Irritatingly, laptops have speakers built in; worse, phones have to have speakers on. But I still like my desktop and the certainty I get from having a physical switch. I don't care what games you play to try to subvert my settings: I am not going to have to hunt down your noisy tab.
You're right about the vacuum, but I think you should consider this: the government raided the treasury (or rather, borrowed with the treasury's backing, which can be the same thing if you really insist on looking at it that way) in order to keep unemployment from skyrocketing. As bad as it was, there was serious risk of a domino effect, where the failure of one industry resulted in job losses that reduced overall national income, putting strains on other industries.
As bad as the recession was, the goal was to keep it from becoming far, far worse. "Creative destruction" would have resulted in years to decades of destruction before it ever got around to any creativity, with vast misery in the process.
The bankers may well have taken advantage of that for their personal benefit; I'll leave it to others to make the argument that they got screwed over. There was plenty of screwage to go around: the economy was crashing because the musical chairs of highly leveraged money came to a screeching halt, and everybody scrambled to insist that their paper gains were more real than other people's paper gains. Everybody felt screwed over and there was no way out of this that didn't leave the vast majority of people feeling like they got the shorter end of it.
Everybody will always be able to insist that the economy would have been just fine if we'd just done it their way. It wasn't great, and I'll never be able to prove the counterfactual of how much worse it could have been. But I think it merits consideration: jobs and industries don't bounce back instantaneously, even when there's need, because of inherent friction in the economy, and I think the government acted correctly (at least in the broad strokes) to prop up the existing economy. That gave us time to hopefully put it on a sounder footing. Whether we will or not...
They do, in some states. I believe Ohio has a Libertarian party ballot at the primaries; there may be others.
The Tea Party isn't registered as a political party; they are a movement within the Republican party. They may well be able to gain separate primaries if they wanted them, but as far as I can tell their goal is explicitly NOT to do that. They don't want to run against Republicans in a general election; they want to replace Republican candidates with those more to their liking.
If they were to run it as a third-party race (or if Cantor were to run a write-in campaign) it would open up a huge opportunity for the Democrats. (Something like IRV might prevent that, though there are other ways to subvert IRV.)
Arguably, yeah. When Constantine "donated" the western Roman empire to the Church, it basically turned Christianity into a (known)-world-spanning empire in one fell swoop. It's not as easy as that, of course, but it was a massive leg up that led to Christian domination of Europe, and from there to the Western Hemisphere during the Age of Exploration.
Jesus was only indirectly involved in that, unless of course you believe that he actually did give Constantine the victory at Milvian Bridge.
Now, that's all kinda BS, since the "Donation of Constantine" is a forgery and the real path to Christian domination of the Roman empire is more complicated. But he did pave the way for Christianity in both the eastern and western Roman empire, so while he might not be more important than Jesus to the domination of the religion, he's surely way up there. (And anyway I'd argue that Paul was more important than Jesus when it came to setting up the religion as we know it.)
This is more about putting an end to "range anxiety". Efficiency is a separate problem, though it should still be cheaper per mile than fossil fuels while putting less carbon into the air.
Trailers might be easier to swap out, but if shops and cars are designed to support a rapid replacement of an internal battery, you don't have to deal with the awkwardness of a separate object trailing behind you (prone to theft, tricky to park). Musk had already demonstrated a quick-swap battery a while back meant to make refueling as quick as putting in gas.
That's not a very good way to describe it. It's like blaming Boyle's Law for not predicting nuclear fusion. The Standard Model is anything but half-assed. It made a lot of predictions, including previously unseen quarks, mesons, and the Higgs Boson.
Nobody was trying to say that it was the final theory. They know it doesn't incorporate gravity; that's why there's string theory and alternatives (and the challenge of putting together an experiment with sufficient energy to show the discrepancies between general relativity and the Standard Model). They know it doesn't explain all of its own parameters; that's why they're looking for supersymmetry (or alternatives) and the presence of unpredicted particles to narrow it down.
It's all just physics. That's how science works. It's a process. It seems weak to run down the process for not being finished, when it's clear that the process does make progress (and when it comes to these questions, it's the only thing that makes progress).
The data go a long way to ruling out the Minimal Supersymetric Standard Model (MSSM), but other SUSY theories are still in the running. The MSSM has the advantage of being, well, minimal, but there's no special reason to expect the universe to have made it that easy on us.
