If they are crooks then why did you vote for them? If you didn't vote for them did you help their opposition or even run for office yourself? As they say; put up or shut up.
If they are crooks do you really think you staring at them will make a difference? Might they just ignore you? If they are truly crooks and they are already planning to break the law do you think that another law will fix the issue? There is an old saying "locks only keep honest people out" which can be extended to "laws are only followed by honest people'. In effect this law make it more difficult for honest people to do their jobs while not effecting the dishonest ones.
You missed the point. The transcripts of all email discussion will become public and in the end the discussion itself will be discussed in public. The public just does not need to be there when they have no input. If there is a dishonest conversation going on it will come out in the last meeting and be dealt with then.
I just love this quote; “Sometimes you have to compromise efficiency for getting the right outcome,” she said. As with many of these kinds of statements "right outcomes" could be more accurately replaced with "outcomes I agree with". I think it is very important to note that there is no allegation that the email conversation contained any coercion or improper behavior or that the actual outcome would have been any different if the conversation was done in public. The plaintiff just did not like the conversation not being "seen". The one interesting point was that a board member's opinion was changed. As with most "news" articles they do not go into what opinion was changed. Perhaps the board member thought a different school should be closed but was convinced otherwise. The outcome didn't change in that a school was closed.
Requiring all interaction between three or more members of an elected body having to be announced and made public is just stupid. Does this mean that any time three members want to get together to discuss things as trivial as the design of a poster it must be a public meeting? Lets just grind all decision making process to a halt. The public votes for people and day to day decisions do not need public input; that is micro-management to the highest degree.
Lets look at a couple of scenarios dealing with a discussion that require research to answer questions that arise during a discussion. The point being that every time a research question comes up discussion stops until re research is done. Say a discussion has 3 of these kinds of questions. By email a discussion like this may only take a couple of days followed by a public meeting where what was discussed is made public. If formal meetings are required the following would have to be taken into account; 1. room availability 2. People availability 3. Requirement for notice It may only be possible to have such a meeting once a week. So instead of a conversation taking a week an a half it will take three weeks. Now do this for every discussion. Email also has big advantages over the spoken word; It can be re-read decreasing misunderstandings. It can be written then edited for clarification. It can be referred to when dealing with facts
To the specific case, I do not see a difference between publishing the email conversations after the fact and sitting in a room while the conversation went on. Observer would have no input into the conversation so their presence would make no difference.The prohibition on using email during a meeting just causes people to go back to passing notes like they did before laptops were available.
Slowing the wheels of government is great if you want to stop something from happening but it is a two edged sword. It also slows implementation of things one wants to happen. Do you want funding to re-build a playground that is becoming a safety hazard? You better plan on a couple of years of "open" meetings. I bet the same people who are complaining about lack of transparency are the same ones complaining about unresponsive and bureaucratic systems. You can't have it both ways. If you insist on open meetings on everything then everything will take longer. All this law means is that people will jump through hoops to stay legal but the decisions will be made the same way.
I always thought patents were about products and not idea. There are too many "gee i think I can make something that does something interesting" and write a vague design. It has never been built and never researched. Cas in point the touch sensitive floor. IBM has not built one but they got the patent anyway. The problem is that no one else can develop it because someone already has the patent even if they never develop it themselves. Ideas are a dime a dozen and should not be patentable.
Here are a few heavy items I sometimes carry and or wear;
20 pound biker jacket
40 pound chainmaille shirt
20 pound chainmaille kilt
backpack
boxes full of chainmaille
heavy suicases.
By wearing/carrying the above items in different combination my weight can vary by a hundred pounds.
This seems like a no brainer on the surface; if water falls on you land it belongs to you. These laws were written before people used personal large scale rain collection. Take a look a little deeper and see what the laws are there to prevent. It is about water rights. In areas where water is precious, like Arizona, water is allocated to different people in different quantities. What would happen if everyone who owned land in a catch basin collected all the water that would normally flow into the local rivers? The rivers would dry up which would mean that fish, land animals, farms and people downriver would get no water. That is the main reason rainwater collection is illegal in several states. Rainwater is a resource to be shared and not hoarded. Some of these laws are being changed to allow small scale (rain barrel size) collection but it takes time to catch up.
