I gotta disagree... it makes absolutely no sense at all to create a new hydrocarbon fuel. Problem #1: availability of carbon... it will take energy to extract it from the air or other sources. Problem #2, nobody knows yet of a way to guarantee that every hydrocarbon molecule correctly decomposes back to CO2, meaning that some resulting CO will be created by the combustion process, the whole argument for hydrogen cars is the elimination of carbon from the cycle... why reintroduce it. Problem #3: Creating a hydrocarbon chain uses a TON of energy... some of which is lost as heat during the creation process. Problem #4: All internal combustion engines create heat, a further waste of energy. While it is true that ECs also create heat, it is several orders of magnitude less than an ICE.
You do realize that bio-fuels and ethanol mix fuels represent the very "artificial gasoline" you are speaking of, right? And they've done wonders for fixing our energy cycle problems to date.
Remember that the shortest path between two points is a straight line. When talking about energy efficiency, the same is true. The most efficient way to use energy is to measure the waste of each individual step and sum it up... in the end, your efficiency ratio is the amount of power used to do what you wanted, over the total power consumed by the entire system. This math has already been done, as trumpeted in this infographic.
I came here to say this... the date the video was produced should be really helpful in determining who really owns the content... but furthermore, I think there is another way to balance the scales: Perhaps every time fox claims infringement, but it is found to be a false claim, then fox can choose to either give 1 year worth of Youtube revenue to the falsely accused party, or they can instead opt for a 1 year ban from the system, including being banned from using the take-down tool. I'm pretty sure fox would spend the time to get it right in that case.
All this does is prove that Buffett is watching the news. Oracle has the upper hand in the legal case against Google at the moment, and Buffett is betting that Android is going to take a punch in the mouth... hence the investment in Apple.
I can see your point... only if I assume that all labor is blue collar labor. Ideas are labor, entertainment is labor, and as for property, it represents labor that can be "stored" and leveraged. The majority of the money DOES go to the laborers... it's just that you can exchange your labor for hookers and blow, or you can exchange your labor for higher leveraged labor.
Here's another possibility: UBI gives labor the capital to invest in itself.
You have failed to answer my question though: WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM? You state that the income is to be given, but you fail to acknowledge where it comes from.
I also call bullshit on the fact that rich people just sit on their money and it does nothing productive. I once heard about Bill Gates having some huge ass mahogany panels being installed in his house... and I've heard tons of people bitch about Steve Jobs' huge bespoke yacht... Perhaps if poor people stopped crucifying rich people for SPENDING their money, stagnation of capital wouldn't be a problem.
I appreciate the well honed description of fiat money... I stand corrected. But what of my primary argument? Money is a proxy for labor. Full stop. I go to work and do labor to get access to money, which gives me access to other people's labor. Basic income gives someone else access to my labor by taking it away from me. Imagine this very tight loop: Store owner pays taxes on his business profits, pays income tax on what he pays himself, etc... a customer walks in a buys a TV and walks out... later the store owner discovers that the customer is getting a "basic income" check.... what just happened there is theft. The store owner is the one who paid for the TV. Taxes must be increased to supply that money, and the only people who pay taxes are the ones who already produce more than they consume.
I just don't get these arguments that basic income will lift the economy because of spending because it wont... it skips a step in the spending cycle, and unbalances the system. Follow the money, and explain where it's coming from.
but OP said "but they still decided to continue broadcasting" suggesting that someone is actively watching the stream and deciding whether a stream should continue or not... the reality is that people who get flagged do so after the fact, and only after repeated complaints.
Who is the "THEY" you are referring to here? It's not like there is a periscope producer with her hand over the cutoff button, waiting to decide if the content is no appropriate for broadcast... oh and also, does France have regulatory control over internet streaming? In the US, we've got the FCC, but they don't deal with decency on the net... only on TV, and even they couldn't stop Janet Jackson from showing off some nipple. There is no "THEY" to actively make a decision to continue broadcasting, and there never will be. It's the internet.
While I agree with you in principle, there is a ftfy I'd like to point out:
the ability of some humans to drive well in rough weather is, currently, absolute and true.
A human driver can choose NOT to go out in bad weather. A human can estimate the depth of water flowing over a road and decide not to cross (bridge may be washed out). A human can sense how slippery the snow on the road is, and choose a different route with a more favorable grade. Self driving cars currently lack this intuition, but I'm sure it will be just a few years before manufacturers are integrating those ideas.
