First, you're referencing a comment on youtube. Second, the comment you're referencing gives a range of between 10 and 20 tons. For some reason I get the impression that the person you're referencing isn't much of an expert on battery weights.
Really depends on how much energy they generate, and the fact that you're destroying mountains in the process. This could make for an interesting battery though, depending on the energy of the conversion. During times of excess energy, raise dirt to an elevated plane. When energy is needed, lower the dirt and use the mass to generate energy.
Then again, they already have mechanical batteries that use massive flywheels, and hydro batteries using water reservoirs and draining/filling techniques. I'm guessing this wouldn't be as efficient as those methods.
"Even for companies that have the resources". But do they? You have to consider that massive mega-wealthy companies like Google can buy up a massive chunk of the best talent in the world, as well as buy out companies with a flick of their pens.
Look at college hiring for instance. The best of the best students are often pulled into these companies early on through internships, and then locked in once they graduate. Through non-compete contracts, once a person is in these companies, it's not so cut and dry to go work for a competitor.
Add to this that Google has been around for a long time and has hundreds of thousands of man hours that have gone into their system, how could a new competitor ever hope to reasonably catch up. The sheer amount of money Google have invested into their technology is a massive sized mountain for any other company to climb.
Then of course there's customer loyalty / customer simplicity. Bing or other search engines may be better in some respects than Google, but people don't care about metrics. They just jump on google to search like they always do.
This is why I think "the possibility" of competition isn't a great metric to use when considering whether a company is a monopoly. User base / profitability percentages must be considered. I also think "breaking up" companies isn't always the best solution, rather those at the top of the food chain should have to pay higher taxes, whereas those on the bottom should get better incentives. We, as a nation, need to enforce rules that will keep the top in check, while empowering the bottom to compete.
It will impact their profits?!? C'mon...Facebook doesn't deserve the profitability it currently has. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Newspapers wouldn't sell without the important news and ideas that journalists provide to be printed on their pages; nor would those newspaper companies make any money from advertisements. Guess what; journalists / content creators get paid.
Not so on Facebook. The people who post their content on Facebook, or the articles that we link to aren't being properly compensated. Facebook is effectively a monopoly or near monopoly of social networking and can demand higher rates from advertisers without giving back anything in return to those creating the content that people login to see. If anything, due to their massive user base, people are finding it *impossible* to use alternative sites because Facebook has become the method that entire social groups are now using to communicate. One person in a social group cannot simply leave and use a competing service because it would require their entire social group to leave as well. In that way, how is Facebook any different than the Bell companies that were broken up in the 80s due to anti-trust violations when people have no choice but to use the service?
We can see that there's an imbalance here simply by how profitable Facebook has become in such a short amount of time. That's only possible when you approach monopoly status and there's not enough competition to balance the equation.
With that said, it's a little ironic that they're going to complain that policing a system that they created to be highly susceptible to wide spread propaganda because it's going to impact their massive profits. Oh boo effing hoo. You expect us to cry for you when your system is causing harm to our Democracy?
Who said they're not being respectful? Was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. being disrespectful when he and others protested against racial injustices in this country? It could be argued that it's being disrespectful to not stand up (or in this case kneel) when you believe there are systematic transgressions being perpetrated against American people by public entities.
I mean, just because you're not personally impacted by said transgressions doesn't mean they don't exist. I think it shows a significant lack of empathy and understanding to not even question why a large chunk of NFL players are choosing to potentially sacrifice income to protest.
Meanwhile, I find it ironic that so many football fans are taking issue with this. If they love the game, then I would have hoped they would love and respect the players. Guess not. They're treating the players as well as they treat dogs they throw in a pit to fight. Only there for their entertainment. Nope, contrary to popular belief, these are real people, many of which grew up in the neighborhoods where treatment was less than just.
Get off facebook? Sure, a lot of people would love to stop feeding the monopoly. When entire social groups are locked into Facebook, it's a burden to get off. One person leaving won't convince others to leave; especially when each person has hundreds of friends and contacts on the platform. We've really been basket weaved in there.
Speaking from experience; I left facebook 8 months ago, and now my friends are pissed at me because they have to contact me separately, instead of including me in the group chat. It's become a burden to everyone involved. There are definitely rewards for staying off the platform, but the pressure to re-activate my account or "maybe just download FB messenger" is absolutely there.