There are at least two sets of people in the world; 1. The "keep your hands off" people who want minimal regulations and want to rely on their own intelligence for survival. 2. The "you didn't tell me" people who will blame government for not properly regulating industry and all owing bad thing to happen. They are the one that say things like "It didn't say I couldn't use that cancer causing agricultural product so the company is a fault and I will sue the company and the regulators".
You seem to miss the big question; why is the agricultural product illegal? I just twigged to the idea that by agricultural product you may mean marijuana; if you meant that just say it. I do not agree with it being illegal and that is slowly changing. Just because a product is agricultural does not mean it is OK. A good example of that is the many food recalls due to salmonella contamination. Even vegetables are susceptible to this. Should we have no regulation on how our food is handled?
Ethics are not the only reason for laws; safety is also a major factor.
You can not please everyone and sometimes you can not please anyone.
Not that Wikipedia is a good authority, but you may want to read this: Marketing [wikipedia.org]
It is interesting that the word "design " is nowhere in that article. Take a look at the link to product marketing which differentiated it self from product management. Product management includes R&D. Marketing is about creating need in a consumer and Jobs was great at that.
I just read a Wikipedia article that points out that Jobs stole most of a bonus from Wozniak in the early days of working together.
Why do you think that there is a "new" iPhone every year. The term is planned obsolescence; make something just different enough so the people will buy the new one and consider last year's model obsolete. Was the iPhone 4s really an significant upgrade? No, but it was "new" so people bought it; even those who had an iPhone 4.
"Well we could sell a bunch of these, but I don't think it's good enough so I refuse to make that product."
The "good" in that statement could also be replaced with "proprietary". Have you heard the story about the company that wanted to make an external batter backup for the MacBook. They went as far as purchasing wall warts from Apple and attaching the cords to their batter packs. Apple, at Jobs direction, threatened to sue. Since they were a small company and could not afford the lawyers they stopped manufacture. Yet another example of Jobs greed.
There is a reasons that Apple computers still only have 12.5% of the desktop market; single source price controlled systems that are difficult if not impossible to upgrade or repair. Look at replacing the battery in an iPad or iPhone. It requires delicate dis-assembly of the item to make that happen. In the instance of the iPad, glue must be melted and the screen taken off to get to the battery.Why did they do that? To increase profit from licensing to authorized repair depots and nothing to do with usability to the consumer.
Apple definitely was the first developer and best marketer of viable tablets and smart phones. They then took that innovation and used it as a stick to keep everyone else out of the market. More money for jobs, less choice for the consumer.
Advertising is an aspect or marketing. Design is not an aspect of marketing. Marketing is taking a product and presenting it to people in such a way as the name is placed into their heads so that when the consumer is thinking about purchasing an item the brand is already in their head. Marketing is about visibility. This is different than Sales as sales in influencing the purchase decision.
For industrial design, Jonathan Ive (who was Knighted for design) did most of it for Apple. It all goes back to this, when Jobs had free reign to design his own computer, the NeXT, he failed miserably.When he was brought back to Apple to do the marketing for Apple he shone.
He was focused on giving people the best solution, whatever he thought the best solution was.
This is where we come into what "best" means. To Jobs the best solution is something he can sell and entice people to come back for more so that Jobs can make as much money as possible. I am not saying making money is bad but Jobs didn't design most things he sold.
Choice is complicated. A greater number of choices doesn't always improve the situation.
Conversly a single "choice" does not improve the situation either.
When you mold something there is an inner mold and an outer mold. When the molding material sets the inner mold is withdrawn from the outer mold. If you look closely at any standard molded item you will find one end is slightly larger than the other. This allows the inner mold to come away from the mold material very quickly. As an exaggerated example, think of a cone pressed into clay. When you withdraw the cone a very little bit it no longer touches the clay. If the sides form a perfect cube the mold will be in contat through the entire withdrawal process. Think of the same thing but use s cylinder. During the withdrawal process the sides of the cylender are always in contact with the clay. This causes increased friction requiring more power, slower production rates and higher failure rates. One small adjustment in the design, 88 degree corners instead of 90 degree corners, could have save a significant amount of money but Jobs insisted on his design.
