Another issue: Even if they're transmitting, how hard are they doing it, and how hard are we listening?
I mean, if you look at thei figures for the SETI project and how far away they'd be able to detect another planet with identical transmission patterns to the earth(well, in the past a number of years equal to their distance).
It's well under a hundred ly. Heck, 'I love lucy' doesn't make it past Pluto in recognizable strength! source.
Oh yeah, you can get 720 light years of range - while transmitting at.1 HZ and 22 Terrawatts of EIRP! That, at least to me, indicates a rather extraordinary amount of effort. For a spherical transmission you're talking about 22k nuclear plants. Heck, even with a very directional transmitter, effectively aiming it at us, you're still looking at putting at least one huge power plant behind it.
Even for smaller efforts, you're talking a LOT of power.
I'm a bit surprised that I haven't seen the old equation(I'm paraphrasing it)
X1 chance of a solar system having planets X2 chance that a solar system with planets, having planets in the zone suitable for life X3 chance that the planet in the zone has the right composition to support life X4 chance that life developes X5 chance that, life having developed, that intelligent life develops X6 chance that, intelligent life developing, that they become a technological civilization capable of using radio, and either transmitting to be found or listening hard enough to hear us.
Put all that together with stuff we're finding out about how relatively rare a solar system like ours is and even the vast amount of stars tends to make the odds of one being in our detection zone very, very small.
Far enough out, as a matter of fact, that I figure that if lightspeed is indeed a hard limit, if we don't find a method to accellerate like in most SciFi, that 10% of LS for a ship is being optimistic.
In such a scenario I figure that by the time a civilization is good enough to travel between stars to colonize other systems it's beyond the need or want for planets.
While the protocols might not be patented/copyrighted, there would be trade secrets and documentation, that in exchange for the 'licensing', Microsoft provides documentation, perhaps even assistance in the creation of SAMBA.
By my count that's $10 million per predator. Sure future ground systems should be able to handle more drones, but it'll cost more too.
That's $10 million per predator and all of it's ground systems and support equipment. You break one(or the enemy does it for you), you go out and buy another predator, you don't need to replace all the ground systems.
I figure we have about a $5-10 million range for the cost of the predator drone itself.
And if we're going for almost disposable drones, $3 million is a bit steep even for the US military. I guess it'd depend on how capable these drones are.
The 'almost' is a pretty big one, I'll agree. Still, in degrees of danger, you'd much rather sent a $3M drone into the most dangerous areas rather than a $100M plane with a live pilot. Of course, I'd only send a drone when I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose it if I didn't have targeting data sufficient to send a cruise missile.
It's not that the drone is cheap; it's that it's the least expensive option. Think of it as a pawn sacrifice move.
Another factor in retiring the 117 is that the Air Force is _desperate_ for money to replace aging aircraft it should have replaced years ago. That means dumping lots of support people such as personnellists, retiring every system they can, and focusing on priority number one which is total air dominance. Offing the 117 frees up the many people supporting it to shift to the Raptor.
As a trivia point, the USAF was trying to retire the F117 years ago. It got held up in congress and essentially ordered to keep flying them. More or less a pork project as there's lots of money to be made in contracting and such for maintenance to keep them flying.
Personally, I was figuring more on a cruise missile than a drone* for such a high risk target. Still, it's not like we can't make an educated guess. ~$500k for a tomahawk. $40 million for a set of 4 predators, including ground systems.
Figure half the cost is the ground station and sat link, and that's $5 million each for the preds. $3 million for a more disposable drone isn't out of sight. Or for a much more capable cruise missile, for that matter.
*The difference being that you at least hope to get the drone back.
The idea was to go the opposite route. Instead of stealth, have all the B-52's light up those radars as bright as they can. So instead of seeing the large B-52 on the radar you'd see something akin to the size of the ships in Independence Day. Huge giant radar blob. In fact dozens of giant radar blobs.
Close, but a little more complicated. Radar is normally designed to work with weak reflections(you're looking for that stealth fighter, after all).
