I agree. For HTPC applications Nforce 2 was hard to beat. The whole HTPC community was praying for Soundstorm 2 on these new mobos. Considering the market is big enough for Microsoft to pay attention to you would think nVidia would as well.
CMOS stands for "c"omplementary "m"etal "o"xide "s"emiconductor. What's complementary you ask? Well they use pmos and nmos gates in series between ground and the rails (the voltage/power source) it all the logic stages. The input gates of the nmos and pmos gates are tied together to drive them simulateously. That means that both gates are never totally "active" and power never shoots straight to ground (or through a resistor). Obviouly that saves a ton of power.
Anyhow the point is that it basically didn't take ANY new tech to do cmos - just using pmos and nmos together. That just takes adding some doping stages for n and p type semiconductors in one process.
Nanotech means largely scrapping the old fabs that cost billions each. Not going to happen any time soon.
Depleted uranium bullets aren't supposed to kill "anyone". They are only used in an anti-material capacity, ie trucks, tanks, bunkers, etc. Yes of course people die when their tank blows up but A-10s aren't flying around killing infantry with their 30mm DU cannon.
The problem is that dust and fragments pollute the local environment and cause birth defects and cancer for decades. So basically the civilians we are theoretically saving have malformed, cancerous children for a couple of generations. Sounds like something Saddam would do, not the US IMHO...
DU is awesome stuff for munitions but the toxicity is just too high to use except where absolutely necessary. The US military should just use tungsten in a higher pressure cartridge. Check the web - lots of great resources on DU munitions, toxicity and alternatives.
Radioactive compounds and their isotopes are dangerous for two reasons.
1. They are radioactive and emit energy in dangerous quantities/frequencies. This energy destroys DNA and tissue causing burns and genetic mutations.
2. The elements are inherently toxic in the same way that lead and mercury vapor is toxic. Uranium is a toxic heavy metal separate from its potential radioactivity. This is why depleted uranium bullets and shells are such a bad idea.
Radioactive waste that is dangerous for reason #1 is low volume, high level and short-lived.
Radioactive waste that is dangerous for reason #2 is high volume, low level (radioactive intensity) and is long lived. In fact is is always toxic just like lead is always toxic.
#1 Radioactive waste turns into #2 radioactive waste pretty quickly. The half lives are between years and decades (maybe centuries).
Long-term storage requires a combination of "burning out" the high level stuff with breeders or keeping it safe for a few decades and then burning the resulting low level waste with all the other low level waste somewhere relatively safe. This low level waste is not going to kill anyone anytime soon. In fact diluting it is probably better than keeping it in the same place. These elements of low level waste are found in nature as a matter of course but at lower concentrations. A few thousand year round trip under the earth's crust would elminate the risk.
The bigger risks come from transporting the waste to the waste disposal site. Glass beads/bricks that can take the impact of a train wreck may be more important than beads that can take 5000 years of pressure sitting under a mountain.
Let's also not discount the fact that we will have amazing technologies in the next few centuries. If we blow ourselves up instead then the disaster of that outcome will probably sterilize the earth for eons. But if we do last a few more centuries than we will be burning this "waste" as fuel anyhow. It's not that big of a problem.
Certainly the other 99% lives far better than it did in revolutionary times. Modern technology has increased the economies of scale of various industries. While you might have had dozens of wealthy merchants in revolutionary times you now have one Walmart. The winners of this economies of scale race may or may find their wealth dispersing as time goes on. I guess that is to say that it shouldn't be surprising that wealth is concentrated and isn't part of a vast conspiracy.
These systems can also store the molten brine in vacuum bottle storage tanks to smooth the power generation. They can also be attached to natural gas pipelines/etc and run off fossil fuels in prolonged sunless periods.
The excess heat is difficult to make use of for now since these solar sites tend to be installed away from residential areas that could use the heat, but perhaps an industrial user? Cement needs a lot of heat to product.
I'm not sure DC is even viable for in-home power distribution. The ohmic losses are too great. Quality power supllies are about 85% efficient. Comparing that to the additional ohmic losses of low voltage DC I bet you'd be hard pressed to find the advantage.
High voltage AC and switching transformers is a great way to get power from the source to your low voltage DC appliances.