It's hard to say which theory this points us to, if any, but the Two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM) is a part of several. Those theories will help refine what kind of data to look for and what kinds of experiments to configure.
The theory is that this is just one guy. He can introduce all the legislation he wants but requires over 200 others to also be on his side. A judge, by contrast, holds unique power in the room (or at least, one of a very small number).
In fact, given the difficulties in trying to reach a 60 vote threshold in the Senate, which has become essentially mandatory, the odds of this legislation going anywhere are extremely low. If it gets anywhere at all, it will be subject to the votes of the rest of the Congressmen, who have to face reelection.
Corporations can push to elect candidates who are predisposed to be favorable to them. They can't fund campaigns directly, but they can put out advertising to influence those voters, but voters are subject to a lot of influence, and it's easier to get other Congressmen to say "no" than "yes".
I'm not trying to defend the system; it's obviously a damn mess. But it's also the essence of representative democracy, a fundamentally antagonistic system. Judges aren't supposed to be in an antognistic relationship; they're intended to seek balance while juries make the actual decisions. (The top-level federal courts do work antagonistically, and that's actually a disaster in the making.)
You can't have legislators drop out due to conflict of interest: "interest" is what they were elected to do. The voters are supposed to be the brake on that: no matter what corporate push they get the voters can still dump them if they don't like it.
Whether the voters will actually do so on an abstruse issue like the FCC... well, there's democracy for you, and I have no further comment.
As I read the application, it doesn't even require the period. It's confusingly written, as it says "The literal element of the mark consists of PI." where the period is part of the sentence, not the mark, and the mark is described simply as "PI", with no period. The images all depict the period, though what's being trademarked is the character, not the image; it is not restricted about font, color, size, or style. One image depicts the actual letters P and I, with no period.
The domain is "athletic apparel", and as far as I know the mark is not in wide use for that purpose, though it's surely not the first use of pi on a tee shirt.
So I'm a bit baffled as to just what has been trademarked here. The Declaration specifically says that they are the "owner" of the mark, and I can't conceive of how Paul Ingrisiano could claim to own either a single character or two letters, even just in the domain of athletic apparel.
G+ isn't a Q&A site, and it's a really poor substitute for one since its whole point is just to link you up with your social circle. Q&A sites are designed to attract people by interest without having to become socially acquainted (even virtually).
Google did have a Q&A site, Google Answers, but it never really got going. It's too bad, since they were nearly unique in trying to actually pay for good answers. I'm not sure why it didn't work out, though of course trying to monetize anything has always been a pain in the butt so I assume it's just that kind of thing. They canned it (as Google is wont to when things aren't working out as well as they'd hoped.)
He *is* producing stuff. It's just stuff that people want to read, rather than physical stuff. Advertising is how he gets paid to produce it, simply because it's awkward to charge $.0001 directly to the reader for a page-view. The advertising, in turn, is intended to draw people to other things that they might want to buy, usually stuff that comes in bigger units and so is easier to pay for with money.
Very little of it is necessary. The bare necessities were a problem solved long ago, and require the efforts of a tiny fraction of the population. The rest is various forms of luxury. I'm actually pretty happy about that. If the mechanism by which producers are linked to consumers is awkward and ungainly, I'm content to live with that until a better system comes along. I strongly suspect the GP would be happier getting paid directly, but most consumers would rather pay in the form of a microscopic portion of attention.
Honestly... if McVeigh is his hero, I'm pretty happy about never having to be stuck in a tin can 35,000 feet up with him. Maybe he'd like to be a martyr to his cause, but I don't wish to be.
You can't fit even the shortest of his books into 640K of RAM. AGoT clocks in at 298k words, which is going to take up considerably more than 640k.
I suspect he's probably got each chapter in a separate file. And if I remember correctly the CP/M version of Wordstar had an overlay feature that was a kind of primitive virtual memory. So yeah, I believe it's possible, and there's a lot to be said for Just A Plain Glorified Typewriter. (I got to review the draft of a book by one of the Mac's original designers; it was done in double-spaced Courier with crude hand-drawn illustrations. The formatting was to be done by those who did formatting.)
I'm increasingly using Google Docs for my work because I like the fact that it doesn't allow, and thus doesn't require, much formatting. Less time fiddling is more time working.
