Drat, forgot to check the formatting before posting. Should have been:
lower cost employees... could include displaced baby boomer workers who have been out of work for some time and 'will take a lower paying job just to get back into the workforce.'
Maybe when pigs fly. If you've been out of work for some time or are old enough to be a boomer, you'll have a hard time getting a job. Put 'em together and you're probably toast. Hiring boomers who've been out of work for a while at lower pay would be a rational and probably a desirable response (not the lower pay part, but in a market economy that's how it works). In reality employers are horribly prejudiced against such people and will just scream that we need more H-1B's.
lower cost employees... could include displaced baby boomer workers who have been out of work for some time and 'will take a lower paying job just to get back into the workforce.'
Maybe when pigs fly. If you've been out of work for some time or are old enough to be a boomer, you'll have a hard time getting a job. Put 'em together and you're probably toast. Hiring boomers who've been out of work for a while at lower pay would be a rational and probably a desirable response (not the lower pay part, but in a market economy that's how it works). In reality employers are horribly prejudiced against such people and will just scream that we need more H-1B's.
As unpopular as it is, I am in favor of dictatorship as long as the dictator is a benevolent one who actually cares about the well-being of the common folk.
Are you serious, or is my sarcasm detector out-of-whack?
Zuckerberg and fellow tech billionaires: This is clear evidence that there's a shortage of people with the right skills, so the government needs to increase the H-1B visa quota from 65,000 to 180,000.
Politician with extended hand: Yes, sir! Are there any other orifices you'd like me to lick, sir!
Me: I have no idea how anybody will justify the first statement above and keep a straight face, but apparently there are people who are much better at it than me. Having read Zuckerberg's op-ed in WaPo, it's obvious that logic, consistency and clear exposition are not required in that endeavor.
the US Govt., effectively, owns at least the publicly traded means of production
That's completely backwards. It doesn't get "incestuous", rather the means of production (or the owners thereof) control the government.
Nothing close to free market capitalism, for sure.
No, it isn't. And while you didn't say otherwise, I'd like to say that capitalism doesn't require "free markets" (a term that's largely meaningless because it's so broad that people can "refine" the definition to be almost anything).
Does anyone who seriously uses the cliche that "taxes are theft" deserve to be treated as anything other than a troll? I'm all for open debate with anyone serious, including those who would all but abandon (in the US) the federal government. However, even anarchists may admit that some taxes are necessary. "Taxes are theft" is just a childish rant and should be treated as such.
Thanks for the update on UK politics. As an American I admit I don't follow it closely enough to engage in real debate. The Blair thing stuck in my craw because it's analogous to the "Third Way" Democrats in the US. Sounds like there's some hope over there. With Obama and his likely successors in the US, not so much.
P.S. Just out of curiosity, under what circumstances would you be willing to call the American War of Independence an unfortunate misunderstanding and take us back?
Unfortunately neither do democracy and full-blown socialism, because the government owning all the means of production would give it limitless power. In the real world, the best we can do is a compromise. I do agree that these days it's clear which way the "compromise" is leaning.
Google, Apple and Amazon are not doing anything wrong.
Well, they're not doing anything illegal. And that's the crime, that the government can be bought (and cheaply). I can't speak in much detail for the UK, but in the US the Supreme Court has taken "money is speech" (true only in a limited way and in limited circumstances) to absurd extremes. The logical conclusion is that me handing a politician a briefcase stuffed with unmarked non-sequential $100 bills is protected free speech.
You can always count on New Labour to stick up for the 99%. Ignore details like Blair making millions from JP Morgan Chase. He had to find some job after being PM, right?
I think a better toilet-related analogy for slow intake and fast discharge would be someone at an all-you-can-eat taco buffet.
That's nothing. Think of a kid at a U-Pick-Em tomato farm, where they eat more than they put in the basket. I can say from personal experience that those are great places to take kids, but do watch their intake.