I live in NYC and don't need or want a car. My neighborhood is pretty safe. I live next to Central Park and so have more of a backyard than most suburbanites. The downside? It cost me about $800 per square foot. At that rate the typical 2,000 sqrft home would cost $1.6 million.
The problem is that most small cities just don't have the cultural features and good jobs to encourage people to concentrate. Cities like NYC, Boston, San Fransico, etc... do and property values SOAR.
Agreed. Libertarianism will always need a dose of practicality to handle those situations. Many resources simply need to be shared and protected. A clean and healthy environment is something that can't be owned, bought and sold. The property right to be protected there is a clean environment for everyone.
It's not very Libertarian but I support massive funding for schools and security for children. Just because a kid is born without a lot of money doesn't mean we should starve his (or her) potential. We need all the talent our population can offer. I think vouchers for privately run schools would work better than the current public school system, but everyone should get a chance for a great education. In fact you'd be surprised how many Libertarians support programs for socio-economic mobility.
Also, why did you need to pull out the race card? It's so flamey of you. I'm white (whatever that is), but my wife isn't. She wasn't even born in this country and her family came here with nothing but a suitcase. Her whole family went to college anyhow. My mother was born in near poverty and my dad's family grew up on a farm growing most of their own food. My parents still went to college.
Wrote a rebuttal and lost it to an ill-timed backpage. Then I saw your rebuttal and it is much better. I'd just add that TJ and many other of the founding fathers owned slaves. It's hard to imagine they would have supported social welfare programs for non-whites. Not very moral was that?
Currently a single mom with three jobs that can't afford to send their kid to college... can't send their kid to college unless that kid takes out loans and works it off. Why make it free?
In fact because college grads earn more and taxes are high enough the loan program is a huge money maker right now.
By the way, what if I had money and no kids (due to sterility let's say) and the mom had three babies but no money. Why does she get my money, but I can't get a kid? Aren't we both the victim of dreadful circumstance? Aren't we both tragically short a vital resource essential to a fulfilling life? Why am I not deserving of a child? (PS I'm not arguing this position - it's just a thought experiment)
I don't believe in total independence. We have much to gain by working together. I'm also not a materialist. The last thing I want is more gear cluttering up my life.
I don't believe in corporatism either. Corporations scare people in the US right now because they rely on the corporations for everything - paycheck, medical coverage, pension, etc. They need corporations because they bought too much stuff, have too much debt and too little savings. Show my a person with $200k in the bank that is afraid of their employer. That sum is well within the grasp of the typical American but inside they spend, spend, spend.
From a regulatory perspective I agree that some is needed. The great thing about Liberatarianism is that once the government stops doing all this other stuff it can concentrate on a few necessary things and do them well - like check corporate power if it gets out of hand.
Fascism is not similiar to Libertarianism at all. Fascism nationalizes private property - a core no-no for us.
TJ was pointing out that individuals are responsible for making their society and nation moral. He is not saying that moral enforcement is a function of a federal government. TJ and the Founding Fathers were tremendously concerned about the encrouching powers of a national government. When we finally got a real federal government the framers we so concerned about the very same problem they drafted the Bill of Rights and left a mechanism in to add to it as protection.
I am strongly in favor of civil rights also. Absent fiscal policy I bet we'd agree on a lot of points.
The wonderful thing about America is that I can advocate living in the America I want. It doesn't mean it will happen but I can advocate my position. You can just as easily move out as I can.
But let's talk about a US in which all these heartless, high achieving libertarians move out. I guess part of my point is that if high earners moved out you couldn't live in the same America. It wouldn't support the social welfare system if high earners moved away because the tax system is so progressive that it can't. Middle America simply isn't productive enough to shoulder the burden of the underclass and the elderly. Rich Americans give to charity at an enormous multiple of their wealth ever after paying huge taxes. the difference is that politicians don't get to decide how to spend it. Again, why do you - who didn't earn the money - have the moral high ground to argue how that money should be spent? My philanthropy will almost certainly put more kids through good schools and colleges than most American's tax dollars. I'm glad I'll still have that extra to put to work sending kids who otherwise couldn't afford it to good private schools. Fortunately for you they'll probably go on to make lots of money to support your programs. Better yet perhaps they'll work directly to make America better rather than work to add more burdens on our collective yoke. I don't care. Once their tools are properly sharpened by a good education their potential will shine.
