Does anyone know how plasma holds up to high resolution text? LCD may end up being a footnote.
I suspect it will be the other way round. Here a quick summary of their current differences:
Plasma Size: > 40" Power: 200 to 300 V Heat: Higher Noise: Higher (needs fans) Artifacts: Less than LCD Lifetime: Less than LCD (burn-in) Response Time: Fast Gray Scale: Poor (strobing effects) Resolution (40 inch): 860 by 480 Contrast: 1500:1 Future Cost: Slow decrease (P based technology)
LCD Size: Max 40" Power: 5 to 12 V Heat: Low Noise: Low (no fans required) Artifacts: More than Plasma Lifetime: Longer than Plasma Response Time: Slow (screen blurring) Gray Scale: Good Resolution (40 inch): 1,280 by 768 Contrast: 400:1 Future Cost: Fast decrease (transistor based technology)
I believe in the future, LCD (or OLCD) technology will win, simply because Plasma technology will not scale up well from its current level. The burn-in problems with phosphors based screens and their high power (hence heat) consumption will be their downfall. Fans in a busy public environment might not be a big deal, but in your living room it might be annoying.
Most hydrogen will have to be produced from natural gas.
The thing to remember is that H2 will be generated from fossil fuels only in the beginner. This must be the case, even though it might seem strange to change one perfectly good energy source into another; this will only be required during the transition period. The transition to an H2 base economy will take a long time (probably over a 100 years). As new capacity is required alterative sources of energy will be become more and more practical. Currently most alternative energy sources cannot be stored (i.e. wind, hydro, tidal, solar, etc) and this is their biggest downfall. H2 makes alternative energy sources practical. As an example, if an H2 pipeline existed between Arizona and New York, then solar energy could be used to generated H2 very cheaply in Arizona (and more efficiently as solar and H2 generating technology improves) and then transported to New York and converted back into energy as required. This progression to H2 as an energy storage medium will be a slow process, but it will happen.
An H2 based economy will happen. There is absolutely no doubt about this. The general trend throughout history is to go from high carbon fuels to a zero-carbon fuel (wood -> coal -> oil -> gas -> H2). This transition will happen probably over the next 100 years. H2 will be piped into every home and used for both electrical energy (fuel cells) and heat (a furnace).
The most important thing to remember about H2 is that it is NOT an energy source, but an 'energy storage' system. An H2 tank is basically an chemical battery (all batteries are chemical, but you know what I mean). H2 allows energy to be generated in one location (wind-mills on the prairies) and moved to another location (a car manufacturer in Toronto). Currently, generated electrical energy (wind, hydro, etc.) must be consumed at the same time. By converting it into H2 it allows the energy to be stored.
The real question is not if it will happen, but how. There are two broad possibilities. One, the H2 will be distributed in a similar fashion as natural gas is today: Through pipelines that are controlled by state sanctioned monopolies (i.e. the Gas Company). There might be limited competition at the high volume end of things between large companies. These companies will control generation and distribution (and hence the price).
The second model is much more democratic. The pipelines will be owned by the public (like most roads are today) and the mechanism of transmission will be operated by some body (public or otherwise); that is, they'll look after the physical infrastructure. Here's the kicker: the generation and sale of H2 will be open to anybody. Most people will still choose just to buy the H2 at the market price, but people will also be able to store H2 if they want. They will be able to purchase the H2 when the price is low (night), store it in tanks, and sell when the price is high (day). Very complex computer programs will be written to try maximize their profits. Furthermore, people with small wind-mills or solar cells will be able to sell the extra energy that they do not consume by generating H2 and selling it on the open market. Farmers on the prairies will be able to build windmills to generate H2 and supplement their incomes. In this model, the free market is in driving force for the price of H2, not monopolies.
It is important to understand what is happening with H2 based economies because it is up to the people to ensure that the second model happens. Big oil/gas companies will oppose it every step of the way and try to maintain control. It will be interesting to see what happens.
