Yeah, that's what we need: PayPal and Microsoft to hold a global Internet banking cartel. The way the Microsoft/Apple duopoly served us so well for all these years.
The "free market" is just one institution of capitalism. That is, it would be if it actually ever existed. "Capitalism" is used to refer to all kinds of things these days, since the Cold War sanctified the term. But it simply means the economics that values capital higher than the alternatives, and distinctly devalues labor in comparison. Except when the labor is itself capital, property: slavery.
Corporatism is simply the ideology that values corporations highest, compared to the alternatives, notably humans. Corporations are entities created by the state to limit the liability of their owners and the labor that executes their work in the corporation's name, and to own property. Corporations are property. Corporatism is therefore a kind of capitalism, as it's the ideology that values corporate capital the highest, at the expense of devaluing labor that is merely human.
Corporatism is not practiced purely, either. The corporate shield does not protect executives and other workers from liability for crimes of damage to the environment, tax crimes, or payroll violations. But that is the (poorly balanced) bargain we've made to give corporations lots of power with minimal limits.
Government and corporations have some parity in their unaccountability, and the arc towards outright betrayal of their constituents or shareholders, respectively. That has largely been the fault of those constituents/shareholders, which failed to exercise the power they had as their respective governance procedures were regulated into unaccountability. By outsourcing to a corporate media and a corporate equity management ecosystem that, in both government and corporations, have developed overriding interest conflicts against their served people.
Government and business are in most ways not that different, and in many ways indistinguishable. Except for their mission: government is supposed to protect each human's rights and prerogatives equally, while corporations are expected to prefer people by how much money they've paid and when. So when corporations abuse us, we expect it. We're supposed to be disappointed, and take corrective action, when government exploits us instead of protecting us. Like from corporations. But corporations have propagandized us for so long, and government has spun itself out of catastrophic crises, that Americans have grown to accept abuse instead of protection. Nixon's Vietnam and Watergate were major evolutions, as was Reagan's Iran/Contra, but Bush Jr's 9/11/2001, Iraq and economic collapse really baked in our plight. All of those crises were met with huge spending to fatten Americans into distraction, while spinning the perception into believing government is the problem, instead of reforming it as the solution.
Somalia, like plenty of African and other countries in recent and prior generations, has a famine largely created by design of the people in power in Somalia. Exploiting the natural drought for further control of the people and more looting.
I'm sure that if you rely on Soviet propaganda, Stalin wasn't so bad, and after him everyone was safe from robbery by their Soviet government.
The US is increasingly Soviet in its tyrannies and theft. But even the oil corps can't hold a candle to the Soviets, including through the 1980s where they sent a generation to kill and die in Afghanistan. America's Afghanistan war isn't nearly as ruinous to our people. Though there is a race to the bottom, the Soviets set the record through most of their 7 decades.
Death isn't the worst fate. Starvation, terror, torture - all work only on the living.
Yes, the threat of death in the Soviet Union was real, as were those others. But Soviets generally were fed, clothed and more or less kept warm and in shelter. Somalia - no way. Most Somalis are subject to these depradations.
But either way it proves the point. The Soviet Union sucked because its government didn't protect its people's rights; it abused them. Somalia doesn't have a government, except for the competing warlords, who likewise abuses their people's rights. Corporations do the same thing, unless the people band together into a government to protect their rights.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed many species and habitats to be extincted and ruined, either by sportspeople themselves or by the industries the F&WS is charged with protecting them from.
And then there's the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was at the center of the way Republicans were selling casino franchises to mobsters through their Christian Coalition mafia, through Jack Abramoff. At least in that criminal enterprise people went to jail.
That's just off the top of my head, and from what's been reported. I'm sure there are people and perhaps whole offices that are not corrupt - it's a big department. But if we're rounding off, it's fair to say "totally corrupt".
"Big Oil" is easy to identify. There are a few very large oil corps, and a well-identified set of interlocking industries they pay and are paid by.
