... but lack of a mechanism to capture and feed the excess energy back into the device, which was not a goal of the experiment.
What the fuck?
That should be the *ENTIRE* point of any practical fusion experiment, for chrissake.
I mean, who the fuck cares if you can make fusion happen? Nukes can cause fusion too... the whole point would be to actually *harness* it, because if you can't, then you haven't accomplished anything except perhaps made something akin to extremely expensive pyrotechnics.
If you are trying to design a self-sustaining power generation system, you should feed back just enough of the power extracted to maintain it, and anything left over is basically the useful power it generates.
The Chinese research team said they were able to achieve the record temperature through the use of various new techniques in heating and controlling the plasma.... This temperature is the minimum required to maintain a fusion reaction that produces more power than it takes to run.
Oh, really?
... but could only maintain the state for around 10 seconds.
Apparently not. If it were, it would be maintained, wouldn't it?
I think it will be a lot more than 5 years before the absolutely massive amount of cooling to near absolute zero required for quantum computing to work will be within practical reach of the average consumer.
For what it's worth, my wife blames this particular "victim" as well...
But on the matter of "vicim" blaming... here's an analogy:
If I leave my office at the end of the day with some important papers in the recycle bin for whatever reason, I can't exactly go and blame the janitorial department the next morning when I come into work for throwing them out because I didn't have to put them there in the first place, and they had no way to know ahead of time that they were important. I'm the one who suffers, but it's my own fault for being lazy and not putting the papers in a more secure location.
Adobe didn't go and maliciously try and delete files that they had any reasonable way of knowing were important or valuable. It's unfortunate, of course, but it is entirely this person's fault alone for the data loss
But the same wouldn't stop a city from rescinding its offer when Amazon started changing what it was offering first. I'm disappointed that more cities didn't have the balls to call Amazon on this shameless bait and switch tactic and make them have to settle for not getting anything from anyone, or certainly a whole lot less.
Amazon asks if it can get the same incentives if it only brings half the promised jobs. If the city says no, it is eliminated.
And nothing would actually be lost, since the headquarters weren't actually there yet anyways... too bad these cities didn't have the balls to stand up and say no, which would have forced Amazon into settling for a lot less from cities that might not have otherwise been in the running.
The underlying problem is still not overpopulation, but bad resource management and usage. The population is going to rise to an asymptote of just over 10billion people regardless of anything you or I might do.
You don't need to ask people to have fewer children. That happens essentially automatically over the course of a few generations with continued access to improved education and health care.
f people aren't willing to pay the higher prices they'll go without...
That works for certain classes of luxury goods, but no so well for mainstream consumer products. Because of the lack of domestic supply as an alternative, people will just begrudgingly pay more, and get less value for their money.
So the theory goes.... but for mainstream consumer products like PC's, the demand wouldn't fall enough... and any tariff sufficiently high to actually discourage the demand enough to make a difference would only result in the creation of a black market that would be large enough to make up that difference, so no.... you can't win.
Also, labor is cheaper in China not just because of poorer working standards but because the supply of labor in China is more than triple that of the USA... and simply by virtue of that oversupply of labor, the price of it is inherently forced down.
If the USA had a population of more than a billion people, labor in the USA would be pretty cheap too.
No amount of tariffs will change that economic reality.
Only because any tariff that might otherwise be sufficient to accomplish it would only result in a domestic black market being created to meet the demand.
The theory goes that imposing tariffs on foreign goods would decrease domestic demand for that foreign good, and thereby impose economic pressure on the foreign supplier, indirectly punishing them that way.
This actually can work if the foreign demand for the product is already quite low, or at least the exception and not the rule in the first place (ie, if the country already domestically meets all or virtuall all of its own needs for the product they want to impose tariffs on), but for mainstream consumer products like PC's where domestic production doesn't come anywhere near competitive levels, that doesn't work as well, because the domestic demand for these products is high enough that consumers will simply (however begrudgingly) ultimately pay that increased cost, and the actual demand will drop only very marginally... so the bottom line always ends up like you said.
I would rate the likelihood that this will somehow create sufficient pressure to actually increase domestic production capacity enough that foreign demand would actually start to drop off significantly in accordance with the theory, to be somewhere in the vicinity of the same likelihood as our sun spontaneously evaporating in the same time scale.
(But more than likely some enterprising individual will setup shop in Mexico or Canada; and import the goods from China, then just ship them across the border to avoid the tariff.)
That doesn't work.... all that does is subject that country to tariffs, effectively negating free trade.
And it's not like the current US administration hasn't already shown that they are willing to do this... so no, all it means is more expensive goods for everybody. The market will adapt... because it's still cheaper than building new domestic factories.
Or, you may realize that it's not a problem... the 3rd derivative of world population has been negative for some time now, (since at least the mid 1960's). We now are clearly within the nearly linear portion of a logistic growth curve, and can fairly safely project that the world's population will be largely stable at a little more than 10b or so, and that it should *never* exceed 11billion.
Interesting point of fact, because the production capacity increases as the number of people grows, there is no reason to think that this size population will result in any worse shortages for segments of the world population than we currently have... the problems, if any, will be caused by limitations in distribution capacity rather than the raw ability to produce what people need.