The idea that "peer pressure" can be a positive force is precisely what this article was about.
This always pisses me off! Why is not drinking a beer a "positive force"! People have been drinking beer and booze for centuries. There is nothing wrong with it. This mindless diatribe from religious fruit-cakes rattles my nerves. Man, I need a drink.
I got news for you. Just because we can't predict the future does't mean your not living in a dream world.
-PCB
Re:Economics: win/lose or win/win?
on
Giant Sucking Noise
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Money and power are finite resources. Their values are inversely proportional to the number of people holding them. Economics will never and can never be a win/win game.
That's total and utter BS. Money is not the word you are looking for, it is wealth. Wealth is NOT finite. The world (and specifically the US) is far richer today on a per capita basis than at any point in her history. Her wealth was not taken from somewhere else (or stolen), it was generated. The second law does not apply to economics!!! As for natural resources, well, if you include sources outside the earth, then they are not finite either (for all practical proposes).
Every time I start to consider swinging towards becoming more of a liberal...
OK I'm going to rant! WTF is wrong with being liberal.
LIBERAL
(adj.): (1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. (2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Both these definitions are good things to be. Every time some semi-political article appears on Slashdot, somebody goes on a rant about how the media being liberal, or some politician is being liberal, on to ad nauseam. The American right is always twisting the meaning to be something negative. Just because a person leans economically towards the right, does not mean they must be socially conservative (think John Kenneth Galbraith). Conversely, a person who leans towards the left economically, is not always liberal minded (think Joseph Stalin).
Is being open minded not a good thing? Is being tolerant of others not a good thing? Would you rather be close-minded and intolerant? Could some social conservative please explain this to me! Only in America.
My best choice right now is the Freedom Party, but I know all too well voting for them is probably a lost cause. It'll definitely be a VERY difficult choice at the next election, not due to too many choices, but a lack of them.
Like you, I'm looking for an alternative to the current waste land of political parties. After you mentioned them, I checked them out. I was sadly disappointed. They are a proponent of a 'flat tax' system and they spew the normal propaganda, which means they are economically clueless:
In a "single rate" or "flat" tax system, every individual pays a given percentage of his earnings to the government. The result is that those who earn more dollars pay more dollars to the government. Many people would like to earn more money to make ends meet, to save for retirement, to purchase a house, or to put their children through college or university. However, under the current "progressive taxation" system, many individuals are discouraged from making extra money because they are forced to pay a higher percentage of their extra earnings over to the government. Canadians ought not to be discouraged in this way from trying to make life better for themselves and their families. The Freedom Party of Canada is opposed to "progressive taxation". Until a better system can be introduced feasibly to improve the relation between taxes paid and government services provided, we support the transition to a single rate of income taxation (i.e., a "flat tax").
Oh well, they had some good policies. I'll keep looking.
Now, before someone starts frothing at the mouth about this please remember: I am talking about scientific fact here. What you believe or feel and so on is not relivant. To be scientifically relivant, causation MUST by proved. The theory states that higher levels of CO2 gas CASUES the temperature increase, hence the caustion part must be proven.
Comments like this drive me nuts; it shows a real lack of understanding of the 'real world' (tm). People generally make decisions based on incomplete data, simply because we don't, and never well, have all the facts. If you really think about it, almost all decisions come down to some form of risk assessment; what is the risk of following one course of action compared to another. CEOs, governments, and people do this all the time. Specifically referring to global warming, the question of risk needs to be addressed:
(A) What is the consequence to the earth if it is true and no action is taken?
(B) What is the consequence to the earth if it is not true and action is taken?
I'll leave answering the above questions as an exercise for the reader. Here is a thought: If I place a glass of water in front of you and told you that the was a very low risk (not scientifically proven) that the water contained high levels of arsenic, would you take the 'risk' and drink it? The safest thing to do is not drink it and avoid the risk.
Global warming may not be proven, but what are the consequences if it is true. Are you willing to take that chance.