What I want to know is where did she get access to technology that could operate on the "nanoscale" as well as fabrication equipment, this stuff isn't exactly commonplace or cheap. Although it would be great if it was in every school.
High school students working at this level often (and fortunately) get access to university labs. Typically via a faculty "sponsor" for someone who is very promising.
Anyone remember the 1980's? Remember how the CMOS RAM on your PC's motherboard used to be powered by super capacitors before CR20xx batteries became cheap enough? Super capacitors have been around a loooong time.
Computers have been around an even longer time. Would you rather use a current model or one from the 80's? Tech improves even if the names of the devices don't.
So how is it that an eighteen year old girl with no science degree comes up with what PHDed scientist have been looking for for decades?
Don't jump to conclusions or buy too much into the article's hype. She made a capacitor using AFAIK a novel chemical/construction technique, and it works well according to some measures. That's a very impressive feat for a high school student, and she certainly deserves a full ride to her Ph.D. at the university of her choosing. It does not mean it's practical, which could be for any number of reasons. Maybe it's too fragile to be practical, whatever. Hopefully she'll be one of those people looking for a practical solution, or maybe she's smart enough to get a law degree or an MBA and make some money instead of rubbing nickels together as a post-doc.
in order to get the super high capacitance the "plates" of the capacitor must be microscopically close together which limits the voltage at which they can operate to typically 2.5V.... If this student managed to make a supercapacitor that operates at 5V or higher in the same physical volume as current technology 2.5V parts
If you could make a 5V supercap with given capacitance, which had 2x the volume of a 2.5V cap w/ the same capacitance, you'd be ahead of the game since you'd have 4x the energy storage in 2x the volume (E=1/2CV^2). I think a more accurate way of stating the point you're making is that current supercap construction doesn't give you enough flexibility to trade off C vs. Vmax, else you'd go for higher V and lower C, assuming that CV/volume remains constant.
I don't think the discharge curve is as much of problem as you make out in extracting as much energy in the cap as you can. Let's say the cap feeds a DC:DC which can take a 4:1 input voltage range (well within current tech). Then if you have a cap which can hold E1=1/2*C*V1^2, but you can only extract energy to the point where V2=V1/4, you'd still get E3=1/2*C*(V1^2-V2^2), which is 1-(1/4)^2=0.9375, or about 94% of the total energy stored in the cap.
At 5-10 mA, the power draw of LED is comparable to that of an idle phone, that powers only the receive circuitry.
Which is ideal if you're trying to demonstrate that the self-leakage of the capacitor is not a serious impediment, since the self-leakage is a greater issue when the cell phone's power consumption is less.
The more I hear about things like this and other interesting "wildlife" problems in the warmer parts of the country, the more I'm glad I live where it snows.
In the first place, you're critiquing a book you haven't even read...
Are we talking about science or literature? It may be a wonderfully written book, but we've learned a few things since 1859.
you have huge blind spots to your own ignorance. For example, your criticism of Darwin (not ruling out the inheritance of acquired traits) brought a smile to my lips, considering some recent studies.
Again, not enough detail to be anything other than a meaningless sneer. Since this has already gone back and forth several times, the obvious conclusion is that you are unable to make an intelligent counter-argument.
Of course not, which should have been abundantly clear from my original post. Why would I waste my time on something that's been relegated to a historical curiosity? I doubt many biologists in the last 50-100 years have read it either.
P.S. I haven't read Principia Mathematica either.
You don't seem to understand what you are talking about.
How's that? In the absence of any detail, such a retort is meaningless, even childish. More importantly, why can't you address any of the points I raised?
Slashdot Mirror
lower cost employees ... could include displaced baby boomer workers who have been out of work for some time and 'will take a lower paying job just to get back into the workforce.'