Handling short days is fine... not having exposure to sunlight early enough in the day that your body's ability to make melatonin is limited by the time one goes to sleep is not... not for an extended period like 2+ months, which is what we'd be looking at in the northernmost states in the winter if you pushed the clocks ahead by an hour in those areas.
There is an established corellation between exposure to daylight before one starts their workday and the body's ability to produce melatonin. This in turn helps regulate a person's circadian rhythm, and will affect how much restful sleep one can get during the night.
Your "body clock" is not your master.
Unfortunately, evolution was probably not paying too much attention to what people might happen to want... we evolved to function in daylight hours, and we experience direct benefits when we adapt our behavior to reflect that evolution.
An hour change in the morning won't affect humans in the slightest.
Not in the summer, no... the sun rises early enough with respect to when people are working that it's not an issue... it's probably also not a problem in California, as the earliest the sun rises in even the northernmost tip of California is still not long after 7AM right now, and that's only for a period of about 3 weeks, not the bulk of winter, so pushing sunrise to just after 8am there wouldn't have the same detrimental effect it would have on the northernmost states, where throughout December and January, pushing sunrise an hour later would be a much bigger deal.
The body's ability to deviate from what we are evolved to do is limited. and in general, would not be sustainable for many people for 2 whole months. If Washington adopts this, it is a guarantee there will be a dramatic uptick in health issues related to inadequate sunlight exposure around Christmastime - far in excess of what is already typical in the winter right now. Currently, that's only 1% of the population, but it is likely that part of the reason that percentage is so low is because of the fact that the sun is still generally above the horizon by the time most people are currently going to or perhaps even just arriving to work, even in the very depths of winter. Change that, and you are in for a whole different kind of ball game.
No, I hadn't previously heard of Ontario in Oregon... the only Ontario I knew of before this was the existence of Ontario, in Canada... which is on Eastern Standard Time, and of course absolutely nowhere near Oregon.
And I really donâ(TM)t give a ratâ(TM)s patooie about Melatonin or any of that stuff. Thatâ(TM)s really not a factor to me.
And, as I said elsewhere, human evolution is not determined by what you, or even a large group of persons might happen to prefer, and you are further suggesting that what is supposedly unimportant to you should not matter to anyone else either. The effects on daylight expsosure early in the day on melatonin production, and in turn the impact that this has on a person's circadian rhythm and sleep cycles are well documented. My objections to this having DST in the winter in northern areas amount first and last to what is ultimately an issue that is in the best interests of long term public health.
Slashdot Mirror
What the fuck?
That should be the *ENTIRE* point of any practical fusion experiment, for chrissake.
I mean, who the fuck cares if you can make fusion happen? Nukes can cause fusion too... the whole point would be to actually *harness* it, because if you can't, then you haven't accomplished anything except perhaps made something akin to extremely expensive pyrotechnics.
If you are trying to design a self-sustaining power generation system, you should feed back just enough of the power extracted to maintain it, and anything left over is basically the useful power it generates.
Oh, really?
Apparently not. If it were, it would be maintained, wouldn't it?
I think you are still overestimating how far QC will be along in 5 years...
I think it will be a lot more than 5 years before the absolutely massive amount of cooling to near absolute zero required for quantum computing to work will be within practical reach of the average consumer.
For what it's worth, my wife blames this particular "victim" as well...
But on the matter of "vicim" blaming... here's an analogy:
If I leave my office at the end of the day with some important papers in the recycle bin for whatever reason, I can't exactly go and blame the janitorial department the next morning when I come into work for throwing them out because I didn't have to put them there in the first place, and they had no way to know ahead of time that they were important. I'm the one who suffers, but it's my own fault for being lazy and not putting the papers in a more secure location.
Adobe didn't go and maliciously try and delete files that they had any reasonable way of knowing were important or valuable. It's unfortunate, of course, but it is entirely this person's fault alone for the data loss
Yes, because the "victim" was entirely unintended, and the consequence of deleted files would have been trivial to prevent.
[nt]
A lawsuit, obviously.
But the same wouldn't stop a city from rescinding its offer when Amazon started changing what it was offering first. I'm disappointed that more cities didn't have the balls to call Amazon on this shameless bait and switch tactic and make them have to settle for not getting anything from anyone, or certainly a whole lot less.
And nothing would actually be lost, since the headquarters weren't actually there yet anyways... too bad these cities didn't have the balls to stand up and say no, which would have forced Amazon into settling for a lot less from cities that might not have otherwise been in the running.
Bait and switch
Can't the cities rescind their offers since Amazon isn't fulfilling it's end of the deal?
Or are these cities willing to settle for a shared prize?
The underlying problem is still not overpopulation, but bad resource management and usage. The population is going to rise to an asymptote of just over 10billion people regardless of anything you or I might do.
Your proclamation of "it's not good enough" is built on the premise of wanting more than one's fair share.... ie, not being "good" in the first place.
The fact is that it *IS* good enough... the fact that it's not what people might necessarily *want* is irrelevant.
