Since Germany isn't planning it either, what's your point? (Other than on top of your head since you're so ignorant you can't tell the difference between a private foundation and a sovereign nation.)
Well, no, 'europe' [sic] isn't plannig any such thing. A private foundation in Germany is stumping the concept, seemingly in hopes that someone will bumble along and fund them so they can continue their quest for more funding to support more funding for political lobbying and re-education of doubters and dissenters as the to value of their plan for more funding.
The amount of money circulating is thus a constant.
False.
True, because no money is created out of thing air - in the end, no more money exists than has been created by the Fed. Period.
The ideal currency is one whose purchasing power remains constant over time.
Well, since we live in a decidedly less than ideal world - your point is what?
There is no need for a middle man (Federal Reserve Bank) to take its cut and give it to its private shareholders.
In some universe where the Fed distributes money to private shareholders, you've have a point. However, we don't live in such a universe.
since the amount of money in the economy is set by an agency whose authority derives from Congress
You mean "derived", not "derives".
Had I meant "derived", I would have said "derived". (Actually, I would have said "is derived" which is the properly phraseology.) I find it interesting that you originally claimed that the amount of money was set by the banks, but now you agree it's set by the Fed - only it's too indirect. You not only can't speak proper English, you can't keep your story straight.
Yeah, it pretty much *is* a coincidence. Those actually familiar with history know that the Government has been borrowing (and repaying) money since the days of the Revolutionary War.
If you are implying that the Government has always been borrowing money since the days of the Revolutionary War, you are wrong.
The mind boggles at the amount of either hallucinogenic drugs or utter self delusion it takes to make such a statement - one utterly at odds with history. You're not only a clueless loon, you've worked very hard to attain that state.
I'll get on that as soon as I finish the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
If I were to print money in my basement, I would go to jail. Why then are banks allowed to do it? Banks get to create money out of thin air every time they get people to sign a loan. This is because they are allowed to loan out 9x more money than they take in from people making deposits.
That would be a problem - if the money in question weren't a) backed by collateral, and b) replaced as the loan is paid off. The amount of money circulating is thus a constant. (Even though it doesn't seem so to people who are bad at any other math than counting the change when they buy tinfoil for their new hat.)
"Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof." Since the value of money is determined by the quantity, Congress should be controlling the quantity of money, not banks!
Since banks can only loan a fixed multiple of their deposits (and this multiple is set by Congress) and since the amount of money in the economy is set by an agency whose authority derives from Congress... Guess who controls the quantity of money? It may not be as directly as you can comprehend, but it's there none the less.
It is no coincidence that the IRS was created shortly after the Federal Reserve Bank was created. How else would the government get money to pay interest on the money it borrowed?
Yeah, it pretty much *is* a coincidence. Those actually familiar with history know that the Government has been borrowing (and repaying) money since the days of the Revolutionary War. (I leave it as an exercise for the student to look up and compare the dates of the Revolutionary War and the creation of the IRS and compare them.)
Read up on Bill Still's ideas for monetary reform in his book "No More National Debt".
I'll get on that as soon as I finish the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shechtman - as one example of work ridiculed at the time and then was independently confirmed and that went on to win a Nobel prize.
There, fixed that for you.
The bolded part is the part you left out - the important part. Even though he was ridiculed, he *did* get published and the work *was* independently verified. The process worked more-or-less as designed.
there's no reason a paper shouldn't pass peer review
Right.
""Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity"
Well, no, the system isn't 100% perfect and nobody claimed it was. But your example is irrelevant as a criticism of peer review anyhow. It wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal and thus wasn't subject to peer review in the first place.
The notion that "nobody" saw it is simply propagandistic truthiness baloney.
The real crime is that a small number of very powerful people had an exceptionally lucrative interest in NOT stopping it, because they were getting ginormous paychecks from the continuation of the bubble.
An enormous number of people had a lucrative interest in the bubble not stopping. (Even of you do accept the ludicrous notion that small number of people *could* have stopped it.) Real estate agents whose commissions were going through the roof. Mortgage brokers, ditto. Banks and credit unions who were taking their cuts of mortgages funneling through them. Home improvement stores that were doing land office business selling to builders, and to remodelers and DIYers (who were being paid from HELOCs as house values soared).
And it wasn't just the 'fat cats' either. It was Joe Sixpack who could (and did) sell his home for more than he bought it for five years ago, and who bought a new one at a lower interest rate to boot. It was Joe Sixpack employed by those profiting in the above paragraph. It was Joe Sixpack who watched the stocks in his retirement portfolio boom. It was the Jpe Sixpack stockholders and employees of the banks, real estate brokers, home improvement stores, etc... etc...
