Unless there is a component part that is (1) essential to a patented product or method, (2) must be exclusively manufactured in the places where it is patented, and (3) has no non-infringing uses, then this theoretical IP won't stop the technology from being built and developed in the third world.
High efficiency solar panels (>40%) suffer from all three of those issues. They are made of high efficiency solar cells, which are patented. The panel can not exist without the cell. The cells are exclusively manufactured in places where it is patented (so far), and the cells have no non-infringing uses. They can be used to convert light to electricity, and aren't good for much of anything else.
That's the sole example of any significance—nobody gives a shit about the patented super-water-efficient toilet (literally). But that example is a problem even in the developed world. The cheap panels being imported from China are cheap because they contain no patented technology and are therefore legal to import without a license. They're also miserably inefficient compared to the (patented) state of the art. The owner of the world record (patent) holder boasts that there are 80 MWp installed worldwide. Judging by the fact that there are zero consumer products available, a license to make them can not be had at any price, let alone a reasonable price. The manufacturing contributes little to the price. It's still made of semiconductors, and if there is one thing southeast Asia knows how to produce in spectacular quantities for dirt cheap, it's semiconductors.
Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement.
What does movement have to do with anything? Do you even know what torque is? Here, let me help you with that. In a nutshell, it's force. There's all kinds of forces in the world that don't result in movement. Lucky for you. You're sitting in a chair, aren't you? Demonstrating an instance of force without movement all by yourself. Amazing, isn't it. Forces get applied before movement starts.
All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration...
Tesla P85D 0-60 mph 3.2 s Audi S8 0-60 mph 3.9 s Yes, the sports cars can beat it. It's a SEDAN. A five door liftback sedan. For crying out loud... And for the record, the curb weight of the Audi is 4685 lbs. The curb weight of the Model S is 4647 lbs. The Model S is lighter than the gasoline car in the same class and price bracket.
Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles.
Really?Truly? Sorry, those links are probably too hard for you. They require you to calculate the efficiencies yourself by dividing. Here, let me help you.
2012 Coal 33.8% 2012 Internal Combustion 32.8%
Coal is more efficient. Not a lot, but it is. It's definitely not radically worse, or even slightly worse. So shifting from petroleum to coal for transportation is a gain, made better by the fact below about the efficiency of electric motors in transportation applications.
Also you are highly misinformed with electric motors, they are often 80-95% efficient when very lightly loaded and are near 50% efficient at peak power at half the no load speed - these are basic facts even a high school student should know.
Really? I guess you haven't made it to high school yet. I'll just describe the graph for those who won't follow the link. At 10% load the tested 25 horse power premium efficiency motor hits 80% efficiency. At 40% load, it hits 97% efficiency and it never drops below that, all the way out to 160% of its rated load.
and yes 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now we will replace our industrial electrical power production with better sources, but cars last 10 years at best. So right now the wrong thing to do is buy electric if you care about pollution.
My infernal combustion car is 14 years old, thanks. Right now, if you care about pollution, and can afford the gasoline-competitive electric cars (either of them), you can also afford to cover your roof in solar panels from one end to the other. I can't, just yet, but someday I will. At which point I won't care what "industrial power production" is doing.
Then again I don't suppose facts are your thing.
I replied with links. With numbers. You didn't. You should stop typing now.
And watch how the posting counts on Slashdot stories are triple that of Tesla stories, with the most vicious pro-electric commenting and moderation you've ever seen. It'll make Tesla supporters look like lazy, staid, boring old people. You hear me? OLD PEOPLE!
Everybody will HAVE to have the new hotness. If they don't, they'll just DIE.
You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric.
Obviously you have never actually looked at the Model S specifications. The performance edition of the all wheel drive version has 691 horsepower. The rear motor alone has 443 ft lb of torque at zero RPMs. Can you get a more powerful internal combustion engine? Sure. But where? The 2015 Corvette tops out at 650 horsepower. The 2015 Mustang tops out at 435. The 2015 Camero tops out at 580. And none of those seat 7. The 2015 Cadillac XTS tops out at 410 horsepower. The 2015 Cadillac CTS tops out at 420. The 2015 Audi S8 tops out at 520 horsepower and it is NOT cheaper than a Model S.