For that matter, you couldn't tell me why water molecules stick together. Why is a question that quickly leads to apparently infinite recursion.
Water molecule 'stick' together because they are asymmetrical, which cause them to be polar: the positive regions in one water will attract the negatively charged regions in other waters. This leads to the formation of hydrogen bonds. In a hydrogen bond a hydrogen atom is shared by two other atoms. The donor is the atom to which the hydrogen is more tightly linked. The acceptor (having a partial negative charge) is the atom which attracts the hydrogen atom. There is also a more complete quantum chemical explanation, which takes to long to explain. Google it. Stop pulling shit out of your ass.
Huh! Canada contributed 3.01% to the ESA mandatory program budget! Last I checked, Canada was not a member of the EU! Oh well.
Re:Moving production to Asia?
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 1
This is a load of malarkey! You have a very shallow understanding of economics. Sink or swim... my ass!
You brainwashed ideas about innovation and wealth generation is an important but very limited aspect of a modern economy. If this were true to the degree you suggest, then counties like Japan, Germany, and Denmark would be poor: none of them subscribe to the 'sink or swim' model you describe; even the USA doesn't believe in such a model! If you ever go to these counties you'll see they are doing just fine.
Go read 'The Good Society: The Human Agenda' by John Kenneth Galbraith; probably one of the best known free market economist in the world.
Does anybody remember that this same issue came up when Corel released their beta distribution a few years ago. If memory serves correctly, they were crucified for it; lets see if Apple is held to the same standard.
FYI, there are much nastier poisons than dioxins containing oxygen, but no chlorine - many of them natural! Poison ivy comes to mind . ..
Bang! Falls on the floor laughing...
Urushiol is a mixture of catchol derivatives. The major catechol on poison ivy leaves is pentadecylcatechol. If urushiol is washed off the skin within an hour or so, the reaction can be largely prevented. However, if left on the skin, some diffuses through the skin, where it is metabolized to quinone derivatives. These form covalent complexes with skin proteins such as keratin. These complexes appear foreign to the immune system, which therefore attacks them.
Dioxin is one of the most toxic chemicals known. A draft report released for public comment in September 1994 by the US Environmental Protection Agency clearly describes dioxin as a serious public health threat. The public health impact of dioxin may rival the impact that DDT had on public health in the 1960's. According to the EPA report, not only does there appear to be no "safe" level of exposure to dioxin, but levels of dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals have been found in the general US population that are "at or near levels associated with adverse health effects." The EPA report confirmed that dioxin is a cancer hazard to people; that exposure to dioxin can also cause severe reproductive and developmental problems (at levels 100 times lower than those associated with its cancer causing effects); and that dioxin can cause immune system damage and interfere with regulatory hormones.
P.S. Urushiol does not contain any chlorine! Do some research before you post.
I mentioned the many deadly poisons containing Oxygen, and suggested they might want to ban that also.
This is the type of comment that really shows the typical slashdotters ignorance...just because they know a little chemistry, they assume nobody else does. Be careful! People who really do know what they are talking about are often too polite to dispute you.
FYI, there are two very broad class of compounds: ionic and covalent. Chlorine based compounds which are ionic are relatively common in nature (think NaCl). Chorine based compounds which are covalent are very rare in nature. In fact, I'll give you bonus points if you can name one naturally occurring chlorine based molecule (there are a few). The truth is that most toxic chlorine based compounds are synthetic and in the past have be used as additives in rubbers products to pesticides. Due to there persistence (i.e. stability), these compounds are a serious problem for the environment. Even worse, during the manufacturing of some of these compounds, side reactions can (and do) occur which can lead to the formation of dioxins (probably the most toxic class of compounds know to man): think Union Carbide in India.
Anyway, to sum up: you don't have a freakin' clue about what your talking about. Think before you post.
...They are about two hops short of Communist Cuba as far as governmental control of facilities goes...
