The infrastructure/re-charging/re-fueling is one of the things holding back these new techs. It would roll out twice as slow if two separate new infrastructures had to be built.
Hydrogen energy density is greatly improved when it is dissolved in metal matrices or chemicals, fuel cells. I'm not sure what type of fuel cell Toyota is making, but they claim a 500 km range. http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/environmental_technology/fuelcell_vehicle/
he Toyota FCV Concept is a practical concept of the fuel cell vehicle Toyota plans to launch around 2015 as a pioneer in the development of hydrogen-powered vehicles. The vehicle has a driving range of at least 500 km and refueling times as low as three minutes, roughly the same time as for a gasoline vehicle.
Why is that? Collusion? Well...maybe it’s because the Comcast CEO doesn’t have to pick up the phone and discretely call the AT&T CEO to find out what he’ll do if Comcast decides to lower rates and provide better service. He already knows it will start a price and service war that while benefiting the consumer, will hurt corporate profits.
I think it is a myth that these companies compete for customers. I cannot ever remember seeing an ad for Comcast bashing AT&T or vice versa. There is usually 1 cable provider and 1 phone provider in a town. They both seem content to maintain their existing customer base. One time in my life I had a Quest/Century Link person come to my door to show me their internet offerings. That is the extent of the competition I've seen.
At least that is how it is in the Northwest US. Maybe it is different in other areas.
Those are assumptions. To date, there is no nation or state that has hit a barrier where they cannot install anymore green energy. To date, no state/nation in the world that is pursuing green energy has required their population to reduce their standard of living.
We haven't really tried to "go green" in the US. We have devoted tiny amounts of resources to it. Theoretically we have enough green energy (sun/wind/tidal/geo) to power the country if we are willing to capture it. The only real decisions are how fast to do it, how subsidized does it need to be, etc.. If we start now with a goal of say, 50-75 years, it will be very painless. Of course, if set a date 5 years from now, it would be a disaster.
Or, ignoring the attacker stuff altogether. Some people like having guns just for target shooting/hunting/fun. It would be an added piece of mind to know that A) my gun is useless to a robber because it won't fire, making it a less attractive target to rob, and B) my gun is more safe when children are in the house, or just when handled/cleaned in general.
Every time I search for information about this, I get the opposite results. Basically, what I've read can be summed up like this: if you add up all the risk that owning a gun brings with it (increased chance of accidents, kid shoot themselves, suicide is successful instead of failed, attack takes your gun, you aren't home and attacker robs and takes gun and uses it elsewhere, chance of a domestic disturbance becoming deadly, chance of a robbery being a gun fight instead of just getting punched and tied up, etc, etc) and compare that to the chance you'll need the gun to defend yourself, you are better off not having the gun.
As for the very specific situation when you pull your gun in defense, or are attacked and attempt to use your gun, of what percent of those cases is the gun taken from the owner, I have never found solid stats on that.
The smart gun may just be a solution searching for a problem.
I suspect a lot of AGW denialists are also Evolution deniers
Across the country, yes. On slashdot, I suspect most people critical of AGW actually do believe in evolution. Which kind of blows my mind. These people would have likely also believed that cigarettes were harmless and not addictive in the 80's, while simultaneously believing in evolution.
I guess the only way to explain it, is that 'big oil' and 'big tobacco' funded a disinformation campaign. There is no 'big anti-evolution company' to fund a disinformation campaign on that issue.
(5) Human activity will result in temperature increases in the 21st century that are larger than those experienced in the 20th century. [unproven, speculative]
(6) Temperature increase in the 21st century will have devastating consequences for humans. [highly speculative, controversial]
5. Unproven, in that you can't "prove it" before it happens sure. But if you trust the concept of models in science in general, then there is no reason to not trust the climate models that say the temp is going to rise by X amount in Y years, plus/minus Z error range.
