Fascism would involve a government being an absolute authority, ruled by the decisions of a select few people without input from the public.
No, not necessarily fascism, that would be simply despotism/oppressive - other political regimes exposed it as well without being fascist (see the "In Russia..." series). Not that the ideas/principles such regimes make use to justify the oppression would make difference to the life of the ruled.
Accepting that a government has the authority to investigate threats is not fascism. It's the acceptance of the rule of law.
I'd rather call it cowardliness. As every human creation, every law has limits - I haven't seen any law that can be applied as it is in all and every situation that the bitch called everyday life would come up with. Put the law above the sky, fail to exercise a proper control on the law (even if challenging it at times, if required) and one will get pretty soon into Pisso's justice.
when they sorted more than one terabyte of data (1,000 gigabytes or 1 million megabytes) in just 60 seconds.
Each node is a commodity server with two quad-core processors, 24 gigabytes (GB) memory and sixteen 500 GB disks
Ok, let's do the math.
52 computers X 24 GB RAM each = 1248 GB. Letting aside the RAM taken by OS, that's roughly 1 TB of RAM to dedicate for the sorting.
Le'me guess: the main difficulty was to partition the data and perform a merging of the in-memory sorted partitions?
(of course I'm posting before reading the details of the method they used, it is/. after all. I guess I even merit a price for the weirdness of RTFA article before posting)
You're right. 10 mils kWh/year.
Meaning 1 mil at EU 0.1/kWh. Minus operational costs, will take more than 60 years to pay back at the current level of prices.
30 square kilometers of land for 5 megawatts output? To me that doesn't seem very viable...there's single wind turbines with more output than that.
30000 sqm does not make 30 sq km. Let's try some computations of achieved efficiency:
Input - going maximal here. Solar energy flux - 1.44 kW/sqm (ignore absorption in atmosphere). Thus total input= 43.2 MW. Say it for 10 hours/day = 432 MWh
output - 5 MW for 24 hours=120 MWh
Minimal modelled efficiency: 27%. - I'd say definitely a decent efficiency.
Can they improve? Keeping into account the last step of energy transformation (thermal->electric) operates between say 825 K (molten salt) and 400 K (water at 120 C - moving the turbines) and assuming a perfect Carnot cycle, the maximum efficiency achievable would be lower than 52%.
Euro 60M is about 50 years payback at that rate. Or 25 years if it's 20c/kWH.
As the plant buffers the energy to use it at night, I'd be inclined to use a 24 hours/day * 5 MW.
Assuming that all the other calculations are correct, this would mean approx 21 years for the payback at 10c/kWh, or 10.5 years at 20c/kWh.
Therein lies the problem. The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information. They still consider it private. This is partially a lack of understand of the technology, and partially because it does not occur to most people that anyone else might try to snoop.
I don't see how the lack of understanding would make the broadcasted information less public.
Does a blind person have an excuse on "I cannot see myself" if, getting naked in public places, would be considered offensive?
Could a deaf person ask anyone else "Don't hear what I'm saying, because I myself cannot hear"?
... owing to China 867.7 billions in May 2010, US will need it (hmmm... think what would happen if China would start dumping US bonds just for the fun of "raising some money to pay for IP breaches").
"What we really want is a map of above-ground biomass, and the height map helps get us there," said Richard Houghton, an expert in terrestrial ecosystem science.
How's the height of the forest relevant to the storage and processing carbon? (not saying that is not relevant. Just asking how is relevant)
Like what? Grasses in savannah/prairies/outback-bushland doesn't store/process carbon?
Aren't you confusing two distinct notions here? Like running the show and predicting how the show will evolve (aka modelling)?
What's the difference between your suggestion and what just happened?
You should always know the current water level.
Yes. The reservoir is currently full - because is has zero capacity. Damn'd cheap to build and maintain too.
If you know the mean and maximum pump rates as well,
Yeap. Mean/maximum pump rate: an infinite number of lakes per second (since the lake has zero capacity, I need no time to fill it in)
then you can set a computer to fan the blades on the windmills,
I just received the massage "Fan the blades, we can't take any more water in, nor can we transport the entire energy by our grid"
I guess the above follows your predictions step by step. Isn't it wonderful how predictable everything is? How come this piece of news made it on/.? Everybody know that predictable is boring and boring qualifies for "slownewsday" or just plain "stupid".
