Excepting the cause for the collapse, the Icelandic banking crisis was nothing like the US banking crisis. The fact that so many people here keep pretending like they're the same situation is ridiculous. US banks weren't getting the overwhelming majority of their deposits from other countries, due to a tiny domestic economy and huge international market. The US didn't bail out their own people (the funding of Nýi Landsbanki) while leaving the other countries' citizens to rot, thus starting an international financial conflict with a long-time rival (the UK), plus the Netherlands. The US isn't integrated into a close economic union (the EU) with said nonexistant rivals. And on and on
The question of whether or not to bail out the US banks hinged on whether or not all capital to US (and to a lesser extent, world) industries would basically disappear overnight; "Yes" means you temporarily take on moderate (proportional) debt, almost all of which will be recouped, while "No" means investment capital disappears. The question of whether or not to fully bail out the Icelandic banks hinged on whether or not to start a huge international legal squabble with other nations; "Yes" means you take on decades of crippling debt (most of which will *not* be recouped), "No" means you start an international legal battle and could ultimately have it forced on you anyway.
Perhaps not technically, but given that the Icelandic branches were rolled into Nýi Landsbanki, which was then fully capitalized, while the overseas assets were left to rot, I think it's safe to say that 99% of the people who got fully bailed out were Icelandic citizens.
Wether its better or not is a red herring. This is about the principle of who gets to control you, you, or the State
So should you get to beat your children, too? This isn't an issue of state versus personal freedom, but of whether children are simply the property of their parents or not to do with as they will.
Oh, and by the way?
You cant have it both ways; you cant be a little bit pregnant.
Got it. State shouldn't be able to tell me to do *anything* or impose any force on me for whatever actions I take. Please excuse me, I have to go; this city isn't going to burn itself down.
Indeed. So many people are perpetuating this false notion about the Icelandic crisis.
1) Iceland *has* taken austerity measures, and pretty significant ones -- about 40% cuts, 60% revenue.
2) Iceland *did* pump significant money into their banks -- nearly a year's worth of GDP as loans. However, they did it *after* the banks went into receivership. This let them fully bail out their own citizens while not fully bailing out the citizens of other countries who invested. This is actually the basis for the legal case against them.
3) This action is the reason that, contrary to popular misconception, the Icelandic crisis is *far* from over. This isn't about banks, the IMF, some shadowy cartel, or whatnot trying to force Iceland to pay back vague "debts". Rather, it's about paying back UK and Dutch citizens for their maximum insurable losses in their Icesave accounts. Individuals, not institutional investors, and the entities seeking the payback are the UK and Dutch governments. Iceland rejected reduced settlements with them in the referendum, so now they're having to fight paying back the *full* cost in the EFTA court system. If they lose, things will go very badly for them. One thing that may help is that the estates of the collapsed banks appear to be larger than expected, so they may be able to pay off most if not all of the overseas accounts just from that.
4) In a way, this is as much aggravated by old rivalries than anything else, esp. with the UK. It certainly didn't help matters that the UK invoked a provision designed for terrorists against Iceland to sieze Landsbanki assets in the UK. It's so crazy that I sometimes run into British people online talking about how they should sue Iceland for the volcanoes.
I don't know that Iceland's approach was right or wrong. They definitely got themselves into a lot of trouble with their domestic bailout. But as for taking things to the EFTA, only time will see how that goes. I do find it admirable that they've thrown their legal system not just at the bankers that caused the mess, but the politicians who stood by or were complicit in allowing it to happen. Their real problem is that their banking crisis was so much larger than their economy, so when other nations wanted them to insure against the losses from their banks, well...
But then you come to the balance between enjoyment and grief. Sure, you may take enjoyment from raiding a rival faction's cities, but at the same time, if someone raided your city and took your stuff that you had worked hard to accomplish, the shoe is on a totally different foot. The classic PK/Non-PK dilemma. It works for some, but most people get more frustrated with the loss than they feel the reward of the victory, especially when it happens multiple times in a row.
