Obviously the/. ideal is to devolve into a pale gelatinous mass wheeled around in a smoke-filled chamber by a priesthood of apprentices as you use your superior intellect to guide the course of history. But normal people who actually, you know, have a healthy diet and get sunshine and exercise, actually tend to enjoy going out and doing things and living on the surface of the planet rather than a dimly-lit climate-controlled pod of some sort.
Something tells me these won't be optional equipment. Brought to you by the automotive/insurance/government/financial/real estate/military/oil/industrial complex.
Of course the difference between libertarianism and the "national socialist workers party" is that libertarians consider expansive warfare, work camps and eugenics to be just as much "crime", "resource depletion" and "debt" as the liberal welfare state. But, go ahead, keep printing money and destroying the economy and see who rises to power to clean up your mess. You just might want to escape to a libertarian island soon.
Well, ordinarily I'd be inclined to point out exactly why you're wrong. But, given the rather surprising amount of ignorance and hostility you've displayed in this thread (eg. "Fuck you Libertarians are dumb selfish fucktards"), I think it will be more educational for you to just independently discover how hilariously mistaken you are. The fact that you think water would be limited in any way is especially humorous, though. Thanks for that.
Being 'libertarian' means they wouldn't be forced to spend half of their lives working to feed people who produce absolutely nothing but crime, resource depletion, debt and overpopulation. So they shouldn't have a problem feeding just themselves.
So, lemme get this straight. Resources are finite. And, you would have a problem with the restriction of oil production, but you're fine with the status quo of consuming all resources as quickly as humanly possible?
Any good scientist should be open to the possibility that they have some basis in reality. Global floods somehow managed to make it into the histories of almost every major religion. We invent dragons and sea-serpents that bear a suspicious resemblance to reptiles that would have posed real threats to our evolutionary ancestors. Is it really a disaster(such a catastrophe) that the collective unconscious maintains a vigilance against the threat of astrological destruction?
That's exactly right. Linux and Wall St. are actually very similar in this regard. Someone is going to make money providing support regardless, because there is a market for it. Either you accept a monopoly (or an oligopoly), and prices eternally rise. Or you embrace the free market, and prices fall as innovation and competition improve quality. Complaining that someone makes money using algorithmic trading is like complaining that RedHat sells free software for $400 a seat.
It's simple. First you invade. Then you dig a coal mine. Then you build a power plant. Then come the lasers and the flying drones. After that, you win the war.
It's all very energy efficient. We just need six more months, honest.
I'm not sure whether you just didn't understand my post (and the OP for that matter) or don't understand the smart grid in general. The power company doesn't actually have any control over when your dishwasher comes on or your car starts charging. What I suggested was for some governmental authority to mandate a random fuzz be added to the timing function of consumer level devices. This is not something that "bean counters" at the power company would have access to. And most individuals would not be able to alter it either.
One way to improve that trade-off, Roozbehani explains, would be for customers to actually give utilities information about how they would respond to different prices at different times. Utilities could then tune the prices that they pass to consumers much more precisely, to maximize responsiveness to fluctuations in the market while minimizing the risk of instability. Collecting that information would be difficult, but Roozbehani’s hunch is that the benefits would outweigh the costs.
Price? Why don't you just tell us how much you're willing to pay...
Of course that's the obvious solution. Just mandate a certain "resolution" to the timing of power-hungry appliances, somewhere around fifteen minutes or so to begin with. If you set it to come on at 3:45, it will actually come on sometime between 3:37 and 3:53. Just make it clear and standard and limited to large loads and there shouldn't be any problem. Over time the resolution can be increased as the grid becomes more flexible.
They've tied their entire workforce to the price of coal and oil (seeing as most of the energy used to power robots would come from one or the other),
Or renewables. Which puts the upper limit on energy costs at about $0.30 / kWh. And if the robots are any good at all, even with such costs they should be able to at least match the current $1/hr cost of a human worker.
I thought one of the major driving forces to outsourcing was that human labour was cheaper than mechanization.
It isn't. It's just that a bunch of cynical people in business schools propagated this idea that it's good to take advantage of the externality of overpopulation by exporting jobs to slave-labor countries.
Human labor is not inhibited like population growth, or it's first-derivative cousin natural resource extraction, because there's a fixed amount of it at any given time. If there's a decrease in demand for labor, then the price of it falls until the quantity demanded matches the quantity supplied. If that sounds scary, what that means is that our standard of living increases, since we can produce more things with the same amount of labor -- hardly a bad thing.
You know, this retarded Mises propaganda would be more palatable if you couched it more in terms of "people can work less and own machines that take care of them" rather than "increases in marginal productivity will raise the standard of living for 0.01% of the population while everyone else becomes unemployed and starves".
It might be an acceptable short-term solution, but I wouldn't try to repeat it more than once.
That actually raises an interesting scenario. If this were used as a "short term" solution, then someone would actually have to physically mint the coin and transport it to Mordor, er I mean the Fed, and deposit it. After a long term solution has been agreed to and the danger has passed, a very trustworthy someone would also then have to retrieve the Ring^H^H^H^HCoin and destroy it for all eternity.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously the /. ideal is to devolve into a pale gelatinous mass wheeled around in a smoke-filled chamber by a priesthood of apprentices as you use your superior intellect to guide the course of history. But normal people who actually, you know, have a healthy diet and get sunshine and exercise, actually tend to enjoy going out and doing things and living on the surface of the planet rather than a dimly-lit climate-controlled pod of some sort.
Notify your insurance company.