Facebook isn't a monopoly because of its technology. It's a monopoly because they've literally locked entire social networks into their platform. Myspace was around when social networking was still in its infancy, but its interface was awful to use. Wiping their few competitors out, now Facebook has a massive head start over all their potential competition, and they have so much money in the bank that they can use to buy out competing technologies. It's become something that should either be regulated more heavily, or taxed at a higher rate to compensate for their monopoly economic benefits.
Sometimes laughing is the only thing you can do when confronted with the absurdity that's impacting your life. The laughing is also a big fat "we told you so". Sadly, this creates a defense mechanism in Trump voters who now believe they need to defend / rationalize their choice.
The man still has a 38% approval rating. 4 out of 10 Americans think he's doing a good job. If that isn't hilarious in its absurdity, then I don't know what is.
It wasn't Trump that decided "The Mooch" needed to go. It sounds like new Chief of Staff Kelly was responsible for making that decision. Trump, running out of options for staff, had no choice but to agree.
Trump is a complete disaster. He tweets about how great the economy is doing under him, but the economy was on an uphill climb before he ever became President. He's only been president for 7 months! He has done literally nothing that could be construed as having major impacts on the economy, unless he believes his mere presence moves markets.
Oh, and don't forget about Trump's National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn. He effectively made promises to Russians re: sanctions prior to Trump being elected. He also took money from Russian interests, and he resigned in disgrace.
Well, this all started with the hacking of the Clinton and staff emails. There was also the massive fake news campaign. Trump officials had meetings with Russians that they didn't disclose.
My understanding is that this all came to be when the FBI picked up conversations between Russians and Trump officials; because they were phone tapping the Russian officials.
Does this warrant unmasking? I guess I'm curious if this fits with the roles of the people who requested the unmasking, and what the past precedent in doing so is. Then again, nothing with this past election or this presidency has been typical.
Amazon effectively has a monopoly on online retail sales. They've become a behemoth that has tied up the industry. If the point of strong / successful business is that it leads to a better overall society, then once a company approaches or achieves monopoly, it has the opposite effect. Less competition and less ability for competitors to compete leads to higher prices, lower pay for the workers, a much larger share of revenue going towards profits; which pads the pockets of people like Bezos at the expense of everyone else. Or in other words, it leads to a massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few; as we see with Bezos (just one person at Amazon).
Anti-trust law or tax law that penalizes these companies for having an unfair advantage is the only way we can keep this situation under control. There should be downward pressure at the top and upward pressure at the bottom in order to maintain a healthy economy.
If the enemy were to infiltrate a radar station, then the last thing anyone would care about is lack of hormone supplies. The bigger concern would be surviving in the moments of the attack.
Women serve in these positions, are you claiming a F-to-M soldier would somehow grow weaker than a trained female if they don't get their hormones; and this would suddenly happen after a single missed dose?
The military does a lot of things outside of just war and killing. We have 1.2 million soldiers, are they all currently out killing things at the moment?
It's weird that the detractors of transgender people always presume it's a F-to-M and that the hormones make the person stronger. Are you saying there are no M-to-F people that are / would want to be in the military? If anything, the hormones will make them more feminine...but yes, they can still serve.
As to transgender therapies; I personally don't think it's related to the military in any way, so I can see why we wouldn't want to fund this therapy through the VA. Of course, the argument can be made that it's an earned benefit, like the GI bill. To each their own.
Muscle mass begins to deteriorate after 3 weeks if you stop working out. It doesn't just instantly disappear. I doubt reducing hormones is going to lead to drastic losses in muscle mass in the same period if the person is still exercising. With that said, women can also serve military roles; so this idea that a f-to-m suddenly becomes useless if they lose muscle mass is quite the leap.
Overhead would be higher for something that's new. However, as the system becomes more accustomed to the change, the costs would definitely come down.
Then again, someone has to pay the exorbitant incomes the people on the coasts are making in the first place. Product prices, unless you're talking about housing, doesn't discriminate based on income level of the region you live in.
Why do those people living on the coasts make so much money? Well, likely because they're being paid vast amounts of money for some very simple thing they developed and got a patent on which now has no competition, leading to inflated prices.