Until I pointed out all the software that came with it.
How many other companies wrote software for the Next? How many other hardware companies made hardware for the Next? Could it be possible that businesses and institutions did not want to purchase large numbers of computers from a start up headed by someone that was ousted from Apple?
You need to read the report better; You are quoting the figures from the Mac App store. This is what Note 7 says"Includes sales from the Mac App Store in addition to sales of other Apple-branded and third-party Mac software and Mac and Internet services." The Mac App store is different from the App Store that iPhones and iPads use.
Note 3 says "Includes sales from the iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore in addition to sales of iPod services and Apple-branded and third-party iPod accessories." with revenue of 1,678M$. There is no break out for revenue from the App Store.
Designing an overly expensive computer is not marketing, as I said in my earlier post. Jobs keeps getting accolades because he is such an innovator but he is not an innovator, he is a marketer.
"Steve Jobs didn't invent things, he merely knew how to make products that people really wanted to buy!"
That is not what I am saying. A more accurate statement would be "Steve Jobs didn't invent things, he merely knew how to convince people to buy things that other people built".
Jobs biggest contribution to Apple was the concept of the closed system. Make Apple hardware and software a bit different so that it can be patented and defend those patents vigorously so that anyone who ever buys Apple hardware much come back to Apple to upgrade. Great for Apple not so great for the consumer. His biggest marketing triumph was his ability to convince people to pay more for Apple products due to the illusion that geeks don't but Apple; artists do.
Here is a quote from Jobs about multiple app stores "“So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers." It appears that Jobs has little concept of choice.
But when Jobs had his own company, Next, his micromanaging created the "perfect computer", in Steve Job's mind, that few could afford. He added hundreds of dollars to the price because he insisted that the case be a perfect cube and perfect cubes could only be manufactured by one company in the US.
Apple fired him once and re-hired him when that had a management team that could hold him in check. Steve jobs pushed harder on anything that could be patented to keep others out of the market, keep prices high and make more money for Steve Jobs. It was not about innovation but money. Steve Jobs is a marketer.
It is interesting that you would consider a picture that you never saw with the brief description of "co-worker’s pants around her ankles and a pair of shoes" as profane. What if the picture was of just the pants, calves, feet and a pair of shoes with not other body parts showing? To me, there is nothing profane about that at all.
Do you think that all police officers, judges, politicians, lifeguards, coaches, librarians, etc should have to give up their Facebook passwords?
There is also a very interesting assumption that the "think of the children" people seem to miss. Just because one does something away from children does not mean that they will do the same thing around children. For example, at a bar watching a hockey game it is quite common to use profanity. These same people are coaches in kids hockey but they know the venue is different and usually act differently. Many adults have had sex at home and done some "slap and tickle" does that mean these same people will do the same thing with an eight year old? No. Almost all people understand the different venues and act differently. What an adult does out of school has nothing to do with what they do in school.
I would understand that if there was a social network that allowed a teacher to "mentor" someone rather than "friend". Right now you are just arguing semantics due to the restrictions of current social network sites. Trying to put a precise definition on friend is ludicrous considering that one definition of friend is "someone I can talk to when things get rough".
The other issue with grain alcohol is that the energy output from grain alcohol is only about 1.2 thims the energy required to produce it and that is not even taking into account the energy required to produce the organic material to produce the mash. To distill alcohol from conventional material requires a lot of heat and then cooling. That heat has to come from somewhere and that is the energy that goes into production. As an additive to reduce emissions alcohol, produced conventionally, works well. As a viable substitute for other energy sources (electricity, natural gas, hydrogen etc) it is not so useful.
Bad analogy; you will not loose the call as you have voice mail. The point you keep missing is that people's plans change and a module swap is not very flexible. You are talking about a society where convenience is King. We have difficulty convincing people to sort trash let alone use a swapable drive module.