Thanks for confirming that. I had a feeling this was gibberish and had to scroll down a long, long way to find a post that wasn't either a joke or sci-fi blithering.
Can you actually fly a parabolic flight in a light plane like that? Safely, I mean? I'm sure it's designed to have that within its tolerance, but is it really possible to do that without dramatically increasing risk of getting pushed outside the tolerances by the unexpected?
Except, of course, for the countries that make huge sums of money producing land mines, and the countries (and non-country actors) with a grudge against somebody and a disposition to not care who else it blows up.
So according to this site, land mine usage is nearly flat despite the treaty.
It would be great to get the US to give up making land mines, but unfortunately China and Russia would almost certainly ramp up production to fill any shortfall. That's not a good enough reason for us to keep doing it, but it also wouldn't save many lives. (Worse, it deprives us of a negotiating point to try to force reductions from other top producers, but since those negotiations are largely nonexistent anyway that too is a bad reason.)
They're also moving a lot slower. On surface streets they're often not moving much more than 10-12 mph even when they're moving, so they're getting a good view of the whole intersection for quite some time before approaching it. It's even longer when you take into account that they're slowing down.
I have no trouble believing that it's perfectly safe to have cyclists do a rolling stop when they can clearly see a lack of traffic. The pause is so awkward (especially for cyclists wearing clipless cleats) that the acceleration time puts them in more danger in the middle of the intersection than just rolling through when they can.
Well, yes and no. Quantum-mechanically it IS deterministic in the sense that any given quantum state will evolve in a perfectly defined way. There isn't any "random number" in the Schroedinger equation (or its relativistic descendants).
It's really the macro-scale stuff that introduces the randomness. At the quantum scale, things exist perfectly happily in a superposition of two states that we never observe at large scales. The more objects you put together, the harder it is to maintain the superposition, and by the time you get to even microscopic objects it will take one state or the other, but not both. Once it tips slightly in one direction, it cascades, and you end up with something that is entirely X or Y, not (X+Y).
The other half of the wave function is largely a matter of philosophy, not physics. In one sense it's "still there", off in some other utterly inaccessible universe. Or you can say that at some point where you weren't looking the other part just vanished. That's two ways of saying the same thing; the math is the same and the results are the same, regardless.
It's not a question of our inability to measure it. It's simply not there. No advances in physics will make it measurable, not without utterly throwing out everything we know and replacing it with something completely different. Which isn't impossible, but it's purely speculative: physics by "I wanna believe".
Why we end up in "this part" rather than "that part" is, similarly, just idle speculation. I've got my suspicions that if you could, in fact, discuss the wave function of the entire universe you'd say that it could only go one way when you put all of it together, but that's just navel-gazing. It doesn't really matter, since you'll never actually know the wave-function of the universe as a whole. You can only observe a few macro parts of it since you (by definition) are a macro organism, and the total underlying wave function will always be forever shaded from your eyes.
With an oversimplifying assumption that bad, I assumed they were physicists of the "why does your field need a journal anyway" school. Nope, turns out this time it's two computer scientists, somebody in "computation and neural systems", and a business school (!).
News Corp will sell anything they think they can sell. They'll sell science on Fox Broadcasting and paranoia on Fox News. The various properties don't have to get along, so long as they're profitable. Witness this jab at Fox News by The Simpsons, which also appears on Fox Broadcasting:
You may be unaware, but the density of solar radiation is only about 6 kWh per meter square per day. That means that each parabolic trench of a square meter is capable of producing only about 10 liters per day. You'd need 100 square meters to provide the water needs of a single ordinary house. And that's assuming 100% efficiency; it's more likely to be at least twice that and quite possibly an order of magnitude, by the time you've shipped it. Then you've got to clean up the gunk, and amortize in the costs of the setup.
I'm all for more solar powered stuff, but it's not the automatic, easy win we'd like it to be, even for something as simple as this. Heating water to the boiling point, only to recondense it a moment later, is expensive. I'm sure that clever design could reuse that heat and reduce the costs, but it's still going to be far from free.
Good choice. I was in Europe recently, and there are a fair number of places that can't handle the chipless cards. (Including, irritatingly, French toll booths, which are fairly frequent and of course far away from any place you could get cash.)
Slashdot Mirror
Irritatingly, laptops have speakers built in; worse, phones have to have speakers on. But I still like my desktop and the certainty I get from having a physical switch. I don't care what games you play to try to subvert my settings: I am not going to have to hunt down your noisy tab.