And then in the same paragraph, you start talking about efficiency. You do realize that high performance and high efficiency simultaneously is ONLY possible in electric vehicles? Internal combustion can't do it. When you punch an electric motor, it stay 98% efficient. When you punch an internal combustion engine, its already miserable efficiency drops into the single digits. When an electric vehicle recharges, it's power source is NOT being pushed to the performance limit. It continues to operate at its best efficiency.
Most importantly, the energy source to recharge an electric vehicle is 100% fungible. If you live near a nuclear power plant, recharging your car is already producing 0 CO2. Zero. None. That is never possible for your fossil fuel car no matter how efficient your car gets. It will ALWAYS produce more than zero CO2. Build more nuclear power plants, or solar plants, or windmills, or all of the above, and the more electric cars there are, the less CO2 is produced by transportation. That's physically impossible with a fossil fuel fleet.
You must try really hard to be wrong about literally everything you said.
like, why the fuck bother with the takeover in the first place?
In the case of the ongoing collapse formerly known as SOE, they buy it for the trademarks and copyrights. Watch for bastardized bundles of patheticness bearing the EverQuest name showing up on mobile phones by this time next year.
In the case of Nokia, that was done for the purpose of utterly eliminating and destroying a Windows Phone competitor, in the certain knowledge that Windows can and does "succeed" when it has no surviving rivals. Because they've done it before.
It was Ballmer being Ballmer, doing the only thing he knows how to do. He is, was, and ever shall be a monopolist, and he only knows the plays of a monopolist. The fact that he can not treat Samsung and Apple the same way no doubt wrankled in his sodden breast, but he took some solace in extorting patent royalties for every Android-equipped device.
It's inexplicable to anyone as innocent as yourself, who thinks all that guff he was fed in school about playing fair, and level playing fields, and value for money, and benefiting the customer is actually real. It isn't. None of it is, as exhibited by the behavior of every large multinational corporation, which are universally dominated by sociopaths. Those phrases are for other people, to such minds.
It's easy to understand, as long as you can understand a certain special kind of insanity.
Waves in the ocean. That sure came out of left field. How could we have predicted that? We have the best experts money can buy making our plans, but how can we succeed when all this weird unpredictable stuff happens to us?/sarc
When the Air Force says, "You can land anywhere you want, except you can't land here, and you can't land here until you land somewhere else," you build a barge and take your chances with the waves.
Current employees will want to update their CVs, but this may well keep this company in business long enough to employ more in the long-run.
Unlikely. MBAs persist in the foolish belief that programmers are fungible, short term. The former SOE has 100% software products. The MBA is going to lay off everybody who knows anything about those products, hire a bunch of Chinese engineers, and wonder why the next 4 projects fail.
Or possibly they've just decided that EverQuest should be a trading card game. Fronted by a cartoon.
At the Texas launch site, will SpaceX be providing launch radar or will the Air Force?
SpaceX may build a local radar site for the launch site itself, but you can bet the Air Force will still be involved, since the launch trajectory for equatorial orbits crosses Florida. It's unlikely that purely FAA-run radars will be considered acceptable for covering rocket launches any time soon, if they ever are. Their mode of operation is such that they don't provide updates quickly enough to be useful during an orbital launch, and it doesn't seem likely that the FAA will want to change that.
Nobody has yet been mad enough to suggest that a private company should have sole responsibility for tracking their own ICBM-ish vehicles.
I really wish more of the world (America is the worst) would use GMT/UTC, as that's easy to translate (and it means I don't need to look up the offset of the timezone someone refers to - which again is usually only given by name). We are not all in America.:-)
SpaceX is quite good at giving launch times in UTC in their own press materials. They tend to run their software systems in UTC too, since there's no point in trying to use a "local" timezone for a vehicle that is going to be crossing multiple timezones in a few minutes. It's just the press who are lazy about it. The SpaceX webcast page just gives a countdown in hours and minutes on the day of a launch, so you don't have to do the math yourself.
