There's nearly no storage losses for natgas. The transmission losses are also small, especially for the 80% of the US population that lives in cities within which the electric is distributed nearby. Electric cars have under 5% inefficiency at the end of the cycle. The actual natgas CCGT efficiencies are around 85%+, so the under 15% of it that's lost still leaves well over 73% of the natgas energy contents turning the wheels at the road, instead of 20% the contents of gasoline.
Electricity was never too cheap to meter, when the actual costs of the fuel production, waste storage and security were accounted - but they were always hidden in taxpayer expenses. Treehuggers didn't kill that illusory option - the nuke industry did. I get 40% of my electricity from a nuke plant in the neighborhood, and it still costs more than any other electricity in the country, even though it's subsidized every which way.
The treehuggers were right, and are right. The only reason you're talking about energy efficiencies and new energy technologies now as gasoline becomes too expensive and scarce for a growing world is because of treehuggers. Drop the culture war that's already lost and do something useful for our continued growth, the way the treehuggers did that won the culture war and our chances for survival.
We have other catalytic technology that uses heat to crack CO2 into CO. Which can be powered by solar heating (highly efficient) and the byproduct heat of whatever device inefficiently consumes propane. Like a 40% efficient propane fuelcell, using that 60% byproduct heat to crack more CO2 into CO. Electrical devices like motorized car wheels typically have over 95% efficiency, as do propane space heaters.
So a device like that could be used at homes to power them (and electric cars). Capturing the waste heat from the solar and electric generation processes to get the whole cycle closer to 95% efficient. Such a device would be quite a change in our energy systems, though it could work directly with most of our existing infrastructure.
Because we can burn natgas in Combined Cycle power plants at over 80% efficiency, instead of in cars at under 18% efficiency. So we should put all the natgas we can into generating electricity instead of using filthy, inefficient coal plants, rather than diverting that gas into cars at under 1/4 the efficiency. In other words, use under 1/4 the natgas to make electricity rather than wasting 3/4 of the energy in it in cars.
Just because T Boone Pickens has a plan to create scarcity in the glut of natgas he owns so much of, to drive up prices by wasting 3/4 of it, doesn't mean we should do it.
The enzyme doesn't need any further engineering to make carbon monoxide into propane:
Vanadium nitrogenase, an enzyme that normally produces ammonia from nitrogen gas, can also convert carbon monoxide (CO), a common industrial byproduct, into propane, the blue-flamed gas found on stoves across America.
Since 2008 we've had simple technology (solar heated cobalt ferrite) that cracks CO2 into CO.
A combined reactor could efficiently crack CO2 in air into propane. Propane is the fuel that is easiest (lowest pressure) to store in homes, with an existing infrastructure servicing millions of American homes already. And 30% efficient propane fuelcells in 5KW (residential) sizes are on the market for $10K each (minus over 30% government credits). Which means solar panels could crack air into propane stored for use by the fuelcell at night and in Winter. If the thermal cracking phase matches the 80%+ efficiency of existing solar thermal water heaters, the overall cycle efficiency would start at 32% from sunlight to electricity, which is over 50% higher than current PV - with storage and discharge in the cycle. And fuelcells have a theoretical max efficiency of over 85%, even before the "combined heat and power" uses the thermal byproduct for home space heating and continuing the cracking cycle. Further fuelcell refinement could bring 65% or higher overall efficiency, even through the storage/discharge cycle.
This combination of technologies could solve practically all of our energy problems directly. Higher solar efficiency, easily distributed at homes with existing infrastructure, that is totally carbon neutral once the equipment is installed.
36 Republicans and one Democrat tried to block Kagan's appointment. The Democrat is Ben Nelson (D-NE), who represents the (Omaha) insurance industry (which also is the Credit Default Swap industry) and routinely votes with Republicans, especially in filibusters that prevent a simple majority vote that would usually pass.
You can see each of the Republicans give their reasons for voting against Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court, and judge for yourself whether those are either the real reasons, or good ones.
I don't see why this is so surprising. Most people recognize that their own governments spy on other countries as part of legitimate defense of their country.
Of course, the question asked by the media is far too broad to be meaningful. They don't ask whether they support their government spying on other countries when it's not legitimate defense of their country. And they don't ask whether they support their government spying on their own country, whether it's "legitimate" defense of their country or not.