At 200 miles up, it's further from Starbucks than any point on the planet.
You're right about the vacuum, but I think you should consider this: the government raided the treasury (or rather, borrowed with the treasury's backing, which can be the same thing if you really insist on looking at it that way) in order to keep unemployment from skyrocketing. As bad as it was, there was serious risk of a domino effect, where the failure of one industry resulted in job losses that reduced overall national income, putting strains on other industries.
As bad as the recession was, the goal was to keep it from becoming far, far worse. "Creative destruction" would have resulted in years to decades of destruction before it ever got around to any creativity, with vast misery in the process.
The bankers may well have taken advantage of that for their personal benefit; I'll leave it to others to make the argument that they got screwed over. There was plenty of screwage to go around: the economy was crashing because the musical chairs of highly leveraged money came to a screeching halt, and everybody scrambled to insist that their paper gains were more real than other people's paper gains. Everybody felt screwed over and there was no way out of this that didn't leave the vast majority of people feeling like they got the shorter end of it.
Everybody will always be able to insist that the economy would have been just fine if we'd just done it their way. It wasn't great, and I'll never be able to prove the counterfactual of how much worse it could have been. But I think it merits consideration: jobs and industries don't bounce back instantaneously, even when there's need, because of inherent friction in the economy, and I think the government acted correctly (at least in the broad strokes) to prop up the existing economy. That gave us time to hopefully put it on a sounder footing. Whether we will or not...
They do, in some states. I believe Ohio has a Libertarian party ballot at the primaries; there may be others.
The Tea Party isn't registered as a political party; they are a movement within the Republican party. They may well be able to gain separate primaries if they wanted them, but as far as I can tell their goal is explicitly NOT to do that. They don't want to run against Republicans in a general election; they want to replace Republican candidates with those more to their liking.
If they were to run it as a third-party race (or if Cantor were to run a write-in campaign) it would open up a huge opportunity for the Democrats. (Something like IRV might prevent that, though there are other ways to subvert IRV.)
Arguably, yeah. When Constantine "donated" the western Roman empire to the Church, it basically turned Christianity into a (known)-world-spanning empire in one fell swoop. It's not as easy as that, of course, but it was a massive leg up that led to Christian domination of Europe, and from there to the Western Hemisphere during the Age of Exploration.
Jesus was only indirectly involved in that, unless of course you believe that he actually did give Constantine the victory at Milvian Bridge.
Now, that's all kinda BS, since the "Donation of Constantine" is a forgery and the real path to Christian domination of the Roman empire is more complicated. But he did pave the way for Christianity in both the eastern and western Roman empire, so while he might not be more important than Jesus to the domination of the religion, he's surely way up there. (And anyway I'd argue that Paul was more important than Jesus when it came to setting up the religion as we know it.)
This is more about putting an end to "range anxiety". Efficiency is a separate problem, though it should still be cheaper per mile than fossil fuels while putting less carbon into the air.
Trailers might be easier to swap out, but if shops and cars are designed to support a rapid replacement of an internal battery, you don't have to deal with the awkwardness of a separate object trailing behind you (prone to theft, tricky to park). Musk had already demonstrated a quick-swap battery a while back meant to make refueling as quick as putting in gas.
That's not a very good way to describe it. It's like blaming Boyle's Law for not predicting nuclear fusion. The Standard Model is anything but half-assed. It made a lot of predictions, including previously unseen quarks, mesons, and the Higgs Boson.
Nobody was trying to say that it was the final theory. They know it doesn't incorporate gravity; that's why there's string theory and alternatives (and the challenge of putting together an experiment with sufficient energy to show the discrepancies between general relativity and the Standard Model). They know it doesn't explain all of its own parameters; that's why they're looking for supersymmetry (or alternatives) and the presence of unpredicted particles to narrow it down.
It's all just physics. That's how science works. It's a process. It seems weak to run down the process for not being finished, when it's clear that the process does make progress (and when it comes to these questions, it's the only thing that makes progress).
That's correct: there were discrepancies that might-could-possibly have been caused by a Higgs+.
Or by any of a zillion other things, but it was a hypothesis that merited further experimentation.
The data go a long way to ruling out the Minimal Supersymetric Standard Model (MSSM), but other SUSY theories are still in the running. The MSSM has the advantage of being, well, minimal, but there's no special reason to expect the universe to have made it that easy on us.