Or... maybe they designed a product, that they've now outsourced the manufacturing of to a low wage nation, thereby ensuring revenue from product sales has a much harder time recirculating back into the overall economy... instead being used to buy up super expensive property which then inflates property prices. Meanwhile, those Tennessee manufacturing workers are out of a job.
Or... maybe they got rid of the workers altogether and everything's been automated, with a similar result as the outsourcing.
I mean, money doesn't grow on trees, and a lot of these wealthy people living on the coasts are only there because of practices that transfer wealth upwards at a rate that is unhealthy for our overall society.
Also why this was a very odd test. This is the type of workplace where you absolutely need a certain number of workers on staff at all times. It has much less to do about individual staff efficiency. Now, if this were an office job, where a drop in work hours lead to an increase in efficiency per hour worked which counteracted the need to hire more workers, then you would have probably have seen a much smaller increase in total wages paid out (if any at all).
The fact is, when you have to be at work for 8 hours, the chances of you screwing around goes up. Aka commenting on slashdot.;)
On the "planet" (aka country) that has single payer which would effectively lead to a reduction in tax collection if all of the people suddenly began living healthier lives.
Of course, there would be job losses in the health industry; which would likely be counteracted by the need to hire more workers due to shorter working hours.
I mean, do people not understand the point of anything? What is the point of a successful economy if the workers are being overworked, stressed out, underpaid, etc... If we're making such great achievements in the world, then why is it such a taboo to pass on some of those benefits to workers in terms of shorter working hours and more stress free living?
Not sure your post is exactly relevant to the OP, but I will just say that I think part of the debate around gender pay gap has to do with whether a woman should be penalized in our society for having a baby. In other words, is it an issue in our society that women who choose to become mothers are so heavily penalized? Other societies in the world have considered this penalty a problem, and have been pro-active in trying to mitigate it. For instance, some European nations give longer maternity *AND* paternity leave at or near full income; allowing both parents to share the time burden of having a baby.
With that said, I do believe equal work should lead to equal pay... but I think it's becoming abundantly clear that this isn't simply about discrimination; although it is sometimes. Some of the income gap is due to simple human psychology; with women going into lower paying careers, or short change themselves on the income they want. Salary negotiations aren't only about work ethos, and if you come to the game with a low confidence, then your employer will be more than happy to short change you.
Most white males don't find any reason to feel substandard in any way based on the race and gender they were born into. When they are insulted based on that race and gender, it comes off as a joke because they have never, in their entire lives, been repressed based on either of those characteristics. The insults of their gender / race do not hit to the bone. Now, if someone were to insult them by calling them some homophobic slur, a white male w/ insecurity issues may be a bit upset that someone is trying to label them something they're not, but it couldn't possibly hurt them as much as attacking them for something that they are and have no control over.
Contrast this to women, minorities, and/or LGBT. A woman's gender is insulted. A minority's race is insulted. An LGBT is insulted for being who they are.
Sexuality is usually something people feel the need to use as an attacking mechanism because it is so personal. However, for one guy to say they're going to rape another guy is construed as humorous because no guy actually has reason to fear that this could or will actually happen. Meanwhile, a woman, who does live in real fear of actually being raped (based on how often it actually happens), may take a threat like this to heart. Same goes for sexuality. Call a straight guy a 'fag', and it's an unwarranted slight. Call a gay person a 'fag', and it's an insult to a huge piece of who they are.
There are a few ways we can fix these problems. First, we need to cleanup the community. Attacking peoples sexuality, race, and gender should be off limits. Threats of rape should be taken seriously just as they are in the real world. Tell a person that you're going to find them and rape them should lead to jail time. Just because the little childrens feel like acting big and bad on the internet behind the shield of anonymity does not make internet threats any different than real world threats. It really is the anonymity that allows people to be such d-bags online, when there's no way someone would get away with this in person. Therefore, I personally believe that anonymity online should be disallowed. It's one thing to be anonymous when you're online. What you do that only impacts you should be anonymous. However, as soon as you begin interacting with others, where what you say needs to be held accountable, then anonymity should be removed.
The gaming community has developed this way due to lack of protection and enforcement. Something should be, and needs to be done. The end result is likely more people willing to get into gaming while not having to deal with immaturity and harassment.