So you have a guy with a flashlight shining it around to see stuff via the reflections. What the B52 possesses are jamming systems that work like shining a flashlight into the guy's eyes. When put up against fighters, you're looking at equipment that probably weighs as much as the fighter's entire electronics package and is powered by those 8 engines. So it has a BIGGER flashlight.
Beyond that, it's usual response to ground systems is to use air launch cruise missiles from beyond the ground system's missile ranges.
From an unclassified paper I saw, it's basically 'all of the above'.
The F117 was designed back when stealth wasn't as well understood as today. Thus, design limitations are present left and right. It's not a very maneuverable craft, it's slow compared to most other military combat planes, doesn't have a huge range, very limited payload capacity, no effective AA capability.
It's also a maintenance hog, servicing it is difficult, requiring many hours of labor.
The F22, from what I read, is actually stealthier as well as more maneuverable, faster, and capable of carrying a much larger payload. It's too early to tell, but it's also at least projected to require much less in the way of maintenance.
Very hot day would be the worst. Think about it, the hotter the day the more vaporized(and therefore potentially explosive) gasoline there will be in the air. Given disbursion, there'll be an explosive section somewhere in the transition from 100% natural air to 100% vaporous gasoline. Trying to move a lit match through it will create a boom, and the hotter the air, the bigger the cloud, the bigger the boom.
The best time would be in the middle of winter up north. -30 or so would limit the amount of spread. Then again, with a flash point of -50, you'd still have some distance to go. Maybe summer gas up there in the winter.
Then again, the heat from the match itself would probably be able to vaporized enough gasoline to cause problems.
Not really. Depending upon the grade, it's its own distillate from the stack.
There's different grades of jet fuel. For the SR71, it was a very special blend, closer to diesel then kerosine, but still designed to be liquid in both far colder and far hotter temperatures.
I said 'Walmart type store' and I'm sticking to it. 90% there.
Yes, those Walmart type stores actually have a better selection of 4:3 TVs than dedicated electronics stores, which would indeed be 99.9% 16:9.
Still, I think that the point would be that people are shifting to the wider ratio more and more. I don't think that it'll be many more years before widescreens outnumber full screens.
As for hunger, it takes 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of edible animal protein so who is trying to do/doing more to end hunger, you or them?
Couple problems with that. First is that the 16 pound figure requires a 100% grain fed cow. It doesn't take 16 pound of grain if you let the cows graze in the field; where they'll subsist quite happily on grass that's inedible to humans, on land that's marginal or unsuitable for the growing of grain. Cows do normally get some grain to help fatten them up before slaughter, or in cattle yards while being transported and such because it's cheaper to move the mover nutrient dense grain than fodder such as hay.
The second problem is that hunger today isn't a technical problem. We could, while keeping our meat, feet every person on the planet a healthy diet today. The problem is political in nature - governments don't allow the aid to get to the starving populations. There's active fighting so aid trucks can't make it through, corrupt officials who 'tax' the aid shipments, lack of transportation, etc...
What, you want us to eat the cow while it's still alive?
Personally, talking about torturing animals is something of a misnomer. I and most meat eaters prefer our prey to die as surprised as possible. Pain, shock, and adreniline tend to render meat untasty, and an animal that dies surprised isn't an animal killing or harming the butcher.
In addition, most 'game' species don't have sufficient natural controls on their population. I've taken two deer out of the population, and by golly, I'm eating venison.
While it would indeed be nice to restore the biological pathways to allow humans to synthesize more of our own vitamins, there are serious biological requirements to enable the digestion of cellulose. In a human, it's indigestible fiber. It's food for a cow.
Of course, I like meat, and will continue to eat it.
I don't want or need a leather couch when a comfortable fabric will be cheaper and probly last longer and not stick to my skin on a humid day, so long as the furniture looks nice where it goes.
Wasn't referring to a coach, more a whole furniture set. I was trying for more vague terms - sometimes quality now is better than going cheap.
The key point here, is saving. I have not faith in my 401k and none whatsover in Social Security so I have to save my own funds for retirement if I want to have one.
Is that 'no faith in my 401k'? It's still your money, unlike the ponzi scheme that is SS. And yes, I'm saving my own funds for retirement.
