I could have sworn there was a concept of unit profit being different than profit per unit, but I can't seem to find any backup that such terminology exists. I must be crazy.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were replying to yourself. I mistakenly thought you were making an argument against your initial post and were the person who wrote the piece that was posted.
I'm just saying: There's gotta be a catch. And there is.
From Wiki: "The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tend to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than fission waste, the very short half-life makes the process very attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash.[8]"
So I'm going to stick to my original viewpoint. Unlimited clean safe energy is shenanigans. Do I think various forms of dangerous energy are worth investing in? Yes. Did this article get me to dismiss it without even spending time to learn what science it was selling because of a less than truthful sentence? Yes.
Your back of the envelope math fails to take into account facilities and maintenance I suspect. They're going to lose X billion dollars to have all the factories they do, now each vehicle they make makes Y dollars. If they don't sell X/Y vehicles they lose money.
That being said, GM really does/did have serious mismanagement issues.
One could argue about what the term endless means. You might say "There will always be more of it." I would then point out that there will always be more oil as well.
All energy in this sense is endless. Therefore, I'd suggest that the world endless here actually implies unlimited.
Don't get me wrong, I love clean energy, I love emission taxes, I love regulation on energy efficiency, etc, I just dismiss anything that promises unlimited clean safe energy.
If you want to waste money on a pipe dream (and an endless supply of clean safe energy is just that, make no mistake about it), please just give me 2 million dollars and I'll think about all the world's problems, and then solve them.
I look at this and I see "the speed of the molecules at room temperature v is approximately 500 meters per sec., so the molecule has of order 10^10 collisions per second."
Which I did indeed do in sophomore physics or freshmen chem.
That seems like a lot of collisions to me. Then again, 6.0221415 × 10^23 says that it's going to take about 317,097 years (unless I made a math error) before that tiny little particle reaches about 7 grams or so.
However, at some point it'd going to be dense enough (perhaps after the first minute of collisions), that conservation of momentum will stop being enough to keep it from traveling to the center of the earth.
Once it finally rests there (not sure how long that takes since it's effectively going to go into orbit 'through' the planet), it seems the intense pressure would allow it to 'eat' the center of the planet very quickly.
When the business for slave grown chocolate goes low enough the plantation owners sell or release the slaves, and they don't replace them. This reduction in demand for slaves lowers their price and as such lowers the supply.
So not eating chocolate at all is fine. It's not just chocolate bars that are made by slaves though. Chocolate ice cream, chocolate chip cookies, fudge, truffles, all of that has slavery in it too (and these items are harder to find Fair Trade versions of).
People find all sorts of ways to justify it. Your method is one of the most aggravating, because even after you admit the problem exists you don't do anything to change it.
I admit perception skew. Rereading your original it sounds like you're saying "Well, it works again for now but it might break again anytime since you're doing something weird." The comment above me managed to change my perception of your summary. My apologies.
Although I still think Slashdot is as much of a news source as CNN.
I don't generally. It's actually really fucking annoying how many evil companies there are and how little punishment our society gives them. I'm always amazed that non-smokers are willing to buy items from cigarette companies. Or the number of people who bring that chocolate bar up to the cash register after I say "You should get Fair Trade chocolate instead since that one is made with slave labor.
DRM is NOT slave labor. Hershey's, Nestle, Dove, M&M/Mars, and almost all other chocolate companies use slave labor. People also don't care about lying murderers (tobacco companies like kraft), or animal torture (the meat you can buy at your local supermarket). Why would you expect people to boycott DRM using companies when they're supporting slavers, killers, and torturers?
DRM is annoying, but if you don't want it don't buy it. Even better, pirate anything with DRM.
When Lulu offers DRM they get more authors because they get the paranoid people who think DRM will make them money. This in turn encourages more readers. This in turn helps the DRM free stuff spread.
On the other hand people could deprive them of revenue because they're doing DRM at which point they see their non-DRM based revenue drop and their DRM based revenue rise. Now they switch everything to DRM and we all lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Where the heck do you live so I can stay away?
I doubt they were thinking...
Silly people, put it as a background if you don't want people to read it! (apparently HTML table tags and slashdot aren't friends though. :-(
I was asking about the non-CO2 particles (soot).
How long do those stay in the air?
I could have sworn there was a concept of unit profit being different than profit per unit, but I can't seem to find any backup that such terminology exists. I must be crazy.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were replying to yourself. I mistakenly thought you were making an argument against your initial post and were the person who wrote the piece that was posted.
Was in $10,000 to $15,000 in profit per SUV or $10,000 to $15,000 in per unit profit per SUV?