Ok on the point of whether the government is stealing from us with taxes. Are they? Absolutely not. The tax legislation was passed according to the law. It is legal and I disagree with the policy for the most part. Why is that extremist? How is it more extremist than your position that you agree with the policy?
Next to your point that I am ungrateful. I am eternally indebted to the veterans of WWII. I lost relatives to that war the same way many did. I would never spit on their faces. Indeed I think Bush's guard status and it's circumstances should preclude him from being Commander in Chief and therefore President.
In support of that debt I agree that the current debt of the federal government is my resposibility. After all it was expensive to counter the Soviets and protect ourselves from that perceived threat. I don't really think the welfare state of the 60s and 70s was a great idea. I'd pay for that too. While the interest payments are high they are only a fraction of the overall budget. It's the future that is scary. Too small a population of earners supporting too big a population of non-earners. It's not nice to look at it that way, but that's how the truth often is.
So I'm not necessarily ungrateful to my heritage, but I have a right to criticize government policies that existed before the time of my birth. Would you argue that revisionist historians do not have that same right with regard to Vietnam? or MLK to Jim Crow? How about a modern German looking at the policies of his past governments? America's great! I just think a spirit of self-reliance is a fundamental part of that greatness and current policies diminish that element.
PS your comment on roads is really silly. Most Libertarians acknowledge the advantage of sharing certain resources like roads whose value is enhanced by cooperative development and shared usage. In the US this kind of thing is handled at the state and county level - a small part of the total system and a piece that Libertarians are not as cranky about. It's also funny that you mentioned not paying cable bills in criticizing my views. Ironic how simliar cable lines and roads are in this information age. Note that cable has done a fine job providing it's service as a thoroughly commerical enterprise without the government playing an especially strong hand. AT&T was far more heavily regulated and is on the road to possible bankruptcy.
LP would support the town residents against the paper mill. The paper mill is infringing on the townspeople's property. That is an easy one. Clean air and water is a national resource which fundamentally needs to be shared.
Libertarianism is not about making everyone be an entrepreneur. I wanted to put together a relatively lengthy cogent response to your posting but in the end I realized that I couldn't because you really don't get it.
Libertarianism is about being secure in your property and your rights. We feel this is a fundamental part of what the United States is all about.
The socialist/liberal agenda you allude to is an imposition on the rightful property of successful people. This takes many forms but the primary mode is taxation and regulation. Bascially it's the government taking/restricting/directing your resources for the benefit of someone else. The amazing thing is the fervent moralizing of the activity. Uncle Sam reaches into your pocket, takes your money, and the liberal/socialist demagogs wail about the evils of being so productive and having that nasty money in the first place.
I am sympathetic to plight of unfortunates in dire financial straits but someone that simply wants to work less (your dream 9-5 job) isn't in dire straits. Really, why not just work harder/smarter or just be happy with your modest circumstances? Do you really deserve more than you have? Why should you get some of my stuff? That stuff is mine.
The "responsibility" of government to help the helpless is a smoke screen created by politicians. They don't want to help those people. They want to spend your money and syphon off their cut. Spending your money gives them power because they determine what is purchased with it. Will they give it to sick people to buy medicine from Merk? or poor families to buy Hostess twinkies? Hmmm who has better lobbyists... They leverage this power into a better situation for themselves. Doesn't that make you sick?
A private charity actually cares about their work and goes about it with gusto, not indifference. If funding of those social organizations is the real concern we could mandate a level of charity giving based on income. That isn't very Libertarian but is practical. Oh, and instead of asking me to give up even more for the homeless why don't you be the one to work harder and give more? Seriously why are you, Mr. Responsibility, so helpless? Oh that's right, I wouldn't want to barge in on your charished 9-5 workday.
Re:trully portable reactors
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
I had the same thought. We already have some of the best nuclear know-how in the Navy. Every submarine has a nuclear reactor on board. It is staffed by a handful of sailors, the oldest being about 26. Aircraft carriers have TWO reactors.
My idea on this front though was to use high altitude drones as microwave relay stations to beam the power inland. Ships are very vulnerable in port. Subs and Carriers do not want to be within 50-100 miles of a non-allied shore.
The inland microwave receivers could connect to a grid, desalinate and/or filter water, crack hydrogen and recharge batteries. This would eliminate a big part of the supply chain. Since we'd be running off of electricity it would be natural for tanks and other weapons systems to use rail guns instead of chemical propellant based rounds.