Maybe when pigs fly. If you've been out of work for some time or are old enough to be a boomer, you'll have a hard time getting a job. Put 'em together and you're probably toast. Hiring boomers who've been out of work for a while at lower pay would be a rational and probably a desirable response (not the lower pay part, but in a market economy that's how it works). In reality employers are horribly prejudiced against such people and will just scream that we need more H-1B's.
lower cost employees ... could include displaced baby boomer workers who have been out of work for some time and 'will take a lower paying job just to get back into the workforce.'
Maybe when pigs fly. If you've been out of work for some time or are old enough to be a boomer, you'll have a hard time getting a job. Put 'em together and you're probably toast. Hiring boomers who've been out of work for a while at lower pay would be a rational and probably a desirable response (not the lower pay part, but in a market economy that's how it works). In reality employers are horribly prejudiced against such people and will just scream that we need more H-1B's.
As unpopular as it is, I am in favor of dictatorship as long as the dictator is a benevolent one who actually cares about the well-being of the common folk.
Are you serious, or is my sarcasm detector out-of-whack?
But that is no excuse to get rid of government.
Agreed, but I don't think my post suggested otherwise.
Zuckerberg and fellow tech billionaires: This is clear evidence that there's a shortage of people with the right skills, so the government needs to increase the H-1B visa quota from 65,000 to 180,000.
Politician with extended hand: Yes, sir! Are there any other orifices you'd like me to lick, sir!
Me: I have no idea how anybody will justify the first statement above and keep a straight face, but apparently there are people who are much better at it than me. Having read Zuckerberg's op-ed in WaPo, it's obvious that logic, consistency and clear exposition are not required in that endeavor.
the US Govt., effectively, owns at least the publicly traded means of production
That's completely backwards. It doesn't get "incestuous", rather the means of production (or the owners thereof) control the government.
Nothing close to free market capitalism, for sure.
No, it isn't. And while you didn't say otherwise, I'd like to say that capitalism doesn't require "free markets" (a term that's largely meaningless because it's so broad that people can "refine" the definition to be almost anything).
Does anyone who seriously uses the cliche that "taxes are theft" deserve to be treated as anything other than a troll? I'm all for open debate with anyone serious, including those who would all but abandon (in the US) the federal government. However, even anarchists may admit that some taxes are necessary. "Taxes are theft" is just a childish rant and should be treated as such.
Thanks for the update on UK politics. As an American I admit I don't follow it closely enough to engage in real debate. The Blair thing stuck in my craw because it's analogous to the "Third Way" Democrats in the US. Sounds like there's some hope over there. With Obama and his likely successors in the US, not so much.
P.S. Just out of curiosity, under what circumstances would you be willing to call the American War of Independence an unfortunate misunderstanding and take us back?
Unfortunately neither do democracy and full-blown socialism, because the government owning all the means of production would give it limitless power. In the real world, the best we can do is a compromise. I do agree that these days it's clear which way the "compromise" is leaning.
Google, Apple and Amazon are not doing anything wrong.
Well, they're not doing anything illegal. And that's the crime, that the government can be bought (and cheaply). I can't speak in much detail for the UK, but in the US the Supreme Court has taken "money is speech" (true only in a limited way and in limited circumstances) to absurd extremes. The logical conclusion is that me handing a politician a briefcase stuffed with unmarked non-sequential $100 bills is protected free speech.
The people at Apple and Google worked hard to earn that money, why should it be stolen from them to pay for giveaways to non-workers?
I think it should be stolen from them because I'm what these days is called a fanatical pinko (formerly known as an Eisenhower Republican).
You can always count on New Labour to stick up for the 99%. Ignore details like Blair making millions from JP Morgan Chase. He had to find some job after being PM, right?
Remind me why class warfare is alive and well and why everyone hates the government so fucking much?
Because a key tactic in class warfare is the 0.01% getting the government to do their bidding.
I think a better toilet-related analogy for slow intake and fast discharge would be someone at an all-you-can-eat taco buffet.
That's nothing. Think of a kid at a U-Pick-Em tomato farm, where they eat more than they put in the basket. I can say from personal experience that those are great places to take kids, but do watch their intake.