Food, gas, and other consumables never go on a credit card. That's a sure sign to eventual disaster if you're income depends on your own labor and not that of others to pay bills.
Thats stuff normally goes on my CC, it's just that they also get a check in full each month so I don't ever pay interest. A CC isn't bad in the scheme of things, it's far better than payday loans, for example, but it can be abused.
There's 3 in Chicago that replaced either 7 or 11 oil cooled copper lines. The power company actually made money on that while increasing capacity I hear. They pulled out and sold the copper to cover the cost of the conductors. The LN cost is covered by reduced heat losses and the elimination of the need to pump & cool the oil.
I have to agree, debt is not necessarily bad or unavoidable. What you shouldn't have debt for is transitory things, if at all possible. Non-essential is another. Going into debt for that visit to disney is bad. Going into debt for a house, especially when the interest + maintenance - appreciation is less than what renting would be, is good. A car can help you make money, plus it at least builds equity(eventually). I had a 5 year loan for my car(0% interest), I still have the car, and it still has value.
Furnishing a house is marginal*, in my opinion, but even if you borrow to purchase a furniture set, as long as you're not being stupid about it, it's okay. Furniture is necessary. So isn't cookware, etc... Let's say a 'marginal' used furniture set is $500, while the 'good' furniture set is $5k**. The marginal furniture set is just that, and I'm assuming that the $5k set is pretty much 'lifetime'. If the total amount of interest you'd pay between obtaining the marginal set and replacing it with the good set is less than $500, you're financially better off paying the interest and getting the good set now.
BTW, by the sound of it you're firmly in the 'middle class' by my rule of thumb definition. You have money for extras, you could have saved that $10k. Part of the benefits of being middle class, of earning more money, is a better life.
* By 'marginal' I more mean deserves a close look before saying whether it's good or bad. ** I have no real idea how much furniture sets cost.
Renouncing one's US citizenship is an extremely difficult process, thanks to legislation intended to combat rich tax dodgers. If one successfully does it, one may be forever afterward denied entry into the United States.
I know, which is why I pointed out dodging/shaping/evading more. The rich can afford to hire a legion of accountants to utilize tax shelters and such to lower their taxes. A doctor making a 'mere' $250k a year can afford a good accountant part time, but not a group of them. Or lobbyists to adjust laws to keep the shelters open.
Leaving the country is the last option, but it's still there.
The harder you make it, the better chance people will be caught committing a crime.
The problem I was getting at is that if you concentrate too much on the 'silver bullet' system, you waste so much resources that you end up unable to pursue the criminal - even if you know who he or she is.
Setting this system up is going to cost money. Serious amounts of it.
The way I look at it - $X put towards traditional police methods catches Y% of crimes. If $(X-Z) traditional police methods + $Z new technology/methodology catches > Y%, then it's worth it. Yes, there are privacy concerns and such in there. Like preventing false convictions, preferably even arrests of the innocent. I look at those as a more messy yet harder to assess issue.
Heck, if there's an expedient way to purge DNA of those who aren't convicted, whether simply never charged or found not guilty, then this isn't as big of a deal to me.
Take the ballistics database in Maryland - $2.5 million spent, not cases solved or even expedited by it. Turns out a gun's 'fingerprint' changes over time and wear and the ammunition used, especially when new. $2.5 million could have been another 25 or more officers on the street during that time.
Even with only 792 guns, the correct gun was only in the top 15 less than 50% for multiple characteristics(considered essential for further investigation).
DNA isn't necessarily a big deal. If I was being a cautious criminal I'd already be wearing gloves to prevent fingerprints, as long as I don't cut myself or get scratched up or whatever I'm not going to leave enough DNA for the police to find it. Especially for something as simple as a home burglary.
All this makes me wonder how many mystery DNA samples the police have for 'cold cases'. Theoretically this could give you an idea of how many crimes you might be able to solve with this system in place.
By these fairly reasonable definitions, it is quite possible to be "worth" millions, yet be economically poor. In fact, this is the situation most independent farmers and many independent businessmen find themselves in.
Very true. Note that I did indeed mention the 'sole proprietor', does millions in business each year, but because his margins end up being only 1% or so, is actually only middle class.
