Goldman had a relatively small piece of TARP. J.P. Morgan and Bank of America and Wells Fargo paid off a lot of their obligations by issuing new equity. Citi reduced theirs the same way (but did not eliminate it).
The big holes aren't really banks; AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and GM:
It isn't most. There are huge numbers of frustrated academics looking for positions where they might eventually get a shot at tenure (And the problem is that there aren't enough positions to go around, not that the academics available are no good).
It isn't even clear peak oil is that big a problem. There were all sorts of things that people were doing when oil was $130 a barrel that still made sense, and there were all sorts of people who found alternatives that were cheaper than $130.
So it isn't clear that it is going to be a shock.
(I realize that people who were commuting long distances in big cars to their over-sized homes were rather uncomfortable with the increase in energy costs, but they did options to make things more tenable (smaller homes, smaller cars, shorter commutes, etc.))
It isn't dead, it is just resting. When the alternative is not having access to cheap energy, people will all of the sudden decide that maybe nuclear is a decent idea (but the abundance of things like coal and natural gas means that it will take a while).
What are they going to do if we just go ahead and use the tech, demand that we repay the loans they have given us? Stop manipulating the exchange rate, thereby slightly increasing the costs of some of our consumer goods?
Yeah, but they deserve poverty, and it is really scary that they are actually doing something about it, it makes it harder to compare us to them and feel good about it.
Sure it has. The 'waste' that comes out of reactors has a whole bunch of useful atoms in it, and sticking it somewhere convenient until it becomes more economically attractive to extract those atoms is a great solution (along with being one of the cheapest!).
The best place to put plutonium is back inside of a reactor, and the more stable uranium isotopes aren't that big a deal to store (they aren't very 'hot').
It's disappointing that you are misrepresenting what that books says. First, the numbers presented on the page you link to are only for Britain (other areas have much more abundant solar resources), and the author makes lots of assumptions that are not related to physics as he comes up with the numbers (i.e., he talks about how much area is practical to cover, rather than possible, and he talks about the cost, and so on).
People living in Arizona can easily extract all the energy they need from the sun. There are people doing it.
(Of course, I don't think nuclear is a bad idea, especially right now where the main alternative is coal)
Integration and hardware costs keep the cheapest hard drives somewhere around $40 (for new stuff). Someone will be tempted to play in that space with a $20 SSD, at which point people will get out their fingers and determine the per GB cost of the $20 drive and be very unhappy with larger drives that cost much more than that.
Vs less than $3 today (just google it). So the prices haven't come down quite as much as the article predicts, but there are 11 months left in the year, and I made that calculation using an intel drive (which probably carries a slight premium to the market).
I imagine your question is largely rhetorical, and I don't pretend to know the answer, but I would speculate that the chief reason is that the graphics weren't especially powerful, and then lesser reasons are that laptops were mostly targeted at business users until ~2003 (give or take) and the need for controllers.
So people could spend $150 and get a mediocre gaming experience on their laptops, or spend $250 and get a great gaming experience on their Playstation or Nintendo 64.
Well, it's a good thing they are being clear about how the device works, so that you can avoid buying it (I say this as someone who probably wouldn't buy one anyway but certainly won't buy the locked down stuff).
Slashdot Mirror
Man, they are both still Chevys.
This article indicates that the 'work' consists of showing up, so it seems like your argument is pretty fine grained.
Goldman had a relatively small piece of TARP. J.P. Morgan and Bank of America and Wells Fargo paid off a lot of their obligations by issuing new equity. Citi reduced theirs the same way (but did not eliminate it).
The big holes aren't really banks; AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and GM:
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/index
Maybe degrees should be earned, but currently, many of them are purchased.
I would have gone with "Given proper instruction".
It isn't most. There are huge numbers of frustrated academics looking for positions where they might eventually get a shot at tenure (And the problem is that there aren't enough positions to go around, not that the academics available are no good).
