That's not really a problem though, loosening up the output requirements is only going to make the Budweiser cheaper, so the fact that it (might/probably/hmmm/something) starts out cheaper is a killer. If you start with the amount of sunlight available, the pond size to get a decent amount of energy per year quickly becomes unattractive (Algae probably aren't going to be more than 10% efficient, so even in a pretty good location, you are only going to get about 1 kilowatt-hour of fuel per day for each square meter of pond, so you would need something like 30-50 square meters to provide about a gallon a day in a location that was productive year round (northern latitudes quickly triple or quadruple the area required, as they won't work year round)).
You are getting there. It is true that the vaccine can kill a person, but it is also true that mass administering the vaccine will result in fewer deaths than simply letting the disease run its course, so public health officials prefer to administer the vaccine. Since no sane business would stand behind a vaccine that might be deadly, the government limits their liability in order to make the vaccine available, resulting in the saving of many lives.
Actually, I chose Bud because when I am choosing a fuel, I want a cheap product that delivers consistent quality (I'm not saying Budweiser delivers high quality, just that each can of Budweiser is pretty much the same as every other can of Budweiser, which is desirable in a fuel).
You aren't explaining anything. The companies that manufacture vaccines are not selling them as loss leaders, so your whole analogy is nonsensical. Also, selling X-Boxes does not expose Microsoft to outsize liability claims that would make selling the X-Box at all an unattractive proposition.
The biggest one is that you need a (large!) stinky pond. Or a huge enclosed system. Insolation is only about 1 kilowatt per square meter, so depending on the length of day and the efficiency of the algae, you will only capture a kilowatt hour or two of energy each day. A gallon of gasoline contains about 38 kilowatt hours of energy. So meeting a meaningful liquid fuel budget in a location with a relatively short summer is going to require an enormous pond.
Are you really shocked that people are reluctant to build and operate the systems at a loss?
Commercially viable doesn't mean perfect, it means that you can pay for the cost of the operation using the out of the operation. That doesn't preclude operating pilot plants to test out promising technologies, but those plants are not going to be built to maximize production volume.
The democratic cabal obviously had a member that was eligible to nominate him, so that part was easy, but actually controlling the minds of the selection committee probably required pointing their mind control satellite (how else could he have won the election?) at Norway.
More seriously, Obama winning the prize reflects poorly on the Nobel committee, not on him.
I see two possible explanations: You ruined the assertion by actually checking, or he is using hyperbole to describe a situation where very little music is produced and recorded per capita.
Awareness is the first step. I'll try to help: that pharmaceutical companies make large profits does not mean that they make large profits on vaccines.
To put it another way, subsidizing vaccines is different than subsidizing pharmaceuticals in general.
Because the group of people who are at risk from your buildings and who benefit from your buildings are very clear, and any hysteria associated with your building being dangerous only results in people not entering it, not a public health crisis. Also, it is likely that you can afford to insure yourself against liability in the private market (whereas vaccine makers probably cannot, which again leads to a public health crisis, as vaccines do more than protect the vaccinated, they bend the curve...).
As far as I can tell, all the networks are converging on the same technologies, maybe not for so-called 3.5 or 4g, but one or two full upgrades from now, I think they will be homogeneous (except for the frequencies, which are determined by the available licenses...).
Virgin Mobile, which is the "Virgin" branded carrier in the United States, is wholly owned by Sprint (happened this year), and exclusively uses their towers (roaming is not an option, at least on the prepaid stuff, not sure about the monthly).
Are you talking about a Canadian or Latin American branded service?
How much did they get? According to their 2008 annual report (page 2), they spent $20 billion on construction and capital expenditures in 2008, and $17 billion in 2007:
The idea that it isn't worth developing a version of a phone for CDMA, which has tens of millions of subscribers, is utterly preposterous. The development costs would end up being something like $1 per phone sold (that's assuming that the development would cost a lot and they would only sell one or two million phones).
Apple likely wanted exclusivity to start with (they are making monthly money on the contracts) and GSM makes worldwide sense if they can come to terms with AT&T in the US, so it makes sense that they went with GSM, but the need for a different chip isn't even an issue when it comes to carrier exclusivity.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it they are all trying to get to America?
That's not really a problem though, loosening up the output requirements is only going to make the Budweiser cheaper, so the fact that it (might/probably/hmmm/something) starts out cheaper is a killer. If you start with the amount of sunlight available, the pond size to get a decent amount of energy per year quickly becomes unattractive (Algae probably aren't going to be more than 10% efficient, so even in a pretty good location, you are only going to get about 1 kilowatt-hour of fuel per day for each square meter of pond, so you would need something like 30-50 square meters to provide about a gallon a day in a location that was productive year round (northern latitudes quickly triple or quadruple the area required, as they won't work year round)).
If you've never been tempted to drink it, how do you know you don't like it?
Where does it say that?
The other question is why aren't you doing it?