BTW, maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the grid has been modelled before building/laying it, to plan/design it for a certain energy transport capacity. Too bad the unpredictability of the storm passed over the assumption set injected as input in the initial modelling/design.
Pumping water with wind energy insures you can use wind energy as a baseline power supply (although it's actually hydro energy that achieves it). You lose some efficiency in raw power output,
I didn't say that balancing the input/output and buffering is a bad idea.
I only said that if the energy is needed in the grid, you should deliver it directly instead of storing it in water towers.
Maybe I took wrong your first post when you say taking this idea a step further for local power generation: Why convert to electricity in the first place?: it looked to me as you suggested to always store it as hydro - if that's indeed what you were saying, my argument was against "always" which should be replaced with "when in excess".
Mitigating that problem by reducing efficiency is a trade-off that can really help renewable energy become more mainstream and reduce our dependence on fossil fuel
So, reducing the efficiency plus investing in a hydro buffer does make the energy become mainstream? Something is wrong in my world which, like/agree with it or not, is currently driven by prices. Until the freaking "price on carbon" is not injected into the world's economy (in no matter how: "trade-able emission quota", "penalties for extra emission", etc) I don't think this is going to happen.
Other than that, even buffering an unpredictable input it is not without technical difficulties:
a. in your example, to store the excess in Norway lakes, you need a cable that's currently the wonder of submersible cables. And TFA was saying "the grid is the bottleneck, otherwise the CA people would be happy to suck the energy in". If you need to lay a line to the appropriate lake and build a hydro on it, wouldn't it be cheaper to just enhance the current grid which acts as a bottleneck?
b. what if you don't have enough water around to raise in the tower/lake? The "buffering" solution will still be valid, except that hydro is not the only buffer possible
c. what if the lake you use doesn't have enough capacity for the excess you record? What makes more economic sense: invest in a "bigger lake" or just let the excess go?
I thought due to the sporadic nature of renewables that few of them are plugged directly into the power grid and instead the energy is used to, for example, pump water from a lower storage tank/lake into a higher one? That way they know exactly how much power will be generated by the release of the water and it is entirely predictable.
One thing that you won't be able to predict is when the tank/lake will be so full you can't pump in it any more.
I guess I'm trying to say that: what is unpredictable will stay unpredictable (no matter how many buffers you use to cushion against values you cannot handle).
Dutch wind energy is currently being stored in Norwegian lakes (because here it's flat, and they have mountain lakes). Apparently the advantage was worth laying the worlds longest underwater power line between nations.
With my emphasis on the quote above, I reckon that if the Oregon->California electrical lines would be of the same quality, then we wouldn't see TFA on/., would we?
But taking this idea a step further for local power generation: Why convert to electricity in the first place? If you pump water to a higher place [etc.]
Now, as a Dutch you should now that the Dutch windmills were used initially to pump water out, not to generate the electricity.
Where is this relevant? If your main purpose is to generate electricity, then each step of transforming energy in different forms will cost you at the bottom line (efficiency goes down). I'm not saying that transforming wind (kinetic) energy in water accumulation (potential energy) is stupid if you have excess of wind energy But if you don't have excess, then direct transformation into electric energy will offer you the best return.
So this looks like a really cool thing that MS did, so I'm going to wait in wide eyed anticipation at how the slashdot community is going to trash it because it's from Microsoft and not Google (or at least be more overly critical of it). I do hope I'm wrong though.
Hope, huh? Niiice, juuuiiiicy!
Speaking of my hopes, I had hoped for years to see a better OS from MS, and more fair play towards FOSS (and I must admit that MS mimicked them quite swell lately). The coolness of the sky (seen in silverlight) doesn't bring me any benefits, thus the efficiency of this coolness... well... is sooo cool is that's close to 0K. (how's that for a trashing:) ).
To be fair: I'm equally happy I'm living in a "year of Linux on desktop" for quite a some years - looks like a "perpetual year" now.
The question is whether your system can work fast enough to actually capture more particles that way?
This is where the analogy with the TatsLotto serves. Either way: play always you favourite numbers (keep thye beam in the same position) or change them from one game to the other (sweep the sky), the probability to win is the same if you play a single ticket (using a narrow beam).
