I said "essentially free", meaning that its cost is negligible compared to deuterium. A gram of lithium costs about a quarter if you must know. The tritium is a by-product of the neutrons from the fusion reaction reacting with the lithium, usually when molten lithium surrounds the fusion reactor. Removal of the tritium from the molten metal seems pretty straightforward and cheap (the patent explains the entire breeding process).
Did that answer your question, or do you require a more detailed explanation?
And worse, Intel (and AMD) have NSA and GCHQ back-doors in their CPUs that operate above ring 0 using chip internal resources that no external security program can lock-down.
Fortunately, there are other choices. If you want a really secure processor, use a soft processor on an FPGA. Many embedded chips probably also fairly secure since there isn't much space to hide anything fancy.
I know that AMD is touting this SEV as a solution, but there's no way you are going to convince me that the thing that controls the nature of my VM's reality isn't capable of getting and controlling everything that VM has.
There are plenty of processors that run in adversarial environments; a common example is the chip card on your credit card. There is no conceptual problem with scaling that up to high performance servers.
Neither AMD nor Intel are going to get this right on the first or second try, but eventually, they will. It won't be entirely secure because there are still hardware attacks possible, but for 99.9% of applications, where you simply don't want personal info to leak, it's a good solution.
Instead of getting all Victorian over this, why not simply add a "[ ] single and looking" checkbox, or "[ ] speed dating while commuting" or something.
That is, 90% of Germans are forced into the mandatory system, with long waiting times and little choice in doctors, while the remaining 10%, mostly those making more than EU 54000 must by insurance in a less regulated and much more expensive private market (and receive much better service in return). Switzerland effectively also has a two tier system.
I'm glad you like those systems and recommend them for the US. I think they would be a great improvement over the system the US has right now, in large part because the German and Swiss system are more market oriented and more tolerant of inequality (i.e., vastly different services depending on your ability to pay).
No, I didn't "manglarize" that, I simply clarified what I understood your statement to mean, namely the usual sense of "efficient" meaning "perfectly efficient". If you don't equate "efficient" with "perfectly efficient", then you have to explain what you mean by efficient.
So, right now, I still don't know what you mean by this statement since terms like "free markets", "helpful", and "efficient" have many different meanings:
Free markets are only helpful when the market is efficient.
After you clarify what you're trying to say, you can then perhaps supply some evidence to back up whatever you're trying to say.
There shouldn't be "regulation" of these devices, but there should be legal standards and legal liability.
However, bonk-detecting mattresses aren't where we need to start. Where we actually need to start is by holding financial institutions, corporations, and governments responsible, when they leak information.
And we need to change the culture of making excuses; politicians like Clinton shouldn't be able to get away with "Russia diddit", when they are stupid enough to expose their E-mails. Rather, such errors should be sufficient for people to consider them incompetent and unsuitable for public office.
Fusion produces less waste than fission, and it is shorter lived.
That's true only for the current, inefficient fission reactors, not for breeder reactors. That is, we know how to build efficient fission reactors, and they work pretty much as well as fusion reactors, we simply choose not to. (Well, actually, Russia is building a new generation of breeder reactors.)
Well, here is a quick calculation (I hope I'm not off too far). The tritium is bred from lithium, so essentially free. Deuterium is about $7/g and that yields about 100 MWh in fusion energy. To get the same amount of energy out of burning coal, you need about 50 tons, or about $2500 worth of coal.
Markets without food subsidies are chaotic with prices skyrocketing and plummeting based on crop yields. This drives farmers out of business and causes food to be unaffordable unpredictably.
That may have been the case in the 19th century, it's not the case in the 21st century: farmers today have numerous means of ensuring price stability, from private insurance to markets.
Government subsidies are pure cronyism, protectionism, and vote buying, and they hurt consumers and developing nations. There is pretty much universal consensus about that among economists.
Look at the healthcare costs per capita in various countries (it's on wikipedia). Then look at various outcomes. There's a lot of variation up and down, but Germany beats the US in many measures (and loses in many others), but more or less they're pretty close. And Germans pay alightly over half what is paid in the US per capita.