Or whether it's ever legitimate to spy on their own country, violating their fellow citizens' rights instead of protecting them, when there's no probable cause, warrant or other due process. No data on where people accept that line being drawn inside their own country.
So the results are really just another straw on the camel's back of innuendo that pushes headlines about "people support being spied on". Because the corporate mass media and its ecosystem of spook-infested think tanks are so corrupt, lazy and complicit in the globe's many and interlocking police states that all they can do is sell us lies to con us into allowing our own governments to spy on us.
The Washington Post was one of the chief cheerleaders in the rush to war in Iraq, in the determination to "stay the course", in the attacking of any discussion of any metrics towards or for withdrawal (like a timetable) as surrender.
Since around 2007 and Iraq's government forcing the US to commit to the withdrawal timetable now nearing its 50,000 troops milestone, that editorial policy has been moot. It did its job. Now the WP can go ahead and act like it wasn't the cheerleader, because people's memories aren't that long, and its business is the current manipulations.
Anonymous Republican Coward, you're the only one left in America who doesn't realize the Iraq War was (and is) an epic catastrophe. Why do you hate America?
He was too young. The PNAC is a bunch of Baby Boomers whose mission was to act like Nixon never resigned and Reagan/Bush took over directly. Thiessen was born in 1967. He's never going to get "credit" (blame) for being one of the "cool kids" like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Jeb Bush, Libby, Krauthammer, and the rest of these PNAC club members. He's just another "Whatever Generation" lackey who actually works for a living, though it's just writing speeches and spin for the main cabal.
Thiessen didn't just work for Bush, Helms and Rumsfeld. He was spokesman for and senior policy advisor to Helms, when the ancient and decrepit Helms was in charge of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1995-2001. He moved with Rumsfeld to the top of the Pentagon as his chief speechwriter 2001-2004, then to Bush's speechwriting team, becoming its chief in 2008.
He's "a well regarded pundit and speechwriter in Conservative circles" in that he was among the people most responsible for starting the Iraq War (as they'd planned through the 1990s), for ignoring the threats from the Qaeda in Afghanistan (because they cared only about invading Iraq), for running both wars as epic catastrophes while attacking everyone questioning them as a "clear and present danger" to America's security.
The Washington Post publishes columns by Thiessen because his radical rightwing warmonger faction is the Post's board's favorite tiny sliver of Americans. Who always get whatever they want, especially wars.
Solarbuzz publishes an updated graph of $:W-peak in its monthly reports of solar PV module prices. The data comes from its own proprietary market research (which it sells in detail).
You can see that solar module prices are falling steadily, as they were until the Bush Bubble pushed them back up and held them steady until the Bush Crash let them drop again. We finally got back in 2010 to the lows we'd left in 2004, but the drop is leveling off again. Also note that those numbers are the average market price, including all variable features. The lowest price is now $1.07:W for a 55W thin film module. Total installed price is about 2x the module price.
I'm from NYC. I assure you our border guards are as ruthless and idiotic as yours are. Though in the USA we supposedly have a Constitution with specific instructions to our government to protect our privacy rights, not abuse them.
Something interesting about these optically-actuated gateways is that they are (more or less) locked to open or closed by each of the different frequency "keys" shifting their state, not requiring continuous illumination:
When purple light illuminates the surface of the membrane, the dye molecules straighten out and the liquid crystals fall into line, which allows gas to easily flow through the holes. But when ultraviolet light illuminates the surface, the dye molecules bend into a banana shape and the liquid crystals scatter into random orientations, clogging the tunnel and blocking gas from penetrating.
When the gas that the membrane controls can be made to emit one or another of the frequencies when its physical or chemical properties change, this material will become a "gas transistor", which will allow gas to control its own distribution determined by what physical/chemical state it's in.
1: I said operators should be paying more in royalties. 2: If oil producers paid more royalties, they'd go out of business. 3: The government collects more money when it collects less money.
First, I never said operators should be paying more in royalties. All I said was that, contrary to the post to which I replied, the oil industry does indeed consume a vast amount more military budget than alternatives do. Which was obvious, but the comment to which I replied tried the usual smokescreen of false equivalencies between items in the same quantity, but vastly different proportion.