Slashdot Mirror
First, you're referencing a comment on youtube. Second, the comment you're referencing gives a range of between 10 and 20 tons. For some reason I get the impression that the person you're referencing isn't much of an expert on battery weights.
Really depends on how much energy they generate, and the fact that you're destroying mountains in the process. This could make for an interesting battery though, depending on the energy of the conversion. During times of excess energy, raise dirt to an elevated plane. When energy is needed, lower the dirt and use the mass to generate energy.
Then again, they already have mechanical batteries that use massive flywheels, and hydro batteries using water reservoirs and draining/filling techniques. I'm guessing this wouldn't be as efficient as those methods.
"Even for companies that have the resources". But do they? You have to consider that massive mega-wealthy companies like Google can buy up a massive chunk of the best talent in the world, as well as buy out companies with a flick of their pens.
Look at college hiring for instance. The best of the best students are often pulled into these companies early on through internships, and then locked in once they graduate. Through non-compete contracts, once a person is in these companies, it's not so cut and dry to go work for a competitor.
Add to this that Google has been around for a long time and has hundreds of thousands of man hours that have gone into their system, how could a new competitor ever hope to reasonably catch up. The sheer amount of money Google have invested into their technology is a massive sized mountain for any other company to climb.
Then of course there's customer loyalty / customer simplicity. Bing or other search engines may be better in some respects than Google, but people don't care about metrics. They just jump on google to search like they always do.
This is why I think "the possibility" of competition isn't a great metric to use when considering whether a company is a monopoly. User base / profitability percentages must be considered. I also think "breaking up" companies isn't always the best solution, rather those at the top of the food chain should have to pay higher taxes, whereas those on the bottom should get better incentives. We, as a nation, need to enforce rules that will keep the top in check, while empowering the bottom to compete.
It will impact their profits?!? C'mon...Facebook doesn't deserve the profitability it currently has. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Newspapers wouldn't sell without the important news and ideas that journalists provide to be printed on their pages; nor would those newspaper companies make any money from advertisements. Guess what; journalists / content creators get paid.
Not so on Facebook. The people who post their content on Facebook, or the articles that we link to aren't being properly compensated. Facebook is effectively a monopoly or near monopoly of social networking and can demand higher rates from advertisers without giving back anything in return to those creating the content that people login to see. If anything, due to their massive user base, people are finding it *impossible* to use alternative sites because Facebook has become the method that entire social groups are now using to communicate. One person in a social group cannot simply leave and use a competing service because it would require their entire social group to leave as well. In that way, how is Facebook any different than the Bell companies that were broken up in the 80s due to anti-trust violations when people have no choice but to use the service?
We can see that there's an imbalance here simply by how profitable Facebook has become in such a short amount of time. That's only possible when you approach monopoly status and there's not enough competition to balance the equation.
With that said, it's a little ironic that they're going to complain that policing a system that they created to be highly susceptible to wide spread propaganda because it's going to impact their massive profits. Oh boo effing hoo. You expect us to cry for you when your system is causing harm to our Democracy?
Who said they're not being respectful? Was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. being disrespectful when he and others protested against racial injustices in this country? It could be argued that it's being disrespectful to not stand up (or in this case kneel) when you believe there are systematic transgressions being perpetrated against American people by public entities.
I mean, just because you're not personally impacted by said transgressions doesn't mean they don't exist. I think it shows a significant lack of empathy and understanding to not even question why a large chunk of NFL players are choosing to potentially sacrifice income to protest.
Meanwhile, I find it ironic that so many football fans are taking issue with this. If they love the game, then I would have hoped they would love and respect the players. Guess not. They're treating the players as well as they treat dogs they throw in a pit to fight. Only there for their entertainment. Nope, contrary to popular belief, these are real people, many of which grew up in the neighborhoods where treatment was less than just.
Get off facebook? Sure, a lot of people would love to stop feeding the monopoly. When entire social groups are locked into Facebook, it's a burden to get off. One person leaving won't convince others to leave; especially when each person has hundreds of friends and contacts on the platform. We've really been basket weaved in there.
Speaking from experience; I left facebook 8 months ago, and now my friends are pissed at me because they have to contact me separately, instead of including me in the group chat. It's become a burden to everyone involved. There are definitely rewards for staying off the platform, but the pressure to re-activate my account or "maybe just download FB messenger" is absolutely there.