"Big Green" is a figment of your imagination. The scientists who publish thousands of papers each year do so in the interests of science. Their production is not measured by the profitable return on investment in money, but on the amount of new or verified information, and the amount their peers use their publications to do the same.
Science is desireable to society. Oil is at best a barely tolerable bargain for energy at the cost of money, pollution, corruption, disease and death.
What is "Big Green"? What is bigger than Big Oil? Except maybe the big banks, that are indistinguishable from Big Oil at the level of the dozens of $BILLIONS at work in speculation keeping oil prices up near $100:bbl.
What is a bigger threat than the global corruption, catastrophic pollution, epic robbery, destruction of innovation that oil corps wreak?
Solyndra spent $500 million of public money pushing solar tech and industry in the US forward, which is worth a lot more than $500M in developing our industry. The oil corps took $4 BILLION in direct public subsidies last year, atop dozen times that much profit, pushing nothing but stagnation and destruction. Big oil does drill in Alaska, and has been drilling there for decades. The lack of US drilling demonstrates the tiny return from the tiny remaining reserves compared to the large costs and risks.
No, I did not mean that people shouldn't question. I meant that once people think for themselves, and the oil corps are exposed to justice, "who's responsible?" would be a stupid question. Anyone still asking it would be a troll implying that maybe it's something other than the oil corps. Such a troll could only be working for the oil corps.
The hundreds of millions murdered were all murdered by and for corporations. Even when it was government that gave the orders, those orders were designed and then executed by corporations.
Well, the Shabaab is a corporation without the state to limit its liability. Without government, that's what the current corporations quickly become. With government, the current corporations have foreign operations in Somalia under the Shabaab. The Shabaab is part of the oil corps' procedure to rid Somalia of the people with a claim to the land under which the oil sits, waiting for drilling.
Capitalism is simply the economics that values capital above the other part of an economy: labor. We certainly do have capitalism. Nowhere is there laborism. Even socialism focuses on the people's whole value, not just their labor.
Corporatism is capitalism, because the corporation is the capital, including material and intangible equity. But American corporatism is a perverse sort, because the capital owners, the shareholders, are routinely robbed by the uppermost management. Who are labor, in its purest form: labor whose work is solely directing other labor. Some might call that a paradox. I'd call it a scam.
Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
It's likewise also the worst place to work - except for the others.
I note that while government and corporations both suck, no government but yes corporations sucks worse than no corporations but yes government. The Soviet Union sucked, but Somalia sucks worse. What's worst is when the government is just a tool of the corporations: fascism. And that really sucks. Fascist cubicles are the worst cubicles.
Yep, the bad rap the government gets is usually pretty easy to dispel when simply comparing it to its private business counterparts. It's too easy to demonize the government and ignore the hell of the private workplace.
What's wrong with a rubber tube filled with fluid that's pinched between a flat wall and a rotating ovoid? The ovoid would roll against the tube, flattening it against the wall starting at one end of the tube segment within reach, pushing down along the length. That's a "hermetically sealed unit" that pumps fluid through the tube.
If you do patent it, I hope Walt Dismal later takes all the money you make from it. I'll be happy to show the PTO the link to this subthread.
Or, since you're interested, you could just replicate it and commercialize it, without hiding behind a government monopoly granted to someone else's work.
So? The US spent $BILLIONS on all kinds of tech in the Cold War that was a worthless scam, too. Star Wars / SDI is the most obvious, but there's many weapons systems in that list. In fact the US probably spent more, since we spent so much more overall on the Cold War. The Russians, with their non-convertible currency and forced labor, were more likely to kill R&D by cheaping out than the US was.
Is there a way to evaporate these ferrofluids? Then sunlight could evaporate some ferrofluid against gravity, leaving it to condense and drain back through these "pumping" channels. By letting the moving fluid drive electrons through the pump's power circuits, the way an electric motor becomes a generator when a moving medium turns its driveshaft (eg. a windmill), the fluid would generate electrical power. Solar power might be captured at very high efficiency, in machines requiring very little/infrequent maintenance. Their overall efficiency would thereby increase, and make them more installable in places hard to reach but close to sunlight.