It's part of the reason I like the definition. If you merely say 'worth a million', you catch a lot of these types of people in your net.
I'll also note that by these definitions the middle class expands quite a bit. It depends on area and local cost of living, but it'd remove most lawyers and doctors from the 'rich' category, as they still have to work even though they DO live quite comfortably and are on the path to becoming rich.
If it's taxes you're looking to avoid, and you haven't already, consider contributing to a traditional IRA.
Already have a 401k. The 'more taxes' part comes in that because I'm looking to retire early I can't put all my money into tax deferred accounts. Because I'm looking to have the same or more income when I retire, I'm maxing out a roth first.
companies not paying living wages and making sure the poor STAY poor.
You know, I find it sad that here we've been exporting jobs to china and india to save wages, yet people still aren't making 'living wages'.
I agree that you can make smarter choices with your money, but if your choices are having a 'safety margin' and eating, well, you'll probably choose to eat.
I have an interesting view on life, especially what minimum income levels it takes to survive on, what's critical and what's luxury, but yes, I agree that eating comes first. If you're having trouble making food bills, then you're poor(and probably qualify for assistance). I once, on a challange, drew up a budget for somebody making the old minimum wage because somebody said it's impossible to live on it. It can be done. It's just not nice.
Still, I only worked for minumum wage for about 3 months when I was still in HS. Ever since then, I've exceeded that wage by varying amounts.
Part of that is that I DO have knowledge, specifically money management skills. I don't keep track quite like I could if I wanted to, and my budget is fairly flexible, but it's that way because I can afford to be that way. I could probably save some money if I started clipping coupons more, but it just isn't worth the time to me for the moment.
Where you and I could probably borrow at around 7% for that two-year-old used car, the guy with no money has to pay 20% interest or more in a lot of cases.
Unavoidable consequence in that the poor guy with no money is far less likely to pay his loan back on time. Some poor people have good credit, many don't. Many can't handle it, viewing a credit card as 'free money'. For the poor guy who's likely to haul himself out of that category, a $500 decade old car out of the paper is probably a better option. Heck, my car is now 5 years old and still works fine. I really enjoy not having that car payment, but it's getting socked into investments for the eventual purchase of another car, as I know it won't last forever. Of course, I've never had 'bad' credit. I got my first CC back when I was 18, unsecured even. Still have that account*. Use it almost like a debit card; paying it off in full each month.
I've also said that any company that wants to pay that little shouldn't expect employees with cars. Works best in a labor-tight economy, of course, but I've heard of businesses in the past doing stuff like send out a van to pick up their cheap labor. Heck, over in China many factories provide dormatories and dining facilities for their workers.
You can't get a checking account if you don't make enough money, so you lose a chunk of your paycheck to a place that WILL cash it for you. You get charged service fees on your checking account if you don't have enough money in it. The whole setup is regressive.
If there's one business type that I'd throw a brick through the window on just general principal, it's the payday loan/check cashing businesses.
In reality, I've found that a little shopping around will get you a bank account without all that stuff. I've had a no-minimum, no fee** checking acount since I was 14-15. Heck, even a $5-10 montly fee would be cheaper than many check cashing places. Heck, last year I 'upgraded' it to a new plan that also gives me interest*** and 2 free foreign ATM withdrawals. Not bad, huh?
*Well, it's changed numbers because I got a bad/fradulent charge on it once; turned out the company handed a CC number off one line than what they should have. I wrote a letter and got it straightened out. Haven't had any problems since. **As long as I don't go bouncing checks. ***On average, about 18 cents a month;)
Slashdot Mirror
Just because most of the variables are unknown doesn't make it useless.
For example, we're starting to solve some of the earlier ones, at least from a statistical standpoint.
Right now it's pretty much 'really, really low'. The vast majority of stars don't have a planet suitable for life as we vaguely know it.
Another issue: Even if they're transmitting, how hard are they doing it, and how hard are we listening?
.1 HZ and 22 Terrawatts of EIRP! That, at least to me, indicates a rather extraordinary amount of effort. For a spherical transmission you're talking about 22k nuclear plants. Heck, even with a very directional transmitter, effectively aiming it at us, you're still looking at putting at least one huge power plant behind it.