This might be a troll, but i'll just say that calling the Alberta government socialist is like calling Chairman Mao a freedom loving capitalist! The province of AB is probably the most right wing province in Canada (well, except now maybe BC...).
In my opinion, Ballard's residential 1-kW Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells are far more interesting. These units allow you to eliminate the electrical utility completely. Gas is used for heating and generating all the power the house needs.
BALLARD POWER recently unveiled their second-generation prototype fuel cell power generator for the Japanese residential market. The second-generation prototype unit has advanced to include an electrical inverter, to convert DC to reached AC gross electrical efficiency of 34 per cent(lower heating value "LHV"). The volume of the prototype unit has been reduced by 40 per cent from the first generation, and has increased heat recovery efficiency to 47 per cent (LHV), giving total efficiency of 81% (LHV).
As a bonus, this would also eliminate the need to have that mess of power lines on most streets in North America (although the cable companies and telcos might have something to say about this). I think this would (maybe) also help lay the infrastructure for the Hydrogen economy.
Re:That's a revolution in a nut shell
on
New iMac Announced
·
· Score: 1
Well, you're right except that doing old things in a new way is exactly what most revolutions are.
Actually it is more interesting than that, revolutionary originally meant "to go full circle" or "to go a full revolution"; that is, "to go back to the way it was".
Now, of course, it means to do something new rather than go back and do things like the "good old days". Funny how words change meaning.
Re:Advantages of a single currency (or not!)
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...the US has widely differing economic areas. How closely correlated are tobacco farming in Virginia, car manufacturing in Detroit, optical networking in San Francisco and investment banking in Wall Street? When car making is suffering from Japanese competition, it might seem to make sense to devalue the Detroit dollar - yet no-one has ever suggested breaking the US into regional currencies.
I just wanted to add something here. While your post is excellent, there have been several arguments made from some very prominent economist (cf. Jane Jacobs or John Kenneth Galbraith ) over the years that this is precisely the reason for the rather large difference in economic development between various regions in the US.
I could write for hours on this topic, but I don't have time. Suffice it to say that it is their opinion that the US should not have a single currency. In fact it would be much better for all if each state had their own currency to reflect the economic reality that exist in each state. This idea is not a new one, but I don't know why it is never taught. Though out most of European history, it was very common for each city to have its own currency and they seemed to manage well enough. Anyway check out the above books if you're interested. Check out the reviews as well. Talk about differing points of view.
For what it's worth, I think the ECB is nuts creating a single currency. France and Germany will benefit well enough, but Greece, Spain and Portugal are going to get screwed. They well become simple supply regions for central Europe; industrialization will stop or be significantly reduce, just like in Mississippi or Tennessee.
Meanwhile the U.S.A. has become the only military superpower, an industrial powerhouse and moral beacon in the world. Why?
Vast natural resources.
This clearly shows you know absolutely nothing about economics. Successful economies are never limited (or created) by their access to raw materials. The availability of natural resources is probably the least important factor in a modern economy. The short answer for the reason that the US is rich: because it 'generates wealth'. The long answer is, well, very long....
As a example of wealth (via productivity), check out the number of robots employed in manufacturing for different countries in this month Economist (you'll need to look at the print edition as it doesn't seem to be online). Think first, post later. Ignorance sucks!
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone know how plasma holds up to high resolution text? LCD may end up being a footnote.
I suspect it will be the other way round. Here a quick summary of their current differences:
Plasma
Size: > 40"
Power: 200 to 300 V
Heat: Higher
Noise: Higher (needs fans)
Artifacts: Less than LCD
Lifetime: Less than LCD (burn-in)
Response Time: Fast
Gray Scale: Poor (strobing effects)
Resolution (40 inch): 860 by 480
Contrast: 1500:1
Future Cost: Slow decrease (P based technology)
LCD
Size: Max 40"
Power: 5 to 12 V
Heat: Low
Noise: Low (no fans required)
Artifacts: More than Plasma
Lifetime: Longer than Plasma
Response Time: Slow (screen blurring)
Gray Scale: Good
Resolution (40 inch): 1,280 by 768
Contrast: 400:1
Future Cost: Fast decrease (transistor based technology)
I believe in the future, LCD (or OLCD) technology will win, simply because Plasma technology will not scale up well from its current level. The burn-in problems with phosphors based screens and their high power (hence heat) consumption will be their downfall. Fans in a busy public environment might not be a big deal, but in your living room it might be annoying.