The imagery was supposed to be live streamed to the internet, for one thing.
Considering how far out it is, the entire hemisphere facing the sun should be able to receive its signal. Can the hams among us tell us if it's feasible for an individual to receive and decode the signal directly? Without falling afoul of dish size restrictions?
We do the same thing with dead animals on the barbeque, so if you think me putting it that way is cruel, think about your eating habbits.
Well no, nobody in the world burns the animal alive on the barbeque. The animal starts out dead. Burning alive is something humans reserve for other humans.
And no, just describing it is not adequate to convey what happened.
That's debatable. Millions of Americans saw Terminator 2. Millions of Americans watch endless torture porn movies, and have for decades now. I don't, so I can't name names, but I would bet money that one of the mutilation/murder franchises (Nightmare on Elm Street/Halloween/Friday the 13th) has depicted burning a person to death, in detail.
They can't even get basic computer use or hacking correct in a $200 million movie. How are they going to accurately represent software programming in a cartoon?
I thought the goal was to get girls to like software programming. Reality will not be allowed to intrude in any way, shape, or form.
The portrayal of programming will be indistinguishable from magic. Not even Harry Potter-style magic, either, which involved wands and words and gestures and reagents and knowledge. No, I'm talking genie magic here.
Although I think most of us would not think that placing the cameras in a public place for art's sake is some horrible offense, it might be a violation of privacy, and it is certainly not prudent in a terrorism-obsessed world.
Then why the fuck are there all these cameras in public places? And no, I'm not talking about an art project...
I listened pretty far, but still don't know why these companies with higher revenue are more likely to hire a woman CEO.
That's easy. A board of directors who are already enjoying unusually high revenues per employee are much more willing to make a risky personnel decision, for the Street cred', than a board facing poor revenues per employee.
You'll see every major company in the world immediately relocate to the US..
No, you won't.
What bizarre world do you people live in, anyway?
Ali Baba will remain a Chinese company. ICBC will remain a Chinese company. China Construction Bank will remain a Chinese company. Agricultural Bank of China will remain a Chinese company. Bank of China will remain a Chinese company. PetroChina will remain a Chinese company. So will every other Chinese company. Fully half of the top 10 of the Forbes 2000 list will not EVER become American companies.
Royal Dutch Shell will remain a Dutch company. Toyota Motor (Forbes says their name has no 's' on the end. Who knew..) will remain a Japanese company. HSBC Holdings will remain a British company. BP will remain a British company. Volkswagen Group will remain a German company. Gazprom will remain a Russian company. Samsung will remain a Korean company. We're now through a majority of the top 20 with absolutely zero chance of relocating to the US, regardless of US tax policy.
That's just the publicly traded companies. Saudi Aramco will stay in Saudi Arabia. They own that government. They ARE that government. The LEGO Group will stay in Denmark. Etc.
When you get right down to it, it's mostly only US corporations that are sociopathic bastards. Many large foreign companies identify with their own nationality and explicitly support it. Do you really think Royal Bank of Canada (55th ranked in the Forbes 2000) is going to incorporate in the US? Really? Don't be ridiculous.
Your back of the envelope calculation is worth spit. A zero US corporate tax rate would simply rob our budget of billions. Billions that, whether or not they are necessary, are already spent, so we'd damn well better not cripple our ability to pay back the loans.
Slashdot Mirror
That was when AMD's x64 architecture was designed by an ex-senior Dec Alpha architect.
They rehired that person in 2012. They're hoping he can perform the same magic twice.
A Prozac bomb?
Legalized marijuana.
Unless there is a component part that is (1) essential to a patented product or method, (2) must be exclusively manufactured in the places where it is patented, and (3) has no non-infringing uses, then this theoretical IP won't stop the technology from being built and developed in the third world.
High efficiency solar panels (>40%) suffer from all three of those issues. They are made of high efficiency solar cells, which are patented. The panel can not exist without the cell. The cells are exclusively manufactured in places where it is patented (so far), and the cells have no non-infringing uses. They can be used to convert light to electricity, and aren't good for much of anything else.