Second, oil producers are in no danger of going out of business. But indeed if they were not able to operate because the costs are too high, that's the economics. Obviously, since alternatives are not going out of business despite their vastly lower subsidies, the economics would favor the alternatives, and who cares if the filthy old oil drillers are replaced by something sustainable. Of course, far before that point the profit that's something like $60 of the $75 per barrel price after the current $15 production/delivery cost - 80% profit - would be cut, as the oil market price is capped by how much people will pay, not how much it costs to sell it to them. And again, there's no danger of oil producers going out of business.
Third, you're arguing in favor of some kind of "Laffer curve", the totally discredited (by 40 years of Republicans treating it as gospel, and destroying the government's revenue model with it) economic fallacy. Lowering the rate of taxation always lowers the amount of tax collected, as is perfectly obvious, except at the impossible extremes of 0% and 100%.
Except we don't just buy oil. We spend $TRILLIONS keeping the global oil production set up the way it is, enforced by our military. Then we buy it in the market we create with that military. So we do both. Meanwhile, our constant wars (and wars by proxy, eg. in Israel) keep the market prices high, though the cost to the producers themselves is low.
The cost of protecting renewable energy is very small. The military/intel budget would need to be only $150-200B annually for everything ($200B / everything), but tops $1T annually to enforce our global oil market system ($1T - $200B).
Where is the sense of proportion when coming up with these false equivalencies which are totally different scales on either size of the "equals" sign?
Workers get to keep more of the money their labor produces only when they organize and work together to keep it. That's what unions do. Without unions, we'd all be replaceable by those privileged to be bosses, through their old boy networks.
When programmers have a working labor union, it'll be harder for bosses to keep 99.9% of what the programmers produce, while programmers work 60 hour weeks.
I am not mistaken. China's economy is mafia. The government is the mafia. It enforces its policies by brutal force, it is highly corrupt, the people have no rights protected, only protected by fear of a counterrevolution or a discouraged work slowdown. The government exploits labor and nature to ruination, enforced by fear of violence. Crime is OK for cronies, competition is prohibited outside of what benefits the rulers. That's a mafia economy. In Russia, the mafia is part of the economy, but the government itself is a mafia mostly only in the energy industry.
I didn't say China has only two ISPs, you did. Anonymous strawman Coward, I know more about China and its economy than you care to admit, because you're just another Chinese apologist. I wouldn't be surprised if you work for China's propaganda ministry.
I don't know what the point of this story is. China's a mafia economy, Japan's is state capitalism, America's is based on cartels that compete within with each other, but primarily defend their mutual cartel from any newcomer. None of that is good.
A healthy Internet is one that's highly distributed, decentralized. The more ISPs per person, the healthier and more stable the Internet. The more Chinese it is, the worse.
Military "tests" ("warnings") that destroy orbiting satellites leave junk in orbit that makes future space exploitation more dangerous, costly, and even impossible (vulnerable equipment). It's like the hidden costs of manufacturing (and war) at the surface, which are left as problems for someone else. We humans should quickly force people, governments and corporations which produce debris to either clean it up, or to pay for someone else who cleans it up. We don't want to box in our growing space development just as it's getting started with the pollution from the first few generations.
I'm not really interested in helping Microsoft with free advice. But what would be a lot better for MS, and for the market, would be MS forcing phone HW to become as open as is PC HW, and marketing Windows (or whatever) OS as the best choice to install on it. Much like their current strategy, but from the "open" angle, so MS can steal market share from Symbian, Android and Apple even after the user buys the phone by installing the MS OS instead of the default. Let desktop Windows install a mobile OS onto a phone, and sync everything between the two. That's a lot more likely to succeed, to offer the huge profit margins MS is used to, and to be like the SW business that MS understands, instead of a low margin HW business that competes with some big MS customers.
If MS could force the US to unbundle the mobile networks from the HW as the default, so there's a single mobile Internet instead of what's like the 1980s Compuserve/Source/GEnie that transparently roams even during a call, that would be the kind of platform where MS could make most of the profit while the HW and network providers do most of the work. Work that uses MS software to get done.
Google is pressuring that gradual openness. If Microsoft joined it instead of joining Apple, we'd all be better off - even if MS got most of the benefit.
I only measured once, finding it was "heads". So the probability it was heads is 100%. Without taking another measurement, I deduce that the probability it was tails was 0%.
OK. I just flipped a coin. It came up heads. Its coming up tails is now 0% probability. Its coming up heads is now 100% probability. As a coin I used the spin of a photon.
One of these quantum universes has to have every quantum event probability = 0%, and one p=100%. Those two together are the paradox of possibility-free time travel. In one, there's no chance of free will. In the other, a time machine is certain.