I agree that they are unlikely events but they are events that will run through the minds of purchasers. If a purchaser thinks of an event that can cause an issue they are less likely to purchase the vehicle. Which means fewer vehicles purchased and the swap centers being less viable. Which causes fewer to be built which causes more issues with the distance from swap centers, which causes more people to notice the swap issue, which causes fewer cars to be purchased, etc. It is a downward spiral all started die to the fact the most people realize plans change.
I would agree with this if not for the billions that have already gone into R&D in fusion engines in the last 20 years and still no solution has been found.
The other issue is that hoping someone else will pick up the stumbling block is wishful thinking. Basically it is saying the we will do the easy work and let the hard work be done by someone else. It is either s complete solution or it is not a solution.
The premise is based on two assumptions; one that a solution is possible and 2 that someone else will find it. Assumptions need to be carefuly examined
That is exactly my point. The cost of Everclear is closer to $200/gallon than $4/lgallon which prices the process far out of reach. The other issue is that they are talking about a continuous process and not a batch process.
There is one issue that all bioreactors have when they attempt to scale; contamination. They generally work well in laboratory setting where conditions are pristine and test cycles are short but when they attempt to scale they find that the biological reactant very quickly becomes contaminated with other algae and the remains of dead algae. It very quickly become unusable slime. This is an issue that needs to be overcome before large scale bioreactors will ever become viable. Research into the next step, which is the specific process to create a desired output, is useless until this fundamental roadblock is dealt with. It is a bit like designing a robot powered by a fusion engine before the fusion engine has been invented.
You can see the camera do take cuts before it jumps most times. Either it's chargin' its laser and they cut for time, or it's got other issues. (it may take awhile to say, charge a compressed spring piston)
Or they are changing from a closeup that shows the elevation and charging to a wide shot to show the jump.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are crooks then why did you vote for them? If you didn't vote for them did you help their opposition or even run for office yourself? As they say; put up or shut up.
If they are crooks do you really think you staring at them will make a difference? Might they just ignore you? If they are truly crooks and they are already planning to break the law do you think that another law will fix the issue? There is an old saying "locks only keep honest people out" which can be extended to "laws are only followed by honest people'. In effect this law make it more difficult for honest people to do their jobs while not effecting the dishonest ones.
You missed the point. The transcripts of all email discussion will become public and in the end the discussion itself will be discussed in public. The public just does not need to be there when they have no input. If there is a dishonest conversation going on it will come out in the last meeting and be dealt with then.
Bad analogy; most board members are not trying to win large amounts of money by getting other board members kicked off.
I just love this quote;
“Sometimes you have to compromise efficiency for getting the right outcome,” she said.
As with many of these kinds of statements "right outcomes" could be more accurately replaced with "outcomes I agree with". I think it is very important to note that there is no allegation that the email conversation contained any coercion or improper behavior or that the actual outcome would have been any different if the conversation was done in public. The plaintiff just did not like the conversation not being "seen". The one interesting point was that a board member's opinion was changed. As with most "news" articles they do not go into what opinion was changed. Perhaps the board member thought a different school should be closed but was convinced otherwise. The outcome didn't change in that a school was closed.
Requiring all interaction between three or more members of an elected body having to be announced and made public is just stupid. Does this mean that any time three members want to get together to discuss things as trivial as the design of a poster it must be a public meeting? Lets just grind all decision making process to a halt. The public votes for people and day to day decisions do not need public input; that is micro-management to the highest degree.
Lets look at a couple of scenarios dealing with a discussion that require research to answer questions that arise during a discussion. The point being that every time a research question comes up discussion stops until re research is done. Say a discussion has 3 of these kinds of questions. By email a discussion like this may only take a couple of days followed by a public meeting where what was discussed is made public. If formal meetings are required the following would have to be taken into account;
1. room availability
2. People availability
3. Requirement for notice
It may only be possible to have such a meeting once a week. So instead of a conversation taking a week an a half it will take three weeks. Now do this for every discussion. Email also has big advantages over the spoken word; It can be re-read decreasing misunderstandings. It can be written then edited for clarification. It can be referred to when dealing with facts
To the specific case, I do not see a difference between publishing the email conversations after the fact and sitting in a room while the conversation went on. Observer would have no input into the conversation so their presence would make no difference.The prohibition on using email during a meeting just causes people to go back to passing notes like they did before laptops were available.