The unfortunate thing is that it is often much clearer to simply eliminate the pronoun altogether.
Yes, the large number of people choosing to come here for education is a sure sign of decline.
It isn't even clear peak oil is that big a problem. There were all sorts of things that people were doing when oil was $130 a barrel that still made sense, and there were all sorts of people who found alternatives that were cheaper than $130.
So it isn't clear that it is going to be a shock.
(I realize that people who were commuting long distances in big cars to their over-sized homes were rather uncomfortable with the increase in energy costs, but they did options to make things more tenable (smaller homes, smaller cars, shorter commutes, etc.))
It isn't dead, it is just resting. When the alternative is not having access to cheap energy, people will all of the sudden decide that maybe nuclear is a decent idea (but the abundance of things like coal and natural gas means that it will take a while).
There is plenty of room to drown ourselves in Lake Superior, so we can mitigate the out-gassing (or at least spread it over many years).
He was WRONG ON THE INTERNET.
(and only vaguely so, that they are working on building new plants is slightly different than not having built that many up until this point)
What are they going to do if we just go ahead and use the tech, demand that we repay the loans they have given us? Stop manipulating the exchange rate, thereby slightly increasing the costs of some of our consumer goods?
Yeah, but they deserve poverty, and it is really scary that they are actually doing something about it, it makes it harder to compare us to them and feel good about it.
Sure it has. The 'waste' that comes out of reactors has a whole bunch of useful atoms in it, and sticking it somewhere convenient until it becomes more economically attractive to extract those atoms is a great solution (along with being one of the cheapest!).
The best place to put plutonium is back inside of a reactor, and the more stable uranium isotopes aren't that big a deal to store (they aren't very 'hot').
It's disappointing that you are misrepresenting what that books says. First, the numbers presented on the page you link to are only for Britain (other areas have much more abundant solar resources), and the author makes lots of assumptions that are not related to physics as he comes up with the numbers (i.e., he talks about how much area is practical to cover, rather than possible, and he talks about the cost, and so on).
People living in Arizona can easily extract all the energy they need from the sun. There are people doing it.
(Of course, I don't think nuclear is a bad idea, especially right now where the main alternative is coal)
Economics isn't like a foot race.
Integration and hardware costs keep the cheapest hard drives somewhere around $40 (for new stuff). Someone will be tempted to play in that space with a $20 SSD, at which point people will get out their fingers and determine the per GB cost of the $20 drive and be very unhappy with larger drives that cost much more than that.
Also, in 2007, they were ~$7.50 per GB:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/25/ssd-prices-in-freefall-wont-overtake-hard-disks-anytime-soon/
Vs less than $3 today (just google it). So the prices haven't come down quite as much as the article predicts, but there are 11 months left in the year, and I made that calculation using an intel drive (which probably carries a slight premium to the market).
BRL-CAD is probably the only full fledged package. Link:
http://brlcad.org/
Oil is such a stupid, facile explanation for those wars, I can't believe people think they are reasoning when they come to that conclusion.
(It would have been quite a lot easier to do nothing, or even relax various embargoes)
I imagine your question is largely rhetorical, and I don't pretend to know the answer, but I would speculate that the chief reason is that the graphics weren't especially powerful, and then lesser reasons are that laptops were mostly targeted at business users until ~2003 (give or take) and the need for controllers.
So people could spend $150 and get a mediocre gaming experience on their laptops, or spend $250 and get a great gaming experience on their Playstation or Nintendo 64.
I would guess that nearly every open source application has undergone usability testing, it just hasn't been very extensive or very effective.
More seriously, would Firefox count? I'm pretty sure they do some usability testing, but it is easy to discard as a special case.
There was a period of time where a lot of laptops came with S-Video.
Well, it's a good thing they are being clear about how the device works, so that you can avoid buying it (I say this as someone who probably wouldn't buy one anyway but certainly won't buy the locked down stuff).
For people that don't already have it, that EFI counts as special hardware.