However, the important thing is that self driving cars are already better than some human drivers, and self driving cars don't require all cars on the road to be self driving, therefore, there is no reason for some people to adopt self driving cars now... as they get better, more and more people will find a favorable use case, and will make the switch.
Sure you're being funny, but that actually is a serious concern here: On one hand, is it forensically legitimate if they can't explain how they got the evidence? (and for that matter does the FBI even CARE about keeping it legal anymore), and on the other hand, does the FBI even know if the wool is being pulled over their eyes if they don't know how it works???
Finally, I seriously doubt they took the phone outside of an FBI facility to perform the hack, which implies that someone was brought in to the FBI facility to perform the hack... do you really think they let that person walk out without explaining how they did it? You're telling me they didn't search the hackers laptop?
This is false, unless by "lifetimes" you mean "unicorn farts". Solar companies in the west begin negotiations by asking what your current power bill is, then sell you a system that produces EXACTLY the amount of energy you need, and they put you on a payment plan that costs just a hair under what you were paying the power company. That payment plan is typically 25 years... the exact time frame that they will warranty the equipment. So in reality you're just renting power from someone else... the only thing you truly walk away with is the self-righteousness of being able to tell your neighbors that you "went green." Furthermore, that's not a battery system, that's just pushing back to the grid in the spring and fall, and buying it back in the summer and winter. If you truly want to be off grid, you need batteries and about 30% more cells. In the end, solar ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT pay for itself unless the system lasts longer than 30-40 years... and NOBODY, I MEAN NOBODY is warrantying systems for that long. Finally, solar panels degrade over time, so a system at 100% capacity is going to loose.5 - 5% production capability annually(depends on the quality of the cells), so by the system's end of life, you're only producing 80% of your original capacity.
Now, you may argue, "but at least you're not using coal or nuclear power now that you've got panels", but that ignores that fact that the same economic argument that puts panels on my roof could be used to put panels in a farm somewhere else, and then I can still buy my power at the same rate and be green. The reality is that the price of batteries and panels needs to be driven down a good chunk, and companies need to be willing to make less margin before solar will pay for itself.
If you doubt me, call some people and see for yourself. I called Auric Solar, Solaroo, Vivint, and Ledgend Solar. I had a rep for each company come out to my house to bid on about 4.8-5.6kw (some companies don't build 100% capacity because they can only finance you 80% capacity, even though I told them I wasn't going to finance it) and I have a bid in writing from each of them. The only possible upside is that *most* of your power bill is locked in, where using the power company means you get rate hikes... however, what are you going to do when your power demands increase? Planning on having kids? Power consumption is going to go up, and if your system is too small you'll pay through the nose to add capacity.
The write up on Ars Technica basically stated this... accelerate it to 20% speed of light within a very short span (half hour if I remember correctly), and send multiple devices for redundancy... Once the technology was built, there'd be no reason not to send thousands of them.
Seawater and final impact speed are two good ones.
Seawater inside a booster makes refurbishing it MUCH harder. With parachutes, you can't control the attitude at which the booster hits the surface, and those rockets are designed to be very strong for vertical loading, but horizontal loading would destroy it... like a beer can, it can support a load at it's top, but not it's side.
Keep in mind that they have to fly with that fuel anyways... they need the margin in case of engine failure or other recoverable scenario. So all they've really done is add the weight of some landing legs, fins, a few other sundries, and some intelligent flight computers to relight the engine and bring it back down... it's not as inefficient as people are making it out to be.
Uh... yes. They've changed the volume of on-board hydraulic fluid, they changed the leg lock-out mechanisms, they changed the landing approach angle, and probably a billion other things. Do you even follow SpaceX bro?
I'd go out on a limb and say they will probably stick 8 out of the next 10 sea landings, and no less than 9 out of 10 RTL landings.
Slashdot Mirror
I gotta disagree... it makes absolutely no sense at all to create a new hydrocarbon fuel. Problem #1: availability of carbon... it will take energy to extract it from the air or other sources. Problem #2, nobody knows yet of a way to guarantee that every hydrocarbon molecule correctly decomposes back to CO2, meaning that some resulting CO will be created by the combustion process, the whole argument for hydrogen cars is the elimination of carbon from the cycle... why reintroduce it. Problem #3: Creating a hydrocarbon chain uses a TON of energy... some of which is lost as heat during the creation process. Problem #4: All internal combustion engines create heat, a further waste of energy. While it is true that ECs also create heat, it is several orders of magnitude less than an ICE.