Unit Profit is the profit made on production of an initial unit.
Profit is the profit made on the production of a unit with the fixed costs amortized over all of the units produced.
If you really meant unit profit, I stand by my assertion. If you really meant profit: "Okay. Interesting."
I'm just saying: There's gotta be a catch. And there is.
From Wiki: "The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tend to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than fission waste, the very short half-life makes the process very attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash.[8]"
So I'm going to stick to my original viewpoint. Unlimited clean safe energy is shenanigans. Do I think various forms of dangerous energy are worth investing in? Yes. Did this article get me to dismiss it without even spending time to learn what science it was selling because of a less than truthful sentence? Yes.
I believe it lies on the person making a claim to provide evidence, not the other way around.
Your back of the envelope math fails to take into account facilities and maintenance I suspect. They're going to lose X billion dollars to have all the factories they do, now each vehicle they make makes Y dollars. If they don't sell X/Y vehicles they lose money.
That being said, GM really does/did have serious mismanagement issues.
Because solar power is very finite.
One could argue about what the term endless means. You might say "There will always be more of it." I would then point out that there will always be more oil as well.
All energy in this sense is endless. Therefore, I'd suggest that the world endless here actually implies unlimited.
Don't get me wrong, I love clean energy, I love emission taxes, I love regulation on energy efficiency, etc, I just dismiss anything that promises unlimited clean safe energy.
"endless supply" = fraud.
If you want to waste money on a pipe dream (and an endless supply of clean safe energy is just that, make no mistake about it), please just give me 2 million dollars and I'll think about all the world's problems, and then solve them.
A poorly aimed cumshot at the end of a hand job can get a virgin preggers...
I look at this and I see "the speed of the molecules at room temperature v is approximately 500 meters per sec., so the molecule has of order 10^10 collisions per second."
Which I did indeed do in sophomore physics or freshmen chem.
That seems like a lot of collisions to me. Then again, 6.0221415 × 10^23 says that it's going to take about 317,097 years (unless I made a math error) before that tiny little particle reaches about 7 grams or so.
However, at some point it'd going to be dense enough (perhaps after the first minute of collisions), that conservation of momentum will stop being enough to keep it from traveling to the center of the earth.
Once it finally rests there (not sure how long that takes since it's effectively going to go into orbit 'through' the planet), it seems the intense pressure would allow it to 'eat' the center of the planet very quickly.
When the business for slave grown chocolate goes low enough the plantation owners sell or release the slaves, and they don't replace them. This reduction in demand for slaves lowers their price and as such lowers the supply.
So not eating chocolate at all is fine. It's not just chocolate bars that are made by slaves though. Chocolate ice cream, chocolate chip cookies, fudge, truffles, all of that has slavery in it too (and these items are harder to find Fair Trade versions of).
People find all sorts of ways to justify it. Your method is one of the most aggravating, because even after you admit the problem exists you don't do anything to change it.
Being forced to choose between working or getting beaten without having the choice to leave?
I admit perception skew. Rereading your original it sounds like you're saying "Well, it works again for now but it might break again anytime since you're doing something weird." The comment above me managed to change my perception of your summary. My apologies.
Although I still think Slashdot is as much of a news source as CNN.
o_O Yeah I was kinda alarmed by all those little glowing fruit symbols too.
I don't generally. It's actually really fucking annoying how many evil companies there are and how little punishment our society gives them. I'm always amazed that non-smokers are willing to buy items from cigarette companies. Or the number of people who bring that chocolate bar up to the cash register after I say "You should get Fair Trade chocolate instead since that one is made with slave labor.
DRM is NOT slave labor. Hershey's, Nestle, Dove, M&M/Mars, and almost all other chocolate companies use slave labor. People also don't care about lying murderers (tobacco companies like kraft), or animal torture (the meat you can buy at your local supermarket). Why would you expect people to boycott DRM using companies when they're supporting slavers, killers, and torturers?
DRM is annoying, but if you don't want it don't buy it. Even better, pirate anything with DRM.
When Lulu offers DRM they get more authors because they get the paranoid people who think DRM will make them money. This in turn encourages more readers. This in turn helps the DRM free stuff spread.
On the other hand people could deprive them of revenue because they're doing DRM at which point they see their non-DRM based revenue drop and their DRM based revenue rise. Now they switch everything to DRM and we all lose.
At least, that's what I see.
Not doing any worse than typical newspapers (of today and for the past two hundred years). But yes, yellow journalism makes me want to smack someone.
I didn't say Apple was 'evil', I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads. But I still wish that. And I DO use their OS.
You sir win this whole discussion. There are not enough mod points in the world for you.