That's the sole example of any significance—nobody gives a shit about the patented super-water-efficient toilet (literally). But that example is a problem even in the developed world. The cheap panels being imported from China are cheap because they contain no patented technology and are therefore legal to import without a license. They're also miserably inefficient compared to the (patented) state of the art. The owner of the world record (patent) holder boasts that there are 80 MWp installed worldwide. Judging by the fact that there are zero consumer products available, a license to make them can not be had at any price, let alone a reasonable price. The manufacturing contributes little to the price. It's still made of semiconductors, and if there is one thing southeast Asia knows how to produce in spectacular quantities for dirt cheap, it's semiconductors.
Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement.
What does movement have to do with anything? Do you even know what torque is? Here, let me help you with that. In a nutshell, it's force. There's all kinds of forces in the world that don't result in movement. Lucky for you. You're sitting in a chair, aren't you? Demonstrating an instance of force without movement all by yourself. Amazing, isn't it. Forces get applied before movement starts.
All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration...
Tesla P85D 0-60 mph 3.2 s
Audi S8 0-60 mph 3.9 s
Yes, the sports cars can beat it. It's a SEDAN. A five door liftback sedan. For crying out loud... And for the record, the curb weight of the Audi is 4685 lbs. The curb weight of the Model S is 4647 lbs. The Model S is lighter than the gasoline car in the same class and price bracket.
Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles.
Really? Truly? Sorry, those links are probably too hard for you. They require you to calculate the efficiencies yourself by dividing. Here, let me help you.
2012 Coal 33.8%
2012 Internal Combustion 32.8%
Coal is more efficient. Not a lot, but it is. It's definitely not radically worse, or even slightly worse. So shifting from petroleum to coal for transportation is a gain, made better by the fact below about the efficiency of electric motors in transportation applications.
Also you are highly misinformed with electric motors, they are often 80-95% efficient when very lightly loaded and are near 50% efficient at peak power at half the no load speed - these are basic facts even a high school student should know.
Really? I guess you haven't made it to high school yet. I'll just describe the graph for those who won't follow the link. At 10% load the tested 25 horse power premium efficiency motor hits 80% efficiency. At 40% load, it hits 97% efficiency and it never drops below that, all the way out to 160% of its rated load.
and yes 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now we will replace our industrial electrical power production with better sources, but cars last 10 years at best. So right now the wrong thing to do is buy electric if you care about pollution.
My infernal combustion car is 14 years old, thanks. Right now, if you care about pollution, and can afford the gasoline-competitive electric cars (either of them), you can also afford to cover your roof in solar panels from one end to the other. I can't, just yet, but someday I will. At which point I won't care what "industrial power production" is doing.
Then again I don't suppose facts are your thing.
I replied with links. With numbers. You didn't. You should stop typing now.
Just wait for the Apple electrical car!
That's what Steve Jobs would have wanted.
And watch how the posting counts on Slashdot stories are triple that of Tesla stories, with the most vicious pro-electric commenting and moderation you've ever seen. It'll make Tesla supporters look like lazy, staid, boring old people. You hear me? OLD PEOPLE!
Everybody will HAVE to have the new hotness. If they don't, they'll just DIE.
You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric.
Obviously you have never actually looked at the Model S specifications. The performance edition of the all wheel drive version has 691 horsepower. The rear motor alone has 443 ft lb of torque at zero RPMs. Can you get a more powerful internal combustion engine? Sure. But where? The 2015 Corvette tops out at 650 horsepower. The 2015 Mustang tops out at 435. The 2015 Camero tops out at 580. And none of those seat 7. The 2015 Cadillac XTS tops out at 410 horsepower. The 2015 Cadillac CTS tops out at 420. The 2015 Audi S8 tops out at 520 horsepower and it is NOT cheaper than a Model S.
And then in the same paragraph, you start talking about efficiency. You do realize that high performance and high efficiency simultaneously is ONLY possible in electric vehicles? Internal combustion can't do it. When you punch an electric motor, it stay 98% efficient. When you punch an internal combustion engine, its already miserable efficiency drops into the single digits. When an electric vehicle recharges, it's power source is NOT being pushed to the performance limit. It continues to operate at its best efficiency.