Well, and guess what? Germany and Switzerland's health care systems are more free market oriented and have greater inequality than the US health care system. Germany has also exempted large parts of its medical care system from labor regulations, and it doesn't cover a lot of drugs or procedures that are covered in the US, and insurance generally only covers generic drugs. Incidentally, abortion is also illegal after the first trimester and isn't covered except if the life of the mother is at risk; and birth control isn't covered either. Switzerland mandates offering minimal private coverage and leaves the rest up to the market.
I think it would be great if the US adopted the German or Swiss system because it would be much more free market than the current US system; among other things, that would mean getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid, which make up about half of US health care spending.
Free markets are only helpful when the market is efficient.
Really? Can you justify that bit of economic wisdom? What exactly do you think is demonstrably more "helpful" than a not perfectly efficient market?
It's very hard to get an efficient market with healthcare
Why would it be any harder than for barbers or plumbers?
The thing is there are lots of existing examples around the world you can look at if you insist on an insurance based system (for example Germany and Switzerland) that work much better.
Do you have experience with those health care systems? In what way do you believe they "work better"?
And why do you, as a Brit, keep insisting on chiming in about the US health care system? What is it to you?
Can't we subsidise cabbages, or peas, or lettuce, or... I don't know anything else healthy instead of maize which is essentially just sugar with almost no nutritional value?
The right thing to do would be to unilaterally end all food subsidies in the US and open our borders to free trade. That would lower food prices, improve food quality, and be the best foreign aid program to developing countries we can provide.
Sadly, Eco's analysis focuses on superficial resemblances and symbolism, not surprising given that he wasn't a political scientist but an academic concerned with symbols. You need to analyze political ideology in terms of actual politics, not what symbols people use to communicate them: Indians aren't fascists just because they use a lot of Swastikas.
As a political movement, fascism is characterized by "third position economics" and a rejection of both capitalism and socialism; opposition to investment income; a categorization of the population based on racial criteria; policy determined by intellectual elites for the benefit of all. It's Democrats, not Republicans, that have a propensity for this (which is why I left the Democratic party). In fact, Clinton's political program overlapped strongly with the NSDAP's 25 Point Program. Note also that Hitler and Mussolini started out as poor left-leaning intellectuals
Trump's preference for capitalism, lower taxes, privatization of healthcare, privatization of education, reduction of government regulation, limits on minimum wage, and general anti-intellectualism in government make him pretty much the exact opposite of what fascists traditionally stand for and run on. And unlike Hillary, Trump started out as a wealthy capitalist, again, the opposite of where fascist leaders come from.
The problem is that the regulations are not centred on making the patients better, they're centred on making a nice tidy profit for everyone other than the patient.
Absolutely right: the AMA, pharmaceutical lobbies, and the FDA conspire to limit the supply of healthcare, and hence the prices go up. The fix to that is to remove those limits on the supply, i.e., actually move US health care towards a free market.
Something Obama made a serious effort to act on early in his presidency, he desperately tried to regulate that industry - make sure consumers are informed of what's in their food and encourage companies to improve the quality of what they sell.
How so? Which specific attempts at reform did Republicans actually foil? And how did they do that "early in his presidency" when Congress was majority Democrats? How does "regulating the industry" fix the fact that the federal government has been telling Americans for decades to eat crappy foods? How are Republicans responsible for the fact that Obama did manage to change nutritional guidelines, from the crappy food pyramid to the equally crappy and useless "My Plate"?
Much of Europe has private insurance systems and longer life expectancies than the US.
On the other hand, half of US medical spending is through the government, in the form of Medicare/Medicaid; and those government systems are also responsible for the elderly.
So, it is absolutely ludicrous to argue that the problem with the US health care system is that it isn't a public system (because it already is where it really matters), or that public systems work better.
But of course! After eight years of Obama, life expectancy drops... and you already prepare to blame Trump!
In actual fact, one of the biggest contributors to lower life expectancy is obesity, and one of the biggest identifiable causes of obesity is government policy: corn subsidies and bad federal nutritional guidelines.