It's hard to say which theory this points us to, if any, but the Two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM) is a part of several. Those theories will help refine what kind of data to look for and what kinds of experiments to configure.
The theory is that this is just one guy. He can introduce all the legislation he wants but requires over 200 others to also be on his side. A judge, by contrast, holds unique power in the room (or at least, one of a very small number).
In fact, given the difficulties in trying to reach a 60 vote threshold in the Senate, which has become essentially mandatory, the odds of this legislation going anywhere are extremely low. If it gets anywhere at all, it will be subject to the votes of the rest of the Congressmen, who have to face reelection.
Corporations can push to elect candidates who are predisposed to be favorable to them. They can't fund campaigns directly, but they can put out advertising to influence those voters, but voters are subject to a lot of influence, and it's easier to get other Congressmen to say "no" than "yes".
I'm not trying to defend the system; it's obviously a damn mess. But it's also the essence of representative democracy, a fundamentally antagonistic system. Judges aren't supposed to be in an antognistic relationship; they're intended to seek balance while juries make the actual decisions. (The top-level federal courts do work antagonistically, and that's actually a disaster in the making.)
You can't have legislators drop out due to conflict of interest: "interest" is what they were elected to do. The voters are supposed to be the brake on that: no matter what corporate push they get the voters can still dump them if they don't like it.
Whether the voters will actually do so on an abstruse issue like the FCC... well, there's democracy for you, and I have no further comment.
As I read the application, it doesn't even require the period. It's confusingly written, as it says "The literal element of the mark consists of PI." where the period is part of the sentence, not the mark, and the mark is described simply as "PI", with no period. The images all depict the period, though what's being trademarked is the character, not the image; it is not restricted about font, color, size, or style. One image depicts the actual letters P and I, with no period.
The domain is "athletic apparel", and as far as I know the mark is not in wide use for that purpose, though it's surely not the first use of pi on a tee shirt.
So I'm a bit baffled as to just what has been trademarked here. The Declaration specifically says that they are the "owner" of the mark, and I can't conceive of how Paul Ingrisiano could claim to own either a single character or two letters, even just in the domain of athletic apparel.
G+ isn't a Q&A site, and it's a really poor substitute for one since its whole point is just to link you up with your social circle. Q&A sites are designed to attract people by interest without having to become socially acquainted (even virtually).
Google did have a Q&A site, Google Answers, but it never really got going. It's too bad, since they were nearly unique in trying to actually pay for good answers. I'm not sure why it didn't work out, though of course trying to monetize anything has always been a pain in the butt so I assume it's just that kind of thing. They canned it (as Google is wont to when things aren't working out as well as they'd hoped.)
He *is* producing stuff. It's just stuff that people want to read, rather than physical stuff. Advertising is how he gets paid to produce it, simply because it's awkward to charge $.0001 directly to the reader for a page-view. The advertising, in turn, is intended to draw people to other things that they might want to buy, usually stuff that comes in bigger units and so is easier to pay for with money.
Very little of it is necessary. The bare necessities were a problem solved long ago, and require the efforts of a tiny fraction of the population. The rest is various forms of luxury. I'm actually pretty happy about that. If the mechanism by which producers are linked to consumers is awkward and ungainly, I'm content to live with that until a better system comes along. I strongly suspect the GP would be happier getting paid directly, but most consumers would rather pay in the form of a microscopic portion of attention.
Honestly... if McVeigh is his hero, I'm pretty happy about never having to be stuck in a tin can 35,000 feet up with him. Maybe he'd like to be a martyr to his cause, but I don't wish to be.
You can't fit even the shortest of his books into 640K of RAM. AGoT clocks in at 298k words, which is going to take up considerably more than 640k.
I suspect he's probably got each chapter in a separate file. And if I remember correctly the CP/M version of Wordstar had an overlay feature that was a kind of primitive virtual memory. So yeah, I believe it's possible, and there's a lot to be said for Just A Plain Glorified Typewriter. (I got to review the draft of a book by one of the Mac's original designers; it was done in double-spaced Courier with crude hand-drawn illustrations. The formatting was to be done by those who did formatting.)
I'm increasingly using Google Docs for my work because I like the fact that it doesn't allow, and thus doesn't require, much formatting. Less time fiddling is more time working.