The notion that the only the 'fat cats' had a vested interested in not having the bubble pop is unmitigated bullshit.
Keep in mind that bulk of expense in geo-thermal is not the power plant, but the well.
And the transmission lines to tie it to the grid and the data lines for control and monitoring, and maintenance, and.. and.. and.. all those other things you keep conveniently forgetting.
And it's interesting that to 'prove' how viable it is, you link to a company that manufactures lasers and a company whose primary income stream seems to be drilling technology... seeing as how all there on their webpage about geothermal is a graphic showing how wonderful geothermal could be if someone would happen along and pay them for an 'engineered solution'.
A number of studies have already shown that this is economically feasible.
Yet... nobody seems in a hurry to actually build any. That says much more than any number of blue ribbon studies and pie-in-the-sky web pages proclaiming how great geothermal could be.
Africa is the target, because Africa is the last great reservoir of cheap labor. This will be important in the coming decades as rising prosperity in Asia increases the cost of doing business there.
Derek, as has been shown there is a LARGE amount of heat down there. But what you speak of is about efficiencies, not capabilities.
That's because efficiency is what determines whether or not it's economic or not. Handwaving about how many wells there are, and invoking magic pixie dust generators to exploit them, and unicorn horn transmission lines to move the power about (and house elves, who work for the occasional bit of old clothing to do the maintenance) is all well and good... But in the real world, all these things have costs. And costs matter a great deal.
And the answer to the question "what is our geothermal potential?" is... Not so great really.
You need much better than 150-200C to run turbines efficiently. Much, much better preferably. And the map shows that most of the areas where efficiency is reasonable, the terrain is... much less so. Not to mention in general being far from population centers, which means significant transmission losses. *And* lacking in water for either injection (open cycle plants) or cooling (closed cycle plants).
I dont know about japan, but in the US regulators make them keep the fuel because congress cant get their shit together to open up the storage facility.
Nope. US regulators make them keep the fuel because there is no reprocessing facility - and there is unlikely to be one for decades, if ever. This makes a storage facility necessary.
The warhead on a Titan II missle was also 9 megatons, just for reference. Not sure if it was the same design, but 9 megatons wasn't really all that large a weapon.
Yes, the B53 and the W53 used the same physics package. (C'mon folks, this is the second correction I've had to make that could have been answered with a 30 second Wikipedia search. Is that too much to ask for?)
I suspect a far more interesting value for nuclear weapon ratings would be the effective blast radius, both as an airburst and at ground level. 9 megatons might be something that would wipe out an entire large metropolitan area, or it might be something that would just take out a city center. The difference is significant.
A megaton or so is more than sufficient to take out a city. (I.E. more than just the city center, but less than the entire metro area.) Taking out the entire metro area of any significant city is pretty much a pipe dream anyhow, as the damage radius of the bomb rises roughly with the (IIRC) square root of the yield. That's why both sides emphasized accuracy (though Soviets were late off the mark and lagged the whole time), explored MRV delivery, and standardized (more or less) on sub megaton to megaton range weapons. (Though both sides did have small numbers of larger weapons.) Big bombs are just not all that efficient and are no longer required once you can get CEP below half a mile or so except for hard targets.
In today's climate, it is unlikely any state-level actor would really want to take out an entire metropolitan area. And certainly, anything that would be able to be moved by non-state-level actors would be unlikely to have a yield big enough to do that.
Why would they want to do so? Even a relatively small weapon (say, around 20KT) is more than sufficient to cause tens-to-hundreds of thousands of casualties and to destroy non hardened targets over several miles radius.
This is a good thing, the B53 was a last ditch weapon intended to take out the hardened bunkers of the Soviet leadership, except it was air burst which is a highly, highly ineffective was to take out a bunker.
The B53 was intended for laydown delivery - I.E. a surface burst, in the 'bunker busting' role.
Public Service Announcement time from a decade-long car geek.
And like many geeks, your pronouncements are quite true - but irrelevant in the real world.
Furthermore, once your car is moving at a walking pace, you no longer need power steering.
But that part between whatever speed you are currently doing and a walking pace is a real bitch though.
And no, you won't lose your brakes, unless your braking system has been poorly maintained. Test this by shutting off your engine in your driveway and seeing how many times you can press the pedal before it suddenly goes hard.
Yes, that's really useful to know, because right after I lose my engine on the highway, I'll be tromping on my brakes.
Braking or pressing the cancel button will not work
Second PSA: BRAKING ALWAYS WORKS.
