And in fact, certain daring entrepreneurs are already looking at asteroid mining.
You're right and wrong at the same time.
Yes it's expensive. But chemical factories are expensive anyway. Don't forget that for example Shell have built a gas-to-liquid factory in Qatar at a price tag of 24 billion (google for Pearl GTL). And that's not for fancy minerals, but for ordinary liquid fuels.
Scale matters, and if you make your operation big enough, and you produce long enough, it will have a payback time.
The costs of using a Space Shuttle to get a kg of payload into LEO was around 5000 $/kg. So, for trillions of dollars, you can get 200,000 ton of material into LEO using Space Shuttles. China and SpaceX will do that for a fraction of the cost. And incidentally, a full scale chemical factory will be heavy, but not that heavy.
So, I conclude that you're exaggerating the costs of getting stuff into space and/or on the moon. And I also conclude that you're underestimating the scale and costs of chemical processes.
(But I admit that it's probably not yet economically feasible to do some moon based asteroid mining).
The bulk price of iridium (to take a random example) is 23,000 $/kg. A small asteroid of 1 km3 contains 1 million tons of material. Even if it contains merely 10 ppm iridium, such a space rock is worth 230 million $, and that's excluding other materials.
However, getting your process up to an asteroid (or getting the ore down to a factory) is still quite hard. That's where your "stepping stone" comes in. That's when it's convenient of you only have to deal with a fraction of earth's gravity.
Hell, perhaps the moon even has some valuable ores itself. It's big enough. If you build products that have sufficient value, you can ship them back to earth and still make profit.
Sure, I know my country makes me pay tax. TFA says (in the title) that the UN itself is gonna tax websites. I don't believe it.
It sounds more like an EU plan to screw some US based companies in favor of European companies. Trade barriers are very common, and both sides of the atlantic use that to strengthen its own economy.
The UN don't get their money from (directly) taxing companies or people. The member states pay.