Thanks for confirming that. I had a feeling this was gibberish and had to scroll down a long, long way to find a post that wasn't either a joke or sci-fi blithering.
Can you actually fly a parabolic flight in a light plane like that? Safely, I mean? I'm sure it's designed to have that within its tolerance, but is it really possible to do that without dramatically increasing risk of getting pushed outside the tolerances by the unexpected?
Good point, though I note that the moratorium expires in July. I am not aware of the status of any attempt to extend it.
Except, of course, for the countries that make huge sums of money producing land mines, and the countries (and non-country actors) with a grudge against somebody and a disposition to not care who else it blows up.
So according to this site, land mine usage is nearly flat despite the treaty.
It would be great to get the US to give up making land mines, but unfortunately China and Russia would almost certainly ramp up production to fill any shortfall. That's not a good enough reason for us to keep doing it, but it also wouldn't save many lives. (Worse, it deprives us of a negotiating point to try to force reductions from other top producers, but since those negotiations are largely nonexistent anyway that too is a bad reason.)
They're also moving a lot slower. On surface streets they're often not moving much more than 10-12 mph even when they're moving, so they're getting a good view of the whole intersection for quite some time before approaching it. It's even longer when you take into account that they're slowing down.
I have no trouble believing that it's perfectly safe to have cyclists do a rolling stop when they can clearly see a lack of traffic. The pause is so awkward (especially for cyclists wearing clipless cleats) that the acceleration time puts them in more danger in the middle of the intersection than just rolling through when they can.
Well, yes and no. Quantum-mechanically it IS deterministic in the sense that any given quantum state will evolve in a perfectly defined way. There isn't any "random number" in the Schroedinger equation (or its relativistic descendants).
It's really the macro-scale stuff that introduces the randomness. At the quantum scale, things exist perfectly happily in a superposition of two states that we never observe at large scales. The more objects you put together, the harder it is to maintain the superposition, and by the time you get to even microscopic objects it will take one state or the other, but not both. Once it tips slightly in one direction, it cascades, and you end up with something that is entirely X or Y, not (X+Y).
The other half of the wave function is largely a matter of philosophy, not physics. In one sense it's "still there", off in some other utterly inaccessible universe. Or you can say that at some point where you weren't looking the other part just vanished. That's two ways of saying the same thing; the math is the same and the results are the same, regardless.
It's not a question of our inability to measure it. It's simply not there. No advances in physics will make it measurable, not without utterly throwing out everything we know and replacing it with something completely different. Which isn't impossible, but it's purely speculative: physics by "I wanna believe".
Why we end up in "this part" rather than "that part" is, similarly, just idle speculation. I've got my suspicions that if you could, in fact, discuss the wave function of the entire universe you'd say that it could only go one way when you put all of it together, but that's just navel-gazing. It doesn't really matter, since you'll never actually know the wave-function of the universe as a whole. You can only observe a few macro parts of it since you (by definition) are a macro organism, and the total underlying wave function will always be forever shaded from your eyes.
With an oversimplifying assumption that bad, I assumed they were physicists of the "why does your field need a journal anyway" school. Nope, turns out this time it's two computer scientists, somebody in "computation and neural systems", and a business school (!).
News Corp will sell anything they think they can sell. They'll sell science on Fox Broadcasting and paranoia on Fox News. The various properties don't have to get along, so long as they're profitable. Witness this jab at Fox News by The Simpsons, which also appears on Fox Broadcasting:
http://www.thewrap.com/sites/d...
You may be unaware, but the density of solar radiation is only about 6 kWh per meter square per day. That means that each parabolic trench of a square meter is capable of producing only about 10 liters per day. You'd need 100 square meters to provide the water needs of a single ordinary house. And that's assuming 100% efficiency; it's more likely to be at least twice that and quite possibly an order of magnitude, by the time you've shipped it. Then you've got to clean up the gunk, and amortize in the costs of the setup.
I'm all for more solar powered stuff, but it's not the automatic, easy win we'd like it to be, even for something as simple as this. Heating water to the boiling point, only to recondense it a moment later, is expensive. I'm sure that clever design could reuse that heat and reduce the costs, but it's still going to be far from free.
Good choice. I was in Europe recently, and there are a fair number of places that can't handle the chipless cards. (Including, irritatingly, French toll booths, which are fairly frequent and of course far away from any place you could get cash.)