Slashdot Mirror
Like what? What is "the left-wing" doing? These people abusing Digg are rightwingers, and there's demonstrable evidence of their bad behavior.
As usual, you Republicans have got no facts, just playground assertions of "they did it too!"
There's nearly no storage losses for natgas. The transmission losses are also small, especially for the 80% of the US population that lives in cities within which the electric is distributed nearby. Electric cars have under 5% inefficiency at the end of the cycle. The actual natgas CCGT efficiencies are around 85%+, so the under 15% of it that's lost still leaves well over 73% of the natgas energy contents turning the wheels at the road, instead of 20% the contents of gasoline.
Electricity was never too cheap to meter, when the actual costs of the fuel production, waste storage and security were accounted - but they were always hidden in taxpayer expenses. Treehuggers didn't kill that illusory option - the nuke industry did. I get 40% of my electricity from a nuke plant in the neighborhood, and it still costs more than any other electricity in the country, even though it's subsidized every which way.
The treehuggers were right, and are right. The only reason you're talking about energy efficiencies and new energy technologies now as gasoline becomes too expensive and scarce for a growing world is because of treehuggers. Drop the culture war that's already lost and do something useful for our continued growth, the way the treehuggers did that won the culture war and our chances for survival.
We have other catalytic technology that uses heat to crack CO2 into CO. Which can be powered by solar heating (highly efficient) and the byproduct heat of whatever device inefficiently consumes propane. Like a 40% efficient propane fuelcell, using that 60% byproduct heat to crack more CO2 into CO. Electrical devices like motorized car wheels typically have over 95% efficiency, as do propane space heaters.
So a device like that could be used at homes to power them (and electric cars). Capturing the waste heat from the solar and electric generation processes to get the whole cycle closer to 95% efficient. Such a device would be quite a change in our energy systems, though it could work directly with most of our existing infrastructure.
Because we can burn natgas in Combined Cycle power plants at over 80% efficiency, instead of in cars at under 18% efficiency. So we should put all the natgas we can into generating electricity instead of using filthy, inefficient coal plants, rather than diverting that gas into cars at under 1/4 the efficiency. In other words, use under 1/4 the natgas to make electricity rather than wasting 3/4 of the energy in it in cars.
Just because T Boone Pickens has a plan to create scarcity in the glut of natgas he owns so much of, to drive up prices by wasting 3/4 of it, doesn't mean we should do it.
The enzyme doesn't need any further engineering to make carbon monoxide into propane:
Since 2008 we've had simple technology (solar heated cobalt ferrite) that cracks CO2 into CO.
A combined reactor could efficiently crack CO2 in air into propane. Propane is the fuel that is easiest (lowest pressure) to store in homes, with an existing infrastructure servicing millions of American homes already. And 30% efficient propane fuelcells in 5KW (residential) sizes are on the market for $10K each (minus over 30% government credits). Which means solar panels could crack air into propane stored for use by the fuelcell at night and in Winter. If the thermal cracking phase matches the 80%+ efficiency of existing solar thermal water heaters, the overall cycle efficiency would start at 32% from sunlight to electricity, which is over 50% higher than current PV - with storage and discharge in the cycle. And fuelcells have a theoretical max efficiency of over 85%, even before the "combined heat and power" uses the thermal byproduct for home space heating and continuing the cracking cycle. Further fuelcell refinement could bring 65% or higher overall efficiency, even through the storage/discharge cycle.
This combination of technologies could solve practically all of our energy problems directly. Higher solar efficiency, easily distributed at homes with existing infrastructure, that is totally carbon neutral once the equipment is installed.
36 Republicans and one Democrat tried to block Kagan's appointment. The Democrat is Ben Nelson (D-NE), who represents the (Omaha) insurance industry (which also is the Credit Default Swap industry) and routinely votes with Republicans, especially in filibusters that prevent a simple majority vote that would usually pass.
You can see each of the Republicans give their reasons for voting against Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court, and judge for yourself whether those are either the real reasons, or good ones.
I don't see why this is so surprising. Most people recognize that their own governments spy on other countries as part of legitimate defense of their country.
Of course, the question asked by the media is far too broad to be meaningful. They don't ask whether they support their government spying on other countries when it's not legitimate defense of their country. And they don't ask whether they support their government spying on their own country, whether it's "legitimate" defense of their country or not.