Something tells me these won't be optional equipment. Brought to you by the automotive/insurance/government/financial/real estate/military/oil/industrial complex.
Any Slashdotter worth his salt has known for years that HP computers suck. It's not news.
Of course the difference between libertarianism and the "national socialist workers party" is that libertarians consider expansive warfare, work camps and eugenics to be just as much "crime", "resource depletion" and "debt" as the liberal welfare state. But, go ahead, keep printing money and destroying the economy and see who rises to power to clean up your mess. You just might want to escape to a libertarian island soon.
Well, ordinarily I'd be inclined to point out exactly why you're wrong. But, given the rather surprising amount of ignorance and hostility you've displayed in this thread (eg. "Fuck you Libertarians are dumb selfish fucktards"), I think it will be more educational for you to just independently discover how hilariously mistaken you are. The fact that you think water would be limited in any way is especially humorous, though. Thanks for that.
Being 'libertarian' means they wouldn't be forced to spend half of their lives working to feed people who produce absolutely nothing but crime, resource depletion, debt and overpopulation. So they shouldn't have a problem feeding just themselves.
You think a floating platform wouldn't be able to harvest enough food and water to survive an embargo by pirates? Seriously?
So, lemme get this straight. Resources are finite. And, you would have a problem with the restriction of oil production, but you're fine with the status quo of consuming all resources as quickly as humanly possible?
Any good scientist should be open to the possibility that they have some basis in reality. Global floods somehow managed to make it into the histories of almost every major religion. We invent dragons and sea-serpents that bear a suspicious resemblance to reptiles that would have posed real threats to our evolutionary ancestors. Is it really a disaster (such a catastrophe) that the collective unconscious maintains a vigilance against the threat of astrological destruction?
Yes but is it purestrain gold?
Actually there are a few ways that Bitcoins can be close to 100% anonymous. And this is one of them.
That's exactly right. Linux and Wall St. are actually very similar in this regard. Someone is going to make money providing support regardless, because there is a market for it. Either you accept a monopoly (or an oligopoly), and prices eternally rise. Or you embrace the free market, and prices fall as innovation and competition improve quality. Complaining that someone makes money using algorithmic trading is like complaining that RedHat sells free software for $400 a seat.
It's not theft. It's "providing liquidity".
FRINKIAC 7
It's simple. First you invade. Then you dig a coal mine. Then you build a power plant. Then come the lasers and the flying drones. After that, you win the war.
It's all very energy efficient. We just need six more months, honest.
I'm not sure whether you just didn't understand my post (and the OP for that matter) or don't understand the smart grid in general. The power company doesn't actually have any control over when your dishwasher comes on or your car starts charging. What I suggested was for some governmental authority to mandate a random fuzz be added to the timing function of consumer level devices. This is not something that "bean counters" at the power company would have access to. And most individuals would not be able to alter it either.
Unfortunately I'm afraid you may be right:
One way to improve that trade-off, Roozbehani explains, would be for customers to actually give utilities information about how they would respond to different prices at different times. Utilities could then tune the prices that they pass to consumers much more precisely, to maximize responsiveness to fluctuations in the market while minimizing the risk of instability. Collecting that information would be difficult, but Roozbehani’s hunch is that the benefits would outweigh the costs.
Price? Why don't you just tell us how much you're willing to pay...
Of course that's the obvious solution. Just mandate a certain "resolution" to the timing of power-hungry appliances, somewhere around fifteen minutes or so to begin with. If you set it to come on at 3:45, it will actually come on sometime between 3:37 and 3:53. Just make it clear and standard and limited to large loads and there shouldn't be any problem. Over time the resolution can be increased as the grid becomes more flexible.
They've tied their entire workforce to the price of coal and oil (seeing as most of the energy used to power robots would come from one or the other),
Or renewables. Which puts the upper limit on energy costs at about $0.30 / kWh. And if the robots are any good at all, even with such costs they should be able to at least match the current $1/hr cost of a human worker.
I thought one of the major driving forces to outsourcing was that human labour was cheaper than mechanization.
It isn't. It's just that a bunch of cynical people in business schools propagated this idea that it's good to take advantage of the externality of overpopulation by exporting jobs to slave-labor countries.
Human labor is not inhibited like population growth, or it's first-derivative cousin natural resource extraction, because there's a fixed amount of it at any given time. If there's a decrease in demand for labor, then the price of it falls until the quantity demanded matches the quantity supplied. If that sounds scary, what that means is that our standard of living increases, since we can produce more things with the same amount of labor -- hardly a bad thing.
You know, this retarded Mises propaganda would be more palatable if you couched it more in terms of "people can work less and own machines that take care of them" rather than "increases in marginal productivity will raise the standard of living for 0.01% of the population while everyone else becomes unemployed and starves".
Does it do anything besides push the channel-up button on the TV remote?
Unfortunately some states with lottery-funded educational systems can't seem to find the time to teach economics in high school.
It might be an acceptable short-term solution, but I wouldn't try to repeat it more than once.
That actually raises an interesting scenario. If this were used as a "short term" solution, then someone would actually have to physically mint the coin and transport it to Mordor, er I mean the Fed, and deposit it. After a long term solution has been agreed to and the danger has passed, a very trustworthy someone would also then have to retrieve the Ring^H^H^H^HCoin and destroy it for all eternity.
If every senator took that pay cut how much surplus would there be.
Somewhere on the order of 20 million dollars a year. Now see what that looks like in comparison to the amount that would need to be "paid down":
http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/