Slowing the wheels of government is great if you want to stop something from happening but it is a two edged sword. It also slows implementation of things one wants to happen. Do you want funding to re-build a playground that is becoming a safety hazard? You better plan on a couple of years of "open" meetings. I bet the same people who are complaining about lack of transparency are the same ones complaining about unresponsive and bureaucratic systems. You can't have it both ways. If you insist on open meetings on everything then everything will take longer. All this law means is that people will jump through hoops to stay legal but the decisions will be made the same way.
I always thought patents were about products and not idea. There are too many "gee i think I can make something that does something interesting" and write a vague design. It has never been built and never researched. Cas in point the touch sensitive floor. IBM has not built one but they got the patent anyway. The problem is that no one else can develop it because someone already has the patent even if they never develop it themselves. Ideas are a dime a dozen and should not be patentable.
Here are a few heavy items I sometimes carry and or wear;
20 pound biker jacket
40 pound chainmaille shirt
20 pound chainmaille kilt
backpack
boxes full of chainmaille
heavy suicases.
By wearing/carrying the above items in different combination my weight can vary by a hundred pounds.
Take a look at this. There may be a war over water rights on one of the largest rivers in the world.
And many illegal "performance" products are also dangerous.
This seems like a no brainer on the surface; if water falls on you land it belongs to you. These laws were written before people used personal large scale rain collection. Take a look a little deeper and see what the laws are there to prevent. It is about water rights. In areas where water is precious, like Arizona, water is allocated to different people in different quantities. What would happen if everyone who owned land in a catch basin collected all the water that would normally flow into the local rivers? The rivers would dry up which would mean that fish, land animals, farms and people downriver would get no water. That is the main reason rainwater collection is illegal in several states. Rainwater is a resource to be shared and not hoarded. Some of these laws are being changed to allow small scale (rain barrel size) collection but it takes time to catch up.
There are at least two sets of people in the world;
1. The "keep your hands off" people who want minimal regulations and want to rely on their own intelligence for survival.
2. The "you didn't tell me" people who will blame government for not properly regulating industry and all owing bad thing to happen. They are the one that say things like "It didn't say I couldn't use that cancer causing agricultural product so the company is a fault and I will sue the company and the regulators".
You seem to miss the big question; why is the agricultural product illegal? I just twigged to the idea that by agricultural product you may mean marijuana; if you meant that just say it. I do not agree with it being illegal and that is slowly changing. Just because a product is agricultural does not mean it is OK. A good example of that is the many food recalls due to salmonella contamination. Even vegetables are susceptible to this. Should we have no regulation on how our food is handled?
Ethics are not the only reason for laws; safety is also a major factor.
You can not please everyone and sometimes you can not please anyone.
Not that Wikipedia is a good authority, but you may want to read this: Marketing [wikipedia.org]
It is interesting that the word "design " is nowhere in that article. Take a look at the link to product marketing which differentiated it self from product management. Product management includes R&D. Marketing is about creating need in a consumer and Jobs was great at that.
I just read a Wikipedia article that points out that Jobs stole most of a bonus from Wozniak in the early days of working together.
Why do you think that there is a "new" iPhone every year. The term is planned obsolescence; make something just different enough so the people will buy the new one and consider last year's model obsolete. Was the iPhone 4s really an significant upgrade? No, but it was "new" so people bought it; even those who had an iPhone 4.
"Well we could sell a bunch of these, but I don't think it's good enough so I refuse to make that product."
The "good" in that statement could also be replaced with "proprietary". Have you heard the story about the company that wanted to make an external batter backup for the MacBook. They went as far as purchasing wall warts from Apple and attaching the cords to their batter packs. Apple, at Jobs direction, threatened to sue. Since they were a small company and could not afford the lawyers they stopped manufacture. Yet another example of Jobs greed.