-PCB
Most hydrogen will have to be produced from natural gas.
The thing to remember is that H2 will be generated from fossil fuels only in the beginner. This must be the case, even though it might seem strange to change one perfectly good energy source into another; this will only be required during the transition period. The transition to an H2 base economy will take a long time (probably over a 100 years). As new capacity is required alterative sources of energy will be become more and more practical. Currently most alternative energy sources cannot be stored (i.e. wind, hydro, tidal, solar, etc) and this is their biggest downfall. H2 makes alternative energy sources practical. As an example, if an H2 pipeline existed between Arizona and New York, then solar energy could be used to generated H2 very cheaply in Arizona (and more efficiently as solar and H2 generating technology improves) and then transported to New York and converted back into energy as required. This progression to H2 as an energy storage medium will be a slow process, but it will happen.
-PCB
An H2 based economy will happen. There is absolutely no doubt about this. The general trend throughout history is to go from high carbon fuels to a zero-carbon fuel (wood -> coal -> oil -> gas -> H2). This transition will happen probably over the next 100 years. H2 will be piped into every home and used for both electrical energy (fuel cells) and heat (a furnace).
The most important thing to remember about H2 is that it is NOT an energy source, but an 'energy storage' system. An H2 tank is basically an chemical battery (all batteries are chemical, but you know what I mean). H2 allows energy to be generated in one location (wind-mills on the prairies) and moved to another location (a car manufacturer in Toronto). Currently, generated electrical energy (wind, hydro, etc.) must be consumed at the same time. By converting it into H2 it allows the energy to be stored.
The real question is not if it will happen, but how. There are two broad possibilities. One, the H2 will be distributed in a similar fashion as natural gas is today: Through pipelines that are controlled by state sanctioned monopolies (i.e. the Gas Company). There might be limited competition at the high volume end of things between large companies. These companies will control generation and distribution (and hence the price).
The second model is much more democratic. The pipelines will be owned by the public (like most roads are today) and the mechanism of transmission will be operated by some body (public or otherwise); that is, they'll look after the physical infrastructure. Here's the kicker: the generation and sale of H2 will be open to anybody. Most people will still choose just to buy the H2 at the market price, but people will also be able to store H2 if they want. They will be able to purchase the H2 when the price is low (night), store it in tanks, and sell when the price is high (day). Very complex computer programs will be written to try maximize their profits. Furthermore, people with small wind-mills or solar cells will be able to sell the extra energy that they do not consume by generating H2 and selling it on the open market. Farmers on the prairies will be able to build windmills to generate H2 and supplement their incomes. In this model, the free market is in driving force for the price of H2, not monopolies.
It is important to understand what is happening with H2 based economies because it is up to the people to ensure that the second model happens. Big oil/gas companies will oppose it every step of the way and try to maintain control. It will be interesting to see what happens.
-PCB
The idea that "peer pressure" can be a positive force is precisely what this article was about.
This always pisses me off! Why is not drinking a beer a "positive force"! People have been drinking beer and booze for centuries. There is nothing wrong with it. This mindless diatribe from religious fruit-cakes rattles my nerves. Man, I need a drink.
Psst...keep your (made up) morals to yourself.
-PCB
I got news for you. Just because we can't predict the future does't mean your not living in a dream world.
-PCB
Money and power are finite resources. Their values are inversely proportional to the number of people holding them. Economics will never and can never be a win/win game.