Ah yes, you know the nature of the fault better than Jaguar. Oh, wait. You're not talking about the actual topic of the article - which is shutting off cruise control, but like a typical geek you've seized on a detail without considering context and gone off an irrelevant rant.
How kind of them to notify us of when the entire warning system will be disrupted. If I wanted to stage an attack, this would be the perfect chance. All levels of emergency services will be 'confused' and not know what is real and what is fake.
If the entire warning system would be 'disrupted', you'd have a point. But it won't be. Only the public alarms will be 'disrupted', while those used by emergency services will remain stable. Further, there are different messages for 'testing' and 'live' activation, which means the difference between the real and the fake is easily discerned.
I'd not expect stable swirling galaxies - at least not on every occasion...
That's good, because stable swirling galaxies are only one of (many) possible types of galaxies. (Here's the obligatory Wikipedia link for those who can't bothered to do the most simple of internet searches.)
Nearly every job requires a BS or BA...even if they don't care which subject. A University should be a place of higher learning and research, not a factory for just the next step in education.
That's just the point - as another poster said, it *shouldn't* matter what your degree is in. If you've received an education (as opposed to a degree), you've been taught to think and to analyze, to write, to plan, etc....
The problem is that the federal student loans, while genuinely useful to some, have been exploited pretty much to death by the for-profit colleges. Those do powerful marketing and have pretty much established the idea that everyone should go to college, no matter what.
I'm wondering when you think this happened, or at least what planet you live on... Because the idea that everyone should go to college was getting pretty well established by the time I was in high school - in the late 70's. (And Federal loans were pretty scarce back then.) Doubly so, since a) the for-profit schools are a small minority of the market, and b) limited by law to the percentage of the student body that can be receiving Federal aid.
This is an old idea that should have been implemented long ago. Fuel tanks can survive much higher g-forces and can be built and launched relatively cheaply compared to satellites
Well, no. A booster doesn't care what's on top of it - it costs just the same regardless. Nor can the depot itself be built in any manner that can be construed as 'cheap'. It needs a GNC system, and an RCS system, and a power system, and insulation (and active cooling for cryogenics), and a docking system, and a propellant transfer system... It's actually quite a sophisticated system and in no way 'cheap'.
In fact, fuel is just about the perfect candidate for a mass driver where energy can be stored up and then released in a burst into a linear induction motor or similar technology.
If it weren't for the enourmous capital cost of a mass driver (10-20x that of a booster R&D) program, and the niggling fact that it requires something approaching unobtanium to build the capsules... (due to the launch speed producing conditions that essentially equal re-entering at ground level) you might be on to something.
Once the fuel tanks are exhausted they can be converted into modules for space stations or spacecraft, probably much more efficient than building them to survive a re-entry to get re-used.
Which obscures the fact that such conversion isn't at all efficient compared to launching purpose built spacecraft or modules - due to the enormous cost of boosting all the conversion kit and the men (man hours) required to do the conversion. It's actually cheaper to toss them and build new purpose built units and boost them instead.
Yeah, there's a lot of complexity that I'm doing some hand-waving around but it's still a great concept that should be developed further.
'Hand-waving' doesn't even begin to describe the situation.
I'm aware of the distinction. You might note that I listed both, but did not conflate them as you suggest.
Had you not conflated them, I wouldn't have made the comments I did. Duh.
As an aside, a general knowledge of Material Science is of little use if your Metallurgy knowledge is limited, or non-existent.
As an aside, if I thought you were clueless before...
My advice was meant to imply that practical skills should be backed up by relevant theoretical knowledge, as the complement is stronger than either alone.
The problem of course, being that it implied no such thing. If it had, I'd have not made the comment before.
You, like most posters here, confuse Computer Science with Information Technology. They aren't the same thing, any more than Materiel Science and Welding is.
Neither the Democrats or the Republicans seem to be interested in this form of governance though.
Very few people are interested in that form of governance - both because they fail to understand the nuances you discuss, and because they believe that *they* represent the majority always and forever.
If, the author is telling the truth. Whilst I'm not Mr Jobs' biggest fan, I do have to take this source with a huge grain of salt given it was published after his death.
This book has been in the works for three years, with Jobs' cooperation. It's publication was announced (IIRC) about six months ago. Jobs died about two weeks ago. You do the math.
"Stolen" implies that a bunch of masked bandits from Google raided Apple's Cupertino HQ and pilfered the vault of all the valuable iPhone widgets and touch screens.
No, stolen only implies that to people with a axe to grind, or fanboy blinders on, or who otherwise want to pretend what any adult knows simply isn't so.
