A controlled eruption would be nice but is almost impossible to do because of complete lack of information. First, there is no way of telling how exactly the magma is distributed down there. Second, a drilling makes a lot of fissures in the stone and the sideffects of it are unpredictable.
Yes, the biggest problem with energy today is not production but storage and transportation. But nuclear has similar problems as its output can't be changed effectively. Consumption changes rapidly, and the only way to solve this today is a mixed system, where the constant part of electricity is produced by nuclear and coal while the dinamic part is produced by gas and water.
release of Firefox with Bing indicates that Mozilla is now confident in Bing's ability to provide a top-notch service to Firefox users.
Users can set whatever search engine they want, this has nothing to do with "Bing's abilities". The biggest income of browser developers comes from search sites paying to be default. In this case, Microsoft payed more than Google.
Implementing a nationwide Internet filter is not an easy task. I'm not sure they are serious about actually enforcing the bill. But if they do, it will be funny watching Google and Facebook and the like move out.
Yes, the employer will have more money, wich means that the distribution of wealth will get more inequal. You claim that even with decreased wages the price of goods will decrease even more, so everyone wins in the end. While it's a possible outcome, there are two problems with it. First, on a large scale this could lead to deflation thus destabilizing the economy. Second, the big costs of living - accomodation, food and energy - can't be made that much cheaper with automation. How cheap houses and food can get is limited by the appropriate spots/land and robots won't be able to produce energy.
Your bank shouldn't give out your data to the card companies so theoretically they only know the ATM the transaction was made from, so they can change ads respectively in the area.
I'm not an American and I was referring to the economy of the whole globe - a closed system.
Re:John Henry, please answer the white courtesy ph
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 1
You may laugh now, but the US military with its enormous funding is the same "jobs program". In Europe we have governmental corporations and bureaucracy provide those jobs. Every developed country has their own version of artificial jobs trying to fight unemployment .
Absurd? This had already happened once during the industrial revolution. The surplus of goods produced by the new machines were distributed among the upper class who had the capital to invest in them, but the living conditions of the workers became worse than ever. I'm not saying we should stop development, but the market should be regulated somehow to prevent this from happening again.
If there were more people needed to maintain them than the amount they replaced, there would be no economic drive for automatization. A company will only choose robots when it can fire people in return.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, in the socialist worldview companies should have less rights than people.
A controlled eruption would be nice but is almost impossible to do because of complete lack of information. First, there is no way of telling how exactly the magma is distributed down there. Second, a drilling makes a lot of fissures in the stone and the sideffects of it are unpredictable.
Drilling next to a high pressure magma chamber will just make it happen sooner.
Yes, the biggest problem with energy today is not production but storage and transportation. But nuclear has similar problems as its output can't be changed effectively. Consumption changes rapidly, and the only way to solve this today is a mixed system, where the constant part of electricity is produced by nuclear and coal while the dinamic part is produced by gas and water.
The article is about solar collectors not about panels. Different things with different uses.
Very true. Perfectly rational strategy is impossible to define in economics, yet most economics assume that people will act like it.
instead of working ones. They derive every behavior from one single model. Not even physics can do that.
This man is cool.
Users can set whatever search engine they want, this has nothing to do with "Bing's abilities". The biggest income of browser developers comes from search sites paying to be default. In this case, Microsoft payed more than Google.
Implementing a nationwide Internet filter is not an easy task. I'm not sure they are serious about actually enforcing the bill. But if they do, it will be funny watching Google and Facebook and the like move out.
Seriously, does anyone believe false rumors like this when the Chinese foreign ministry said that they "protect the freedom of expression of citizens in China,"?
No, the 2 year claim is bullshit.
Yes, the employer will have more money, wich means that the distribution of wealth will get more inequal. You claim that even with decreased wages the price of goods will decrease even more, so everyone wins in the end. While it's a possible outcome, there are two problems with it. First, on a large scale this could lead to deflation thus destabilizing the economy. Second, the big costs of living - accomodation, food and energy - can't be made that much cheaper with automation. How cheap houses and food can get is limited by the appropriate spots/land and robots won't be able to produce energy.
I didn't claim they don't do this. The article is wrong thinking that it was a unique genius of Steve Jobs.
With less jobs, people will have less money in general.
Apple managed to turn profits by outsourceing the actual production so they could focus on design.
If you want more than 4GB RAM you need the 64-bit versions of XP or Win7.
Your bank shouldn't give out your data to the card companies so theoretically they only know the ATM the transaction was made from, so they can change ads respectively in the area.
An increase in production assumes an increase in demand. We are talking about a closed system.
That assumes an increase in demand.
I'm not an American and I was referring to the economy of the whole globe - a closed system.
You may laugh now, but the US military with its enormous funding is the same "jobs program". In Europe we have governmental corporations and bureaucracy provide those jobs. Every developed country has their own version of artificial jobs trying to fight unemployment .
Absurd? This had already happened once during the industrial revolution. The surplus of goods produced by the new machines were distributed among the upper class who had the capital to invest in them, but the living conditions of the workers became worse than ever. I'm not saying we should stop development, but the market should be regulated somehow to prevent this from happening again.
If there were more people needed to maintain them than the amount they replaced, there would be no economic drive for automatization. A company will only choose robots when it can fire people in return.
No, it stays at the same place when the camera is moved.