Your first paragraph is incorrect. There is no such assumption. There is an assumption that a rise in price often leads to an increase in production and a new equilibrium, but there is no assumption that the increase will come, or that it will be immediate. As you go on to point out, the invisible hand is just as happy with price increases as it is with production increases.
The weak dollar is part of it, but what it really amounts to is that Europeans are willing to pay more for it. Use the current exchange rate and compare the Euro prices to the dollar prices. They are much higher. Europeans who are buying the Wii could buy more American entertainment (measured in nominal currency) than they are getting with the Wii, but they obviously prefer the Wii.
I was specifically referring to sending unmanned probes (read the post I replied to), which have been something less than 0.1% of the federal budget and an even smaller percentage of GDP (are we measuring against government or society...). Unless you are incredibly, unbelievably rich, you, like me, probably contributed about $10 to the Mars missions (well, I probably contributed a great deal less than that...age, income, etc).
I see no reason to send people to Mars. I can see some purpose in a one-way hope they survive for a long time mission, but the costs otherwise are pretty much insane.
There pretty much isn't one. (and humans need food, so backing us up requires backing up ecosystems, especially if you want to do it over extended periods; at a minimum, you need pollination and such, a lot of people would be very unhappy without at least a little diversity in their diet, so you probably need milk and meat).
Sure, we could probably, at a cost of trillions of dollars, put a few hundred people on Mars with the resources they would need to live a few decades (I mean the resources that they would need to start with to sustain several decades, not all the resources they would need). I don't see how it is worth it at this point, maybe when technology gets better it can become a goal, but with current technology, it simply isn't worth thinking about.
Does every single thing you do help address the many serious problems facing us here on Earth, or do you occasionally do frivolous things that you enjoy? Yeah, that's what I thought.
They are currently only using the reprocessed fuel in traditional reactors (or storing it); this leads to more "hot" radioactive material, not less. There is reason to believe that they will eventually start burning it up, but currently, they are not.
If you aren't going to stabilize the waste, there really isn't a great deal of need to ship it somewhere central, you can just leave it at the reactor sites (or do regional collection if security is something that people get worried about).
One issue is that reprocessing hasn't been all that successful in France:
The vast majority of spent fuel is currently stored on site at the reactor where it was burned. There are rumblings of plans to concentrate much of that waste into long term underground storage, in a glassified state. The glassified waste is not suitable for reprocessing for both mechanical and chemical reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
When you buy a used game, you give the previous owner capital that he is quite likely to use to support a "fascist corporation".
Your first paragraph is incorrect. There is no such assumption. There is an assumption that a rise in price often leads to an increase in production and a new equilibrium, but there is no assumption that the increase will come, or that it will be immediate. As you go on to point out, the invisible hand is just as happy with price increases as it is with production increases.
The weak dollar is part of it, but what it really amounts to is that Europeans are willing to pay more for it. Use the current exchange rate and compare the Euro prices to the dollar prices. They are much higher. Europeans who are buying the Wii could buy more American entertainment (measured in nominal currency) than they are getting with the Wii, but they obviously prefer the Wii.
When did they add a toilet?
I was specifically referring to sending unmanned probes (read the post I replied to), which have been something less than 0.1% of the federal budget and an even smaller percentage of GDP (are we measuring against government or society...). Unless you are incredibly, unbelievably rich, you, like me, probably contributed about $10 to the Mars missions (well, I probably contributed a great deal less than that...age, income, etc).
I see no reason to send people to Mars. I can see some purpose in a one-way hope they survive for a long time mission, but the costs otherwise are pretty much insane.
There pretty much isn't one. (and humans need food, so backing us up requires backing up ecosystems, especially if you want to do it over extended periods; at a minimum, you need pollination and such, a lot of people would be very unhappy without at least a little diversity in their diet, so you probably need milk and meat).
Sure, we could probably, at a cost of trillions of dollars, put a few hundred people on Mars with the resources they would need to live a few decades (I mean the resources that they would need to start with to sustain several decades, not all the resources they would need). I don't see how it is worth it at this point, maybe when technology gets better it can become a goal, but with current technology, it simply isn't worth thinking about.
Mars as a backup for Earth is a pipe dream, a crack-pipe dream.
Does every single thing you do help address the many serious problems facing us here on Earth, or do you occasionally do frivolous things that you enjoy? Yeah, that's what I thought.
I believe what you are saying, but that link is equally well explained by you or someone you know being an O2 customer.
Your number in the database is HIGH. I commend thee.
You're so cynical that it makes you cool.
As far as I can tell, there are no other charges period. There aren't any time limits either. Oh, and performance seems OK.
I think they just have things set up with almost no overhead.
Astraweb offers pay $10 once for 25 GB and pay $25 once for 100 GB if you aren't generating a lot of traffic.
What are you lying about?
How can you criticize them if you are complicit in their actions?
Why would Windows software think of General Electric as home?
Or I got the point and wanted to highlight something that I thought was more important and a better way of looking at it.
Must be somewhere in Utah. Maybe Salt Lake City.
I suggest reading Batman before you judge the content. You are pigeonholing in an enormous way.
But Superman knows! Part of the victory is that Superman starts thinking for himself again.
Yes, how awful that we utilize energy to improve the quality of life of the many, rather than burying valuable resources with the few.
Quite a bit about the situation in France in this article:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4891
They are currently only using the reprocessed fuel in traditional reactors (or storing it); this leads to more "hot" radioactive material, not less. There is reason to believe that they will eventually start burning it up, but currently, they are not.
If you aren't going to stabilize the waste, there really isn't a great deal of need to ship it somewhere central, you can just leave it at the reactor sites (or do regional collection if security is something that people get worried about).
One issue is that reprocessing hasn't been all that successful in France:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4891
The crux of it is that breeder reactors don't work yet.
The vast majority of spent fuel is currently stored on site at the reactor where it was burned. There are rumblings of plans to concentrate much of that waste into long term underground storage, in a glassified state. The glassified waste is not suitable for reprocessing for both mechanical and chemical reasons.
It is quite clear that you are doing it wrong.