The sunlight might have to be concentrated if the evaporation point is hard to reach. But as long as the concentrated light vaporizes it without burning or otherwise chemically changing the ferrofluid, this kind of system could work. Combining high efficiency with large energy scales would mean lots of efficient energy.
Consumer-grade 35mm film has about 3000 grains per inch average, so each frame has a granularity of about 4000x3000. However, the photochemical process by which grains are exposed and fixed does not happen on a regular grid (like pixels do), and favors clustering of grains especially at edges. There is a nominally (except for texture of the backing medium) infinite degree of subgrain positions exposed grains can get fixed to when developed.
So while a 370NM distance might be covered by 4000 grains, about 171 meters per grain, the shapes defined by grains around features in the subject could possibly represent much finer sizes, perhaps down to several dozen feet.
Another factor is the nature of the subject. If you can tell from a fuzzy zoom simply whether or not a shape is dark or light, you might be able to tell whether a garage door (or missile silo) is open or closed, or empty or full. You might be able to tell that a light is on in an office at night. You might be able to tell that a line of tanks is arrayed, not a chainlink fence. A big part is the human eye and mind's ability to recognize shapes in fuzzy analog blotches, especially from a short list of possible answers. Which is what the majority of intelligence relies on: getting context, not just the target data, and making reasonable inferences.
It's declassified. What's interesting is not so much an arbitrarily short public exhibition, but a public release of its specs. I'd like to know what the NRO was using under Nixon to spy on the Soviets and Chinese, during the height of the Vietnam War. Where are the specs?
No they don't. David Vitter is still jerking around the Senate, after getting busted for paying women to diaper and screw him.
Name a Democrat who's gotten busted who still has their job. And again, if you're going to dig up ancient history like Barney Frank, you're just proving that your argument is irrelevant.
If Sigma-Aldrich is selling QDs for $8M:Kg, and the materials to make these are $1M:Kg, and the process in the video seems to discard only water that's less than 50% of the volume (and therefore probably <50% of the mass, considering the heavy elements from which the reagents appear to be made), and a skilled tech like the video's presenter probably gets paid at most a thousand dollars (in a commercial operation, not a university) for their time consumed, that's a pretty good profit at even research economy scales. It makes the equipment in the video, which can probably make hundreds of Kgs a year, seem probably relatively fairly cheap.
The raw materials are expensive at $1M:Kg, but that $1M probably buys you something like 500g of dots, which is probably about 100L in storage solution. The lab in the video is using the dots for finding (and possibly killing, by concentrating light onto) cancer cells, which probably require at most 100mLs per treatment. Which is 1000 treatments per $1M in raw materials, or $1000 per treatment. If my guesstimates are at all correct, and these dots do work for even detecting the cancer, they're far cheaper than the industrial economy scale painkillers in that patient's therapy, let alone the chemotherapy drugs they're also getting. Factor the reported effectiveness and lack of bad side effects, and the dots seem cheap in many measures.
So if my guesstimates are right, these QDs are already cheap, in the application under which the video was produced. I'm struggling to see how these dots are now "easy but expensive", given their high utility and the alternatives they can replace.
Other applications, like electro-optical switching and quantum computing, might not have either the expensive competition or the large market respectively, but indeed their markets would provide the demand scale to amortize the overhead of producing the first batch of raw materials across a much larger amount of produced units. And if this chemical pathway is consistently the easiest and cheapest (after raw materials cost) to produce dots usable in a wide range of applications, then more efficient processes, or cheaper materials for the path, should be developed fairly soon.
I think of postal service employees, who I don't usually think of in cubicles. I think of the FBI, the US Geological Survey, the Coast Guard, the Navy, NASA.