6. If you believe the models provide a useful prediction (plus/minus some error range) of something like temperature over time, then why not trust models that are also predicting things like levels of ocean acidification, ice melt, etc.. that we know, really know, what things will happen to the Earth as a result. Like.. all fisheries dying if the ocean is X acidic. That would be fairly devastating.
you need to have an objective way of deciding what a political ad is in order to make it illegal
There is no objective way to decide that, but there is a subjective way, which we use in all sorts of aspects of life that do not have black/white answers: judgement calls, performed by employees with the apt title of Judge:) Lots of law is like that currently. Laws often have phrases like "A reasonable person..." in them, recognizing that someone, a judge/jury, is going to have to decide if the person was reasonable or not for some specific action.
Would it be acceptable to you, if corporations could donate unlimited money that was transparent?
Not that alone. But transparency is a key aspect to drive any market or democratic force. At least people could see something.. and either get angry about it, or shrug and say "so what". Right now, most people have little to no idea how much of their worldview is shaped by news, media, think tanks, lobbyists, etc... most of whom are beholden to large money interests.
Also, I think it's probably pretty easy to get Walmart employees to agree to donate to a political campaign. You just give them money. They are desperate. I guarantee that if you gave each walmart employee $3000 to donate $2500 to a candidate they hated, most would do it. They have families to feed.
But that is a separate problem from the overall goal, which is to spread out the influence of money. Instead of 700 (yes... literally 700 people) in this country compromising the vast majority of election spending, you'd have a 100 million people. That returns the country from what is effectively an oligarchy to a democracy.
If those Walmart employees wanted to vote against their own best interest (a permanent raise from 7 to 10 dollars an hour), and in exchange get 500 dollars, that is their decision to make. At least they were able apply their "vote" to the issue.
Check out the exports and imports section on the right side. The US exports 1.57 trillion worth of stuff each year (and imports 2.5 trillion), with 28% of that being capital goods (durable stuff like machinery, cars, high tech things, etc..). Another 25% of that is stuff like industrial chemicals.
Overall, the US is third in the world for exports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports European Union at 5.5 trillion, China at 2.2, and the US at 1.5.
Here is a more detail breakdown: http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html Machines, Engines Electronic equipment Oil Vehicles Aircraft Medical equipment etc....
5. genetics 6. money and/or cooking education - its cheaper to get fast food unless you know how to cook things from scratch. If you don't know how to cook, it is expensive to buy high quality cooked food. 7. availability of real food (many cities in the US are Food Deserts).
Greed might not be the motivator, but what about gardening?
I know if I don't pull that weed out of the garden, by the end of the season the garden will be filled with weeds. Maybe if we do run into aliens they just want to destroy us, knowing that we will eventually grow and make the universe messy for them:)
Unless something in science has changed since I last google searched:), I'm pretty certain the BB theory doesn't rule out the possibility of an infinite universe.
So does this mean you would outlaw individual people from spending their own money on political messages?
Amending the constitution so that corporations are not people would make this a much easier situation. If that were not possible, then my second scenario of limiting all "people" to some small amount per election cycle would work.
The problem I see with this is that all corporations and groups of people are comprised of individuals. Doing things in the name of a corporation makes it easy to do certain things, and it shields individuals from consequences (e.g. corporations can't be imprisoned). But if you make it illegal for a corporation to do something, they can just have the individuals do it instead. My company gets it's employees to make donations to a PAC, but they could have us donate directly to political campaigns instead, it would just be a little harder to coordinate.
It would be way harder to coordinate, and you could be very sure that each individual would be very aware about where the money was going. If Walmart attempted to get all its employees to donate to one particular political candidate, it would be not only a much more transparent donation, but all those donating would need to agree.
Right now, many corporations that employee vast swaths of the American public are actively donating to issues and candidates that are not in the best interests of their employees.
Imagine Walmart asking its employees to donate to a PAC whose political purpose was to lobby against a minimum wage hike...:)
I wonder if that would remain true for long if ISP's were forced to become common carriers, and could only provide you with internet, no TV? Broadcasters would have to rely on advertising alone, unless they wanted to form their own "online cable companies" and charge subscriptions for bundles of online streams. That alone might spark a huge online competition for pricing. If the pricing isn't fixed by local monopolies (comcast, etc..), I bet you would see the price actually go down per show.