I mean, if you look at thei figures for the SETI project and how far away they'd be able to detect another planet with identical transmission patterns to the earth(well, in the past a number of years equal to their distance).
It's well under a hundred ly. Heck, 'I love lucy' doesn't make it past Pluto in recognizable strength! source.
Oh yeah, you can get 720 light years of range - while transmitting at
Even for smaller efforts, you're talking a LOT of power.
I'm a bit surprised that I haven't seen the old equation(I'm paraphrasing it)
X1 chance of a solar system having planets
X2 chance that a solar system with planets, having planets in the zone suitable for life
X3 chance that the planet in the zone has the right composition to support life
X4 chance that life developes
X5 chance that, life having developed, that intelligent life develops
X6 chance that, intelligent life developing, that they become a technological civilization capable of using radio, and either transmitting to be found or listening hard enough to hear us.
Put all that together with stuff we're finding out about how relatively rare a solar system like ours is and even the vast amount of stars tends to make the odds of one being in our detection zone very, very small.
Far enough out, as a matter of fact, that I figure that if lightspeed is indeed a hard limit, if we don't find a method to accellerate like in most SciFi, that 10% of LS for a ship is being optimistic.
In such a scenario I figure that by the time a civilization is good enough to travel between stars to colonize other systems it's beyond the need or want for planets.
The smart way to do it would be to generate the XOR stripes are generated from the cyphertext, creating no weakness.
If you're cyphering after the xor stripes are created, well, it could create a weakness, but if the encryption is strong it shouldn't.
While the protocols might not be patented/copyrighted, there would be trade secrets and documentation, that in exchange for the 'licensing', Microsoft provides documentation, perhaps even assistance in the creation of SAMBA.
By my count that's $10 million per predator. Sure future ground systems should be able to handle more drones, but it'll cost more too.
That's $10 million per predator and all of it's ground systems and support equipment. You break one(or the enemy does it for you), you go out and buy another predator, you don't need to replace all the ground systems.
I figure we have about a $5-10 million range for the cost of the predator drone itself.
And if we're going for almost disposable drones, $3 million is a bit steep even for the US military. I guess it'd depend on how capable these drones are.
The 'almost' is a pretty big one, I'll agree. Still, in degrees of danger, you'd much rather sent a $3M drone into the most dangerous areas rather than a $100M plane with a live pilot. Of course, I'd only send a drone when I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose it if I didn't have targeting data sufficient to send a cruise missile.
It's not that the drone is cheap; it's that it's the least expensive option. Think of it as a pawn sacrifice move.
Another factor in retiring the 117 is that the Air Force is _desperate_ for money to replace aging aircraft it should have replaced years ago. That means dumping lots of support people such as personnellists, retiring every system they can, and focusing on priority number one which is total air dominance. Offing the 117 frees up the many people supporting it to shift to the Raptor.
As a trivia point, the USAF was trying to retire the F117 years ago. It got held up in congress and essentially ordered to keep flying them. More or less a pork project as there's lots of money to be made in contracting and such for maintenance to keep them flying.
while the drone cost is hypothetical.
Personally, I was figuring more on a cruise missile than a drone* for such a high risk target. Still, it's not like we can't make an educated guess.
~$500k for a tomahawk.
$40 million for a set of 4 predators, including ground systems.
Figure half the cost is the ground station and sat link, and that's $5 million each for the preds. $3 million for a more disposable drone isn't out of sight. Or for a much more capable cruise missile, for that matter.
*The difference being that you at least hope to get the drone back.
The idea was to go the opposite route. Instead of stealth, have all the B-52's light up those radars as bright as they can. So instead of seeing the large B-52 on the radar you'd see something akin to the size of the ships in Independence Day. Huge giant radar blob. In fact dozens of giant radar blobs.
Close, but a little more complicated. Radar is normally designed to work with weak reflections(you're looking for that stealth fighter, after all).
So you have a guy with a flashlight shining it around to see stuff via the reflections. What the B52 possesses are jamming systems that work like shining a flashlight into the guy's eyes. When put up against fighters, you're looking at equipment that probably weighs as much as the fighter's entire electronics package and is powered by those 8 engines. So it has a BIGGER flashlight.