Many of those might be depressed cubicle workers, but that's the case of most American workers. And they're probably more depressed now as the Republicans follow their own massive expansion of government labor under Bush/Cheney (but perfectly typical of all "Conservative" Republican presidents) with destroying jobs (and the product market demand those jobs create) during Obama's administration.
But despite our Republican-led attacks on government workers (and workers generally), the American people do still expect the best of them. Whether we give them an underpaid cubicle, or a space capsule, or a mail truck, to work in.
We think they’re [Interior Department investigators] nervous about his portfolio of science in the Arctic,” said [watchdog org] PEER director Jeff Ruch, explaining that there’s enormous pressure to move ahead with offshore drilling in the [Arctic] region.
It's obvious what's going on here. The Interior Department, which under Bush/Cheney took cocaine and hookers from drilling, other oil and other energy corps who are supposed to pay (minimal) royalties to the Department, is totally corrupt. That is the agency that pretended to regulate BP and other drillers, allowing the Mocambo blowout to poison the Gulf last year (and generally, in less reported ongoing operations). Obama hasn't worked hard enough to replace the crooks running that department. But it's much harder when the Senate's Republican minority abuses the filibuster to block any useful replacement of the crooks, installed by Bush/Cheney when Republicans had the monopoly over all 3 branches. Specifically here Republican senator James Inhofe, paramount climate change denier, is wrangling the scientist witchhunt to protect the oil corps. Not to mention the lockstep loyalty Republicans practice in opposition to anything Obama does. Especially when it might interfere with oil corps' vast, subsidized profits protected from the consequences of their epic destruction.
I don't know why we even have to ask "who's responsible?" Of course it's the oil corps and their wholly owned assets in the government. The government should run real investigations, try and convict the people making and executing these plans. Then anyone asking the question will have to be an obvious employee of the oil corps, making their living by trying to make it somehow questionable who's doing this to us.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's what we need: PayPal and Microsoft to hold a global Internet banking cartel. The way the Microsoft/Apple duopoly served us so well for all these years.
The "free market" is just one institution of capitalism. That is, it would be if it actually ever existed. "Capitalism" is used to refer to all kinds of things these days, since the Cold War sanctified the term. But it simply means the economics that values capital higher than the alternatives, and distinctly devalues labor in comparison. Except when the labor is itself capital, property: slavery.
Corporatism is simply the ideology that values corporations highest, compared to the alternatives, notably humans. Corporations are entities created by the state to limit the liability of their owners and the labor that executes their work in the corporation's name, and to own property. Corporations are property. Corporatism is therefore a kind of capitalism, as it's the ideology that values corporate capital the highest, at the expense of devaluing labor that is merely human.
Corporatism is not practiced purely, either. The corporate shield does not protect executives and other workers from liability for crimes of damage to the environment, tax crimes, or payroll violations. But that is the (poorly balanced) bargain we've made to give corporations lots of power with minimal limits.
Government and corporations have some parity in their unaccountability, and the arc towards outright betrayal of their constituents or shareholders, respectively. That has largely been the fault of those constituents/shareholders, which failed to exercise the power they had as their respective governance procedures were regulated into unaccountability. By outsourcing to a corporate media and a corporate equity management ecosystem that, in both government and corporations, have developed overriding interest conflicts against their served people.
Government and business are in most ways not that different, and in many ways indistinguishable. Except for their mission: government is supposed to protect each human's rights and prerogatives equally, while corporations are expected to prefer people by how much money they've paid and when. So when corporations abuse us, we expect it. We're supposed to be disappointed, and take corrective action, when government exploits us instead of protecting us. Like from corporations. But corporations have propagandized us for so long, and government has spun itself out of catastrophic crises, that Americans have grown to accept abuse instead of protection. Nixon's Vietnam and Watergate were major evolutions, as was Reagan's Iran/Contra, but Bush Jr's 9/11/2001, Iraq and economic collapse really baked in our plight. All of those crises were met with huge spending to fatten Americans into distraction, while spinning the perception into believing government is the problem, instead of reforming it as the solution.