Great idea! Now all we have to do is invent fusion reactors that produce net power. Seriously though, fusion isn't ready for prime time. Fission reactors produce oodles of power and can actually be built... today! Yes we have some challenges in improving the design but that is an evolutionary change, not the revolutionary change required to get fusion reactors to 5-10% efficiency.
I think most people would understand this phenomenon as doppler shift. Doppler shift results from a relative difference in velocity between the sender and receiver. The most common example of this for the non-scientist is the train whistle or ambulance siren that is much higher in frequency while coming towards the listener and lower in frequency as it passes.
The article mentions some professor who believes the signal would be corrected for this shift if produced by an intelligent civilization. I disagree... firstly the aliens could only correct for their transmission end, not the receiver end because they don't know who or where the receiver is. They couldn't account for the relative motion of the receiver. Secondly it makes sense to modulate the signal a bit to make sure that a narrowband receiver, tuned to a harmonic of hydrogen, would catch it. What if the receiver was moving towards or away from the receiver rapidly? It might doppler shift the signal out of the neighborhood of this hydrogen harmonic.
Get a USB or Firewire drive, surround it in foam and then mount it on the boat or 4x4. Alternatively you can rig up a suspension system with rubber bands. Now that the drive is propoerly isolated from high Gs you connect it to the laptop by a standard cable.
MOSFETs, the basis for most input stages of modern ampifiers have a capacitive plate as their input. This capacitive plate creates a voltage that sucks charge carriers into a voltage "pit" on the opposite side. Filling in the voltage pit allows current to flow like turning on a switch.
MOSFETS are used extensively in electronics. In fact except for gain stages in amplifiers the alternative, bipolar junction transistors, are almost never used.
The concept of using a capacitive connection to pass a signal is old hat really.
Slashdot Mirror
Israel has no water either and manages just fine... Desalination is a great technology.
I agree. For HTPC applications Nforce 2 was hard to beat. The whole HTPC community was praying for Soundstorm 2 on these new mobos. Considering the market is big enough for Microsoft to pay attention to you would think nVidia would as well.
CMOS "IS" NMOS and PMOS.
CMOS stands for "c"omplementary "m"etal "o"xide "s"emiconductor. What's complementary you ask? Well they use pmos and nmos gates in series between ground and the rails (the voltage/power source) it all the logic stages. The input gates of the nmos and pmos gates are tied together to drive them simulateously. That means that both gates are never totally "active" and power never shoots straight to ground (or through a resistor). Obviouly that saves a ton of power.
Anyhow the point is that it basically didn't take ANY new tech to do cmos - just using pmos and nmos together. That just takes adding some doping stages for n and p type semiconductors in one process.
Nanotech means largely scrapping the old fabs that cost billions each. Not going to happen any time soon.
RTFA
He advocates sequestering the liquid CO2 produced by the ZEPP
Depleted uranium bullets aren't supposed to kill "anyone". They are only used in an anti-material capacity, ie trucks, tanks, bunkers, etc. Yes of course people die when their tank blows up but A-10s aren't flying around killing infantry with their 30mm DU cannon.
The problem is that dust and fragments pollute the local environment and cause birth defects and cancer for decades. So basically the civilians we are theoretically saving have malformed, cancerous children for a couple of generations. Sounds like something Saddam would do, not the US IMHO...
DU is awesome stuff for munitions but the toxicity is just too high to use except where absolutely necessary. The US military should just use tungsten in a higher pressure cartridge. Check the web - lots of great resources on DU munitions, toxicity and alternatives.
"then burning the resulting low level waste" should be:
"then bury the resulting low level waste"
Radioactive compounds and their isotopes are dangerous for two reasons.
1. They are radioactive and emit energy in dangerous quantities/frequencies. This energy destroys DNA and tissue causing burns and genetic mutations.
2. The elements are inherently toxic in the same way that lead and mercury vapor is toxic. Uranium is a toxic heavy metal separate from its potential radioactivity. This is why depleted uranium bullets and shells are such a bad idea.
Radioactive waste that is dangerous for reason #1 is low volume, high level and short-lived.
Radioactive waste that is dangerous for reason #2 is high volume, low level (radioactive intensity) and is long lived. In fact is is always toxic just like lead is always toxic.