Beyond that, it's usual response to ground systems is to use air launch cruise missiles from beyond the ground system's missile ranges.
From an unclassified paper I saw, it's basically 'all of the above'.
The F117 was designed back when stealth wasn't as well understood as today. Thus, design limitations are present left and right. It's not a very maneuverable craft, it's slow compared to most other military combat planes, doesn't have a huge range, very limited payload capacity, no effective AA capability.
It's also a maintenance hog, servicing it is difficult, requiring many hours of labor.
The F22, from what I read, is actually stealthier as well as more maneuverable, faster, and capable of carrying a much larger payload. It's too early to tell, but it's also at least projected to require much less in the way of maintenance.
Very hot day would be the worst. Think about it, the hotter the day the more vaporized(and therefore potentially explosive) gasoline there will be in the air. Given disbursion, there'll be an explosive section somewhere in the transition from 100% natural air to 100% vaporous gasoline. Trying to move a lit match through it will create a boom, and the hotter the air, the bigger the cloud, the bigger the boom.
The best time would be in the middle of winter up north. -30 or so would limit the amount of spread. Then again, with a flash point of -50, you'd still have some distance to go. Maybe summer gas up there in the winter.
Then again, the heat from the match itself would probably be able to vaporized enough gasoline to cause problems.
So don't try it is very right.
Jet fuel is a mixture of gasoline and kerosine.
Not really. Depending upon the grade, it's its own distillate from the stack.
There's different grades of jet fuel. For the SR71, it was a very special blend, closer to diesel then kerosine, but still designed to be liquid in both far colder and far hotter temperatures.
The match trick works fine with it, for example.
I said 'Walmart type store' and I'm sticking to it. 90% there.
Yes, those Walmart type stores actually have a better selection of 4:3 TVs than dedicated electronics stores, which would indeed be 99.9% 16:9.
Still, I think that the point would be that people are shifting to the wider ratio more and more. I don't think that it'll be many more years before widescreens outnumber full screens.
Just what I was going to suggest, though you do have to look sometimes for a monitor where the stand supports the 90 degree rotation.
Works great if you're doing stuff where the extra vertical is more useful than the extra horizontal.
The quickest answer to this I think would be to take a walk through the AV section of a Walmart type store.
90% of their TV offerings today are widescreen. I'd expect their DVD offers to follow the same trend.
As for hunger, it takes 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of edible animal protein so who is trying to do/doing more to end hunger, you or them?
Couple problems with that. First is that the 16 pound figure requires a 100% grain fed cow. It doesn't take 16 pound of grain if you let the cows graze in the field; where they'll subsist quite happily on grass that's inedible to humans, on land that's marginal or unsuitable for the growing of grain. Cows do normally get some grain to help fatten them up before slaughter, or in cattle yards while being transported and such because it's cheaper to move the mover nutrient dense grain than fodder such as hay.
The second problem is that hunger today isn't a technical problem. We could, while keeping our meat, feet every person on the planet a healthy diet today. The problem is political in nature - governments don't allow the aid to get to the starving populations. There's active fighting so aid trucks can't make it through, corrupt officials who 'tax' the aid shipments, lack of transportation, etc...
What, you want us to eat the cow while it's still alive?
Personally, talking about torturing animals is something of a misnomer. I and most meat eaters prefer our prey to die as surprised as possible. Pain, shock, and adreniline tend to render meat untasty, and an animal that dies surprised isn't an animal killing or harming the butcher.
In addition, most 'game' species don't have sufficient natural controls on their population. I've taken two deer out of the population, and by golly, I'm eating venison.
While it would indeed be nice to restore the biological pathways to allow humans to synthesize more of our own vitamins, there are serious biological requirements to enable the digestion of cellulose. In a human, it's indigestible fiber. It's food for a cow.
Of course, I like meat, and will continue to eat it.
I don't want or need a leather couch when a comfortable fabric will be cheaper and probly last longer and not stick to my skin on a humid day, so long as the furniture looks nice where it goes.