Or whether it's ever legitimate to spy on their own country, violating their fellow citizens' rights instead of protecting them, when there's no probable cause, warrant or other due process. No data on where people accept that line being drawn inside their own country.
So the results are really just another straw on the camel's back of innuendo that pushes headlines about "people support being spied on". Because the corporate mass media and its ecosystem of spook-infested think tanks are so corrupt, lazy and complicit in the globe's many and interlocking police states that all they can do is sell us lies to con us into allowing our own governments to spy on us.
The Washington Post was one of the chief cheerleaders in the rush to war in Iraq, in the determination to "stay the course", in the attacking of any discussion of any metrics towards or for withdrawal (like a timetable) as surrender.
Since around 2007 and Iraq's government forcing the US to commit to the withdrawal timetable now nearing its 50,000 troops milestone, that editorial policy has been moot. It did its job. Now the WP can go ahead and act like it wasn't the cheerleader, because people's memories aren't that long, and its business is the current manipulations.
Anonymous Republican Coward, you're the only one left in America who doesn't realize the Iraq War was (and is) an epic catastrophe. Why do you hate America?
He was too young. The PNAC is a bunch of Baby Boomers whose mission was to act like Nixon never resigned and Reagan/Bush took over directly. Thiessen was born in 1967. He's never going to get "credit" (blame) for being one of the "cool kids" like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Jeb Bush, Libby, Krauthammer, and the rest of these PNAC club members. He's just another "Whatever Generation" lackey who actually works for a living, though it's just writing speeches and spin for the main cabal.
Thiessen didn't just work for Bush, Helms and Rumsfeld. He was spokesman for and senior policy advisor to Helms, when the ancient and decrepit Helms was in charge of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1995-2001. He moved with Rumsfeld to the top of the Pentagon as his chief speechwriter 2001-2004, then to Bush's speechwriting team, becoming its chief in 2008.
He's "a well regarded pundit and speechwriter in Conservative circles" in that he was among the people most responsible for starting the Iraq War (as they'd planned through the 1990s), for ignoring the threats from the Qaeda in Afghanistan (because they cared only about invading Iraq), for running both wars as epic catastrophes while attacking everyone questioning them as a "clear and present danger" to America's security.
The Washington Post publishes columns by Thiessen because his radical rightwing warmonger faction is the Post's board's favorite tiny sliver of Americans. Who always get whatever they want, especially wars.
Solarbuzz publishes an updated graph of $:W-peak in its monthly reports of solar PV module prices. The data comes from its own proprietary market research (which it sells in detail).
You can see that solar module prices are falling steadily, as they were until the Bush Bubble pushed them back up and held them steady until the Bush Crash let them drop again. We finally got back in 2010 to the lows we'd left in 2004, but the drop is leveling off again. Also note that those numbers are the average market price, including all variable features. The lowest price is now $1.07:W for a 55W thin film module. Total installed price is about 2x the module price.
I'm from NYC. I assure you our border guards are as ruthless and idiotic as yours are. Though in the USA we supposedly have a Constitution with specific instructions to our government to protect our privacy rights, not abuse them.
Something interesting about these optically-actuated gateways is that they are (more or less) locked to open or closed by each of the different frequency "keys" shifting their state, not requiring continuous illumination:
When the gas that the membrane controls can be made to emit one or another of the frequencies when its physical or chemical properties change, this material will become a "gas transistor", which will allow gas to control its own distribution determined by what physical/chemical state it's in.
That's kidnapping. Charge someone with something on evidence, or release them. Or admit it's tyranny.
Your convoluted argument says:
1: I said operators should be paying more in royalties.
2: If oil producers paid more royalties, they'd go out of business.
3: The government collects more money when it collects less money.
First, I never said operators should be paying more in royalties. All I said was that, contrary to the post to which I replied, the oil industry does indeed consume a vast amount more military budget than alternatives do. Which was obvious, but the comment to which I replied tried the usual smokescreen of false equivalencies between items in the same quantity, but vastly different proportion.
Second, oil producers are in no danger of going out of business. But indeed if they were not able to operate because the costs are too high, that's the economics. Obviously, since alternatives are not going out of business despite their vastly lower subsidies, the economics would favor the alternatives, and who cares if the filthy old oil drillers are replaced by something sustainable. Of course, far before that point the profit that's something like $60 of the $75 per barrel price after the current $15 production/delivery cost - 80% profit - would be cut, as the oil market price is capped by how much people will pay, not how much it costs to sell it to them. And again, there's no danger of oil producers going out of business.