#1 Radioactive waste turns into #2 radioactive waste pretty quickly. The half lives are between years and decades (maybe centuries).
Long-term storage requires a combination of "burning out" the high level stuff with breeders or keeping it safe for a few decades and then burning the resulting low level waste with all the other low level waste somewhere relatively safe. This low level waste is not going to kill anyone anytime soon. In fact diluting it is probably better than keeping it in the same place. These elements of low level waste are found in nature as a matter of course but at lower concentrations. A few thousand year round trip under the earth's crust would elminate the risk.
The bigger risks come from transporting the waste to the waste disposal site. Glass beads/bricks that can take the impact of a train wreck may be more important than beads that can take 5000 years of pressure sitting under a mountain.
Let's also not discount the fact that we will have amazing technologies in the next few centuries. If we blow ourselves up instead then the disaster of that outcome will probably sterilize the earth for eons. But if we do last a few more centuries than we will be burning this "waste" as fuel anyhow. It's not that big of a problem.
Certainly the other 99% lives far better than it did in revolutionary times. Modern technology has increased the economies of scale of various industries. While you might have had dozens of wealthy merchants in revolutionary times you now have one Walmart. The winners of this economies of scale race may or may find their wealth dispersing as time goes on. I guess that is to say that it shouldn't be surprising that wealth is concentrated and isn't part of a vast conspiracy.
These systems can also store the molten brine in vacuum bottle storage tanks to smooth the power generation. They can also be attached to natural gas pipelines/etc and run off fossil fuels in prolonged sunless periods.
The excess heat is difficult to make use of for now since these solar sites tend to be installed away from residential areas that could use the heat, but perhaps an industrial user? Cement needs a lot of heat to product.
I'm not sure DC is even viable for in-home power distribution. The ohmic losses are too great. Quality power supllies are about 85% efficient. Comparing that to the additional ohmic losses of low voltage DC I bet you'd be hard pressed to find the advantage.
High voltage AC and switching transformers is a great way to get power from the source to your low voltage DC appliances.
I live in NYC and don't need or want a car. My neighborhood is pretty safe. I live next to Central Park and so have more of a backyard than most suburbanites. The downside? It cost me about $800 per square foot. At that rate the typical 2,000 sqrft home would cost $1.6 million.
The problem is that most small cities just don't have the cultural features and good jobs to encourage people to concentrate. Cities like NYC, Boston, San Fransico, etc... do and property values SOAR.
It would cost less because Fedex and UPS wouldn't deliver junkmail for free - a perk guaranteed by heavy lobbying by direct marketers.
They can't offer general residential mail service. The USPS has a monopoly under the law.
Agreed. Libertarianism will always need a dose of practicality to handle those situations. Many resources simply need to be shared and protected. A clean and healthy environment is something that can't be owned, bought and sold. The property right to be protected there is a clean environment for everyone.
It's not very Libertarian but I support massive funding for schools and security for children. Just because a kid is born without a lot of money doesn't mean we should starve his (or her) potential. We need all the talent our population can offer. I think vouchers for privately run schools would work better than the current public school system, but everyone should get a chance for a great education. In fact you'd be surprised how many Libertarians support programs for socio-economic mobility.
Also, why did you need to pull out the race card? It's so flamey of you. I'm white (whatever that is), but my wife isn't. She wasn't even born in this country and her family came here with nothing but a suitcase. Her whole family went to college anyhow. My mother was born in near poverty and my dad's family grew up on a farm growing most of their own food. My parents still went to college.
Wrote a rebuttal and lost it to an ill-timed backpage. Then I saw your rebuttal and it is much better. I'd just add that TJ and many other of the founding fathers owned slaves. It's hard to imagine they would have supported social welfare programs for non-whites. Not very moral was that?
Currently a single mom with three jobs that can't afford to send their kid to college... can't send their kid to college unless that kid takes out loans and works it off. Why make it free?
In fact because college grads earn more and taxes are high enough the loan program is a huge money maker right now.
By the way, what if I had money and no kids (due to sterility let's say) and the mom had three babies but no money. Why does she get my money, but I can't get a kid? Aren't we both the victim of dreadful circumstance? Aren't we both tragically short a vital resource essential to a fulfilling life? Why am I not deserving of a child?