Most importantly, the energy source to recharge an electric vehicle is 100% fungible. If you live near a nuclear power plant, recharging your car is already producing 0 CO2. Zero. None. That is never possible for your fossil fuel car no matter how efficient your car gets. It will ALWAYS produce more than zero CO2. Build more nuclear power plants, or solar plants, or windmills, or all of the above, and the more electric cars there are, the less CO2 is produced by transportation. That's physically impossible with a fossil fuel fleet.
You must try really hard to be wrong about literally everything you said.
Perhaps the cockroaches or yeast will succeed where we failed.
My money is on the raccoons. They already have the opposable thumbs.
I would have gone with:
In Soviet Russia, VPN connect to you.
It was a little weak, I admit. My muse failed me, what can I say.
like, why the fuck bother with the takeover in the first place?
In the case of the ongoing collapse formerly known as SOE, they buy it for the trademarks and copyrights. Watch for bastardized bundles of patheticness bearing the EverQuest name showing up on mobile phones by this time next year.
In the case of Nokia, that was done for the purpose of utterly eliminating and destroying a Windows Phone competitor, in the certain knowledge that Windows can and does "succeed" when it has no surviving rivals. Because they've done it before.
It was Ballmer being Ballmer, doing the only thing he knows how to do. He is, was, and ever shall be a monopolist, and he only knows the plays of a monopolist. The fact that he can not treat Samsung and Apple the same way no doubt wrankled in his sodden breast, but he took some solace in extorting patent royalties for every Android-equipped device.
It's inexplicable to anyone as innocent as yourself, who thinks all that guff he was fed in school about playing fair, and level playing fields, and value for money, and benefiting the customer is actually real. It isn't. None of it is, as exhibited by the behavior of every large multinational corporation, which are universally dominated by sociopaths. Those phrases are for other people, to such minds.
It's easy to understand, as long as you can understand a certain special kind of insanity.
We're $18Trillion in debt. We have roughly 1/2 a trillion in deficit per year. This President (and the one before him, easily as culpable)...
And the one before him and the one before him, right back to.... Reagan! Mr. Deficit Spender himself. Practically invented it in the modern era.
So, yeah. Really? Reaganomics? Why is the trickle on my head yellow?
Waves in the ocean. That sure came out of left field. How could we have predicted that? We have the best experts money can buy making our plans, but how can we succeed when all this weird unpredictable stuff happens to us? /sarc
When the Air Force says, "You can land anywhere you want, except you can't land here, and you can't land here until you land somewhere else," you build a barge and take your chances with the waves.
Current employees will want to update their CVs, but this may well keep this company in business long enough to employ more in the long-run.
Unlikely. MBAs persist in the foolish belief that programmers are fungible, short term. The former SOE has 100% software products. The MBA is going to lay off everybody who knows anything about those products, hire a bunch of Chinese engineers, and wonder why the next 4 projects fail.
Or possibly they've just decided that EverQuest should be a trading card game. Fronted by a cartoon.
When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption!
When privacy is outlawed, only oligarchs will have privacy!
When free speech is outlawed, Tor is "an anonymous network to commit crimes"!
And last but not least...
In Soviet Russia, VPN watches you!
I respect Mr. Stewart tremendously but I think any claim that The Daily Show isn't also a news show is completely false.
Completely false, but necessary for collecting all of those Emmys.
At the Texas launch site, will SpaceX be providing launch radar or will the Air Force?
SpaceX may build a local radar site for the launch site itself, but you can bet the Air Force will still be involved, since the launch trajectory for equatorial orbits crosses Florida. It's unlikely that purely FAA-run radars will be considered acceptable for covering rocket launches any time soon, if they ever are. Their mode of operation is such that they don't provide updates quickly enough to be useful during an orbital launch, and it doesn't seem likely that the FAA will want to change that.
Nobody has yet been mad enough to suggest that a private company should have sole responsibility for tracking their own ICBM-ish vehicles.