You do realize that bio-fuels and ethanol mix fuels represent the very "artificial gasoline" you are speaking of, right? And they've done wonders for fixing our energy cycle problems to date.
Remember that the shortest path between two points is a straight line. When talking about energy efficiency, the same is true. The most efficient way to use energy is to measure the waste of each individual step and sum it up... in the end, your efficiency ratio is the amount of power used to do what you wanted, over the total power consumed by the entire system. This math has already been done, as trumpeted in this infographic.
I came here to say this... the date the video was produced should be really helpful in determining who really owns the content... but furthermore, I think there is another way to balance the scales: Perhaps every time fox claims infringement, but it is found to be a false claim, then fox can choose to either give 1 year worth of Youtube revenue to the falsely accused party, or they can instead opt for a 1 year ban from the system, including being banned from using the take-down tool. I'm pretty sure fox would spend the time to get it right in that case.
All this does is prove that Buffett is watching the news. Oracle has the upper hand in the legal case against Google at the moment, and Buffett is betting that Android is going to take a punch in the mouth... hence the investment in Apple.
I can see your point... only if I assume that all labor is blue collar labor. Ideas are labor, entertainment is labor, and as for property, it represents labor that can be "stored" and leveraged. The majority of the money DOES go to the laborers... it's just that you can exchange your labor for hookers and blow, or you can exchange your labor for higher leveraged labor.
Here's another possibility: UBI gives labor the capital to invest in itself.
You have failed to answer my question though: WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM? You state that the income is to be given, but you fail to acknowledge where it comes from.
I also call bullshit on the fact that rich people just sit on their money and it does nothing productive. I once heard about Bill Gates having some huge ass mahogany panels being installed in his house... and I've heard tons of people bitch about Steve Jobs' huge bespoke yacht... Perhaps if poor people stopped crucifying rich people for SPENDING their money, stagnation of capital wouldn't be a problem.
I appreciate the well honed description of fiat money... I stand corrected. But what of my primary argument? Money is a proxy for labor. Full stop. I go to work and do labor to get access to money, which gives me access to other people's labor. Basic income gives someone else access to my labor by taking it away from me. Imagine this very tight loop: Store owner pays taxes on his business profits, pays income tax on what he pays himself, etc... a customer walks in a buys a TV and walks out... later the store owner discovers that the customer is getting a "basic income" check.... what just happened there is theft. The store owner is the one who paid for the TV. Taxes must be increased to supply that money, and the only people who pay taxes are the ones who already produce more than they consume.
I just don't get these arguments that basic income will lift the economy because of spending because it wont... it skips a step in the spending cycle, and unbalances the system. Follow the money, and explain where it's coming from.
The purpose of fiat currency is that it is a proxy for labor. Basic income undermines that.
but OP said "but they still decided to continue broadcasting" suggesting that someone is actively watching the stream and deciding whether a stream should continue or not... the reality is that people who get flagged do so after the fact, and only after repeated complaints.
Who is the "THEY" you are referring to here? It's not like there is a periscope producer with her hand over the cutoff button, waiting to decide if the content is no appropriate for broadcast... oh and also, does France have regulatory control over internet streaming? In the US, we've got the FCC, but they don't deal with decency on the net... only on TV, and even they couldn't stop Janet Jackson from showing off some nipple. There is no "THEY" to actively make a decision to continue broadcasting, and there never will be. It's the internet.
Clearly, you're not thinking selfishly enough...
While I agree with you in principle, there is a ftfy I'd like to point out:
the ability of some humans to drive well in rough weather is, currently, absolute and true.
A human driver can choose NOT to go out in bad weather. A human can estimate the depth of water flowing over a road and decide not to cross (bridge may be washed out). A human can sense how slippery the snow on the road is, and choose a different route with a more favorable grade. Self driving cars currently lack this intuition, but I'm sure it will be just a few years before manufacturers are integrating those ideas.
However, the important thing is that self driving cars are already better than some human drivers, and self driving cars don't require all cars on the road to be self driving, therefore, there is no reason for some people to adopt self driving cars now... as they get better, more and more people will find a favorable use case, and will make the switch.