Your musician friend is a hypocrite. For many public concerts, they already use tickets as currency with corporate sponsors, politicians, and other powerful and influential people.
In any case, another solution would simply be to have a lottery for the tickets. They would probably be cheaper as a result. Ask him why he isn't doing that.
Slashdot Mirror
It's no harder to store than the deuterium or hydrogen. Of course, given its half-life, you can't store it for long anyway.
Common storage mechanisms are: compression, liquefication, or as metal hydrides (including just leaving it as LiT).
I said "essentially free", meaning that its cost is negligible compared to deuterium. A gram of lithium costs about a quarter if you must know. The tritium is a by-product of the neutrons from the fusion reaction reacting with the lithium, usually when molten lithium surrounds the fusion reactor. Removal of the tritium from the molten metal seems pretty straightforward and cheap (the patent explains the entire breeding process).
Did that answer your question, or do you require a more detailed explanation?
Fortunately, there are other choices. If you want a really secure processor, use a soft processor on an FPGA. Many embedded chips probably also fairly secure since there isn't much space to hide anything fancy.
There are plenty of processors that run in adversarial environments; a common example is the chip card on your credit card. There is no conceptual problem with scaling that up to high performance servers.
Neither AMD nor Intel are going to get this right on the first or second try, but eventually, they will. It won't be entirely secure because there are still hardware attacks possible, but for 99.9% of applications, where you simply don't want personal info to leak, it's a good solution.
Secure encrypted memory is supposed to address [3] by preventing [1] from being effective.
And your problem is [2]: you don't read and you don't think.
Instead of getting all Victorian over this, why not simply add a "[ ] single and looking" checkbox, or "[ ] speed dating while commuting" or something.
Sure, here you go:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/gel...
That is, 90% of Germans are forced into the mandatory system, with long waiting times and little choice in doctors, while the remaining 10%, mostly those making more than EU 54000 must by insurance in a less regulated and much more expensive private market (and receive much better service in return). Switzerland effectively also has a two tier system.
I'm glad you like those systems and recommend them for the US. I think they would be a great improvement over the system the US has right now, in large part because the German and Swiss system are more market oriented and more tolerant of inequality (i.e., vastly different services depending on your ability to pay).
No, I didn't "manglarize" that, I simply clarified what I understood your statement to mean, namely the usual sense of "efficient" meaning "perfectly efficient". If you don't equate "efficient" with "perfectly efficient", then you have to explain what you mean by efficient.
So, right now, I still don't know what you mean by this statement since terms like "free markets", "helpful", and "efficient" have many different meanings:
After you clarify what you're trying to say, you can then perhaps supply some evidence to back up whatever you're trying to say.
There shouldn't be "regulation" of these devices, but there should be legal standards and legal liability.
However, bonk-detecting mattresses aren't where we need to start. Where we actually need to start is by holding financial institutions, corporations, and governments responsible, when they leak information.
And we need to change the culture of making excuses; politicians like Clinton shouldn't be able to get away with "Russia diddit", when they are stupid enough to expose their E-mails. Rather, such errors should be sufficient for people to consider them incompetent and unsuitable for public office.
That's true only for the current, inefficient fission reactors, not for breeder reactors. That is, we know how to build efficient fission reactors, and they work pretty much as well as fusion reactors, we simply choose not to. (Well, actually, Russia is building a new generation of breeder reactors.)
Well, here is a quick calculation (I hope I'm not off too far). The tritium is bred from lithium, so essentially free. Deuterium is about $7/g and that yields about 100 MWh in fusion energy. To get the same amount of energy out of burning coal, you need about 50 tons, or about $2500 worth of coal.
Reliable fusion power would be great. But it's not actually that different from fission power: it still produces lots of radioactive waste.
That may have been the case in the 19th century, it's not the case in the 21st century: farmers today have numerous means of ensuring price stability, from private insurance to markets.
Government subsidies are pure cronyism, protectionism, and vote buying, and they hurt consumers and developing nations. There is pretty much universal consensus about that among economists.