Third, you're arguing in favor of some kind of "Laffer curve", the totally discredited (by 40 years of Republicans treating it as gospel, and destroying the government's revenue model with it) economic fallacy. Lowering the rate of taxation always lowers the amount of tax collected, as is perfectly obvious, except at the impossible extremes of 0% and 100%.
Except we don't just buy oil. We spend $TRILLIONS keeping the global oil production set up the way it is, enforced by our military. Then we buy it in the market we create with that military. So we do both. Meanwhile, our constant wars (and wars by proxy, eg. in Israel) keep the market prices high, though the cost to the producers themselves is low.
The cost of protecting renewable energy is very small. The military/intel budget would need to be only $150-200B annually for everything ($200B / everything), but tops $1T annually to enforce our global oil market system ($1T - $200B).
Where is the sense of proportion when coming up with these false equivalencies which are totally different scales on either size of the "equals" sign?
Workers get to keep more of the money their labor produces only when they organize and work together to keep it. That's what unions do. Without unions, we'd all be replaceable by those privileged to be bosses, through their old boy networks.
When programmers have a working labor union, it'll be harder for bosses to keep 99.9% of what the programmers produce, while programmers work 60 hour weeks.
I am not mistaken. China's economy is mafia. The government is the mafia. It enforces its policies by brutal force, it is highly corrupt, the people have no rights protected, only protected by fear of a counterrevolution or a discouraged work slowdown. The government exploits labor and nature to ruination, enforced by fear of violence. Crime is OK for cronies, competition is prohibited outside of what benefits the rulers. That's a mafia economy. In Russia, the mafia is part of the economy, but the government itself is a mafia mostly only in the energy industry.
I didn't say China has only two ISPs, you did. Anonymous strawman Coward, I know more about China and its economy than you care to admit, because you're just another Chinese apologist. I wouldn't be surprised if you work for China's propaganda ministry.
I don't know what the point of this story is. China's a mafia economy, Japan's is state capitalism, America's is based on cartels that compete within with each other, but primarily defend their mutual cartel from any newcomer. None of that is good.
A healthy Internet is one that's highly distributed, decentralized. The more ISPs per person, the healthier and more stable the Internet. The more Chinese it is, the worse.
Military "tests" ("warnings") that destroy orbiting satellites leave junk in orbit that makes future space exploitation more dangerous, costly, and even impossible (vulnerable equipment). It's like the hidden costs of manufacturing (and war) at the surface, which are left as problems for someone else. We humans should quickly force people, governments and corporations which produce debris to either clean it up, or to pay for someone else who cleans it up. We don't want to box in our growing space development just as it's getting started with the pollution from the first few generations.
I'm not really interested in helping Microsoft with free advice. But what would be a lot better for MS, and for the market, would be MS forcing phone HW to become as open as is PC HW, and marketing Windows (or whatever) OS as the best choice to install on it. Much like their current strategy, but from the "open" angle, so MS can steal market share from Symbian, Android and Apple even after the user buys the phone by installing the MS OS instead of the default. Let desktop Windows install a mobile OS onto a phone, and sync everything between the two. That's a lot more likely to succeed, to offer the huge profit margins MS is used to, and to be like the SW business that MS understands, instead of a low margin HW business that competes with some big MS customers.
If MS could force the US to unbundle the mobile networks from the HW as the default, so there's a single mobile Internet instead of what's like the 1980s Compuserve/Source/GEnie that transparently roams even during a call, that would be the kind of platform where MS could make most of the profit while the HW and network providers do most of the work. Work that uses MS software to get done.
Google is pressuring that gradual openness. If Microsoft joined it instead of joining Apple, we'd all be better off - even if MS got most of the benefit.
I only measured once, finding it was "heads". So the probability it was heads is 100%. Without taking another measurement, I deduce that the probability it was tails was 0%.
OK. I just flipped a coin. It came up heads. Its coming up tails is now 0% probability. Its coming up heads is now 100% probability. As a coin I used the spin of a photon.
One of these quantum universes has to have every quantum event probability = 0%, and one p=100%. Those two together are the paradox of possibility-free time travel. In one, there's no chance of free will. In the other, a time machine is certain.