Granted, if you know a region where is more probable to find what you are looking for, the analogy with Lotto stops. But also exploring only in a certain region will make you prone to miss other debris that may knock down a satellite of your customers.
I reckon that using a slightly divergent beam (even better, a divergence controlled one) would improve the chances better than narrow-beam sky-sweeping method (not that the two methods are exclusive).
Just point the beam in a single direction and look for reflections. Once you start picking up the same particles over and oevr just redirect the beam slightly. Either way you collect a stream of data.
Unless you fan out the laser beam (and loose intensity), I reckon the probability to capture something is lower than winning the Tats Lotto - which wouldn't make a good business case. Should be something more sophisticated than what you suggest.
It seems to me the relative velocities would be small.
If the trajectories are sort-of aligned, which doesn't need to be. I think you can imagine two bodies orbiting in opposite senses or on polar/equatorial orbits: the problem of resolving the relative velocity is left as a homework.
Electro Optic Systems' laser technology, with the help of a federal government grant, will enable the Mount Stromlo observatory in Canberra to track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA.
But no. Its just a better way to detect the particles.
Huh? Not event that, mate, for the time being is manual. From TFA:
"It's still a manually operated system, so this grant will transition us to commercial operation and automate that whole system so it can actually run unattended," Smith said.
Yeah, sure I imagine that there is actually some automation in place, but... if left only to imagination... is also funny to imagine a person using a laser pointer to search/detect junk in space (TFA doesn't say a word how they a conducting the search/tracking using the laser!)
Setting these mosquitoes up in the wild assumes they will 'take over' the role of existing mosquitoes within the environment. What advantage does being malaria-free have to these mosquitoes? If none, will they survive in the wild? (Or make a big enough dent in the population to matter). Also, what happens when these mosquitoes mate with existing mosquitoes?
Hey, of course the above are legitimate questions. Tell you what:
a. more funds need to be provided to the creators of the malaria-proof mosquitoes (and, maybe we will have the answer. But,again, maybe not...)
b. it is not necessarily that the malaria-proof mosquitoes would be the only solution to keep malaria at bay (i.e. may not be the most effective way to spend the money)
c. even more, it doesn't come immediately that eliminating malaria is a good thing - what if the presence of malaria keeps (by competition) other worse nasties from surfacing?
I guess what I'm trying to point out is: research is a bitch... an expensive one... personally, I love it, but I'm not that stupid to trust it
A bill that kills NASA entirely would be a better direction for space research and the United States.
Why? With what would you replace NASA so that the space research can continue?
Until we can structure a space organization that won't be a political football...
Oh, I see... So, replacing NASA is not because of the research it does, but because is done in a "political football" fashion? If this is the problem, then why demolish demolish the stadium (i.e. NASA) if you actually blame the game played on the stadium?
It would be a constant physical reminder of a flaw.
I think it is most likely in Apple's best interest to get new phones out to people with a redesigned antenna solution.
Paradoxically, it may be that this would work to the user's advantage.
To elaborate: what better statement of coolness for a user to stay: I am the owner of one of the first iPhone4-es. You know which, isn't it? The ones that have the grip-of-death glitch, you moron!
Continuing on the same line, I cannot exclude an "emergent market for posers" - "Buy a bumper to stay cool. Doesn't matter if you don't need it!". Funny enough - I don't think Apple would be able to stop such a market. Sort of: live by fashion, die by fashion.
Choosing the former option when the latter would be possible would result in consumers deciding to choose other providers where possible, so there is significant incentive to filter pirate traffic.
False dichotomy, there are other solutions.
Here's one as an example: the BIG ISP provides connection to an end-user not as a "consumer" but in a "retail/business-to-business" mode - like. every "Internet wizard of the family" will act as "the tiny ISP network admin". The result? An explosion of tiny-ISP-es to track/collect the royalty from. Under this conditions, either:
a. the government puts lots of red-tape to who can become an ISP (to limit the ISP numbers and make the tracking manageable). If the people are determined to do it anyway, then the gov will have to increase the number of bureaucrats to process the applications - which means putting the "copyright nazi organisations" on collision course with the government (instead with the ISP); or
b. choose to let the explosion of tiny-ISP happen and the result is no better than today.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascism would involve a government being an absolute authority, ruled by the decisions of a select few people without input from the public.