You're right about the "amusement park with security guards" aspect, however. The MMORPG addiction equation is about making the player feel that they're accomplishing something through their actions, the human delayed gratification response. "If I just do this now, I'll get X, which will let me do Y!" But then you get X, and there's a brand new X to get, then another, then another, etc -- and "Y" is usually just a means to get a different X anyway. But that doesn't mean that games need to be construed so narrowly, only toward that specific reward mechanism.
Another way to reward players is to let them feel that they're really having an impact in changing their world -- that they've modified something that others will experience in a durable manner. This could be anything -- tunnelling an underground palace, permanently wiping out a kingdom of orcs, inventing a new type of attack or spell that can be taught to other players, etc, etc -- the possibilities are endless. The ability to point to something concrete and say, "I did that!", is the same reward mechanism that drives the FOSS movement (among countless other endeavors of humanity;) ). Making gaming world be able to be durably modified is often more difficult to code than "amusement park" style games, but is a worthwhile endeavor. Weaknesses to this system are that if making change in the world is too easy, it has no meaning.
Most games have some degree of involving a third powerful human reward mechanism: social interaction. But they can do way more. Look at how many people Facebook has sucked in. Ostensibly social interaction may be a secondary, tertiary, or whatnot purpose of the game, way below "saving the galaxy from aliens" or "keeping the zombies from overrunning the countryside". But it really isn't, and developers shouldn't treat it that way. The social networking aspects in the game should be well thought out and well developed. You want it so that when they disconnect from the game for several days, they feel disconnected. Note that the social interaction aspect is generally not something that will keep people in the game on its own; it simply amplifies the feeling of needing to return and helps make experiences within the game feel more meaningful.
There are a variety of other human reward mechanisms which can be exploited in various degrees, but usually only the first reward mechanism is stressed.
You really think funds with a spare $2B lying around can be found at every streetcorner? Especially this day in age?
Once you get to that scale, market capital generally prefers to only be put into guaranteed returns on established hardware. There's virtually no capital available for even moderate risk/reward scenarios in the multi-billion dollar scale.
Yeah, PV panels are half what they were a couple years ago, now that there's no silicon production shortage. And even inverter prices are down from where they used to be; a couple years ago when I looked, the cheapest I found was $0.70/W; now I'm finding some under $0.50/W.
I'm thinking about doing my own rooftop install, but I don't want to end up with some sort of ghetto solar panel system. Are there any places you can go to learn about how to do it *properly*, in line with manufacturer specifications? I'd leave the grid hookup to a pro (as well as the requisite tree-topping we'd need done). But if it wasn't for installation labor costs, I'd be able to easily justify a solar install even up here in Iowa.
I can't speak for solar, but with wind, O&M is generally less than a fifth of the construction cost. I'd expect solar to be even less.
One nice thing about solar relates to grid stabilization. With wind, any turbine you add to the grid destabilizes it. At low penetration, the effect is quite small, easily dwarfed by demand instabilities, mind you, but it's still worth consideration. With solar however, at low penetrations, you're offsetting the increased demand that bright, sunny days impart to the grid. Low penetration of solar over a broad geographical area actually helps stabilize the grid, even without energy storage. Note the "geographical" component, mind you; having just one plant is vulnerable to the "a cloud just showed up" phenomenon (unless we get a smart grid, or at least a data exchange with power-hungry industries; barring that, you need integrated or standalone peaking -- although integrated peaking is pretty darned easy (see SEGS))
EGS is not that cheap, or anywhere close to it. And the tech is less mature than solar thermal. And I say this as a big EGS supporter (actually, I've moved more towards SWEGS, which is a particular variant of EGS).
Which would be just awesome.;) Can you imagine getting the automated phone call:
To PG&E customers in your area: We regret to inform you that your area will be experiencing rolling blackouts this afternoon as we utilize our power plants as massive solar death rays against the hardware of our nation's foes. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. As a token of apology, we invite you to enjoy a spectacular light show in the sky at no expense to you.
. Whether these plants actually ever create any energy is anyone's guess.
Um, huh? If you spend $2B on power plants that don't produce power, that's not a bragging point; that's the central point of your opponents' attack ads against you.