Yes, and you should try that some time. Technocratic and/or progressive government has a lousy historical record.
Well, and guess what? Germany and Switzerland's health care systems are more free market oriented and have greater inequality than the US health care system. Germany has also exempted large parts of its medical care system from labor regulations, and it doesn't cover a lot of drugs or procedures that are covered in the US, and insurance generally only covers generic drugs. Incidentally, abortion is also illegal after the first trimester and isn't covered except if the life of the mother is at risk; and birth control isn't covered either. Switzerland mandates offering minimal private coverage and leaves the rest up to the market.
I think it would be great if the US adopted the German or Swiss system because it would be much more free market than the current US system; among other things, that would mean getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid, which make up about half of US health care spending.
You said:
Your "justification" is a completely non-sequitur:
Sorry, try again.
Really? Can you justify that bit of economic wisdom? What exactly do you think is demonstrably more "helpful" than a not perfectly efficient market?
Why would it be any harder than for barbers or plumbers?
Do you have experience with those health care systems? In what way do you believe they "work better"?
And why do you, as a Brit, keep insisting on chiming in about the US health care system? What is it to you?
The right thing to do would be to unilaterally end all food subsidies in the US and open our borders to free trade. That would lower food prices, improve food quality, and be the best foreign aid program to developing countries we can provide.
Sadly, Eco's analysis focuses on superficial resemblances and symbolism, not surprising given that he wasn't a political scientist but an academic concerned with symbols. You need to analyze political ideology in terms of actual politics, not what symbols people use to communicate them: Indians aren't fascists just because they use a lot of Swastikas.
As a political movement, fascism is characterized by "third position economics" and a rejection of both capitalism and socialism; opposition to investment income; a categorization of the population based on racial criteria; policy determined by intellectual elites for the benefit of all. It's Democrats, not Republicans, that have a propensity for this (which is why I left the Democratic party). In fact, Clinton's political program overlapped strongly with the NSDAP's 25 Point Program. Note also that Hitler and Mussolini started out as poor left-leaning intellectuals
Trump's preference for capitalism, lower taxes, privatization of healthcare, privatization of education, reduction of government regulation, limits on minimum wage, and general anti-intellectualism in government make him pretty much the exact opposite of what fascists traditionally stand for and run on. And unlike Hillary, Trump started out as a wealthy capitalist, again, the opposite of where fascist leaders come from.
Absolutely right: the AMA, pharmaceutical lobbies, and the FDA conspire to limit the supply of healthcare, and hence the prices go up. The fix to that is to remove those limits on the supply, i.e., actually move US health care towards a free market.
How so? Which specific attempts at reform did Republicans actually foil? And how did they do that "early in his presidency" when Congress was majority Democrats? How does "regulating the industry" fix the fact that the federal government has been telling Americans for decades to eat crappy foods? How are Republicans responsible for the fact that Obama did manage to change nutritional guidelines, from the crappy food pyramid to the equally crappy and useless "My Plate"?
Much of Europe has private insurance systems and longer life expectancies than the US.
On the other hand, half of US medical spending is through the government, in the form of Medicare/Medicaid; and those government systems are also responsible for the elderly.
So, it is absolutely ludicrous to argue that the problem with the US health care system is that it isn't a public system (because it already is where it really matters), or that public systems work better.
But of course! After eight years of Obama, life expectancy drops... and you already prepare to blame Trump!
In actual fact, one of the biggest contributors to lower life expectancy is obesity, and one of the biggest identifiable causes of obesity is government policy: corn subsidies and bad federal nutritional guidelines.
Your musician friend is a hypocrite. For many public concerts, they already use tickets as currency with corporate sponsors, politicians, and other powerful and influential people.
In any case, another solution would simply be to have a lottery for the tickets. They would probably be cheaper as a result. Ask him why he isn't doing that.
Large numbers of the tickets go to "important people", either for tons of money or as bribes.
The remaining tickets are sold to the peasants at nominally low prices to maintain the fiction that these concerts are "for the people".