(PS I'm not arguing this position - it's just a thought experiment)
I don't believe in total independence. We have much to gain by working together. I'm also not a materialist. The last thing I want is more gear cluttering up my life.
I don't believe in corporatism either. Corporations scare people in the US right now because they rely on the corporations for everything - paycheck, medical coverage, pension, etc. They need corporations because they bought too much stuff, have too much debt and too little savings. Show my a person with $200k in the bank that is afraid of their employer. That sum is well within the grasp of the typical American but inside they spend, spend, spend.
From a regulatory perspective I agree that some is needed. The great thing about Liberatarianism is that once the government stops doing all this other stuff it can concentrate on a few necessary things and do them well - like check corporate power if it gets out of hand.
Fascism is not similiar to Libertarianism at all. Fascism nationalizes private property - a core no-no for us.
TJ was pointing out that individuals are responsible for making their society and nation moral. He is not saying that moral enforcement is a function of a federal government. TJ and the Founding Fathers were tremendously concerned about the encrouching powers of a national government. When we finally got a real federal government the framers we so concerned about the very same problem they drafted the Bill of Rights and left a mechanism in to add to it as protection.
I am strongly in favor of civil rights also. Absent fiscal policy I bet we'd agree on a lot of points.
The wonderful thing about America is that I can advocate living in the America I want. It doesn't mean it will happen but I can advocate my position. You can just as easily move out as I can.
But let's talk about a US in which all these heartless, high achieving libertarians move out. I guess part of my point is that if high earners moved out you couldn't live in the same America. It wouldn't support the social welfare system if high earners moved away because the tax system is so progressive that it can't. Middle America simply isn't productive enough to shoulder the burden of the underclass and the elderly. Rich Americans give to charity at an enormous multiple of their wealth ever after paying huge taxes. the difference is that politicians don't get to decide how to spend it. Again, why do you - who didn't earn the money - have the moral high ground to argue how that money should be spent? My philanthropy will almost certainly put more kids through good schools and colleges than most American's tax dollars. I'm glad I'll still have that extra to put to work sending kids who otherwise couldn't afford it to good private schools. Fortunately for you they'll probably go on to make lots of money to support your programs. Better yet perhaps they'll work directly to make America better rather than work to add more burdens on our collective yoke. I don't care. Once their tools are properly sharpened by a good education their potential will shine.
Ok on the point of whether the government is stealing from us with taxes. Are they? Absolutely not. The tax legislation was passed according to the law. It is legal and I disagree with the policy for the most part. Why is that extremist? How is it more extremist than your position that you agree with the policy?
Next to your point that I am ungrateful. I am eternally indebted to the veterans of WWII. I lost relatives to that war the same way many did. I would never spit on their faces. Indeed I think Bush's guard status and it's circumstances should preclude him from being Commander in Chief and therefore President.
In support of that debt I agree that the current debt of the federal government is my resposibility. After all it was expensive to counter the Soviets and protect ourselves from that perceived threat. I don't really think the welfare state of the 60s and 70s was a great idea. I'd pay for that too. While the interest payments are high they are only a fraction of the overall budget. It's the future that is scary. Too small a population of earners supporting too big a population of non-earners. It's not nice to look at it that way, but that's how the truth often is.
So I'm not necessarily ungrateful to my heritage, but I have a right to criticize government policies that existed before the time of my birth. Would you argue that revisionist historians do not have that same right with regard to Vietnam? or MLK to Jim Crow? How about a modern German looking at the policies of his past governments? America's great! I just think a spirit of self-reliance is a fundamental part of that greatness and current policies diminish that element.
PS your comment on roads is really silly. Most Libertarians acknowledge the advantage of sharing certain resources like roads whose value is enhanced by cooperative development and shared usage. In the US this kind of thing is handled at the state and county level - a small part of the total system and a piece that Libertarians are not as cranky about. It's also funny that you mentioned not paying cable bills in criticizing my views. Ironic how simliar cable lines and roads are in this information age. Note that cable has done a fine job providing it's service as a thoroughly commerical enterprise without the government playing an especially strong hand. AT&T was far more heavily regulated and is on the road to possible bankruptcy.
LP would support the town residents against the paper mill. The paper mill is infringing on the townspeople's property. That is an easy one. Clean air and water is a national resource which fundamentally needs to be shared.