Yes, we "had deficits", in the same manner that a patient with a gunshot wound may have had a cut before getting shot.
And as to where, your entire post is presented as though 1.6T is a long-term running figure. You even make fun of the notion that deficits this high will go away.
And, FYI, cascading failure in our current grid is a consequence of it being analog. Differential equations of state for analog systems can rapidly transition between different solutions. There are two ways to prevent this. One, to be able to "digitize" the grid as much as possible, to try and make it so that transmission elements are either on or off -- within frequency range or off, within voltage range or off, etc -- the smaller units, the better. Two, to be able to force the equations of state back to previous values as quickly as possible. That means lots of data sharing and power sharing, especially through links that can help counter offset frequencies (aka, the HVDC runs that are essential in most big-picture smart grid plans)
"poorly designed, fragile infrastructure" -- So you accept that our grid should be modernized then. Your only issue is this bizarre notion that a smart grid isn't a grid modernization. Before we even start on this, I need to figure out what on Earth you think a smart grid is.
Wow -- to you the notion of modernizing our ageing energy grid to save trillions in energy costs and prevent catastrophic disruptions in economic activity due to major power failures is "about as wasteful as studying the flow rate of ketchup?"
Amazing that people here can be so daft as to forget that the prime reason for our current deficit figure is that we're in the biggest recession since the Great Depression. I mean, seriously, how can you forget about that? How can you, with a straight face, quote our current deficit figures as though they;re a long-term running trend?
Remember, government tax rates above ~17.3% of GDP reduce total revenues by slowing growth and the US is already at about 27%.
Amazing notion, given that for the period of our nation's greatest economic growth (post WWII to the 1970s), the top tax bracket was never below 70%, and was at times over 90%.
Slashdot Mirror
Excepting the cause for the collapse, the Icelandic banking crisis was nothing like the US banking crisis. The fact that so many people here keep pretending like they're the same situation is ridiculous. US banks weren't getting the overwhelming majority of their deposits from other countries, due to a tiny domestic economy and huge international market. The US didn't bail out their own people (the funding of Nýi Landsbanki) while leaving the other countries' citizens to rot, thus starting an international financial conflict with a long-time rival (the UK), plus the Netherlands. The US isn't integrated into a close economic union (the EU) with said nonexistant rivals. And on and on
The question of whether or not to bail out the US banks hinged on whether or not all capital to US (and to a lesser extent, world) industries would basically disappear overnight; "Yes" means you temporarily take on moderate (proportional) debt, almost all of which will be recouped, while "No" means investment capital disappears. The question of whether or not to fully bail out the Icelandic banks hinged on whether or not to start a huge international legal squabble with other nations; "Yes" means you take on decades of crippling debt (most of which will *not* be recouped), "No" means you start an international legal battle and could ultimately have it forced on you anyway.
The situations were NOT the same.
Perhaps not technically, but given that the Icelandic branches were rolled into Nýi Landsbanki, which was then fully capitalized, while the overseas assets were left to rot, I think it's safe to say that 99% of the people who got fully bailed out were Icelandic citizens.
You know, Björk doesn't exactly dominate their music scene any more. At least upgrade your "Stereotypical Íslensk Band" meme to Sigur Rós ;)
Wether its better or not is a red herring. This is about the principle of who gets to control you, you, or the State
So should you get to beat your children, too? This isn't an issue of state versus personal freedom, but of whether children are simply the property of their parents or not to do with as they will.
Oh, and by the way?
You cant have it both ways; you cant be a little bit pregnant.
Got it. State shouldn't be able to tell me to do *anything* or impose any force on me for whatever actions I take. Please excuse me, I have to go; this city isn't going to burn itself down.
Don't look now, but strip clubs are illegal in Iceland, too ;)
Indeed. So many people are perpetuating this false notion about the Icelandic crisis.
1) Iceland *has* taken austerity measures, and pretty significant ones -- about 40% cuts, 60% revenue.