No, not necessarily fascism, that would be simply despotism/oppressive - other political regimes exposed it as well without being fascist (see the "In Russia..." series). Not that the ideas/principles such regimes make use to justify the oppression would make difference to the life of the ruled.
Accepting that a government has the authority to investigate threats is not fascism. It's the acceptance of the rule of law.
I'd rather call it cowardliness. As every human creation, every law has limits - I haven't seen any law that can be applied as it is in all and every situation that the bitch called everyday life would come up with. Put the law above the sky, fail to exercise a proper control on the law (even if challenging it at times, if required) and one will get pretty soon into Pisso's justice.
I wish they'd open a franchise here in California.
For the pizza, for the possibility to get the phone number of the celebs in Hollywood or for both?
when they sorted more than one terabyte of data (1,000 gigabytes or 1 million megabytes) in just 60 seconds.
Each node is a commodity server with two quad-core processors, 24 gigabytes (GB) memory and sixteen 500 GB disks
Ok, let's do the math. 52 computers X 24 GB RAM each = 1248 GB. Letting aside the RAM taken by OS, that's roughly 1 TB of RAM to dedicate for the sorting.
Le'me guess: the main difficulty was to partition the data and perform a merging of the in-memory sorted partitions?
(of course I'm posting before reading the details of the method they used, it is /. after all. I guess I even merit a price for the weirdness of RTFA article before posting)
At least in space, nobody will be able to hear your vuvuzela.
If not in space, what about in time? Maybe if you listen to the space long enough, you'd be able to hear them even now?
You're right. 10 mils kWh/year. Meaning 1 mil at EU 0.1/kWh. Minus operational costs, will take more than 60 years to pay back at the current level of prices.
30 square kilometers of land for 5 megawatts output? To me that doesn't seem very viable...there's single wind turbines with more output than that.
30000 sqm does not make 30 sq km. Let's try some computations of achieved efficiency:
Minimal modelled efficiency: 27%. - I'd say definitely a decent efficiency.
Can they improve? Keeping into account the last step of energy transformation (thermal->electric) operates between say 825 K (molten salt) and 400 K (water at 120 C - moving the turbines) and assuming a perfect Carnot cycle, the maximum efficiency achievable would be lower than 52%.
The article isn't specific about *what* salts they're using,
This one does: the same as Solar One/Two - a mix of sodium/potassium nitrate.
Euro 60M is about 50 years payback at that rate. Or 25 years if it's 20c/kWH.
As the plant buffers the energy to use it at night, I'd be inclined to use a 24 hours/day * 5 MW.
Assuming that all the other calculations are correct, this would mean approx 21 years for the payback at 10c/kWh, or 10.5 years at 20c/kWh.
Therein lies the problem. The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information. They still consider it private. This is partially a lack of understand of the technology, and partially because it does not occur to most people that anyone else might try to snoop.
I don't see how the lack of understanding would make the broadcasted information less public.
Does a blind person have an excuse on "I cannot see myself" if, getting naked in public places, would be considered offensive?
Could a deaf person ask anyone else "Don't hear what I'm saying, because I myself cannot hear"?
... owing to China 867.7 billions in May 2010, US will need it (hmmm... think what would happen if China would start dumping US bonds just for the fun of "raising some money to pay for IP breaches").
"What we really want is a map of above-ground biomass, and the height map helps get us there," said Richard Houghton, an expert in terrestrial ecosystem science.
How's the height of the forest relevant to the storage and processing carbon? (not saying that is not relevant. Just asking how is relevant)
Like what? Grasses in savannah/prairies/outback-bushland doesn't store/process carbon?
How is that unpredictable?
Aren't you confusing two distinct notions here? Like running the show and predicting how the show will evolve (aka modelling)?
What's the difference between your suggestion and what just happened?
You should always know the current water level.
Yes. The reservoir is currently full - because is has zero capacity. Damn'd cheap to build and maintain too.
If you know the mean and maximum pump rates as well,
Yeap. Mean/maximum pump rate: an infinite number of lakes per second (since the lake has zero capacity, I need no time to fill it in)
then you can set a computer to fan the blades on the windmills,
I just received the massage "Fan the blades, we can't take any more water in, nor can we transport the entire energy by our grid"
I guess the above follows your predictions step by step. Isn't it wonderful how predictable everything is? How come this piece of news made it on /.? Everybody know that predictable is boring and boring qualifies for "slownewsday" or just plain "stupid".