You are getting there. It is true that the vaccine can kill a person, but it is also true that mass administering the vaccine will result in fewer deaths than simply letting the disease run its course, so public health officials prefer to administer the vaccine. Since no sane business would stand behind a vaccine that might be deadly, the government limits their liability in order to make the vaccine available, resulting in the saving of many lives.
Actually, I chose Bud because when I am choosing a fuel, I want a cheap product that delivers consistent quality (I'm not saying Budweiser delivers high quality, just that each can of Budweiser is pretty much the same as every other can of Budweiser, which is desirable in a fuel).
You aren't explaining anything. The companies that manufacture vaccines are not selling them as loss leaders, so your whole analogy is nonsensical. Also, selling X-Boxes does not expose Microsoft to outsize liability claims that would make selling the X-Box at all an unattractive proposition.
The biggest one is that you need a (large!) stinky pond. Or a huge enclosed system. Insolation is only about 1 kilowatt per square meter, so depending on the length of day and the efficiency of the algae, you will only capture a kilowatt hour or two of energy each day. A gallon of gasoline contains about 38 kilowatt hours of energy. So meeting a meaningful liquid fuel budget in a location with a relatively short summer is going to require an enormous pond.
Are you really shocked that people are reluctant to build and operate the systems at a loss?
Commercially viable doesn't mean perfect, it means that you can pay for the cost of the operation using the out of the operation. That doesn't preclude operating pilot plants to test out promising technologies, but those plants are not going to be built to maximize production volume.
Let's abuse the analogy: Budweiser is cheaper and more consistent than most microbrews.
Perhaps there are less particulates, or less sulfur dioxide. Or maybe there is less UV making it through the ozone layer.
The democratic cabal obviously had a member that was eligible to nominate him, so that part was easy, but actually controlling the minds of the selection committee probably required pointing their mind control satellite (how else could he have won the election?) at Norway.
More seriously, Obama winning the prize reflects poorly on the Nobel committee, not on him.
I see two possible explanations: You ruined the assertion by actually checking, or he is using hyperbole to describe a situation where very little music is produced and recorded per capita.
Awareness is the first step. I'll try to help: that pharmaceutical companies make large profits does not mean that they make large profits on vaccines.
To put it another way, subsidizing vaccines is different than subsidizing pharmaceuticals in general.
"Pharmaceuticals" is a poor proxy for "vaccines". If you don't see why this is, think about it for a long time.
Because the group of people who are at risk from your buildings and who benefit from your buildings are very clear, and any hysteria associated with your building being dangerous only results in people not entering it, not a public health crisis. Also, it is likely that you can afford to insure yourself against liability in the private market (whereas vaccine makers probably cannot, which again leads to a public health crisis, as vaccines do more than protect the vaccinated, they bend the curve...).
If it is coming out of your nose and going into a vat of acid, it probably isn't going to make you any more sick than if it just stays in your nose.
(I don't eat boogers, but your complaint is remarkably inane)
So wait, you have trained yourself to be some sort of mental jagoff?
Or it will just make that sort of test a great deal less relevant. Also, there are Faraday cages and jamming devices.
As far as I can tell, all the networks are converging on the same technologies, maybe not for so-called 3.5 or 4g, but one or two full upgrades from now, I think they will be homogeneous (except for the frequencies, which are determined by the available licenses...).
In the terms, write "If you exceed SOME_NUMBER of transfer, your connection will be restricted for SOME_PERIOD."
That's all it takes, tell people up front that mega-consumers will be limited and given that caveat, they can decide if the service is fairly priced.
Virgin Mobile, which is the "Virgin" branded carrier in the United States, is wholly owned by Sprint (happened this year), and exclusively uses their towers (roaming is not an option, at least on the prepaid stuff, not sure about the monthly).
Are you talking about a Canadian or Latin American branded service?
How much did they get? According to their 2008 annual report (page 2), they spent $20 billion on construction and capital expenditures in 2008, and $17 billion in 2007:
http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/annual_report/pdfs/2008ATT_Financials.pdf
(They spend less from 2004-2006, but still, a total of $18 billion over those 3 years)
AT&T isn't my hero or anything, but I think the idea that the big consumer networking companies don't invest in infrastructure is pretty wrong.
The idea that it isn't worth developing a version of a phone for CDMA, which has tens of millions of subscribers, is utterly preposterous. The development costs would end up being something like $1 per phone sold (that's assuming that the development would cost a lot and they would only sell one or two million phones).
Apple likely wanted exclusivity to start with (they are making monthly money on the contracts) and GSM makes worldwide sense if they can come to terms with AT&T in the US, so it makes sense that they went with GSM, but the need for a different chip isn't even an issue when it comes to carrier exclusivity.
Tiers are ridiculous. Just sell metered bandwidth. Why should the customer always be expected to pay for more than they use?
It isn't as if they have any difficulty determining when people exceed their tier, so metered billing would not be onerous.