There is a reasons that Apple computers still only have 12.5% of the desktop market; single source price controlled systems that are difficult if not impossible to upgrade or repair. Look at replacing the battery in an iPad or iPhone. It requires delicate dis-assembly of the item to make that happen. In the instance of the iPad, glue must be melted and the screen taken off to get to the battery.Why did they do that? To increase profit from licensing to authorized repair depots and nothing to do with usability to the consumer.
Apple definitely was the first developer and best marketer of viable tablets and smart phones. They then took that innovation and used it as a stick to keep everyone else out of the market. More money for jobs, less choice for the consumer.
You can add jet aircraft, computer, GPS, radio networks, the US Interstates, etc.
As to interstates being alternate airfields that has been debunked but many were designed to transport troops from bases across the US.
Advertising is an aspect or marketing. Design is not an aspect of marketing. Marketing is taking a product and presenting it to people in such a way as the name is placed into their heads so that when the consumer is thinking about purchasing an item the brand is already in their head. Marketing is about visibility. This is different than Sales as sales in influencing the purchase decision.
For industrial design, Jonathan Ive (who was Knighted for design) did most of it for Apple. It all goes back to this, when Jobs had free reign to design his own computer, the NeXT, he failed miserably.When he was brought back to Apple to do the marketing for Apple he shone.
He was focused on giving people the best solution, whatever he thought the best solution was.
This is where we come into what "best" means. To Jobs the best solution is something he can sell and entice people to come back for more so that Jobs can make as much money as possible. I am not saying making money is bad but Jobs didn't design most things he sold.
Choice is complicated. A greater number of choices doesn't always improve the situation.
Conversly a single "choice" does not improve the situation either.
When you mold something there is an inner mold and an outer mold. When the molding material sets the inner mold is withdrawn from the outer mold. If you look closely at any standard molded item you will find one end is slightly larger than the other. This allows the inner mold to come away from the mold material very quickly. As an exaggerated example, think of a cone pressed into clay. When you withdraw the cone a very little bit it no longer touches the clay. If the sides form a perfect cube the mold will be in contat through the entire withdrawal process. Think of the same thing but use s cylinder. During the withdrawal process the sides of the cylender are always in contact with the clay. This causes increased friction requiring more power, slower production rates and higher failure rates. One small adjustment in the design, 88 degree corners instead of 90 degree corners, could have save a significant amount of money but Jobs insisted on his design.
Until I pointed out all the software that came with it.
How many other companies wrote software for the Next? How many other hardware companies made hardware for the Next? Could it be possible that businesses and institutions did not want to purchase large numbers of computers from a start up headed by someone that was ousted from Apple?
Try this article.
You need to read the report better; You are quoting the figures from the Mac App store. This is what Note 7 says"Includes sales from the Mac App Store in addition to sales of other Apple-branded and third-party Mac software and Mac and Internet services." The Mac App store is different from the App Store that iPhones and iPads use.
Note 3 says "Includes sales from the iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore in addition to sales of iPod services and Apple-branded and third-party iPod accessories." with revenue of 1,678M$. There is no break out for revenue from the App Store.
Designing an overly expensive computer is not marketing, as I said in my earlier post. Jobs keeps getting accolades because he is such an innovator but he is not an innovator, he is a marketer.
"Steve Jobs didn't invent things, he merely knew how to make products that people really wanted to buy!"
That is not what I am saying. A more accurate statement would be "Steve Jobs didn't invent things, he merely knew how to convince people to buy things that other people built".
Jobs biggest contribution to Apple was the concept of the closed system. Make Apple hardware and software a bit different so that it can be patented and defend those patents vigorously so that anyone who ever buys Apple hardware much come back to Apple to upgrade. Great for Apple not so great for the consumer. His biggest marketing triumph was his ability to convince people to pay more for Apple products due to the illusion that geeks don't but Apple; artists do.
Here is a quote from Jobs about multiple app stores "“So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers." It appears that Jobs has little concept of choice.