BTW, maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the grid has been modelled before building/laying it, to plan/design it for a certain energy transport capacity. Too bad the unpredictability of the storm passed over the assumption set injected as input in the initial modelling/design.
Pumping water with wind energy insures you can use wind energy as a baseline power supply (although it's actually hydro energy that achieves it). You lose some efficiency in raw power output,
I didn't say that balancing the input/output and buffering is a bad idea.
I only said that if the energy is needed in the grid, you should deliver it directly instead of storing it in water towers.
Maybe I took wrong your first post when you say taking this idea a step further for local power generation: Why convert to electricity in the first place?: it looked to me as you suggested to always store it as hydro - if that's indeed what you were saying, my argument was against "always" which should be replaced with "when in excess".
Mitigating that problem by reducing efficiency is a trade-off that can really help renewable energy become more mainstream and reduce our dependence on fossil fuel
So, reducing the efficiency plus investing in a hydro buffer does make the energy become mainstream? Something is wrong in my world which, like/agree with it or not, is currently driven by prices. Until the freaking "price on carbon" is not injected into the world's economy (in no matter how: "trade-able emission quota", "penalties for extra emission", etc) I don't think this is going to happen.
Other than that, even buffering an unpredictable input it is not without technical difficulties:
a. in your example, to store the excess in Norway lakes, you need a cable that's currently the wonder of submersible cables. And TFA was saying "the grid is the bottleneck, otherwise the CA people would be happy to suck the energy in". If you need to lay a line to the appropriate lake and build a hydro on it, wouldn't it be cheaper to just enhance the current grid which acts as a bottleneck?
b. what if you don't have enough water around to raise in the tower/lake? The "buffering" solution will still be valid, except that hydro is not the only buffer possible
c. what if the lake you use doesn't have enough capacity for the excess you record? What makes more economic sense: invest in a "bigger lake" or just let the excess go?
I thought due to the sporadic nature of renewables that few of them are plugged directly into the power grid and instead the energy is used to, for example, pump water from a lower storage tank/lake into a higher one? That way they know exactly how much power will be generated by the release of the water and it is entirely predictable.
One thing that you won't be able to predict is when the tank/lake will be so full you can't pump in it any more.
I guess I'm trying to say that: what is unpredictable will stay unpredictable (no matter how many buffers you use to cushion against values you cannot handle).
Dutch wind energy is currently being stored in Norwegian lakes (because here it's flat, and they have mountain lakes). Apparently the advantage was worth laying the worlds longest underwater power line between nations.
With my emphasis on the quote above, I reckon that if the Oregon->California electrical lines would be of the same quality, then we wouldn't see TFA on /., would we?
But taking this idea a step further for local power generation: Why convert to electricity in the first place? If you pump water to a higher place [etc.]
Now, as a Dutch you should now that the Dutch windmills were used initially to pump water out, not to generate the electricity.
Where is this relevant? If your main purpose is to generate electricity, then each step of transforming energy in different forms will cost you at the bottom line (efficiency goes down). I'm not saying that transforming wind (kinetic) energy in water accumulation (potential energy) is stupid if you have excess of wind energy But if you don't have excess, then direct transformation into electric energy will offer you the best return.
So this looks like a really cool thing that MS did, so I'm going to wait in wide eyed anticipation at how the slashdot community is going to trash it because it's from Microsoft and not Google (or at least be more overly critical of it). I do hope I'm wrong though.
Hope, huh? Niiice, juuuiiiicy! :) ).
Speaking of my hopes, I had hoped for years to see a better OS from MS, and more fair play towards FOSS (and I must admit that MS mimicked them quite swell lately). The coolness of the sky (seen in silverlight) doesn't bring me any benefits, thus the efficiency of this coolness... well... is sooo cool is that's close to 0K. (how's that for a trashing
To be fair: I'm equally happy I'm living in a "year of Linux on desktop" for quite a some years - looks like a "perpetual year" now.
Yes, but being 2.5 TB/sec it will be only for a second.
The question is whether your system can work fast enough to actually capture more particles that way?
This is where the analogy with the TatsLotto serves. Either way: play always you favourite numbers (keep thye beam in the same position) or change them from one game to the other (sweep the sky), the probability to win is the same if you play a single ticket (using a narrow beam).