Slashdot Mirror
Since Germany isn't planning it either, what's your point? (Other than on top of your head since you're so ignorant you can't tell the difference between a private foundation and a sovereign nation.)
Well, no, 'europe' [sic] isn't plannig any such thing. A private foundation in Germany is stumping the concept, seemingly in hopes that someone will bumble along and fund them so they can continue their quest for more funding to support more funding for political lobbying and re-education of doubters and dissenters as the to value of their plan for more funding.
True, because no money is created out of thing air - in the end, no more money exists than has been created by the Fed. Period.
Well, since we live in a decidedly less than ideal world - your point is what?
In some universe where the Fed distributes money to private shareholders, you've have a point. However, we don't live in such a universe.
Had I meant "derived", I would have said "derived". (Actually, I would have said "is derived" which is the properly phraseology.) I find it interesting that you originally claimed that the amount of money was set by the banks, but now you agree it's set by the Fed - only it's too indirect. You not only can't speak proper English, you can't keep your story straight.
The mind boggles at the amount of either hallucinogenic drugs or utter self delusion it takes to make such a statement - one utterly at odds with history. You're not only a clueless loon, you've worked very hard to attain that state.
Google it, it's right up your delusional alley.
That would be a problem - if the money in question weren't a) backed by collateral, and b) replaced as the loan is paid off. The amount of money circulating is thus a constant. (Even though it doesn't seem so to people who are bad at any other math than counting the change when they buy tinfoil for their new hat.)
Since banks can only loan a fixed multiple of their deposits (and this multiple is set by Congress) and since the amount of money in the economy is set by an agency whose authority derives from Congress... Guess who controls the quantity of money? It may not be as directly as you can comprehend, but it's there none the less.
Yeah, it pretty much *is* a coincidence. Those actually familiar with history know that the Government has been borrowing (and repaying) money since the days of the Revolutionary War. (I leave it as an exercise for the student to look up and compare the dates of the Revolutionary War and the creation of the IRS and compare them.)
I'll get on that as soon as I finish the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shechtman - as one example of work ridiculed at the time and then was independently confirmed and that went on to win a Nobel prize.
There, fixed that for you.
The bolded part is the part you left out - the important part. Even though he was ridiculed, he *did* get published and the work *was* independently verified. The process worked more-or-less as designed.
Well, no, the system isn't 100% perfect and nobody claimed it was. But your example is irrelevant as a criticism of peer review anyhow. It wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal and thus wasn't subject to peer review in the first place.
An enormous number of people had a lucrative interest in the bubble not stopping. (Even of you do accept the ludicrous notion that small number of people *could* have stopped it.) Real estate agents whose commissions were going through the roof. Mortgage brokers, ditto. Banks and credit unions who were taking their cuts of mortgages funneling through them. Home improvement stores that were doing land office business selling to builders, and to remodelers and DIYers (who were being paid from HELOCs as house values soared).
And it wasn't just the 'fat cats' either. It was Joe Sixpack who could (and did) sell his home for more than he bought it for five years ago, and who bought a new one at a lower interest rate to boot. It was Joe Sixpack employed by those profiting in the above paragraph. It was Joe Sixpack who watched the stocks in his retirement portfolio boom. It was the Jpe Sixpack stockholders and employees of the banks, real estate brokers, home improvement stores, etc... etc...
The notion that the only the 'fat cats' had a vested interested in not having the bubble pop is unmitigated bullshit.
And the transmission lines to tie it to the grid and the data lines for control and monitoring, and maintenance, and.. and.. and.. all those other things you keep conveniently forgetting.
And it's interesting that to 'prove' how viable it is, you link to a company that manufactures lasers and a company whose primary income stream seems to be drilling technology... seeing as how all there on their webpage about geothermal is a graphic showing how wonderful geothermal could be if someone would happen along and pay them for an 'engineered solution'.
Yet... nobody seems in a hurry to actually build any. That says much more than any number of blue ribbon studies and pie-in-the-sky web pages proclaiming how great geothermal could be.
Africa is the target, because Africa is the last great reservoir of cheap labor. This will be important in the coming decades as rising prosperity in Asia increases the cost of doing business there.
That's because efficiency is what determines whether or not it's economic or not. Handwaving about how many wells there are, and invoking magic pixie dust generators to exploit them, and unicorn horn transmission lines to move the power about (and house elves, who work for the occasional bit of old clothing to do the maintenance) is all well and good... But in the real world, all these things have costs. And costs matter a great deal.
And the answer to the question "what is our geothermal potential?" is... Not so great really.