Facebook isn't a monopoly because of its technology. It's a monopoly because they've literally locked entire social networks into their platform. Myspace was around when social networking was still in its infancy, but its interface was awful to use. Wiping their few competitors out, now Facebook has a massive head start over all their potential competition, and they have so much money in the bank that they can use to buy out competing technologies. It's become something that should either be regulated more heavily, or taxed at a higher rate to compensate for their monopoly economic benefits.
Sometimes laughing is the only thing you can do when confronted with the absurdity that's impacting your life. The laughing is also a big fat "we told you so". Sadly, this creates a defense mechanism in Trump voters who now believe they need to defend / rationalize their choice.
The man still has a 38% approval rating. 4 out of 10 Americans think he's doing a good job. If that isn't hilarious in its absurdity, then I don't know what is.
It wasn't Trump that decided "The Mooch" needed to go. It sounds like new Chief of Staff Kelly was responsible for making that decision. Trump, running out of options for staff, had no choice but to agree.
Trump is a complete disaster. He tweets about how great the economy is doing under him, but the economy was on an uphill climb before he ever became President. He's only been president for 7 months! He has done literally nothing that could be construed as having major impacts on the economy, unless he believes his mere presence moves markets.
Oh, and don't forget about Trump's National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn. He effectively made promises to Russians re: sanctions prior to Trump being elected. He also took money from Russian interests, and he resigned in disgrace.
Well, this all started with the hacking of the Clinton and staff emails. There was also the massive fake news campaign. Trump officials had meetings with Russians that they didn't disclose.
My understanding is that this all came to be when the FBI picked up conversations between Russians and Trump officials; because they were phone tapping the Russian officials.
Does this warrant unmasking? I guess I'm curious if this fits with the roles of the people who requested the unmasking, and what the past precedent in doing so is. Then again, nothing with this past election or this presidency has been typical.
Amazon effectively has a monopoly on online retail sales. They've become a behemoth that has tied up the industry. If the point of strong / successful business is that it leads to a better overall society, then once a company approaches or achieves monopoly, it has the opposite effect. Less competition and less ability for competitors to compete leads to higher prices, lower pay for the workers, a much larger share of revenue going towards profits; which pads the pockets of people like Bezos at the expense of everyone else. Or in other words, it leads to a massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few; as we see with Bezos (just one person at Amazon).
Anti-trust law or tax law that penalizes these companies for having an unfair advantage is the only way we can keep this situation under control. There should be downward pressure at the top and upward pressure at the bottom in order to maintain a healthy economy.
If the enemy were to infiltrate a radar station, then the last thing anyone would care about is lack of hormone supplies. The bigger concern would be surviving in the moments of the attack.
Women serve in these positions, are you claiming a F-to-M soldier would somehow grow weaker than a trained female if they don't get their hormones; and this would suddenly happen after a single missed dose?
The military does a lot of things outside of just war and killing. We have 1.2 million soldiers, are they all currently out killing things at the moment?
It's weird that the detractors of transgender people always presume it's a F-to-M and that the hormones make the person stronger. Are you saying there are no M-to-F people that are / would want to be in the military? If anything, the hormones will make them more feminine...but yes, they can still serve.
As to transgender therapies; I personally don't think it's related to the military in any way, so I can see why we wouldn't want to fund this therapy through the VA. Of course, the argument can be made that it's an earned benefit, like the GI bill. To each their own.
Muscle mass begins to deteriorate after 3 weeks if you stop working out. It doesn't just instantly disappear. I doubt reducing hormones is going to lead to drastic losses in muscle mass in the same period if the person is still exercising. With that said, women can also serve military roles; so this idea that a f-to-m suddenly becomes useless if they lose muscle mass is quite the leap.
Overhead would be higher for something that's new. However, as the system becomes more accustomed to the change, the costs would definitely come down.
Then again, someone has to pay the exorbitant incomes the people on the coasts are making in the first place. Product prices, unless you're talking about housing, doesn't discriminate based on income level of the region you live in.
Why do those people living on the coasts make so much money? Well, likely because they're being paid vast amounts of money for some very simple thing they developed and got a patent on which now has no competition, leading to inflated prices.