If Aereo wins its case, things could get even more interesting for anything over the air.
If your TV station has a f**kload of viewers, you are an idiot if you don't charge cable providers a high fee to carry it
And that needs to change. Broadcasters should make money from commercials, and encourage more eyeballs by allowing free rebroadcasts. That is one of the issues in the current supreme court case about Aereo.
If I offer a service that is basically just managing your existing DVR, but "in the cloud", is that legal or not? If Aereo wins, it might prompt cable providers to re-organize their delivery method to match Aereo's and totally bypass the double dipping that broadcasters do currently (commercials + broadcast fees).
There are lots of smart folks who have good 30-50 year plans to transition away from oil (for most uses, not all) with little disruption.
You don't hear much about them for exactly the same reason that it took cigarettes so long to get warning labels: massive lobbying from very rich businesses. And in this case, the particular business happens to be the richest in the history of planet earth.
... who? What did they ask? There is zero evidence that transitioning intelligently to green energy, using market based strategies, is going to cost you, the consumer, one single extra penny or require any behavior changes.
Sure, you can find pretty much anyone spouting anything about this subject. But until you have the government actually telling you to change your lifestyle, can you maybe stop talking about it like its true? Or at least cite some evidence that there exists a credible climate action plan, from a reputable organization in power, that would require you to change your life.
Get a local or regional bank account. Like a local credit union. Helps keep your money local, and is far less likely to get wrapped up in any national nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, since his email/browsing computer is connected to the internet, the second dos computer is not connected, for security reasons.
I imagine there are lots of people that would be willing to try to hack his computer for a sneak peak at what he's working on next.
The infrastructure/re-charging/re-fueling is one of the things holding back these new techs. It would roll out twice as slow if two separate new infrastructures had to be built.
Hydrogen energy density is greatly improved when it is dissolved in metal matrices or chemicals, fuel cells. I'm not sure what type of fuel cell Toyota is making, but they claim a 500 km range.
http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/environmental_technology/fuelcell_vehicle/
But hydrogen generally does have range issues.
I guess toyota got past the range issue.
http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/environmental_technology/fuelcell_vehicle/
he Toyota FCV Concept is a practical concept of the fuel cell vehicle Toyota plans to launch around 2015 as a pioneer in the development of hydrogen-powered vehicles. The vehicle has a driving range of at least 500 km and refueling times as low as three minutes, roughly the same time as for a gasoline vehicle.
Why is that? Collusion? Well...maybe it’s because the Comcast CEO doesn’t have to pick up the phone and discretely call the AT&T CEO to find out what he’ll do if Comcast decides to lower rates and provide better service. He already knows it will start a price and service war that while benefiting the consumer, will hurt corporate profits.
I think it is a myth that these companies compete for customers. I cannot ever remember seeing an ad for Comcast bashing AT&T or vice versa. There is usually 1 cable provider and 1 phone provider in a town. They both seem content to maintain their existing customer base. One time in my life I had a Quest/Century Link person come to my door to show me their internet offerings. That is the extent of the competition I've seen.
At least that is how it is in the Northwest US. Maybe it is different in other areas.
Unfortunately, to most people that follow fox news/right wing media, the CBO is apparently a left-wing liberal lie machine....
purposes a reduction in the standard of living
Green energy doesn't scale
Those are assumptions. To date, there is no nation or state that has hit a barrier where they cannot install anymore green energy. To date, no state/nation in the world that is pursuing green energy has required their population to reduce their standard of living.
We haven't really tried to "go green" in the US. We have devoted tiny amounts of resources to it. Theoretically we have enough green energy (sun/wind/tidal/geo) to power the country if we are willing to capture it. The only real decisions are how fast to do it, how subsidized does it need to be, etc.. If we start now with a goal of say, 50-75 years, it will be very painless. Of course, if set a date 5 years from now, it would be a disaster.