Wasn't referring to a coach, more a whole furniture set. I was trying for more vague terms - sometimes quality now is better than going cheap.
The key point here, is saving. I have not faith in my 401k and none whatsover in Social Security so I have to save my own funds for retirement if I want to have one.
Is that 'no faith in my 401k'? It's still your money, unlike the ponzi scheme that is SS. And yes, I'm saving my own funds for retirement.
Food, gas, and other consumables never go on a credit card. That's a sure sign to eventual disaster if you're income depends on your own labor and not that of others to pay bills.
Thats stuff normally goes on my CC, it's just that they also get a check in full each month so I don't ever pay interest. A CC isn't bad in the scheme of things, it's far better than payday loans, for example, but it can be abused.
There's 3 in Chicago that replaced either 7 or 11 oil cooled copper lines. The power company actually made money on that while increasing capacity I hear. They pulled out and sold the copper to cover the cost of the conductors. The LN cost is covered by reduced heat losses and the elimination of the need to pump & cool the oil.
I know of at least 5 superconductor power lines installed in the USA.
The important point was getting over 77k, where the relatively cheap liquid nitrogen can be used instead of other things like liquid helium.
I have to agree, debt is not necessarily bad or unavoidable. What you shouldn't have debt for is transitory things, if at all possible. Non-essential is another. Going into debt for that visit to disney is bad. Going into debt for a house, especially when the interest + maintenance - appreciation is less than what renting would be, is good. A car can help you make money, plus it at least builds equity(eventually). I had a 5 year loan for my car(0% interest), I still have the car, and it still has value.
Furnishing a house is marginal*, in my opinion, but even if you borrow to purchase a furniture set, as long as you're not being stupid about it, it's okay. Furniture is necessary. So isn't cookware, etc... Let's say a 'marginal' used furniture set is $500, while the 'good' furniture set is $5k**. The marginal furniture set is just that, and I'm assuming that the $5k set is pretty much 'lifetime'. If the total amount of interest you'd pay between obtaining the marginal set and replacing it with the good set is less than $500, you're financially better off paying the interest and getting the good set now.
BTW, by the sound of it you're firmly in the 'middle class' by my rule of thumb definition. You have money for extras, you could have saved that $10k. Part of the benefits of being middle class, of earning more money, is a better life.
* By 'marginal' I more mean deserves a close look before saying whether it's good or bad.
** I have no real idea how much furniture sets cost.
Renouncing one's US citizenship is an extremely difficult process, thanks to legislation intended to combat rich tax dodgers. If one successfully does it, one may be forever afterward denied entry into the United States.
I know, which is why I pointed out dodging/shaping/evading more. The rich can afford to hire a legion of accountants to utilize tax shelters and such to lower their taxes. A doctor making a 'mere' $250k a year can afford a good accountant part time, but not a group of them. Or lobbyists to adjust laws to keep the shelters open.
Leaving the country is the last option, but it's still there.
The harder you make it, the better chance people will be caught committing a crime.
The problem I was getting at is that if you concentrate too much on the 'silver bullet' system, you waste so much resources that you end up unable to pursue the criminal - even if you know who he or she is.
Setting this system up is going to cost money. Serious amounts of it.
The way I look at it - $X put towards traditional police methods catches Y% of crimes. If $(X-Z) traditional police methods + $Z new technology/methodology catches > Y%, then it's worth it. Yes, there are privacy concerns and such in there. Like preventing false convictions, preferably even arrests of the innocent. I look at those as a more messy yet harder to assess issue.
Heck, if there's an expedient way to purge DNA of those who aren't convicted, whether simply never charged or found not guilty, then this isn't as big of a deal to me.
Take the ballistics database in Maryland - $2.5 million spent, not cases solved or even expedited by it. Turns out a gun's 'fingerprint' changes over time and wear and the ammunition used, especially when new. $2.5 million could have been another 25 or more officers on the street during that time.
Even with only 792 guns, the correct gun was only in the top 15 less than 50% for multiple characteristics(considered essential for further investigation).
DNA isn't necessarily a big deal. If I was being a cautious criminal I'd already be wearing gloves to prevent fingerprints, as long as I don't cut myself or get scratched up or whatever I'm not going to leave enough DNA for the police to find it. Especially for something as simple as a home burglary.