Somalia, like plenty of African and other countries in recent and prior generations, has a famine largely created by design of the people in power in Somalia. Exploiting the natural drought for further control of the people and more looting.
I'm sure that if you rely on Soviet propaganda, Stalin wasn't so bad, and after him everyone was safe from robbery by their Soviet government.
The US is increasingly Soviet in its tyrannies and theft. But even the oil corps can't hold a candle to the Soviets, including through the 1980s where they sent a generation to kill and die in Afghanistan. America's Afghanistan war isn't nearly as ruinous to our people. Though there is a race to the bottom, the Soviets set the record through most of their 7 decades.
Death isn't the worst fate. Starvation, terror, torture - all work only on the living.
Yes, the threat of death in the Soviet Union was real, as were those others. But Soviets generally were fed, clothed and more or less kept warm and in shelter. Somalia - no way. Most Somalis are subject to these depradations.
But either way it proves the point. The Soviet Union sucked because its government didn't protect its people's rights; it abused them. Somalia doesn't have a government, except for the competing warlords, who likewise abuses their people's rights. Corporations do the same thing, unless the people band together into a government to protect their rights.
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
The USGS pushes gas fracking with wild tales of vast reserves. Until it admits it overestimated by 400%. Fracking doesn't create the jobs, either.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed many species and habitats to be extincted and ruined, either by sportspeople themselves or by the industries the F&WS is charged with protecting them from.
And then there's the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was at the center of the way Republicans were selling casino franchises to mobsters through their Christian Coalition mafia, through Jack Abramoff. At least in that criminal enterprise people went to jail.
That's just off the top of my head, and from what's been reported. I'm sure there are people and perhaps whole offices that are not corrupt - it's a big department. But if we're rounding off, it's fair to say "totally corrupt".
"Big Oil" is easy to identify. There are a few very large oil corps, and a well-identified set of interlocking industries they pay and are paid by.
"Big Green" is a figment of your imagination. The scientists who publish thousands of papers each year do so in the interests of science. Their production is not measured by the profitable return on investment in money, but on the amount of new or verified information, and the amount their peers use their publications to do the same.
Science is desireable to society. Oil is at best a barely tolerable bargain for energy at the cost of money, pollution, corruption, disease and death.
I pick science. That wasn't difficult at all.
What is "Big Green"? What is bigger than Big Oil? Except maybe the big banks, that are indistinguishable from Big Oil at the level of the dozens of $BILLIONS at work in speculation keeping oil prices up near $100:bbl.
What is a bigger threat than the global corruption, catastrophic pollution, epic robbery, destruction of innovation that oil corps wreak?
Solyndra spent $500 million of public money pushing solar tech and industry in the US forward, which is worth a lot more than $500M in developing our industry. The oil corps took $4 BILLION in direct public subsidies last year, atop dozen times that much profit, pushing nothing but stagnation and destruction. Big oil does drill in Alaska, and has been drilling there for decades. The lack of US drilling demonstrates the tiny return from the tiny remaining reserves compared to the large costs and risks.
No, I did not mean that people shouldn't question. I meant that once people think for themselves, and the oil corps are exposed to justice, "who's responsible?" would be a stupid question. Anyone still asking it would be a troll implying that maybe it's something other than the oil corps. Such a troll could only be working for the oil corps.
The hundreds of millions murdered were all murdered by and for corporations. Even when it was government that gave the orders, those orders were designed and then executed by corporations.
Well, the Shabaab is a corporation without the state to limit its liability. Without government, that's what the current corporations quickly become. With government, the current corporations have foreign operations in Somalia under the Shabaab. The Shabaab is part of the oil corps' procedure to rid Somalia of the people with a claim to the land under which the oil sits, waiting for drilling.
Capitalism is simply the economics that values capital above the other part of an economy: labor. We certainly do have capitalism. Nowhere is there laborism. Even socialism focuses on the people's whole value, not just their labor.