Or, ignoring the attacker stuff altogether. Some people like having guns just for target shooting/hunting/fun. It would be an added piece of mind to know that A) my gun is useless to a robber because it won't fire, making it a less attractive target to rob, and B) my gun is more safe when children are in the house, or just when handled/cleaned in general.
Citations on that?
Every time I search for information about this, I get the opposite results. Basically, what I've read can be summed up like this: if you add up all the risk that owning a gun brings with it (increased chance of accidents, kid shoot themselves, suicide is successful instead of failed, attack takes your gun, you aren't home and attacker robs and takes gun and uses it elsewhere, chance of a domestic disturbance becoming deadly, chance of a robbery being a gun fight instead of just getting punched and tied up, etc, etc) and compare that to the chance you'll need the gun to defend yourself, you are better off not having the gun.
As for the very specific situation when you pull your gun in defense, or are attacked and attempt to use your gun, of what percent of those cases is the gun taken from the owner, I have never found solid stats on that.
The smart gun may just be a solution searching for a problem.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html
I suspect a lot of AGW denialists are also Evolution deniers
Across the country, yes. On slashdot, I suspect most people critical of AGW actually do believe in evolution. Which kind of blows my mind. These people would have likely also believed that cigarettes were harmless and not addictive in the 80's, while simultaneously believing in evolution.
I guess the only way to explain it, is that 'big oil' and 'big tobacco' funded a disinformation campaign. There is no 'big anti-evolution company' to fund a disinformation campaign on that issue.
(5) Human activity will result in temperature increases in the 21st century that are larger than those experienced in the 20th century. [unproven, speculative]
(6) Temperature increase in the 21st century will have devastating consequences for humans. [highly speculative, controversial]
5. Unproven, in that you can't "prove it" before it happens sure. But if you trust the concept of models in science in general, then there is no reason to not trust the climate models that say the temp is going to rise by X amount in Y years, plus/minus Z error range.
6. If you believe the models provide a useful prediction (plus/minus some error range) of something like temperature over time, then why not trust models that are also predicting things like levels of ocean acidification, ice melt, etc.. that we know, really know, what things will happen to the Earth as a result. Like.. all fisheries dying if the ocean is X acidic. That would be fairly devastating.
you need to have an objective way of deciding what a political ad is in order to make it illegal
There is no objective way to decide that, but there is a subjective way, which we use in all sorts of aspects of life that do not have black/white answers: judgement calls, performed by employees with the apt title of Judge:) Lots of law is like that currently. Laws often have phrases like "A reasonable person..." in them, recognizing that someone, a judge/jury, is going to have to decide if the person was reasonable or not for some specific action.
Would it be acceptable to you, if corporations could donate unlimited money that was transparent?
Not that alone. But transparency is a key aspect to drive any market or democratic force. At least people could see something.. and either get angry about it, or shrug and say "so what". Right now, most people have little to no idea how much of their worldview is shaped by news, media, think tanks, lobbyists, etc... most of whom are beholden to large money interests.
Also, I think it's probably pretty easy to get Walmart employees to agree to donate to a political campaign. You just give them money. They are desperate. I guarantee that if you gave each walmart employee $3000 to donate $2500 to a candidate they hated, most would do it. They have families to feed.
But that is a separate problem from the overall goal, which is to spread out the influence of money. Instead of 700 (yes... literally 700 people) in this country compromising the vast majority of election spending, you'd have a 100 million people. That returns the country from what is effectively an oligarchy to a democracy.
If those Walmart employees wanted to vote against their own best interest (a permanent raise from 7 to 10 dollars an hour), and in exchange get 500 dollars, that is their decision to make. At least they were able apply their "vote" to the issue.
Sorry, but the USA doesn't really produce a lot of goods that other countries are interested in any more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
Check out the exports and imports section on the right side. The US exports 1.57 trillion worth of stuff each year (and imports 2.5 trillion), with 28% of that being capital goods (durable stuff like machinery, cars, high tech things, etc..). Another 25% of that is stuff like industrial chemicals.