All this makes me wonder how many mystery DNA samples the police have for 'cold cases'. Theoretically this could give you an idea of how many crimes you might be able to solve with this system in place.
By these fairly reasonable definitions, it is quite possible to be "worth" millions, yet be economically poor. In fact, this is the situation most independent farmers and many independent businessmen find themselves in.
Very true. Note that I did indeed mention the 'sole proprietor', does millions in business each year, but because his margins end up being only 1% or so, is actually only middle class.
It's part of the reason I like the definition. If you merely say 'worth a million', you catch a lot of these types of people in your net.
I'll also note that by these definitions the middle class expands quite a bit. It depends on area and local cost of living, but it'd remove most lawyers and doctors from the 'rich' category, as they still have to work even though they DO live quite comfortably and are on the path to becoming rich.
If it's taxes you're looking to avoid, and you haven't already, consider contributing to a traditional IRA.
;)
Already have a 401k. The 'more taxes' part comes in that because I'm looking to retire early I can't put all my money into tax deferred accounts. Because I'm looking to have the same or more income when I retire, I'm maxing out a roth first.
companies not paying living wages and making sure the poor STAY poor.
You know, I find it sad that here we've been exporting jobs to china and india to save wages, yet people still aren't making 'living wages'.
I agree that you can make smarter choices with your money, but if your choices are having a 'safety margin' and eating, well, you'll probably choose to eat.
I have an interesting view on life, especially what minimum income levels it takes to survive on, what's critical and what's luxury, but yes, I agree that eating comes first. If you're having trouble making food bills, then you're poor(and probably qualify for assistance). I once, on a challange, drew up a budget for somebody making the old minimum wage because somebody said it's impossible to live on it. It can be done. It's just not nice.
Still, I only worked for minumum wage for about 3 months when I was still in HS. Ever since then, I've exceeded that wage by varying amounts.
Part of that is that I DO have knowledge, specifically money management skills. I don't keep track quite like I could if I wanted to, and my budget is fairly flexible, but it's that way because I can afford to be that way. I could probably save some money if I started clipping coupons more, but it just isn't worth the time to me for the moment.
Where you and I could probably borrow at around 7% for that two-year-old used car, the guy with no money has to pay 20% interest or more in a lot of cases.
Unavoidable consequence in that the poor guy with no money is far less likely to pay his loan back on time. Some poor people have good credit, many don't. Many can't handle it, viewing a credit card as 'free money'. For the poor guy who's likely to haul himself out of that category, a $500 decade old car out of the paper is probably a better option. Heck, my car is now 5 years old and still works fine. I really enjoy not having that car payment, but it's getting socked into investments for the eventual purchase of another car, as I know it won't last forever. Of course, I've never had 'bad' credit. I got my first CC back when I was 18, unsecured even. Still have that account*. Use it almost like a debit card; paying it off in full each month.
I've also said that any company that wants to pay that little shouldn't expect employees with cars. Works best in a labor-tight economy, of course, but I've heard of businesses in the past doing stuff like send out a van to pick up their cheap labor. Heck, over in China many factories provide dormatories and dining facilities for their workers.
You can't get a checking account if you don't make enough money, so you lose a chunk of your paycheck to a place that WILL cash it for you. You get charged service fees on your checking account if you don't have enough money in it. The whole setup is regressive.
If there's one business type that I'd throw a brick through the window on just general principal, it's the payday loan/check cashing businesses.
In reality, I've found that a little shopping around will get you a bank account without all that stuff. I've had a no-minimum, no fee** checking acount since I was 14-15. Heck, even a $5-10 montly fee would be cheaper than many check cashing places. Heck, last year I 'upgraded' it to a new plan that also gives me interest*** and 2 free foreign ATM withdrawals. Not bad, huh?
*Well, it's changed numbers because I got a bad/fradulent charge on it once; turned out the company handed a CC number off one line than what they should have. I wrote a letter and got it straightened out. Haven't had any problems since.
**As long as I don't go bouncing checks.
***On average, about 18 cents a month