Or... maybe they designed a product, that they've now outsourced the manufacturing of to a low wage nation, thereby ensuring revenue from product sales has a much harder time recirculating back into the overall economy... instead being used to buy up super expensive property which then inflates property prices. Meanwhile, those Tennessee manufacturing workers are out of a job.
Or... maybe they got rid of the workers altogether and everything's been automated, with a similar result as the outsourcing.
I mean, money doesn't grow on trees, and a lot of these wealthy people living on the coasts are only there because of practices that transfer wealth upwards at a rate that is unhealthy for our overall society.
Also why this was a very odd test. This is the type of workplace where you absolutely need a certain number of workers on staff at all times. It has much less to do about individual staff efficiency. Now, if this were an office job, where a drop in work hours lead to an increase in efficiency per hour worked which counteracted the need to hire more workers, then you would have probably have seen a much smaller increase in total wages paid out (if any at all).
The fact is, when you have to be at work for 8 hours, the chances of you screwing around goes up. Aka commenting on slashdot. ;)
On the "planet" (aka country) that has single payer which would effectively lead to a reduction in tax collection if all of the people suddenly began living healthier lives.
Of course, there would be job losses in the health industry; which would likely be counteracted by the need to hire more workers due to shorter working hours.
I mean, do people not understand the point of anything? What is the point of a successful economy if the workers are being overworked, stressed out, underpaid, etc... If we're making such great achievements in the world, then why is it such a taboo to pass on some of those benefits to workers in terms of shorter working hours and more stress free living?
Not sure your post is exactly relevant to the OP, but I will just say that I think part of the debate around gender pay gap has to do with whether a woman should be penalized in our society for having a baby. In other words, is it an issue in our society that women who choose to become mothers are so heavily penalized? Other societies in the world have considered this penalty a problem, and have been pro-active in trying to mitigate it. For instance, some European nations give longer maternity *AND* paternity leave at or near full income; allowing both parents to share the time burden of having a baby.
With that said, I do believe equal work should lead to equal pay... but I think it's becoming abundantly clear that this isn't simply about discrimination; although it is sometimes. Some of the income gap is due to simple human psychology; with women going into lower paying careers, or short change themselves on the income they want. Salary negotiations aren't only about work ethos, and if you come to the game with a low confidence, then your employer will be more than happy to short change you.
Most white males don't find any reason to feel substandard in any way based on the race and gender they were born into. When they are insulted based on that race and gender, it comes off as a joke because they have never, in their entire lives, been repressed based on either of those characteristics. The insults of their gender / race do not hit to the bone. Now, if someone were to insult them by calling them some homophobic slur, a white male w/ insecurity issues may be a bit upset that someone is trying to label them something they're not, but it couldn't possibly hurt them as much as attacking them for something that they are and have no control over.
Contrast this to women, minorities, and/or LGBT. A woman's gender is insulted. A minority's race is insulted. An LGBT is insulted for being who they are.
Sexuality is usually something people feel the need to use as an attacking mechanism because it is so personal. However, for one guy to say they're going to rape another guy is construed as humorous because no guy actually has reason to fear that this could or will actually happen. Meanwhile, a woman, who does live in real fear of actually being raped (based on how often it actually happens), may take a threat like this to heart. Same goes for sexuality. Call a straight guy a 'fag', and it's an unwarranted slight. Call a gay person a 'fag', and it's an insult to a huge piece of who they are.
There are a few ways we can fix these problems. First, we need to cleanup the community. Attacking peoples sexuality, race, and gender should be off limits. Threats of rape should be taken seriously just as they are in the real world. Tell a person that you're going to find them and rape them should lead to jail time. Just because the little childrens feel like acting big and bad on the internet behind the shield of anonymity does not make internet threats any different than real world threats. It really is the anonymity that allows people to be such d-bags online, when there's no way someone would get away with this in person. Therefore, I personally believe that anonymity online should be disallowed. It's one thing to be anonymous when you're online. What you do that only impacts you should be anonymous. However, as soon as you begin interacting with others, where what you say needs to be held accountable, then anonymity should be removed.
The gaming community has developed this way due to lack of protection and enforcement. Something should be, and needs to be done. The end result is likely more people willing to get into gaming while not having to deal with immaturity and harassment.