Overall, the US is third in the world for exports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports European Union at 5.5 trillion, China at 2.2, and the US at 1.5.
Here is a more detail breakdown:
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html
Machines, Engines
Electronic equipment
Oil
Vehicles
Aircraft
Medical equipment
etc....
5. genetics
6. money and/or cooking education - its cheaper to get fast food unless you know how to cook things from scratch. If you don't know how to cook, it is expensive to buy high quality cooked food.
7. availability of real food (many cities in the US are Food Deserts).
Greed might not be the motivator, but what about gardening?
I know if I don't pull that weed out of the garden, by the end of the season the garden will be filled with weeds. Maybe if we do run into aliens they just want to destroy us, knowing that we will eventually grow and make the universe messy for them:)
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110922114914AAVHoJQ
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24017/is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk
Unless something in science has changed since I last google searched:), I'm pretty certain the BB theory doesn't rule out the possibility of an infinite universe.
So does this mean you would outlaw individual people from spending their own money on political messages?
Amending the constitution so that corporations are not people would make this a much easier situation. If that were not possible, then my second scenario of limiting all "people" to some small amount per election cycle would work.
The problem I see with this is that all corporations and groups of people are comprised of individuals. Doing things in the name of a corporation makes it easy to do certain things, and it shields individuals from consequences (e.g. corporations can't be imprisoned). But if you make it illegal for a corporation to do something, they can just have the individuals do it instead. My company gets it's employees to make donations to a PAC, but they could have us donate directly to political campaigns instead, it would just be a little harder to coordinate.
It would be way harder to coordinate, and you could be very sure that each individual would be very aware about where the money was going. If Walmart attempted to get all its employees to donate to one particular political candidate, it would be not only a much more transparent donation, but all those donating would need to agree.
Right now, many corporations that employee vast swaths of the American public are actively donating to issues and candidates that are not in the best interests of their employees.
Imagine Walmart asking its employees to donate to a PAC whose political purpose was to lobby against a minimum wage hike... :)
I wonder if that would remain true for long if ISP's were forced to become common carriers, and could only provide you with internet, no TV? Broadcasters would have to rely on advertising alone, unless they wanted to form their own "online cable companies" and charge subscriptions for bundles of online streams. That alone might spark a huge online competition for pricing. If the pricing isn't fixed by local monopolies (comcast, etc..), I bet you would see the price actually go down per show.
If Aereo wins its case, things could get even more interesting for anything over the air.
If your TV station has a f**kload of viewers, you are an idiot if you don't charge cable providers a high fee to carry it
And that needs to change. Broadcasters should make money from commercials, and encourage more eyeballs by allowing free rebroadcasts. That is one of the issues in the current supreme court case about Aereo.
If I offer a service that is basically just managing your existing DVR, but "in the cloud", is that legal or not? If Aereo wins, it might prompt cable providers to re-organize their delivery method to match Aereo's and totally bypass the double dipping that broadcasters do currently (commercials + broadcast fees).
http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame
There are lots of smart folks who have good 30-50 year plans to transition away from oil (for most uses, not all) with little disruption.
You don't hear much about them for exactly the same reason that it took cigarettes so long to get warning labels: massive lobbying from very rich businesses. And in this case, the particular business happens to be the richest in the history of planet earth.
You're asking me to change my life
... who? What did they ask? There is zero evidence that transitioning intelligently to green energy, using market based strategies, is going to cost you, the consumer, one single extra penny or require any behavior changes.
Sure, you can find pretty much anyone spouting anything about this subject. But until you have the government actually telling you to change your lifestyle, can you maybe stop talking about it like its true? Or at least cite some evidence that there exists a credible climate action plan, from a reputable organization in power, that would require you to change your life.
Get a local or regional bank account. Like a local credit union. Helps keep your money local, and is far less likely to get wrapped up in any national nonsense.
Things will get more expensive or need to be rationed.
Unfounded BS. There are plenty of nice, slow, market driven solutions to "going green".
Jerks indeed. No byod 4G support.