You need much better than 150-200C to run turbines efficiently. Much, much better preferably. And the map shows that most of the areas where efficiency is reasonable, the terrain is... much less so. Not to mention in general being far from population centers, which means significant transmission losses. *And* lacking in water for either injection (open cycle plants) or cooling (closed cycle plants).
Nope. US regulators make them keep the fuel because there is no reprocessing facility - and there is unlikely to be one for decades, if ever. This makes a storage facility necessary.
Yes, the B53 and the W53 used the same physics package. (C'mon folks, this is the second correction I've had to make that could have been answered with a 30 second Wikipedia search. Is that too much to ask for?)
A megaton or so is more than sufficient to take out a city. (I.E. more than just the city center, but less than the entire metro area.) Taking out the entire metro area of any significant city is pretty much a pipe dream anyhow, as the damage radius of the bomb rises roughly with the (IIRC) square root of the yield. That's why both sides emphasized accuracy (though Soviets were late off the mark and lagged the whole time), explored MRV delivery, and standardized (more or less) on sub megaton to megaton range weapons. (Though both sides did have small numbers of larger weapons.) Big bombs are just not all that efficient and are no longer required once you can get CEP below half a mile or so except for hard targets.
Why would they want to do so? Even a relatively small weapon (say, around 20KT) is more than sufficient to cause tens-to-hundreds of thousands of casualties and to destroy non hardened targets over several miles radius.
The B53 was intended for laydown delivery - I.E. a surface burst, in the 'bunker busting' role.
And like many geeks, your pronouncements are quite true - but irrelevant in the real world.
But that part between whatever speed you are currently doing and a walking pace is a real bitch though.
Yes, that's really useful to know, because right after I lose my engine on the highway, I'll be tromping on my brakes.
Ah yes, you know the nature of the fault better than Jaguar. Oh, wait. You're not talking about the actual topic of the article - which is shutting off cruise control, but like a typical geek you've seized on a detail without considering context and gone off an irrelevant rant.
If the entire warning system would be 'disrupted', you'd have a point. But it won't be. Only the public alarms will be 'disrupted', while those used by emergency services will remain stable. Further, there are different messages for 'testing' and 'live' activation, which means the difference between the real and the fake is easily discerned.
That's good, because stable swirling galaxies are only one of (many) possible types of galaxies. (Here's the obligatory Wikipedia link for those who can't bothered to do the most simple of internet searches.)
That's just the point - as another poster said, it *shouldn't* matter what your degree is in. If you've received an education (as opposed to a degree), you've been taught to think and to analyze, to write, to plan, etc....
I'm wondering when you think this happened, or at least what planet you live on... Because the idea that everyone should go to college was getting pretty well established by the time I was in high school - in the late 70's. (And Federal loans were pretty scarce back then.) Doubly so, since a) the for-profit schools are a small minority of the market, and b) limited by law to the percentage of the student body that can be receiving Federal aid.
Well, no. A booster doesn't care what's on top of it - it costs just the same regardless. Nor can the depot itself be built in any manner that can be construed as 'cheap'. It needs a GNC system, and an RCS system, and a power system, and insulation (and active cooling for cryogenics), and a docking system, and a propellant transfer system... It's actually quite a sophisticated system and in no way 'cheap'.
If it weren't for the enourmous capital cost of a mass driver (10-20x that of a booster R&D) program, and the niggling fact that it requires something approaching unobtanium to build the capsules... (due to the launch speed producing conditions that essentially equal re-entering at ground level) you might be on to something.
Which obscures the fact that such conversion isn't at all efficient compared to launching purpose built spacecraft or modules - due to the enormous cost of boosting all the conversion kit and the men (man hours) required to do the conversion. It's actually cheaper to toss them and build new purpose built units and boost them instead.
'Hand-waving' doesn't even begin to describe the situation.
Had you not conflated them, I wouldn't have made the comments I did. Duh.
As an aside, if I thought you were clueless before...
The problem of course, being that it implied no such thing. If it had, I'd have not made the comment before.
You, like most posters here, confuse Computer Science with Information Technology. They aren't the same thing, any more than Materiel Science and Welding is.
Very few people are interested in that form of governance - both because they fail to understand the nuances you discuss, and because they believe that *they* represent the majority always and forever.
This book has been in the works for three years, with Jobs' cooperation. It's publication was announced (IIRC) about six months ago. Jobs died about two weeks ago. You do the math.
No, stolen only implies that to people with a axe to grind, or fanboy blinders on, or who otherwise want to pretend what any adult knows simply isn't so.