Corporatism is capitalism, because the corporation is the capital, including material and intangible equity. But American corporatism is a perverse sort, because the capital owners, the shareholders, are routinely robbed by the uppermost management. Who are labor, in its purest form: labor whose work is solely directing other labor. Some might call that a paradox. I'd call it a scam.
I know - that's why I want the specs.
Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
It's likewise also the worst place to work - except for the others.
I note that while government and corporations both suck, no government but yes corporations sucks worse than no corporations but yes government. The Soviet Union sucked, but Somalia sucks worse. What's worst is when the government is just a tool of the corporations: fascism. And that really sucks. Fascist cubicles are the worst cubicles.
Yep, the bad rap the government gets is usually pretty easy to dispel when simply comparing it to its private business counterparts. It's too easy to demonize the government and ignore the hell of the private workplace.
What's wrong with a rubber tube filled with fluid that's pinched between a flat wall and a rotating ovoid? The ovoid would roll against the tube, flattening it against the wall starting at one end of the tube segment within reach, pushing down along the length. That's a "hermetically sealed unit" that pumps fluid through the tube.
If you do patent it, I hope Walt Dismal later takes all the money you make from it. I'll be happy to show the PTO the link to this subthread.
Or, since you're interested, you could just replicate it and commercialize it, without hiding behind a government monopoly granted to someone else's work.
So? The US spent $BILLIONS on all kinds of tech in the Cold War that was a worthless scam, too. Star Wars / SDI is the most obvious, but there's many weapons systems in that list. In fact the US probably spent more, since we spent so much more overall on the Cold War. The Russians, with their non-convertible currency and forced labor, were more likely to kill R&D by cheaping out than the US was.
Is there a way to evaporate these ferrofluids? Then sunlight could evaporate some ferrofluid against gravity, leaving it to condense and drain back through these "pumping" channels. By letting the moving fluid drive electrons through the pump's power circuits, the way an electric motor becomes a generator when a moving medium turns its driveshaft (eg. a windmill), the fluid would generate electrical power. Solar power might be captured at very high efficiency, in machines requiring very little/infrequent maintenance. Their overall efficiency would thereby increase, and make them more installable in places hard to reach but close to sunlight.
The sunlight might have to be concentrated if the evaporation point is hard to reach. But as long as the concentrated light vaporizes it without burning or otherwise chemically changing the ferrofluid, this kind of system could work. Combining high efficiency with large energy scales would mean lots of efficient energy.
Consumer-grade 35mm film has about 3000 grains per inch average, so each frame has a granularity of about 4000x3000. However, the photochemical process by which grains are exposed and fixed does not happen on a regular grid (like pixels do), and favors clustering of grains especially at edges. There is a nominally (except for texture of the backing medium) infinite degree of subgrain positions exposed grains can get fixed to when developed.
So while a 370NM distance might be covered by 4000 grains, about 171 meters per grain, the shapes defined by grains around features in the subject could possibly represent much finer sizes, perhaps down to several dozen feet.
Another factor is the nature of the subject. If you can tell from a fuzzy zoom simply whether or not a shape is dark or light, you might be able to tell whether a garage door (or missile silo) is open or closed, or empty or full. You might be able to tell that a light is on in an office at night. You might be able to tell that a line of tanks is arrayed, not a chainlink fence. A big part is the human eye and mind's ability to recognize shapes in fuzzy analog blotches, especially from a short list of possible answers. Which is what the majority of intelligence relies on: getting context, not just the target data, and making reasonable inferences.
"50 year" is an adjectival phrase. It's an anniversary. The kind of anniversary: "50 year". AKA "50th anniversary".
If you're going to be pedantic, be correct.
It's declassified. What's interesting is not so much an arbitrarily short public exhibition, but a public release of its specs. I'd like to know what the NRO was using under Nixon to spy on the Soviets and Chinese, during the height of the Vietnam War. Where are the specs?
So? I work in NYC, and what they said is at least as true of private corporate workers, but without any "serving their country" glory.