2) Iceland *did* pump significant money into their banks -- nearly a year's worth of GDP as loans. However, they did it *after* the banks went into receivership. This let them fully bail out their own citizens while not fully bailing out the citizens of other countries who invested. This is actually the basis for the legal case against them.
3) This action is the reason that, contrary to popular misconception, the Icelandic crisis is *far* from over. This isn't about banks, the IMF, some shadowy cartel, or whatnot trying to force Iceland to pay back vague "debts". Rather, it's about paying back UK and Dutch citizens for their maximum insurable losses in their Icesave accounts. Individuals, not institutional investors, and the entities seeking the payback are the UK and Dutch governments. Iceland rejected reduced settlements with them in the referendum, so now they're having to fight paying back the *full* cost in the EFTA court system. If they lose, things will go very badly for them. One thing that may help is that the estates of the collapsed banks appear to be larger than expected, so they may be able to pay off most if not all of the overseas accounts just from that.
4) In a way, this is as much aggravated by old rivalries than anything else, esp. with the UK. It certainly didn't help matters that the UK invoked a provision designed for terrorists against Iceland to sieze Landsbanki assets in the UK. It's so crazy that I sometimes run into British people online talking about how they should sue Iceland for the volcanoes.
I don't know that Iceland's approach was right or wrong. They definitely got themselves into a lot of trouble with their domestic bailout. But as for taking things to the EFTA, only time will see how that goes. I do find it admirable that they've thrown their legal system not just at the bankers that caused the mess, but the politicians who stood by or were complicit in allowing it to happen. Their real problem is that their banking crisis was so much larger than their economy, so when other nations wanted them to insure against the losses from their banks, well...
I don't know what you tried to type, but the the Icelandic thorn doesn't show up.
But then you come to the balance between enjoyment and grief. Sure, you may take enjoyment from raiding a rival faction's cities, but at the same time, if someone raided your city and took your stuff that you had worked hard to accomplish, the shoe is on a totally different foot. The classic PK/Non-PK dilemma. It works for some, but most people get more frustrated with the loss than they feel the reward of the victory, especially when it happens multiple times in a row.
You're right about the "amusement park with security guards" aspect, however. The MMORPG addiction equation is about making the player feel that they're accomplishing something through their actions, the human delayed gratification response. "If I just do this now, I'll get X, which will let me do Y!" But then you get X, and there's a brand new X to get, then another, then another, etc -- and "Y" is usually just a means to get a different X anyway. But that doesn't mean that games need to be construed so narrowly, only toward that specific reward mechanism.
Another way to reward players is to let them feel that they're really having an impact in changing their world -- that they've modified something that others will experience in a durable manner. This could be anything -- tunnelling an underground palace, permanently wiping out a kingdom of orcs, inventing a new type of attack or spell that can be taught to other players, etc, etc -- the possibilities are endless. The ability to point to something concrete and say, "I did that!", is the same reward mechanism that drives the FOSS movement (among countless other endeavors of humanity ;) ). Making gaming world be able to be durably modified is often more difficult to code than "amusement park" style games, but is a worthwhile endeavor. Weaknesses to this system are that if making change in the world is too easy, it has no meaning.
Most games have some degree of involving a third powerful human reward mechanism: social interaction. But they can do way more. Look at how many people Facebook has sucked in. Ostensibly social interaction may be a secondary, tertiary, or whatnot purpose of the game, way below "saving the galaxy from aliens" or "keeping the zombies from overrunning the countryside". But it really isn't, and developers shouldn't treat it that way. The social networking aspects in the game should be well thought out and well developed. You want it so that when they disconnect from the game for several days, they feel disconnected. Note that the social interaction aspect is generally not something that will keep people in the game on its own; it simply amplifies the feeling of needing to return and helps make experiences within the game feel more meaningful.
There are a variety of other human reward mechanisms which can be exploited in various degrees, but usually only the first reward mechanism is stressed.
Thanks! :)
Actually, you can run cooling systems directly off heat.
You really think funds with a spare $2B lying around can be found at every streetcorner? Especially this day in age?