Sure you're being funny, but that actually is a serious concern here: On one hand, is it forensically legitimate if they can't explain how they got the evidence? (and for that matter does the FBI even CARE about keeping it legal anymore), and on the other hand, does the FBI even know if the wool is being pulled over their eyes if they don't know how it works???
Finally, I seriously doubt they took the phone outside of an FBI facility to perform the hack, which implies that someone was brought in to the FBI facility to perform the hack... do you really think they let that person walk out without explaining how they did it? You're telling me they didn't search the hackers laptop?
It all sounds a little too implausible for me.
I can't drive 55.
This is false, unless by "lifetimes" you mean "unicorn farts". Solar companies in the west begin negotiations by asking what your current power bill is, then sell you a system that produces EXACTLY the amount of energy you need, and they put you on a payment plan that costs just a hair under what you were paying the power company. That payment plan is typically 25 years... the exact time frame that they will warranty the equipment. So in reality you're just renting power from someone else... the only thing you truly walk away with is the self-righteousness of being able to tell your neighbors that you "went green." Furthermore, that's not a battery system, that's just pushing back to the grid in the spring and fall, and buying it back in the summer and winter. If you truly want to be off grid, you need batteries and about 30% more cells. In the end, solar ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT pay for itself unless the system lasts longer than 30-40 years... and NOBODY, I MEAN NOBODY is warrantying systems for that long. Finally, solar panels degrade over time, so a system at 100% capacity is going to loose .5 - 5% production capability annually(depends on the quality of the cells), so by the system's end of life, you're only producing 80% of your original capacity.
Now, you may argue, "but at least you're not using coal or nuclear power now that you've got panels", but that ignores that fact that the same economic argument that puts panels on my roof could be used to put panels in a farm somewhere else, and then I can still buy my power at the same rate and be green. The reality is that the price of batteries and panels needs to be driven down a good chunk, and companies need to be willing to make less margin before solar will pay for itself.
If you doubt me, call some people and see for yourself. I called Auric Solar, Solaroo, Vivint, and Ledgend Solar. I had a rep for each company come out to my house to bid on about 4.8-5.6kw (some companies don't build 100% capacity because they can only finance you 80% capacity, even though I told them I wasn't going to finance it) and I have a bid in writing from each of them. The only possible upside is that *most* of your power bill is locked in, where using the power company means you get rate hikes... however, what are you going to do when your power demands increase? Planning on having kids? Power consumption is going to go up, and if your system is too small you'll pay through the nose to add capacity.
I mean a flock of drones are not that common.
This statement deserves an obligatory "...yet"
It was John McAfee! The FBI didn't admit it because they still want to see him eat a shoe!
The write up on Ars Technica basically stated this... accelerate it to 20% speed of light within a very short span (half hour if I remember correctly), and send multiple devices for redundancy... Once the technology was built, there'd be no reason not to send thousands of them.
Seawater and final impact speed are two good ones.
Seawater inside a booster makes refurbishing it MUCH harder. With parachutes, you can't control the attitude at which the booster hits the surface, and those rockets are designed to be very strong for vertical loading, but horizontal loading would destroy it... like a beer can, it can support a load at it's top, but not it's side.
Keep in mind that they have to fly with that fuel anyways... they need the margin in case of engine failure or other recoverable scenario. So all they've really done is add the weight of some landing legs, fins, a few other sundries, and some intelligent flight computers to relight the engine and bring it back down... it's not as inefficient as people are making it out to be.
Uh... yes. They've changed the volume of on-board hydraulic fluid, they changed the leg lock-out mechanisms, they changed the landing approach angle, and probably a billion other things. Do you even follow SpaceX bro?
I'd go out on a limb and say they will probably stick 8 out of the next 10 sea landings, and no less than 9 out of 10 RTL landings.
That's because autocrats no longer have need of money... they speak and their will is done.
Props....
They don't want to ban it for YOUR safety, they want to ban it for THEIRS.
I'm just sayin'...
Shouldn't it be UK OR US law? Since no person is going to be under both jurisdictions at the same time?
Three Factor Authentication!
... I've always wanted Patrick Stewart to be my personal assistant.
Wish I had mod points... this post is TOTALLY underrated! LOL.