What I want to know is where did she get access to technology that could operate on the "nanoscale" as well as fabrication equipment, this stuff isn't exactly commonplace or cheap. Although it would be great if it was in every school.
High school students working at this level often (and fortunately) get access to university labs. Typically via a faculty "sponsor" for someone who is very promising.
Anyone remember the 1980's? Remember how the CMOS RAM on your PC's motherboard used to be powered by super capacitors before CR20xx batteries became cheap enough? Super capacitors have been around a loooong time.
Computers have been around an even longer time. Would you rather use a current model or one from the 80's? Tech improves even if the names of the devices don't.
So how is it that an eighteen year old girl with no science degree comes up with what PHDed scientist have been looking for for decades?
Don't jump to conclusions or buy too much into the article's hype. She made a capacitor using AFAIK a novel chemical/construction technique, and it works well according to some measures. That's a very impressive feat for a high school student, and she certainly deserves a full ride to her Ph.D. at the university of her choosing. It does not mean it's practical, which could be for any number of reasons. Maybe it's too fragile to be practical, whatever. Hopefully she'll be one of those people looking for a practical solution, or maybe she's smart enough to get a law degree or an MBA and make some money instead of rubbing nickels together as a post-doc.
Way too simple. If it were up to people like you, we'd still be growing our food in the dirt instead of eating synthetic compounds.
in order to get the super high capacitance the "plates" of the capacitor must be microscopically close together which limits the voltage at which they can operate to typically 2.5V. ... If this student managed to make a supercapacitor that operates at 5V or higher in the same physical volume as current technology 2.5V parts
If you could make a 5V supercap with given capacitance, which had 2x the volume of a 2.5V cap w/ the same capacitance, you'd be ahead of the game since you'd have 4x the energy storage in 2x the volume (E=1/2CV^2). I think a more accurate way of stating the point you're making is that current supercap construction doesn't give you enough flexibility to trade off C vs. Vmax, else you'd go for higher V and lower C, assuming that CV/volume remains constant.
I don't think the discharge curve is as much of problem as you make out in extracting as much energy in the cap as you can. Let's say the cap feeds a DC:DC which can take a 4:1 input voltage range (well within current tech). Then if you have a cap which can hold E1=1/2*C*V1^2, but you can only extract energy to the point where V2=V1/4, you'd still get E3=1/2*C*(V1^2-V2^2), which is 1-(1/4)^2=0.9375, or about 94% of the total energy stored in the cap.
At 5-10 mA, the power draw of LED is comparable to that of an idle phone, that powers only the receive circuitry.
Which is ideal if you're trying to demonstrate that the self-leakage of the capacitor is not a serious impediment, since the self-leakage is a greater issue when the cell phone's power consumption is less.
He means well, he realized everyone is not smart enough to think for themselves.
Probably why he decided to make himself Mayor-for-Life, since not everyone is smart enough to select a well-meaning mayor.
The more I hear about things like this and other interesting "wildlife" problems in the warmer parts of the country, the more I'm glad I live where it snows.
In the first place, you're critiquing a book you haven't even read ...
Are we talking about science or literature? It may be a wonderfully written book, but we've learned a few things since 1859.
you have huge blind spots to your own ignorance. For example, your criticism of Darwin (not ruling out the inheritance of acquired traits) brought a smile to my lips, considering some recent studies.
Again, not enough detail to be anything other than a meaningless sneer. Since this has already gone back and forth several times, the obvious conclusion is that you are unable to make an intelligent counter-argument.
Have you even read Origin of Species?
Of course not, which should have been abundantly clear from my original post. Why would I waste my time on something that's been relegated to a historical curiosity? I doubt many biologists in the last 50-100 years have read it either.
P.S. I haven't read Principia Mathematica either.
You don't seem to understand what you are talking about.
How's that? In the absence of any detail, such a retort is meaningless, even childish. More importantly, why can't you address any of the points I raised?
I guess you're not interested in some of the more exotic varieties.