But when Jobs had his own company, Next, his micromanaging created the "perfect computer", in Steve Job's mind, that few could afford. He added hundreds of dollars to the price because he insisted that the case be a perfect cube and perfect cubes could only be manufactured by one company in the US.
Apple fired him once and re-hired him when that had a management team that could hold him in check. Steve jobs pushed harder on anything that could be patented to keep others out of the market, keep prices high and make more money for Steve Jobs. It was not about innovation but money. Steve Jobs is a marketer.
which is why many people have two Facebook pages; a personal one and a professional one.
It is interesting that you would consider a picture that you never saw with the brief description of "co-worker’s pants around her ankles and a pair of shoes" as profane. What if the picture was of just the pants, calves, feet and a pair of shoes with not other body parts showing? To me, there is nothing profane about that at all.
Do you think that all police officers, judges, politicians, lifeguards, coaches, librarians, etc should have to give up their Facebook passwords?
There is also a very interesting assumption that the "think of the children" people seem to miss. Just because one does something away from children does not mean that they will do the same thing around children. For example, at a bar watching a hockey game it is quite common to use profanity. These same people are coaches in kids hockey but they know the venue is different and usually act differently. Many adults have had sex at home and done some "slap and tickle" does that mean these same people will do the same thing with an eight year old? No. Almost all people understand the different venues and act differently. What an adult does out of school has nothing to do with what they do in school.
I would understand that if there was a social network that allowed a teacher to "mentor" someone rather than "friend". Right now you are just arguing semantics due to the restrictions of current social network sites. Trying to put a precise definition on friend is ludicrous considering that one definition of friend is "someone I can talk to when things get rough".
The other issue with grain alcohol is that the energy output from grain alcohol is only about 1.2 thims the energy required to produce it and that is not even taking into account the energy required to produce the organic material to produce the mash. To distill alcohol from conventional material requires a lot of heat and then cooling. That heat has to come from somewhere and that is the energy that goes into production. As an additive to reduce emissions alcohol, produced conventionally, works well. As a viable substitute for other energy sources (electricity, natural gas, hydrogen etc) it is not so useful.
Bad analogy; you will not loose the call as you have voice mail. The point you keep missing is that people's plans change and a module swap is not very flexible. You are talking about a society where convenience is King. We have difficulty convincing people to sort trash let alone use a swapable drive module.
I agree that they are unlikely events but they are events that will run through the minds of purchasers. If a purchaser thinks of an event that can cause an issue they are less likely to purchase the vehicle. Which means fewer vehicles purchased and the swap centers being less viable. Which causes fewer to be built which causes more issues with the distance from swap centers, which causes more people to notice the swap issue, which causes fewer cars to be purchased, etc. It is a downward spiral all started die to the fact the most people realize plans change.
I would agree with this if not for the billions that have already gone into R&D in fusion engines in the last 20 years and still no solution has been found.
The other issue is that hoping someone else will pick up the stumbling block is wishful thinking. Basically it is saying the we will do the easy work and let the hard work be done by someone else. It is either s complete solution or it is not a solution.
The premise is based on two assumptions; one that a solution is possible and 2 that someone else will find it. Assumptions need to be carefuly examined
That is exactly my point. The cost of Everclear is closer to $200/gallon than $4/lgallon which prices the process far out of reach. The other issue is that they are talking about a continuous process and not a batch process.
There is one issue that all bioreactors have when they attempt to scale; contamination. They generally work well in laboratory setting where conditions are pristine and test cycles are short but when they attempt to scale they find that the biological reactant very quickly becomes contaminated with other algae and the remains of dead algae. It very quickly become unusable slime. This is an issue that needs to be overcome before large scale bioreactors will ever become viable. Research into the next step, which is the specific process to create a desired output, is useless until this fundamental roadblock is dealt with. It is a bit like designing a robot powered by a fusion engine before the fusion engine has been invented.
You can see the camera do take cuts before it jumps most times. Either it's chargin' its laser and they cut for time, or it's got other issues. (it may take awhile to say, charge a compressed spring piston)
Or they are changing from a closeup that shows the elevation and charging to a wide shot to show the jump.