That's total and utter BS. Money is not the word you are looking for, it is wealth. Wealth is NOT finite. The world (and specifically the US) is far richer today on a per capita basis than at any point in her history. Her wealth was not taken from somewhere else (or stolen), it was generated. The second law does not apply to economics!!! As for natural resources, well, if you include sources outside the earth, then they are not finite either (for all practical proposes).
And yes, economics can be a win/win game.
-PCB
OK I'm going to rant! WTF is wrong with being liberal.
Both these definitions are good things to be. Every time some semi-political article appears on Slashdot, somebody goes on a rant about how the media being liberal, or some politician is being liberal, on to ad nauseam. The American right is always twisting the meaning to be something negative. Just because a person leans economically towards the right, does not mean they must be socially conservative (think John Kenneth Galbraith). Conversely, a person who leans towards the left economically, is not always liberal minded (think Joseph Stalin).
Is being open minded not a good thing? Is being tolerant of others not a good thing? Would you rather be close-minded and intolerant? Could some social conservative please explain this to me! Only in America.
-PCB
Like you, I'm looking for an alternative to the current waste land of political parties. After you mentioned them, I checked them out. I was sadly disappointed. They are a proponent of a 'flat tax' system and they spew the normal propaganda, which means they are economically clueless: Oh well, they had some good policies. I'll keep looking.
-PCB
(A) What is the consequence to the earth if it is true and no action is taken?
(B) What is the consequence to the earth if it is not true and action is taken?
I'll leave answering the above questions as an exercise for the reader. Here is a thought: If I place a glass of water in front of you and told you that the was a very low risk (not scientifically proven) that the water contained high levels of arsenic, would you take the 'risk' and drink it? The safest thing to do is not drink it and avoid the risk.
Global warming may not be proven, but what are the consequences if it is true. Are you willing to take that chance.
-PCB
For that matter, you couldn't tell me why water molecules stick together. Why is a question that quickly leads to apparently infinite recursion.
Water molecule 'stick' together because they are asymmetrical, which cause them to be polar: the positive regions in one water will attract the negatively charged regions in other waters. This leads to the formation of hydrogen bonds. In a hydrogen bond a hydrogen atom is shared by two other atoms. The donor is the atom to which the hydrogen is more tightly linked. The acceptor (having a partial negative charge) is the atom which attracts the hydrogen atom. There is also a more complete quantum chemical explanation, which takes to long to explain. Google it. Stop pulling shit out of your ass.
-PCB
Err..that's chief, not chef!!
Was it not with NV's Chef Scientist?
Huh! Canada contributed 3.01% to the ESA mandatory program budget! Last I checked, Canada was not a member of the EU! Oh well.
This is a load of malarkey! You have a very shallow understanding of economics. Sink or swim ... my ass!
You brainwashed ideas about innovation and wealth generation is an important but very limited aspect of a modern economy. If this were true to the degree you suggest, then counties like Japan, Germany, and Denmark would be poor: none of them subscribe to the 'sink or swim' model you describe; even the USA doesn't believe in such a model! If you ever go to these counties you'll see they are doing just fine.
Go read 'The Good Society: The Human Agenda' by John Kenneth Galbraith; probably one of the best known free market economist in the world.
Does anybody remember that this same issue came up when Corel released their beta distribution a few years ago. If memory serves correctly, they were crucified for it; lets see if Apple is held to the same standard.
Bang! Falls on the floor laughing...
P.S. Urushiol does not contain any chlorine! Do some research before you post.
I mentioned the many deadly poisons containing Oxygen, and suggested they might want to ban that also.
This is the type of comment that really shows the typical slashdotters ignorance...just because they know a little chemistry, they assume nobody else does. Be careful! People who really do know what they are talking about are often too polite to dispute you.