Granted, if you know a region where is more probable to find what you are looking for, the analogy with Lotto stops. But also exploring only in a certain region will make you prone to miss other debris that may knock down a satellite of your customers.
I reckon that using a slightly divergent beam (even better, a divergence controlled one) would improve the chances better than narrow-beam sky-sweeping method (not that the two methods are exclusive).
Just point the beam in a single direction and look for reflections. Once you start picking up the same particles over and oevr just redirect the beam slightly. Either way you collect a stream of data.
Unless you fan out the laser beam (and loose intensity), I reckon the probability to capture something is lower than winning the Tats Lotto - which wouldn't make a good business case. Should be something more sophisticated than what you suggest.
It seems to me the relative velocities would be small.
If the trajectories are sort-of aligned, which doesn't need to be. I think you can imagine two bodies orbiting in opposite senses or on polar/equatorial orbits: the problem of resolving the relative velocity is left as a homework.
Electro Optic Systems' laser technology, with the help of a federal government grant, will enable the Mount Stromlo observatory in Canberra to track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA.
But no. Its just a better way to detect the particles.
Huh? Not event that, mate, for the time being is manual. From TFA:
"It's still a manually operated system, so this grant will transition us to commercial operation and automate that whole system so it can actually run unattended," Smith said.
Yeah, sure I imagine that there is actually some automation in place, but... if left only to imagination... is also funny to imagine a person using a laser pointer to search/detect junk in space (TFA doesn't say a word how they a conducting the search/tracking using the laser!)
Setting these mosquitoes up in the wild assumes they will 'take over' the role of existing mosquitoes within the environment. What advantage does being malaria-free have to these mosquitoes? If none, will they survive in the wild? (Or make a big enough dent in the population to matter). Also, what happens when these mosquitoes mate with existing mosquitoes?
Hey, of course the above are legitimate questions. Tell you what:
a. more funds need to be provided to the creators of the malaria-proof mosquitoes (and, maybe we will have the answer. But,again, maybe not...)
b. it is not necessarily that the malaria-proof mosquitoes would be the only solution to keep malaria at bay (i.e. may not be the most effective way to spend the money)
c. even more, it doesn't come immediately that eliminating malaria is a good thing - what if the presence of malaria keeps (by competition) other worse nasties from surfacing?
I guess what I'm trying to point out is: research is a bitch... an expensive one... personally, I love it, but I'm not that stupid to trust it
A bill that kills NASA entirely would be a better direction for space research and the United States.
Why? With what would you replace NASA so that the space research can continue?
Until we can structure a space organization that won't be a political football...
Oh, I see... So, replacing NASA is not because of the research it does, but because is done in a "political football" fashion?
If this is the problem, then why demolish demolish the stadium (i.e. NASA) if you actually blame the game played on the stadium?
It would be a constant physical reminder of a flaw.
I think it is most likely in Apple's best interest to get new phones out to people with a redesigned antenna solution.
Paradoxically, it may be that this would work to the user's advantage.
To elaborate: what better statement of coolness for a user to stay:
I am the owner of one of the first iPhone4-es. You know which, isn't it? The ones that have the grip-of-death glitch, you moron!
Continuing on the same line, I cannot exclude an "emergent market for posers" - "Buy a bumper to stay cool. Doesn't matter if you don't need it!". Funny enough - I don't think Apple would be able to stop such a market.
Sort of: live by fashion, die by fashion.
Choosing the former option when the latter would be possible would result in consumers deciding to choose other providers where possible, so there is significant incentive to filter pirate traffic.
False dichotomy, there are other solutions.
Here's one as an example: the BIG ISP provides connection to an end-user not as a "consumer" but in a "retail/business-to-business" mode - like. every "Internet wizard of the family" will act as "the tiny ISP network admin". The result? An explosion of tiny-ISP-es to track/collect the royalty from. Under this conditions, either:
a. the government puts lots of red-tape to who can become an ISP (to limit the ISP numbers and make the tracking manageable). If the people are determined to do it anyway, then the gov will have to increase the number of bureaucrats to process the applications - which means putting the "copyright nazi organisations" on collision course with the government (instead with the ISP); or
b. choose to let the explosion of tiny-ISP happen and the result is no better than today.