Libertarianism is not about making everyone be an entrepreneur. I wanted to put together a relatively lengthy cogent response to your posting but in the end I realized that I couldn't because you really don't get it.
Libertarianism is about being secure in your property and your rights. We feel this is a fundamental part of what the United States is all about.
The socialist/liberal agenda you allude to is an imposition on the rightful property of successful people. This takes many forms but the primary mode is taxation and regulation. Bascially it's the government taking/restricting/directing your resources for the benefit of someone else. The amazing thing is the fervent moralizing of the activity. Uncle Sam reaches into your pocket, takes your money, and the liberal/socialist demagogs wail about the evils of being so productive and having that nasty money in the first place.
I am sympathetic to plight of unfortunates in dire financial straits but someone that simply wants to work less (your dream 9-5 job) isn't in dire straits. Really, why not just work harder/smarter or just be happy with your modest circumstances? Do you really deserve more than you have? Why should you get some of my stuff? That stuff is mine.
The "responsibility" of government to help the helpless is a smoke screen created by politicians. They don't want to help those people. They want to spend your money and syphon off their cut. Spending your money gives them power because they determine what is purchased with it. Will they give it to sick people to buy medicine from Merk? or poor families to buy Hostess twinkies? Hmmm who has better lobbyists... They leverage this power into a better situation for themselves. Doesn't that make you sick?
A private charity actually cares about their work and goes about it with gusto, not indifference. If funding of those social organizations is the real concern we could mandate a level of charity giving based on income. That isn't very Libertarian but is practical. Oh, and instead of asking me to give up even more for the homeless why don't you be the one to work harder and give more? Seriously why are you, Mr. Responsibility, so helpless? Oh that's right, I wouldn't want to barge in on your charished 9-5 workday.
I had the same thought. We already have some of the best nuclear know-how in the Navy. Every submarine has a nuclear reactor on board. It is staffed by a handful of sailors, the oldest being about 26. Aircraft carriers have TWO reactors.
/or filter water, crack hydrogen and recharge batteries. This would eliminate a big part of the supply chain. Since we'd be running off of electricity it would be natural for tanks and other weapons systems to use rail guns instead of chemical propellant based rounds.
My idea on this front though was to use high altitude drones as microwave relay stations to beam the power inland. Ships are very vulnerable in port. Subs and Carriers do not want to be within 50-100 miles of a non-allied shore.
The inland microwave receivers could connect to a grid, desalinate and
Great idea! Now all we have to do is invent fusion reactors that produce net power. Seriously though, fusion isn't ready for prime time. Fission reactors produce oodles of power and can actually be built... today! Yes we have some challenges in improving the design but that is an evolutionary change, not the revolutionary change required to get fusion reactors to 5-10% efficiency.
I think most people would understand this phenomenon as doppler shift. Doppler shift results from a relative difference in velocity between the sender and receiver. The most common example of this for the non-scientist is the train whistle or ambulance siren that is much higher in frequency while coming towards the listener and lower in frequency as it passes.
The article mentions some professor who believes the signal would be corrected for this shift if produced by an intelligent civilization. I disagree... firstly the aliens could only correct for their transmission end, not the receiver end because they don't know who or where the receiver is. They couldn't account for the relative motion of the receiver. Secondly it makes sense to modulate the signal a bit to make sure that a narrowband receiver, tuned to a harmonic of hydrogen, would catch it. What if the receiver was moving towards or away from the receiver rapidly? It might doppler shift the signal out of the neighborhood of this hydrogen harmonic.
Get a USB or Firewire drive, surround it in foam and then mount it on the boat or 4x4. Alternatively you can rig up a suspension system with rubber bands. Now that the drive is propoerly isolated from high Gs you connect it to the laptop by a standard cable.
MOSFETs, the basis for most input stages of modern ampifiers have a capacitive plate as their input. This capacitive plate creates a voltage that sucks charge carriers into a voltage "pit" on the opposite side. Filling in the voltage pit allows current to flow like turning on a switch.
MOSFETS are used extensively in electronics. In fact except for gain stages in amplifiers the alternative, bipolar junction transistors, are almost never used.
The concept of using a capacitive connection to pass a signal is old hat really.
I heard that Escalade cheats and usees the CPU for the XOR calculation. That means it is only a half step up from software RAID.
I guess their drivers are rock solid though because people swear by them.