Once you get to that scale, market capital generally prefers to only be put into guaranteed returns on established hardware. There's virtually no capital available for even moderate risk/reward scenarios in the multi-billion dollar scale.
Our grid averages 92.8% transmission efficiency. That's not a lot of loss.
Yeah, PV panels are half what they were a couple years ago, now that there's no silicon production shortage. And even inverter prices are down from where they used to be; a couple years ago when I looked, the cheapest I found was $0.70/W; now I'm finding some under $0.50/W.
I'm thinking about doing my own rooftop install, but I don't want to end up with some sort of ghetto solar panel system. Are there any places you can go to learn about how to do it *properly*, in line with manufacturer specifications? I'd leave the grid hookup to a pro (as well as the requisite tree-topping we'd need done). But if it wasn't for installation labor costs, I'd be able to easily justify a solar install even up here in Iowa.
Worse: These are loan guarantees, not grants. The military never pays back its budget with interest.
I can't speak for solar, but with wind, O&M is generally less than a fifth of the construction cost. I'd expect solar to be even less.
One nice thing about solar relates to grid stabilization. With wind, any turbine you add to the grid destabilizes it. At low penetration, the effect is quite small, easily dwarfed by demand instabilities, mind you, but it's still worth consideration. With solar however, at low penetrations, you're offsetting the increased demand that bright, sunny days impart to the grid. Low penetration of solar over a broad geographical area actually helps stabilize the grid, even without energy storage. Note the "geographical" component, mind you; having just one plant is vulnerable to the "a cloud just showed up" phenomenon (unless we get a smart grid, or at least a data exchange with power-hungry industries; barring that, you need integrated or standalone peaking -- although integrated peaking is pretty darned easy (see SEGS))
Does your proposal come with a free unicorn?
EGS is not that cheap, or anywhere close to it. And the tech is less mature than solar thermal. And I say this as a big EGS supporter (actually, I've moved more towards SWEGS, which is a particular variant of EGS).
Which would be just awesome. ;) Can you imagine getting the automated phone call:
To PG&E customers in your area: We regret to inform you that your area will be experiencing rolling blackouts this afternoon as we utilize our power plants as massive solar death rays against the hardware of our nation's foes. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. As a token of apology, we invite you to enjoy a spectacular light show in the sky at no expense to you.
Um, huh? If you spend $2B on power plants that don't produce power, that's not a bragging point; that's the central point of your opponents' attack ads against you.
I'm sure it's not what the bill was focused on, but when I read this article, I can't help but think of videos like Sigur Rós Shreds.
Yes, we "had deficits", in the same manner that a patient with a gunshot wound may have had a cut before getting shot.
And as to where, your entire post is presented as though 1.6T is a long-term running figure. You even make fun of the notion that deficits this high will go away.
And, FYI, cascading failure in our current grid is a consequence of it being analog. Differential equations of state for analog systems can rapidly transition between different solutions. There are two ways to prevent this. One, to be able to "digitize" the grid as much as possible, to try and make it so that transmission elements are either on or off -- within frequency range or off, within voltage range or off, etc -- the smaller units, the better. Two, to be able to force the equations of state back to previous values as quickly as possible. That means lots of data sharing and power sharing, especially through links that can help counter offset frequencies (aka, the HVDC runs that are essential in most big-picture smart grid plans)
"poorly designed, fragile infrastructure" -- So you accept that our grid should be modernized then. Your only issue is this bizarre notion that a smart grid isn't a grid modernization. Before we even start on this, I need to figure out what on Earth you think a smart grid is.
Wow -- to you the notion of modernizing our ageing energy grid to save trillions in energy costs and prevent catastrophic disruptions in economic activity due to major power failures is "about as wasteful as studying the flow rate of ketchup?"
Amazing that people here can be so daft as to forget that the prime reason for our current deficit figure is that we're in the biggest recession since the Great Depression. I mean, seriously, how can you forget about that? How can you, with a straight face, quote our current deficit figures as though they;re a long-term running trend?
Amazing notion, given that for the period of our nation's greatest economic growth (post WWII to the 1970s), the top tax bracket was never below 70%, and was at times over 90%.