I really wish more of the world (America is the worst) would use GMT/UTC, as that's easy to translate (and it means I don't need to look up the offset of the timezone someone refers to - which again is usually only given by name). We are not all in America. :-)
SpaceX is quite good at giving launch times in UTC in their own press materials. They tend to run their software systems in UTC too, since there's no point in trying to use a "local" timezone for a vehicle that is going to be crossing multiple timezones in a few minutes. It's just the press who are lazy about it. The SpaceX webcast page just gives a countdown in hours and minutes on the day of a launch, so you don't have to do the math yourself.
The imagery was supposed to be live streamed to the internet, for one thing.
Considering how far out it is, the entire hemisphere facing the sun should be able to receive its signal. Can the hams among us tell us if it's feasible for an individual to receive and decode the signal directly? Without falling afoul of dish size restrictions?
We do the same thing with dead animals on the barbeque, so if you think me putting it that way is cruel, think about your eating habbits.
Well no, nobody in the world burns the animal alive on the barbeque. The animal starts out dead. Burning alive is something humans reserve for other humans.
And no, just describing it is not adequate to convey what happened.
That's debatable. Millions of Americans saw Terminator 2. Millions of Americans watch endless torture porn movies, and have for decades now. I don't, so I can't name names, but I would bet money that one of the mutilation/murder franchises (Nightmare on Elm Street/Halloween/Friday the 13th) has depicted burning a person to death, in detail.
They can't even get basic computer use or hacking correct in a $200 million movie. How are they going to accurately represent software programming in a cartoon?
I thought the goal was to get girls to like software programming. Reality will not be allowed to intrude in any way, shape, or form.
The portrayal of programming will be indistinguishable from magic. Not even Harry Potter-style magic, either, which involved wands and words and gestures and reagents and knowledge. No, I'm talking genie magic here.
'cause that'll work.
Although I think most of us would not think that placing the cameras in a public place for art's sake is some horrible offense, it might be a violation of privacy, and it is certainly not prudent in a terrorism-obsessed world.
Then why the fuck are there all these cameras in public places? And no, I'm not talking about an art project...
I listened pretty far, but still don't know why these companies with higher revenue are more likely to hire a woman CEO.
That's easy. A board of directors who are already enjoying unusually high revenues per employee are much more willing to make a risky personnel decision, for the Street cred', than a board facing poor revenues per employee.
Please provide links to independent, peer-reviewed research demonstrating that it exists in more than isolated cases.
Number of male kindergarten teachers.
This is just one more episode in the perpetual game of cat and mouse between the makers and the takers.
It's grandstanding and nothing will come of it.
But I agree, these parasites should be paying their fucking taxes like the rest of us.
You'll see every major company in the world immediately relocate to the US..
No, you won't.
What bizarre world do you people live in, anyway?
Ali Baba will remain a Chinese company. ICBC will remain a Chinese company. China Construction Bank will remain a Chinese company. Agricultural Bank of China will remain a Chinese company. Bank of China will remain a Chinese company. PetroChina will remain a Chinese company. So will every other Chinese company. Fully half of the top 10 of the Forbes 2000 list will not EVER become American companies.
Royal Dutch Shell will remain a Dutch company. Toyota Motor (Forbes says their name has no 's' on the end. Who knew..) will remain a Japanese company. HSBC Holdings will remain a British company. BP will remain a British company. Volkswagen Group will remain a German company. Gazprom will remain a Russian company. Samsung will remain a Korean company. We're now through a majority of the top 20 with absolutely zero chance of relocating to the US, regardless of US tax policy.
That's just the publicly traded companies. Saudi Aramco will stay in Saudi Arabia. They own that government. They ARE that government. The LEGO Group will stay in Denmark. Etc.
When you get right down to it, it's mostly only US corporations that are sociopathic bastards. Many large foreign companies identify with their own nationality and explicitly support it. Do you really think Royal Bank of Canada (55th ranked in the Forbes 2000) is going to incorporate in the US? Really? Don't be ridiculous.
Your back of the envelope calculation is worth spit. A zero US corporate tax rate would simply rob our budget of billions. Billions that, whether or not they are necessary, are already spent, so we'd damn well better not cripple our ability to pay back the loans.