You don't need to ask people to have fewer children. That happens essentially automatically over the course of a few generations with continued access to improved education and health care.
That works for certain classes of luxury goods, but no so well for mainstream consumer products. Because of the lack of domestic supply as an alternative, people will just begrudgingly pay more, and get less value for their money.
So the theory goes.... but for mainstream consumer products like PC's, the demand wouldn't fall enough... and any tariff sufficiently high to actually discourage the demand enough to make a difference would only result in the creation of a black market that would be large enough to make up that difference, so no.... you can't win.
Also, labor is cheaper in China not just because of poorer working standards but because the supply of labor in China is more than triple that of the USA... and simply by virtue of that oversupply of labor, the price of it is inherently forced down.
If the USA had a population of more than a billion people, labor in the USA would be pretty cheap too.
Only because any tariff that might otherwise be sufficient to accomplish it would only result in a domestic black market being created to meet the demand.
The theory goes that imposing tariffs on foreign goods would decrease domestic demand for that foreign good, and thereby impose economic pressure on the foreign supplier, indirectly punishing them that way.
This actually can work if the foreign demand for the product is already quite low, or at least the exception and not the rule in the first place (ie, if the country already domestically meets all or virtuall all of its own needs for the product they want to impose tariffs on), but for mainstream consumer products like PC's where domestic production doesn't come anywhere near competitive levels, that doesn't work as well, because the domestic demand for these products is high enough that consumers will simply (however begrudgingly) ultimately pay that increased cost, and the actual demand will drop only very marginally... so the bottom line always ends up like you said.
I would rate the likelihood that this will somehow create sufficient pressure to actually increase domestic production capacity enough that foreign demand would actually start to drop off significantly in accordance with the theory, to be somewhere in the vicinity of the same likelihood as our sun spontaneously evaporating in the same time scale.
That doesn't work.... all that does is subject that country to tariffs, effectively negating free trade.
And it's not like the current US administration hasn't already shown that they are willing to do this... so no, all it means is more expensive goods for everybody. The market will adapt... because it's still cheaper than building new domestic factories.
Perhaps you need to understand the difference between being able supply more than what people need as opposed to being able to supply their greed.
Nobody needs to be poor... but nobody really needs to have orders of magnitude more wealth as anybody else either.
Or, you may realize that it's not a problem... the 3rd derivative of world population has been negative for some time now, (since at least the mid 1960's). We now are clearly within the nearly linear portion of a logistic growth curve, and can fairly safely project that the world's population will be largely stable at a little more than 10b or so, and that it should *never* exceed 11billion.
Interesting point of fact, because the production capacity increases as the number of people grows, there is no reason to think that this size population will result in any worse shortages for segments of the world population than we currently have... the problems, if any, will be caused by limitations in distribution capacity rather than the raw ability to produce what people need.
Handling short days is fine... not having exposure to sunlight early enough in the day that your body's ability to make melatonin is limited by the time one goes to sleep is not... not for an extended period like 2+ months, which is what we'd be looking at in the northernmost states in the winter if you pushed the clocks ahead by an hour in those areas.
Don't the photos have to already *BE* digitized for AI to process them in the first place?
Except that it's not bullshit.
There is an established corellation between exposure to daylight before one starts their workday and the body's ability to produce melatonin. This in turn helps regulate a person's circadian rhythm, and will affect how much restful sleep one can get during the night.
Unfortunately, evolution was probably not paying too much attention to what people might happen to want... we evolved to function in daylight hours, and we experience direct benefits when we adapt our behavior to reflect that evolution.
Not in the summer, no... the sun rises early enough with respect to when people are working that it's not an issue... it's probably also not a problem in California, as the earliest the sun rises in even the northernmost tip of California is still not long after 7AM right now, and that's only for a period of about 3 weeks, not the bulk of winter, so pushing sunrise to just after 8am there wouldn't have the same detrimental effect it would have on the northernmost states, where throughout December and January, pushing sunrise an hour later would be a much bigger deal.
The body's ability to deviate from what we are evolved to do is limited. and in general, would not be sustainable for many people for 2 whole months. If Washington adopts this, it is a guarantee there will be a dramatic uptick in health issues related to inadequate sunlight exposure around Christmastime - far in excess of what is already typical in the winter right now. Currently, that's only 1% of the population, but it is likely that part of the reason that percentage is so low is because of the fact that the sun is still generally above the horizon by the time most people are currently going to or perhaps even just arriving to work, even in the very depths of winter. Change that, and you are in for a whole different kind of ball game.
No, I hadn't previously heard of Ontario in Oregon... the only Ontario I knew of before this was the existence of Ontario, in Canada... which is on Eastern Standard Time, and of course absolutely nowhere near Oregon.
And, as I said elsewhere, human evolution is not determined by what you, or even a large group of persons might happen to prefer, and you are further suggesting that what is supposedly unimportant to you should not matter to anyone else either. The effects on daylight expsosure early in the day on melatonin production, and in turn the impact that this has on a person's circadian rhythm and sleep cycles are well documented. My objections to this having DST in the winter in northern areas amount first and last to what is ultimately an issue that is in the best interests of long term public health.