No they don't. David Vitter is still jerking around the Senate, after getting busted for paying women to diaper and screw him.
Name a Democrat who's gotten busted who still has their job. And again, if you're going to dig up ancient history like Barney Frank, you're just proving that your argument is irrelevant.
If Sigma-Aldrich is selling QDs for $8M:Kg, and the materials to make these are $1M:Kg, and the process in the video seems to discard only water that's less than 50% of the volume (and therefore probably <50% of the mass, considering the heavy elements from which the reagents appear to be made), and a skilled tech like the video's presenter probably gets paid at most a thousand dollars (in a commercial operation, not a university) for their time consumed, that's a pretty good profit at even research economy scales. It makes the equipment in the video, which can probably make hundreds of Kgs a year, seem probably relatively fairly cheap.
The raw materials are expensive at $1M:Kg, but that $1M probably buys you something like 500g of dots, which is probably about 100L in storage solution. The lab in the video is using the dots for finding (and possibly killing, by concentrating light onto) cancer cells, which probably require at most 100mLs per treatment. Which is 1000 treatments per $1M in raw materials, or $1000 per treatment. If my guesstimates are at all correct, and these dots do work for even detecting the cancer, they're far cheaper than the industrial economy scale painkillers in that patient's therapy, let alone the chemotherapy drugs they're also getting. Factor the reported effectiveness and lack of bad side effects, and the dots seem cheap in many measures.
So if my guesstimates are right, these QDs are already cheap, in the application under which the video was produced. I'm struggling to see how these dots are now "easy but expensive", given their high utility and the alternatives they can replace.
Other applications, like electro-optical switching and quantum computing, might not have either the expensive competition or the large market respectively, but indeed their markets would provide the demand scale to amortize the overhead of producing the first batch of raw materials across a much larger amount of produced units. And if this chemical pathway is consistently the easiest and cheapest (after raw materials cost) to produce dots usable in a wide range of applications, then more efficient processes, or cheaper materials for the path, should be developed fairly soon.
I think of postal service employees, who I don't usually think of in cubicles. I think of the FBI, the US Geological Survey, the Coast Guard, the Navy, NASA.
Many of those might be depressed cubicle workers, but that's the case of most American workers. And they're probably more depressed now as the Republicans follow their own massive expansion of government labor under Bush/Cheney (but perfectly typical of all "Conservative" Republican presidents) with destroying jobs (and the product market demand those jobs create) during Obama's administration.
But despite our Republican-led attacks on government workers (and workers generally), the American people do still expect the best of them. Whether we give them an underpaid cubicle, or a space capsule, or a mail truck, to work in.
You are correct. Thanks for the correction.
If you click through the links in the Summit County Voice articles that have been covering this story, you get to
"Feds may be muzzling scientist over Arctic research":
It's obvious what's going on here. The Interior Department, which under Bush/Cheney took cocaine and hookers from drilling, other oil and other energy corps who are supposed to pay (minimal) royalties to the Department, is totally corrupt. That is the agency that pretended to regulate BP and other drillers, allowing the Mocambo blowout to poison the Gulf last year (and generally, in less reported ongoing operations). Obama hasn't worked hard enough to replace the crooks running that department. But it's much harder when the Senate's Republican minority abuses the filibuster to block any useful replacement of the crooks, installed by Bush/Cheney when Republicans had the monopoly over all 3 branches. Specifically here Republican senator James Inhofe, paramount climate change denier, is wrangling the scientist witchhunt to protect the oil corps. Not to mention the lockstep loyalty Republicans practice in opposition to anything Obama does. Especially when it might interfere with oil corps' vast, subsidized profits protected from the consequences of their epic destruction.
I don't know why we even have to ask "who's responsible?" Of course it's the oil corps and their wholly owned assets in the government. The government should run real investigations, try and convict the people making and executing these plans. Then anyone asking the question will have to be an obvious employee of the oil corps, making their living by trying to make it somehow questionable who's doing this to us.