FYI, there are two very broad class of compounds: ionic and covalent. Chlorine based compounds which are ionic are relatively common in nature (think NaCl). Chorine based compounds which are covalent are very rare in nature. In fact, I'll give you bonus points if you can name one naturally occurring chlorine based molecule (there are a few). The truth is that most toxic chlorine based compounds are synthetic and in the past have be used as additives in rubbers products to pesticides. Due to there persistence (i.e. stability), these compounds are a serious problem for the environment. Even worse, during the manufacturing of some of these compounds, side reactions can (and do) occur which can lead to the formation of dioxins (probably the most toxic class of compounds know to man): think Union Carbide in India.
Anyway, to sum up: you don't have a freakin' clue about what your talking about. Think before you post.
...They are about two hops short of Communist Cuba as far as governmental control of facilities goes...
This might be a troll, but i'll just say that calling the Alberta government socialist is like calling Chairman Mao a freedom loving capitalist! The province of AB is probably the most right wing province in Canada (well, except now maybe BC...).
I see high school students coming into our Calculus classes here that can do calculus on a calculator...
I may have been out of school for a few years, but how do you do calculus on a calculator? How does a calculator show:
f(x) = x^2
f'(x) = 2x
f''(x) = 2
Just curious. Maybe I should go and check out new calculators...its been a while (my old HP 21S still works great).
Does that mean that Linus is actually a 'multiplicity'. Maybe that how he (or should I say 'they') manage to produce so much code.
A singular 'Linus', I guess should be 'Linii'.
In my opinion, Ballard's residential 1-kW Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells are far more interesting. These units allow you to eliminate the electrical utility completely. Gas is used for heating and generating all the power the house needs.
As a bonus, this would also eliminate the need to have that mess of power lines on most streets in North America (although the cable companies and telcos might have something to say about this). I think this would (maybe) also help lay the infrastructure for the Hydrogen economy.
...smaller population density.
Smaller than Canada? Huh!
Well, you're right except that doing old things in a new way is exactly what most revolutions are.
Actually it is more interesting than that, revolutionary originally meant "to go full circle" or "to go a full revolution"; that is, "to go back to the way it was".
Now, of course, it means to do something new rather than go back and do things like the "good old days". Funny how words change meaning.
...the US has widely differing economic areas. How closely correlated are tobacco farming in Virginia, car manufacturing in Detroit, optical networking in San Francisco and investment banking in Wall Street? When car making is suffering from Japanese competition, it might seem to make sense to devalue the Detroit dollar - yet no-one has ever suggested breaking the US into regional currencies.
I just wanted to add something here. While your post is excellent, there have been several arguments made from some very prominent economist (cf. Jane Jacobs or John Kenneth Galbraith ) over the years that this is precisely the reason for the rather large difference in economic development between various regions in the US.
I could write for hours on this topic, but I don't have time. Suffice it to say that it is their opinion that the US should not have a single currency. In fact it would be much better for all if each state had their own currency to reflect the economic reality that exist in each state. This idea is not a new one, but I don't know why it is never taught. Though out most of European history, it was very common for each city to have its own currency and they seemed to manage well enough. Anyway check out the above books if you're interested. Check out the reviews as well. Talk about differing points of view.
For what it's worth, I think the ECB is nuts creating a single currency. France and Germany will benefit well enough, but Greece, Spain and Portugal are going to get screwed. They well become simple supply regions for central Europe; industrialization will stop or be significantly reduce, just like in Mississippi or Tennessee.
Meanwhile the U.S.A. has become the only military superpower, an industrial powerhouse and moral beacon in the world. Why?
Vast natural resources.
This clearly shows you know absolutely nothing about economics. Successful economies are never limited (or created) by their access to raw materials. The availability of natural resources is probably the least important factor in a modern economy. The short answer for the reason that the US is rich: because it 'generates wealth'. The long answer is, well, very long....
As a example of wealth (via productivity), check out the number of robots employed in manufacturing for different countries in this month Economist (you'll need to look at the print edition as it doesn't seem to be online). Think first, post later. Ignorance sucks!